Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
"You can fool some of the people"....
http://www.boondocksnet.com/gallery/cartoons/1898/981103b_life.html
brain, We are approaching the end of the school year, and we have discussed public ed many times. My littlest is in a small (warm, fuzzy), private school with very small class sizes and an individualized, developmental approach. In a very nurturing environment, his 1st grade class is finishing the year almost one full year ahead of our public school in reading and more than a year ahead in math. My child struggled a bit with reading initially but he's finishing right there with the rest of the class. And he's sad to see the school year end. We are very pleased with the school, it's education and the entire experience.
Our public school is one of those "high achieving" NJ public schools, and it has become a pressure cooker for parents and students alike, including very young students. To the defense of public ed. they have become too bogged down with bureaucratic BS, standardized testing, and have been forced get involved in issues that have nothing to do with ed. But the question is why should parents and students be tied to public ed when the private sector usually does a better job often with the same amount of money, or less??... It makes a compelling argument for school vouchers and not just for "failing" districts. But NEA and NJEA are very strong unions/lobbiests, I guess....
Who said "war is a great way to teach geography"??... Maybe this is what was meant by "no child left behind"... :)
BnB, Was the intel info erroneous or a fabrication to justify war? If it is proven the Admin lied, Bush is a lame duck - making Clinton look like Honest Abe. Who woulda thunk??... And where is Ken Starr to investigate? 8'}
It is beginning to spread here, I think. Even ultra conservative, Bill O'Reilly, Fox - No Spin Zone, is beginning to question the existence of WMD and Iraq's chaos. His support is still OVER WHELMINGLY in favor of the Admin, but it's no longer blindly unconditional. It's a start. Progress is often made in very small steps.
What happens when we have to sell our homes and liquidate our 401k's etc??...
There is an economist who has written at length about this. I can't remember his name right now -- it's late..... :)
ergo, Very good point! & well taken! The question is: can't we as Americans do better than Bush, Clinton, Cheney, Starr, Rummie and Reno and the rest of the rat pack we've sent to DC?... I think we can, and it is our responsibility to do so.....
Good point on liquidity. Thanks! :)
On the real estate bubble, when everyone begins to look at their house as a great money making investment, or "feel wealthy" because of their house, the bubble is about as inflated as it's going to get....
They're here too and more are coming, I'm sure. McGreevy has been taking about a tax increase, and we know where property taxes are going....
Personally, I think gov has become so big and burdensome that's it's "un-American". But, again, we need visionary leadership, with a plan and not just alot of political mumbo-jumbo for re-election purposes....
There's an inverse relationship between real estate values and interest rates. If mtg rates start inching up, asset values may begin to decline -- causing a domino effect that is very negative for banking and the mortgage industry -- and the economy in general.
Greenie may very well have substituted one asset bubble for another -- RE for equities....
But RE is not a liquid asset...
Maybe there is a master plan. I don't know and nothing would surprise me. But the dire financial condition of State and local govs will cause cuts in education and social services. Bush and his cronies are well aware of this, and the State aide funding included in the recent budget proposal is laughable when compared to budgetary shortfalls. Bush and his cronies know cuts are coming, and they know any tax cut given to the Average Jo (or Jane) will be more than offset by increases in State and local taxes and fees. They aint stupid!!...
sarals, The theory is that temporary deficit spending (within reason) stimulates the economy during recessionary times.
But what is going on now is reckless, imo, and we will pay the price for years to come. Economic correction is a necessary process, and there are things gov can do to help. Gov can also do more harm than good, exacerbating and protracting economic weakness.
Debt service in both the public and private sector is a real problem and will be a drag on economic recovery. Rising default levels and bankruptcies are a threat to recovery and the economy in general. This is why Greenie continues to inflate the money supply. But deflation is beginning to creep in in areas. To lay the entire economic blame on consumers with the States facing financial crisis NOW is ridiculous. Bush is aware of the dire financial condition of our State and local govs, and he is aware of the profound implications of the financial crisis in the public sector.
As for mlsoft, I'm just "calling a spade a spade"....
Gnite!! :)
Consumer debt??... Public sector insolvency and debt is the greatest economic overhang and will be for quite sometime to come. Are some in the public sector blaming "consumer" debt, or just mlsoft? That mlsoft is a great spinner but I assure you, he's no dummy when it comes to economics. Maybe he hopes his readers are?.....
This "tax cut" makes for great spin as well. As Bush talks about citizens and business having more money to spend and invest, the State and local govs are raising taxes and fees, and considering other ways to boost their revenues.
What Bush giveth, State and local governments will take-ith away.... Just WAIT and see!...
The Truth About George
http://www.thetruthaboutgeorge.com/
Piece by piece, Bush is tearing down the progress women and other disenfranchised groups have made over the last 35 years, ensuring that rich white males and giant corporations will rule the U.S. for generations to come.
Headlines: Bush Administration Acknowledges It May Not Find Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq ... Unemployment Climbs in April to Eight-Year High ... White House Supports Bill That Would Result in Forced Overtime Without Pay for More Employees ... Bush Proposal Would Have Given CIA and Military New Domestic Powers ... Administration Backs Bill to Protect Gun Manufacturers and Dealers from Lawsuits ... Bush Judicial Nominee Called Gays "Queers" ... Plus, New Bushisms!
Direct public funding of "Faith Based Initiatives" altho Unconstitutional is simply another attempt by the Admin (and the religious "right") to weaken Separation of Church and State. Indirect, private funding could be similarly be encouraged using the tax code, while maintaining the Constitutional Separation of Church and State.
I ask, who is proposing that which is "unAmerican" or "unpatriotic" now?
Gl, When have Reps ever favored social service spending? But whether or not social service cuts are part of some grand Rep master plan is irrelevant. With the perilous condition of State and local govs, cuts to education and vital social services are a certainty. The fedl gov will not make up the enormous budgetary shortfalls. One might consider the States being forced to cut education and social services due to budgetary shortfalls as a back door cut or reduction by the fedl gov. Of course Bush & the Boys will wash their hands of all responsibility....
gl, I wish we could say the bunker blunder was the mother of all "intelligence failures" in Iraq. Unfortunately, it is not.
Great reporting.
The economic crisis will come as a result of State insolvencies, and social programs will suffer. That's inevitable.
How come the Free Zone Board ain't free anymore?? What happened?
Lieberman: Iran Needs 'Regime Change,
' Bush 'Stonewalling' 9/11 Probe
http://newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/5/25/121839
Airwaves, Shock Waves
By Allie Gottlieb, Metro Silicon Valley
May 5, 2003
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15818
"Some say the real war on the delivery of independent thought over the airwaves grew its wings seven years ago, when, by congressional order, the Federal Communications Commission passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In the name of creating healthy competition, it promised to bolster diversity in the public interest.
Instead, by all critical accounts, the act deregulated media ownership by lifting caps on how large and broad-based network conglomerates could become. This gave Clear Channel Communications the means to swell from 43 radio stations in 1995, before deregulation, to more than 1,200 now. The concentration of media ownership in fewer hands and the elimination of hundreds of independent media outlets have made the effects of politically selective programming more widely felt.
The Emerging Shiite Powerhouse
By William O. Beeman, Pacific News Service
May 21, 2003
The war in Iraq has produced an unintended consequence – a formidable Shiite Muslim geographical bloc that will dominate politics in the Middle East for many years. This development is also creating political and spiritual leaders of unparalleled international influence.
It is easy to see the Shiite lineup. Iran and Iraq have Shiite majorities, and so does Bahrain. In Lebanon, Shiites are a significant plurality. In Syria, although they are a minority, they are the dominant power in government. They are the majority in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, and have a significant presence in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India.
The United States is used to thinking of the world in terms of individual nation-states. But the Shiites are a transnational force.
The United States unwittingly supplied the key linkage for this bloc. By destroying the secular government of Saddam Hussein, it brought that country's Shiite majority to the fore, revealing a solid line of Shiite majority nations from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea.
This force is magnified because devout Shiite followers have a primary loyalty to spiritual leaders rather than secular officials, and that leadership is supremely well equipped to secure the loyalty of its followers. Shiite leaders are organized, well funded, and set up to provide charitable aid, health care and social welfare – a social safety net notably absent in the U.S. occupation so far.
The task of keeping tabs on Shiism is made somewhat easier for Washington since the city of Najaf is rapidly becoming the Vatican of the Shiite world and lies in the heart of the American occupation. Najaf is where Ali, grandson of the Prophet Mohammad, is buried. Ali's descendants are revered by Shiites as the only legitimate spiritual leaders of Islam.
On May 19, more than 1,000 Shiite protesters marched in Baghdad to protest the American presence in Iraq. The crowd cried, "No, no for America! Yes, yes for al-Hawza!" The Hawza is the influential council of Islamic clerics in the city of Najaf. Understanding the Hawza is a key to understanding how the Shiite community is organized.
The strength of the Shia community lies in its independent and dynamic leadership. Unlike the Sunni community, Shiites have no legal schools, and therefore no absolute, fixed interpretations of Islamic law. Each believer chooses a spiritual leader – a person "worthy of emulation," usually an ayatollah. The Imam Ali Foundation, run by the powerful Ayatollah Sayyid Ali al-Hussaini Sistani, provided the following explanation in response to a query about the role of the spiritual leader. "You do what the [leader's] expert opinion says you should do, and refrain from what his expert opinion says you should refrain from without any research ... on your part. It is as though you have placed the responsibility of your deeds squarely on his shoulders."
The spiritual leader is also well financed by his followers. Since Muslims must give alms as a basic religious duty, ayatollahs provide a place for these alms to be deposited. Most of them run extensive charitable organizations, many with enormous monetary resources.
The combination of financial resources and untrammeled influence over their followers makes the clerics very powerful men indeed. Fortunately, most are responsible to a fault with their power.
The Hawza assembly is necessary because ayatollahs are in competition for authority and influence. Therefore some sort of council helps provide a unified voice for the community of believers. This does not entirely prevent rivalry, especially since a number of ayatollahs are returning from decades of exile.
The latest to return is Ayatollah Baqer al-Hakim, the leader of the Supreme Assembly of the Islamic Revolution of Iraq (SAIRI), who has a military group, the Badr Brigade, at his beck and call. A rival to al-Haqim is Muqtada al-Sadr, whose father, revered cleric Mohammad al-Sadr, was assassinated by Saddam Hussein in 1999. Muqtada is not yet an ayatollah, but his fiery charisma has attracted many young followers.
The most revered cleric, with enormous influence and effective control over the Hawza, is Ayatollah Sistani. He seems reluctant to make dramatic pronouncements, favoring the politics of balance. A few savvy Bush administration officials hope Sistani will serve as a stabilizing force in the reconstruction period. However, they should not be too sanguine about this. Sistani is committed to Shiite rule in Iraq, and has indicated that he is losing patience with American occupation. The loyalty of his followers throughout the Shiite community could make him one of the most powerful spiritual and political figures in the world.
PNS contributor William O. Beeman is the author of "Language, Status and Power in Iran," and two forthcoming books: "Double Demons: Cultural Impediments to U.S.-Iranian Understanding," and "Iraq: State in Search of a Nation."
© 2003 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15970
The Truth Will Emerge
By Sen. Robert Byrd
May 23, 2003
Senate Floor Remarks - May 21, 2003
"Truth, crushed to earth, shall rise again,
The eternal years of God are hers;
But Error, wounded, writhes in pain,
And dies among his worshippers."
Truth has a way of asserting itself despite all attempts to obscure it. Distortion only serves to derail it for a time. No matter to what lengths we humans may go to obfuscate facts or delude our fellows, truth has a way of squeezing out through the cracks, eventually.
But the danger is that at some point it may no longer matter. The danger is that damage is done before the truth is widely realized. The reality is that, sometimes, it is easier to ignore uncomfortable facts and go along with whatever distortion is currently in vogue. We see a lot of this today in politics. I see a lot of it – more than I would ever have believed – right on this Senate Floor.
Regarding the situation in Iraq, it appears to this Senator that the American people may have been lured into accepting the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation, in violation of long-standing International law, under false premises. There is ample evidence that the horrific events of September 11 have been carefully manipulated to switch public focus from Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda who masterminded the September 11th attacks, to Saddam Hussein who did not. The run up to our invasion of Iraq featured the President and members of his cabinet invoking every frightening image they could conjure, from mushroom clouds, to buried caches of germ warfare, to drones poised to deliver germ laden death in our major cities. We were treated to a heavy dose of overstatement concerning Saddam Hussein's direct threat to our freedoms. The tactic was guaranteed to provoke a sure reaction from a nation still suffering from a combination of post traumatic stress and justifiable anger after the attacks of 9/11. It was the exploitation of fear. It was a placebo for the anger.
Since the war's end, every subsequent revelation which has seemed to refute the previous dire claims of the Bush Administration has been brushed aside. Instead of addressing the contradictory evidence, the White House deftly changes the subject. No weapons of mass destruction have yet turned up, but we are told that they will in time. Perhaps they yet will. But, our costly and destructive bunker busting attack on Iraq seems to have proven, in the main, precisely the opposite of what we were told was the urgent reason to go in. It seems also to have, for the present, verified the assertions of Hans Blix and the inspection team he led, which President Bush and company so derided. As Blix always said, a lot of time will be needed to find such weapons, if they do, indeed, exist. Meanwhile Bin Laden is still on the loose and Saddam Hussein has come up missing.
The Administration assured the U.S. public and the world, over and over again, that an attack was necessary to protect our people and the world from terrorism. It assiduously worked to alarm the public and blur the faces of Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden until they virtually became one.
What has become painfully clear in the aftermath of war is that Iraq was no immediate threat to the U.S. Ravaged by years of sanctions, Iraq did not even lift an airplane against us. Iraq's threatening death-dealing fleet of unmanned drones about which we heard so much morphed into one prototype made of plywood and string. Their missiles proved to be outdated and of limited range. Their army was quickly overwhelmed by our technology and our well trained troops.
Presently our loyal military personnel continue their mission of diligently searching for WMD. They have so far turned up only fertilizer, vacuum cleaners, conventional weapons, and the occasional buried swimming pool. They are misused on such a mission and they continue to be at grave risk. But the Bush team's extensive hype of WMD in Iraq as justification for a preemptive invasion has become more than embarrassing. It has raised serious questions about prevarication and the reckless use of power. Were our troops needlessly put at risk? Were countless Iraqi civilians killed and maimed when war was not really necessary? Was the American public deliberately misled? Was the world?
What makes me cringe even more is the continued claim that we are "liberators." The facts don't seem to support the label we have so euphemistically attached to ourselves. True, we have unseated a brutal, despicable despot, but "liberation" implies the follow up of freedom, self-determination and a better life for the common people. In fact, if the situation in Iraq is the result of "liberation," we may have set the cause of freedom back 200 years.
Despite our high-blown claims of a better life for the Iraqi people, water is scarce, and often foul, electricity is a sometime thing, food is in short supply, hospitals are stacked with the wounded and maimed, historic treasures of the region and of the Iraqi people have been looted, and nuclear material may have been disseminated to heaven knows where, while U.S. troops, on orders, looked on and guarded the oil supply.
Meanwhile, lucrative contracts to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure and refurbish its oil industry are awarded to Administration cronies, without benefit of competitive bidding, and the U.S. steadfastly resists offers of U.N. assistance to participate. Is there any wonder that the real motives of the U.S. government are the subject of worldwide speculation and mistrust?
And in what may be the most damaging development, the U.S. appears to be pushing off Iraq's clamor for self-government. Jay Garner has been summarily replaced, and it is becoming all too clear that the smiling face of the U.S. as liberator is quickly assuming the scowl of an occupier. The image of the boot on the throat has replaced the beckoning hand of freedom. Chaos and rioting only exacerbate that image, as U.S. soldiers try to sustain order in a land ravaged by poverty and disease. "Regime change" in Iraq has so far meant anarchy, curbed only by an occupying military force and a U.S. administrative presence that is evasive about if and when it intends to depart.
Democracy and Freedom cannot be force fed at the point of an occupier's gun. To think otherwise is folly. One has to stop and ponder. How could we have been so impossibly naive? How could we expect to easily plant a clone of U.S. culture, values, and government in a country so riven with religious, territorial, and tribal rivalries, so suspicious of U.S. motives, and so at odds with the galloping materialism which drives the western-style economies?
As so many warned this Administration before it launched its misguided war on Iraq, there is evidence that our crack down in Iraq is likely to convince 1,000 new Bin Ladens to plan other horrors of the type we have seen in the past several days. Instead of damaging the terrorists, we have given them new fuel for their fury. We did not complete our mission in Afghanistan because we were so eager to attack Iraq. Now it appears that Al Queda is back with a vengeance. We have returned to orange alert in the U.S., and we may well have destabilized the Mideast region, a region we have never fully understood. We have alienated friends around the globe with our dissembling and our haughty insistence on punishing former friends who may not see things quite our way.
The path of diplomacy and reason have gone out the window to be replaced by force, unilateralism, and punishment for transgressions. I read most recently with amazement our harsh castigation of Turkey, our longtime friend and strategic ally. It is astonishing that our government is berating the new Turkish government for conducting its affairs in accordance with its own Constitution and its democratic institutions.
Indeed, we may have sparked a new international arms race as countries move ahead to develop WMD as a last ditch attempt to ward off a possible preemptive strike from a newly belligerent U.S. which claims the right to hit where it wants. In fact, there is little to constrain this President. Congress, in what will go down in history as its most unfortunate act, handed away its power to declare war for the foreseeable future and empowered this President to wage war at will.
As if that were not bad enough, members of Congress are reluctant to ask questions which are begging to be asked. How long will we occupy Iraq? We have already heard disputes on the numbers of troops which will be needed to retain order. What is the truth? How costly will the occupation and rebuilding be? No one has given a straight answer. How will we afford this long-term massive commitment, fight terrorism at home, address a serious crisis in domestic healthcare, afford behemoth military spending and give away billions in tax cuts amidst a deficit which has climbed to over $340 billion for this year alone? If the President's tax cut passes it will be $400 billion. We cower in the shadows while false statements proliferate. We accept soft answers and shaky explanations because to demand the truth is hard, or unpopular, or may be politically costly.
But, I contend that, through it all, the people know. The American people unfortunately are used to political shading, spin, and the usual chicanery they hear from public officials. They patiently tolerate it up to a point. But there is a line. It may seem to be drawn in invisible ink for a time, but eventually it will appear in dark colors, tinged with anger. When it comes to shedding American blood – when it comes to wreaking havoc on civilians, on innocent men, women, and children, callous dissembling is not acceptable. Nothing is worth that kind of lie – not oil, not revenge, not reelection, not somebody's grand pipedream of a democratic domino theory.
And mark my words, the calculated intimidation which we see so often of late by the "powers that be" will only keep the loyal opposition quiet for just so long. Because eventually, as it always does, the truth will emerge. And when it does, this house of cards, built of deceit, will fall.
© 2003 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
The World's Suffering 'Nobodies'
Pathologies of Power: Health, Human Rights, and the New War on the Poor
By Paul Farmer. / University of California Press. $27.50.
Reviewed By John Brady
May/June 2003
In this age of affluence and technological mastery, we face a grim truth about the quality of life on the planet: For many millions around the globe, the most basic human right -- the right to survive -- simply cannot be guaranteed. The dreadfulness of the situation -- in his fine foreword, Nobel laureate Amartya Sen notes that the median age at death in sub-Saharan Africa is under five -- can lead even the most committed humanitarian to despair.
The temptation to reach for theatrical metaphors (human tragedy) or existential ones (cruel fate) is one that Paul Farmer resists at every turn. A physician-anthropologist at Harvard, he is resolutely political in his approach. Farmer argues that mass suffering is not, as some would have it, a fact of life, but rather a matter of choice. It's the product of what he calls "structural violence" -- the inequities produced by man-made institutions that sustain "an undeclared war on the poor."
Farmer's first priority is to awaken us to the suffering of the world's "nobodies." To this end, he vividly narrates his experiences treating HIV in Haiti and confronting the tuberculosis epidemic in Russia's prisons. For Farmer, of course, merely bearing witness to suffering is inadequate; we also need solutions. He looks to liberation theology for the ideals to guide his demanding program of international ethics, one that insists on forging active solidarity with the most vulnerable citizens of our world, while declaring "health rights" to be an essential human right. What do you think?
© 2002 The Foundation for National Progress
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2003/19/ma_381_01.html
Stop Making Sense
Nerve-agent words, shape-shifting facts, and the dangers of clarity: a guide to the mind at war
By George Packer
May/June 2003 Issue
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2003/19/ma_381_01.html
.."May you live in interesting times" is not, in fact, an ancient Chinese curse. According to the experts, the only Chinese proverb that comes close says, "It's better to be a dog in a peaceful time than a man in a chaotic time." The "curse" is Western, probably American, in origin. We've lived under its spell for going on two years now. Lately I've been thinking about the effect this is having on our minds.
It's the Oil, Stupid
by Michael T. Klare
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030512&s=klare
Who decides what is a "rogue nation" and by what criteria, specifically?
Cohen & Corzine (D-NJ), Perfect Together.... 8^}
THE PROPHET OF WALL STREET
How Abby Cohen came to be one of the most closely watched forecasters on the planet
http://www.businessweek.com/1998/22/b3580001.htm
.."Not everyone buys Cohen's bullish case. In fact, some pundits argue that she and other so-called New Paradigmists are leading investors up the garden path to a stock market crash...
..Says CEO Corzine: ''Abby is an incredible professional strategist who enhances our position in the financial marketplace and also gives us a sense of confidence internally about our strategies.''..."
Actually, I mostly use a satellite phone tied to OnStar?
Do Satellite phones pose the same privacy vulnerability?
Yes, if they "smell blood" -- like DOGS!!..
"Smell blood" being a metaphor for political vulnerability.
Yet the stench of corruption in Marlboro is rivaled only by the stench of their very own
Burnt Fly Bog!! The one that ISN'T being cleaned up by the Bush Admin... :)
They've all been great contrarian indicators but NONE better than Tokyo Abby! I guess that's why they pay her the Big Bucks..... And now she's even got her very own Senator, Jon Corzine (D-NJ). It doesn't get much better than that, does it??.. :)
Render Unto Caesar
David Horowitz
Wednesday, May 28, 2003
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences. – C. S. Lewis
In a previous column ("Pride Before a Fall"), I took several Christian conservative leaders to task for protesting RNC Chairman Marc Racicot’s appearance at a meeting of the Human Rights Campaign, which is the largest group of gay citizens.
The Christian leaders complained about the very fact that Racicot, who is the head of one of America’s two largest political parties, had even met with the group. In explaining their position, one of the conservatives invoked the Ku Klux Klan – a notorious hate group – as an organization whom Racicot wouldn’t think of addressing; another implied that Christian conservatives might withhold their votes in the next presidential election, while a third demanded that the RNC chairman declare homosexuality "immoral" (a fact I failed to mention in my article). I called this behavior "intolerant" and politically self-destructive.
I also pointed out that I was a defender of Christian conservatives against the vicious slanders of the left. I could have pointed out that I have opposed the gay left’s attacks on organizations like the Boy Scouts; that I have decried the intrusion of the gay left’s sexual agendas into the public schools; and that I have written the harshest critiques of the gay left’s promotion of organized promiscuity and subversion of the public health system as the root cause of the AIDS epidemic, which I have called a "radical holocaust" (not a "gay holocaust," but a radical holocaust – the distinction, as I will explain, is crucial).
Yet the response to my article was – how shall I put this? – anything but tolerant. I will take one exemplary case, an article by Robert Knight that appeared on the website of Concerned Women for America. Knight is the director of the Culture and Family Institute, "an affiliate" of the organization. His article was titled "David Horowitz Owes Christians An Apology."
Concerned Women for America is one of the groups that met with Racicot, and whom I criticized. I share its concerns about the left’s assault on American values and on the American family in particular. I have appeared on radio and TV shows sponsored by Concerned Women for America and would do so again.
I consider the Concerned Women for America and the Christian right generally to be important elements of the conservative coalition who have made significant contributions to the conservative cause. Through moral persuasion they have succeeded in dramatically reducing the number of abortions, helped to strengthen the American family, and been on the front lines opposing the left’s malicious assault on America’s culture and institutions.
In other words, I am a supporter of Christian conservatives even though we disagree on the matter at hand, and perhaps on the larger issue that underlies it. That issue, politically expressed, is the issue of tolerance. Theologically, it involves the distinction between the sacred and the profane, between this world and the next.
Why do I owe Christians an apology, since I have not attacked Christians? To accuse a Jew of attacking Christians is a serious matter and goes to the heart of the political problem that "social conservatives" often create for themselves when they intrude religion into the political sphere. Why is religion even an issue in what should be entirely a political discussion?
Well I know what triggered this response. I began my article by pointing out that homosexuality did not seem to be high on the scale of Jesus’ priorities since Jesus never mentioned it, while the Christian conservatives who met with Racicot considered it an issue that should determine the presidency itself.
Knight and others who have responded to my piece have lectured me on the moral views of the Old and New Testaments, as though I was trying to dissuade conservative Christians from their moral views. "With all due respect, Mr. Horowitz owes Christians an apology for his crude distortion of Jesus’ teachings, and for his implied charge of bigotry."
To repeat, I did not charge Christians with anything. Nor did I make pronouncements on the subject of Jesus’ moral teachings. Perhaps this is too fine a point. I did not say that Jesus approved homosexuality, but I did point out the contrast in the degree to which Jesus considered it important to the salvation of one’s soul and the way some conservative Christian leaders considered it important to the coming election of an American president.
The fact is that I have publicly defended Christians’ rights to their moral views, specifically on their views on homosexuality (although I do not share them). I have publicly condemned spokesmen for the gay left for their attacks on Christians who voice their views. I have criticized these gay leaders as "anti-Christian" and "intolerant."
The essence of tolerance in a political democracy is that individuals who hate, despise and condemn each other privately should live side by side in the same political community in relative tranquility and civility. Respect for difference is not the same as endorsing the different.
Whether Jesus condemned or approved homosexuality, therefore, is irrelevant to the question of whether the chairman of the Republican National Committee – a political leader – should make moral pronouncements on the issue, as the delegation demanded.
Is homosexuality – sexual relations between members of the same sex – a threat to civic order? Should it be a crime? Should there be legislation to regulate it or make it a crime? These are the only questions that politicians and legislators need to confront, and therefore these are the only questions appropriate for a political movement (as opposed to a religious faith) to pose.
That was my point. Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.
Conservatives who believe in limited government should be the first to understand this. Christian conservatives more than others. The Christian right was born as a reaction to the government assault by secular liberals on religious communities in the 1970s. We do not want government intruding on the voluntary associations we make as citizens or dictating to us our moral and spiritual choices.
Robert Knight – and others who have objected to my article – do not seem to grasp that it is important to separate the political from the religious, that the realm of government should be limited. In my original article I made a point of objecting to the term "homosexual agenda" and saying that one had to distinguish between those homosexuals who were politically left and supported radical agendas, and those homosexuals who were conservatives. I observed that a higher percentage of homosexuals voted Republican than did blacks, Jews or Hispanics. Here is Knight’s response:
Mr. Horowitz’s assertion that "the very term ‘homosexual agenda’ is an expression of intolerance" is unfathomable. Christian conservatives have an agenda. Environmentalists have an agenda. Homosexual activists have an agenda.
"Christian conservatives" refers to a political group, as opposed to "Christians," which does not. There many liberal Christians and even radical Christians, whose agendas are indistinguishable from the agendas of Communists, whom Robert Knight and I both oppose. "Environmentalists" refers to a political agenda – protecting the environment.
"Homosexual activists" refers to what? Is there a political agenda that is homosexual? If so, how is it that 30 percent of homosexuals vote Republican?
Mr. Horowitz’s agenda here seems to be to accuse Christian conservatives of bigotry, pure and simple, as if they could have no valid reasons for opposing the political agenda of homosexual activists.
What I said was that the validity of a political opposition to any group of activists should depend on whether the "political agenda" of those activists is conservative or radical, and it is bigoted to fail to make the distinction.
The Human Rights Campaign – which is the homosexual group in question – is a radical group. But so are the NAACP and the ACLU, and there has been no Christian conservative demarche to an RNC chairman who met with those groups.
The idea that there is a "respectable" gay movement that will go only so far and that will help the GOP win elections is a dangerous fiction. As a veteran of leftist revolutions, Mr. Horowitz should know better.
As veteran of leftist revolutions, I know the difference between a leftist gay activist and a Log Cabin Republican, and so should Robert Knight. It is not a fiction that homosexuals – as politically active citizens – can help Republicans win elections. It is a fact.
Christian conservatives and Torah-believing Jews oppose homosexual activism for three basic reasons: 1) The Bible and God’s natural design say it is wrong; 2) homosexuality is extremely unhealthy and hurts individuals, families and communities; and 3) homosexual activism threatens our most cherished freedoms of religion, speech and association.
Our agenda on this issue is to dissuade people from becoming trapped in homosexuality and to offer a helping hand to those who seek to change and pursue a fuller life.
As I have said, as a conservative I have no political objection to those Christians and Jews who oppose homosexuality because they are following what they believe to be their religious faith.
Nor do I have objection to conservative political activists who oppose the left-wing agendas of "gay rights" groups that are destructive, anymore than I would have objection to opposing women’s rights groups that are mere covers for left-wing agendas, or black "civil rights" groups whose agendas are racially divisive. In fact, I have been a prominent leader of the opposition to all these groups.
What I do object to is the systematic confusion of ethnic, gender or sexual groups with left-wing political agendas. All blacks are not leftists; all women are not leftists; and all homosexuals are not leftists. To condemn them as such is both intolerant and politically stupid.
Which brings us to Knight’s final comment and self-revelation: "Our agenda … is to dissuade people from becoming trapped in homosexuality."
Let me make a personal statement here which does not – or should not – affect one way or another the political discussion about whether it was appropriate to confront the RNC chairman or to demand that the Republican Party take a stand on whether homosexuality is moral or not.
In my view, Knight’s statement is a prejudice dressed up as a moral position. It presumes that homosexuality is a choice, while all evidence points to the contrary. The conversion movements have been miserable failures.
They have recruited a highly motivated and extreme minority among homosexuals – people so unhappy with their condition that they are desperate to change it – and the results are pathetic. Only a tiny minority of what is itself a tiny minority of people willing to go through the conversion process achieve a well-adjusted heterosexual result.
That is my personal view, but it is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Even if Knight were correct in thinking that homosexuality is a moral choice, and that Christians and Jews have a moral obligation to oppose it, this would not alter the fact that it is inappropriate and self-defeating for philosophical conservatives to make this their political agenda. A mission to rescue homosexuals is a religious mission; it is not an appropriate political cause.
Would Robert Knight like the government to investigate every American to determine whether they are homosexual or not and then compel those who are to undergo conversion therapy – or else?
This is a prescription for a totalitarian state. No conservative should want any part of it. But this is how Robert Knight sums up the political agenda of social conservatives. Those who agree with him should think again.
* * * * * *
David Horowitz is a nationally known author, lifelong civil rights activist and founder of the New Left movement in the 1960s. His autobiography, "Radical Son," chronicles his odyssey from radical activism to the current positions he holds.
He has penned numerous other books including "The Politics of Bad Faith," "The Art of Political War" and his latest book, "Uncivil Wars," which chronicles his crusade against intolerance and racial McCarthyism on college campuses last spring.
Since 1988 he has served as president of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, a vehicle group for his campaigns and his online newsmagazine, FrontPageMag.com.
NewsMax.com Privacy Statement
All Rights Reserved © NewsMax.com
http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/27/131717.shtml
Gl, When I read your post, I couldn't help but think of Wallstreet in the 90's. Capitalism works to some extent, but a balance is needed. Wallstreet, and the big banks functioned in a virtually unregulated system in the 90's and the result was the greatest scam of all time -- the proverbial "mother of all pump & dumps"!
The lesson to be learned: Capitalism works within a system of checks and balances. Regulatory oversight is necessary to deter the obvious abuses that can occur. A capitalist market or system that operates in a virtually unregulated environment is bound to fail, or rob the masses...
But let's not forget, the SEC did go after Tokyo Joe and that kid from NJ -- Young Jesse Lebed.
But what about Tokyo Abby, Tokyo Blodget, Tokyo Acampora, and Tokyo Battipaglia, et.al?.....
And Fwiw, with constant Easy Al intervention, is our system a true Capitalist system,
or a quasi gov controlled Capitalist system?.....
While it is entire possible that Iran is a problem - re: weapons capabilities and in harbouring and supporting Al Qaeda and other menaces, should the same have been said about Iraq, honestly??...
Republican Matrix
Feeling Powerless? Cynical? Defeated?
May 19th, 2003 7:45 PM
Schlock 'N' Roll
by Ward Sutton
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0321/sutton.php
That's what Time says, but the reality is that the American people have become too complacent to really care -- to dig deeper and find out what's going on. Americans are happy with media snippets, and the media determines our political future. No doubt, Bush 43 has Fox, "#1 cable news station", and the rest of the neocon media on his side. Barring a serious screw-up or catastophe, Bush is in like flint in 2004.
Complacency is the greatest, contemporary threat to democracy and freedom. Someday, we'll all figure that out.....
Libertarian might be the most viable 3rd party. It's all about money, and who can raise financing to mount a viable challenge. The Reps and Dems are political funding machines. Like David and Goliath, it's a tough challenge.
Peg, I think the embattled JB is fighting hard in the primary so that upon his win, he can resign and another name, state level politician will be appointed to run for his Senate seat. I don't know if JB intends to serve another term, but I think the Rep org would like to retain their incumbentcy status. Or something like that...
JB lives locally, and I like him but I think he could be in some serious trouble. Not that he's any worse than most but he was caught in some questionable billings and dealings. The Marlboro brat pack, who's own political dealings are not above question, is out for JB's (Rep) blood. The state Dem org wants his Senate seat, of course.
It all political dirt. It always is... :)