soc.culture.usa
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa
soc.culture.usa@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Consumers are bracing for the new AT&T - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/289b35b54c526254
* Hu's visit to the USA ....to be cancelled or postponed ? - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/dc57d1554f400f9c
* Las anteojeras del pueblo estadounidense - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/240c885390e78ad0
* America's Blinders - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/ec79fed132cbbd8d
* Ron Paul, Friend of Peace, the Soldiers, and the American People Re: U.S.
hedges on whether Iraq bases permanent - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/aac0a694f267ac6
* HOW ISRAEL CONTROLS WHAT YOU READ - 4 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/508d9a807a59d05d
* The Emerging Jewish Consensus in Israel - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/756dc1f711a4d8e4
* Israel May Be Next al-Qaida Battleground - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/c8c9da1d258d18b0
* Making Latinos Illegal, Brown Skin, Yellow Star - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/5f21410494b6f132
* California has been sold to the Chinese - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/1e01036ef2a70796
* America's Blinders (text only) - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/7fc5511cdad8620
* Three Ways to Remember Rachel - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/6f69fcc00c58349
* Michael Jackson's Latest Hit!!! - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/174db3513d55e1c9
* Analysis: Impact of Bush's India visit - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/72d876612e755fb7
* 9/11 Unedited Video Shows More of What Happened at WTC - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/7c8e278217eb819e
* SAYANIM - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/8a494914ed8eb434
* International Stuff - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/5d1b6b36a66fef20
* Food for Thought - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/a2229bb1d49ce59b
* Mike Wallace does not even deserve to be in the same room with President GW
Bush! Let alone shake his hand! - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/64c77b490599ab19
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Consumers are bracing for the new AT&T
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/289b35b54c526254
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 24 2006 9:46 pm
From: jdoe
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 23:49:25 GMT, "ameijers"
<aemeijers@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Julia M." <spamme@now.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns979099DE98A12239432dfsdf@66.150.105.47...
>> For those of us who are affected by the new merger of AT&T and SBC, bleak
>> future is ahead of us. AT&T bad service will be coming back to torture us.
>>
>Read the press releases before you rant. Baby Bell SBC bought Ma Bell ATT,
>and took the name.
don't confuse the liberloon with facts, more proof that they will say
anything, do anything, confuse anything to further their anti US anti
bush agenda
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Hu's visit to the USA ....to be cancelled or postponed ?
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/dc57d1554f400f9c
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 24 2006 6:45 pm
From: demorising@aol.com
Bad boy wrote:
> It could be.... Bush told Hu personally it was
> a state visit, ....but now tell the world that
> it is NOT.
It could have happened that way if the facts didn't get in the way. It
is not a state visit this time, just like it wasn't going to be a state
visit last year:
http://www.dawn.com/2005/09/04/int6.htm
In the end the two countries had compromised on giving Mr Hu a 21-gun
salute and a welcome on the White House south lawn, but to fall short
of a full state visit.
> Anyway, Chinese leader follow Reuters news
> and other media.... Before long, China will know
> what Bush has planned for Hu's visit.
The whole thing is being negotiated step-by-step. It seems somewhat
rude to try to dictate terms to the host. Hu can do what he wants on
his own time after the official meetings, whether that be joining a
Free Mumia! rally or whatever.
> Bad boy.
>
> <demorising@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1143253468.156088.205000@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Bad boy wrote:
> >> Yes. I read the report in China Daily. China can
> >> inform its people.... Hu is making a "state visit"
> >> to the White House.
> >>
> >> But, in the USA, he will NOT be received
> >> and honoured as a head of state....he will
> >> be received as a lackey to the USA.
> >
> > In other words, it is not a state visit, but Hu is lying to the Chinese
> > people by claiming that it is a state visit.
> >
> >> "Feelers" <enjoylife488@hot.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1143174419.693605@ftpsrv1...
> >> > according to china daily they have this account:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "At the invitation of U.S. President George W. Bush, Hu will pay a
> >> > state
> >> > visit to the United States in mid or late April," Qin Gang told the
> >> > regular press briefing. "
> >> >
> >> > http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200603/24/eng20060324_253006.html
> >> >
> >> > so report not accurate?
> >
> > The report is not only not accurate, but it is also an intentional lie.
> > The host country defines what is and what is not a state visit.
> >
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Las anteojeras del pueblo estadounidense
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/240c885390e78ad0
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 25 2006 1:46 pm
From: r3°
24-03-2006
Las anteojeras del pueblo estadounidense
Howard Zinn
The Progressive
Traducción del inglés para Rebelión por S. Seguí
Ahora que la mayor parte de estadounidenses ya no cree en la guerra, ahora que ya no confían en Bush y su gobierno, ahora que la evidencia del engaño se ha hecho abrumadora (tan abrumadora que incluso los principales medios de comunicación, tarde como siempre, han comenzado a mostrar una cierta indignación), podríamos preguntarnos: ¿cómo ha podido engañarse a tanta gente durante tanto tiempo?
La pregunta es importante porque podría ayudarnos a comprender porqué nuestro pueblo, tanto los miembros de los medios de comunicación como el ciudadano corriente, corrió a manifestar su apoyo a un presidente que estaba enviando tropas al otro lado del mundo, a Irak.
Un pequeño ejemplo de la inocencia (servilismo, para ser más exactos) de la prensa es el modo como reaccionó a la presentación de Colin Powell, en febrero de 2003, en el Consejo de Seguridad, un mes antes de la invasión, un discurso que puede haber establecido un récord mundial de falsedades dichas de un tirón. En dicho discurso, Powell enumeró, con toda confianza, sus "pruebas": fotografías tomadas desde satélites, conversaciones grabadas, informes de espías con estadísticas muy precisas de cuántos litros de esto y de lo otro había disponibles para la guerra química. El New York Times se quedó sin aliento de pura admiración. El editorial del Washington Post consideraba las pruebas "irrefutables" y declaraba tras la charla de Powell: "Es difícil imaginar que alguien pueda dudar que Irak posee armas de destrucción masiva."
Considero que hay dos razones, profundamente enraizadas en nuestra cultura nacional, que contribuyen a explicar la vulnerabilidad de la prensa y la ciudadanía ante este tipo de crudas mentiras cuyas consecuencias han supuesto y suponen la muerte de decenas de miles de personas. Si somos capaces de comprender estas razones, podremos protegernos mejor de los engaños.
La primera es la dimensión temporal, es decir, la falta de perspectiva histórica. La segunda es la dimensión espacial, es decir, una incapacidad de pensar más allá de los límites del patriotismo. Estamos encerrados por la arrogante idea de que este país es el centro del universo, y de que es excepcionalmente virtuoso, admirable y superior.
Si no conocemos la historia, entonces somos presas fáciles de políticos carnívoros y de los intelectuales y periodistas que les facilitan la cubertería. Y no hablo aquí de la historia que estudiamos en la escuela, una historia servil hacia nuestros líderes políticos, desde los tan admirados Padres Fundadores hasta los presidentes de estos últimos años. Hablo de una historia que trate con honestidad el pasado. Si no conocemos esa historia, entonces cualquier presidente puede dirigirse a nosotros desde una hilera de micrófonos y declarar que debemos ir a la guerra, y no tendremos fundamento alguno para cuestionarlo. Nos contará que la patria está en peligro, que la democracia y la libertad están en juego y que, por consiguiente, debemos enviar buques y aviones para destruir a nuestro enemigo, y no tendremos razones para no creerlo.
Pero si conocemos la historia, si sabemos cuántas veces otros presidentes han hecho similares declaraciones al país, y cómo resultaron ser mentira, entonces no nos van a engañar. Aunque algunos de nosotros podamos decir con orgullo que no nos hemos dejado engañar nunca, también podríamos aceptar como deber cívico la responsabilidad de apoyar a nuestros conciudadanos contra la mendacidad de nuestros más altos funcionarios.
Podríamos recordarles que el presidente Polk mintió a la nación sobre las razones para ir a la guerra con México en 1846. No eran que éste país hubiera "derramado sangre estadounidense en nuestro propio suelo", sino que Polk, y nuestra aristocracia esclavista, deseaban apoderarse de la mitad del territorio de México.
Podríamos señalar que el presidente McKinley mintió en 1898 sobre las razones para invadir Cuba, diciendo que queríamos liberar la isla del control de España, cuando la verdad era que efectivamente queríamos que España abandonara Cuba para poder ofrecérsela a la United Fruit y otras corporaciones de EE UU. Mintió también sobre las razones de nuestra guerra en las Filipinas, cuando afirmó que sólo buscábamos "civilizar" a los filipinos, cuando la razón real era hacerse con un buen pedazo de tierra en el Pacífico occidental, aunque para ello tuviéramos que matar a miles de filipinos.
Nuestro presidente Thomas Woodrow Wilson -con tanta frecuencia calificado en nuestros libros de historia de "idealista"- mintió sobre nuestras razones para entrar en la I Guerra Mundial, afirmando que era una guerra para "hacer el mundo seguro para la democracia", cuando realmente era una guerra para hacer el mundo seguro para los poderes imperiales occidentales.
Harry Truman mintió cuando dijo que la bomba atómica fue lanzada sobre Hiroshima porque esta ciudad era "un objetivo militar".
Todos mintieron sobre Vietnam: Kennedy sobre la magnitud de nuestra implicación, Johnson sobre el incidente del Golfo de Tonkín, Nixon sobre el bombardeo secreto de Camboya, todos ellos asegurando que se trataba de mantener Vietnam del Sur libre de comunismo, cuando lo que realmente querían era mantener ese país como avanzadilla estadounidense en el confín del continente asiático.
Reagan mintió sobre la invasión de Grenada, afirmando, falsamente, que era una amenaza para nuestro país.
Bush padre mintió sobre la invasión de Panamá, que tuvo como consecuencia la muerte de miles de civiles de ese país. Luego volvió a mentir sobre la razón para atacar Irak en 1991: no se trataba de defender la integridad de Kuwait -¿es alguien capaz de imaginar a Bush afligido por la invasión de este país por Irak?- sino de afirmar el poder de EE UU en un Oriente Próximo rico en petróleo.
Teniendo en cuenta este abrumador récord de mentiras destinadas a justificar guerras, ¿cómo se puede creer al joven Bush cuando expone sus razones para invadir Irak? ¿No deberíamos rebelarnos, instintivamente, contra el sacrificio de nuestras vidas a cambio de petróleo?
Una lectura atenta de la historia podría darnos otros elementos de protección contra la mentira. Podríamos entender que siempre ha habido, y sigue habiendo, un profundo conflicto de intereses entre el gobierno y el pueblo de los Estados Unidos. Este pensamiento resulta perturbador para una mayoría de personas, por cuanto va en contra de todo lo que nos han enseñado.
Se nos ha inducido a creer que, desde el principio, tal como nuestros Padres Fundadores inscribieron en el Preámbulo de la Constitución, éramos "nosotros, el pueblo" quienes establecimos el nuevo gobierno tras la Revolución. Cuando el eminente historiador Charles Beard sugirió, hace ya cien años, que la Constitución representaba no al pueblo trabajador, no a los esclavos, sino a los esclavistas, a los mercaderes y los rentistas, fue objeto de un editorial indignado en el New York Times.
Nuestra cultura exige, en su lenguaje mismo, que aceptemos la comunidad de intereses que nos une los unos a los otros. No debemos hablar de clases. Sólo los marxistas lo hacen, aunque James Madison, "Padre de la Constitución", afirmara ya, treinta años antes del nacimiento de Karl Marx, que había un conflicto inevitable en la sociedad entre aquellos que eran propietarios y los que no lo eran.
Nuestros actuales líderes no son tan francos. Nos bombardean con términos como "interés nacional" "seguridad nacional" y "defensa nacional" como si todos estos conceptos se aplicasen de la misma manera a todos nosotros, blancos o negros, ricos o pobres; o como si General Motors y Halliburton tuvieran los mismos intereses que el resto de nosotros, o como si los de George Bush fueran los mismos que los de los jóvenes que envía a la guerra.
No cabe duda de que, de todas las mentiras dirigidas a nuestro pueblo, esta es la mayor. En la historia de los secretos escondidos al pueblo estadounidense, este es el mayor de ellos: que hay clases sociales que tienen diferentes intereses. Ignorarlo -desconocer que la historia de nuestro país es la historia del propietario de esclavos contra el esclavo, del propietario contra el inquilino, de la corporación contra el trabajador, del rico contra el pobre- es dejarnos desarmados ante todas las mentiras menores que nos cuenta la gente que detenta el poder.
Si nosotros como ciudadanos partimos del entendimiento de que esa gente de arriba -el presidente, el Congreso, el Tribunal Supremo, todas esas instituciones que se supone que garantizar el "equilibrio de poder"- no está pensando en nuestros intereses, entonces estaremos en el buen camino hacia la verdad. Desconocer esto es dejarnos a nosotros mismos desarmados ante una serie de mentirosos a plena dedicación.
La creencia tan firmemente imbuida -no desde nuestro nacimiento, pero sí por medio del sistema educativo y de nuestra cultura en general- de que Estados Unidos es una nación particularmente virtuosa, nos deja particularmente vulnerables ante los engaños de nuestro gobierno. Los engaños comienzan pronto, en el primer curso de educación básica, cuando nos obligan a "jurar fidelidad" (antes incluso de que sepamos qué quiere decir esa palabra), y nos fuerzan a proclamar que ésta es una nación con "libertad y justicia para todos".
Y luego están las innumerables ceremonias, en parques o recintos cerrados, en las que se supone que debemos ponernos de pie y agachar la cabeza mientras suena nuestro himno nacional, que anuncia que somos "la tierra de los libres, el hogar de los valientes". Y hay también el himno oficioso "Dios bendiga a América", y la gente te mira con mala cara si te atreves a preguntar porqué Dios debería escoger a esta nación en particular -el 5% de la población mundial- para bendecirla con su gracia.
Si partimos de este punto de vista en la evaluación del mundo, es decir, del firme convencimiento de que este país ha sido dotado por la Providencia de cualidades únicas que lo hacen moralmente superior a todos los demás sobre la Tierra, entonces no es probable que cuestionemos al presidente cuando nos comunica que enviaremos a nuestras tropas a este o aquel país, o que bombardearemos por aquí o por allá, a fin de extender nuestras virtudes -la democracia, la libertad y, no lo olvidemos, la libre empresa- a cualquier lugar del mundo literalmente dejado de la mano de Dios.
En ese momento, es preciso, si queremos protegernos a nosotros mismos y a nuestros conciudadanos contra políticas que son desastrosas no solo para otros pueblos sino también para el nuestro, que tengamos a mano los datos que ponen en cuestión la idea de una nación virtuosa como ninguna.
Los datos son perturbadores, pero debemos asumirlos si queremos ser honestos. Debemos asumir nuestra larga historia de limpieza étnica, en la que millones de indios fueron arrojados de sus tierras por medio de matanzas y deportaciones forzadas. Y nuestra larga historia, que no hemos dejado aún atrás, de esclavismo, segregación y racismo. Debemos tener presente nuestra larga tradición de conquistas imperiales, en el Caribe y en el Pacífico, nuestras vergonzosas guerras contra países de tamaño inferior a una décima parte del nuestro: Vietnam, Grenada, Panamá, Afganistán, Irak. Y la permanente memoria de Hiroshima y Nagasaki. No es una historia de la que podamos estar orgullosos.
Nuestros líderes han dado por sentado, y han implantado esta creencia en las mentes de mucha gente, que tenemos derecho, por nuestra superioridad moral, a dominar el mundo. Al finalizar la II Guerra Mundial, Henry Luce, con una arrogancia apropiada a su figura de propietario de las revistas Time, Life y Fortune, acuñó el término de "el siglo americano", con lo que quería decir que la victoria en la guerra daba a Estados Unidos derecho a "ejercer sobre el mundo toda la fuerza de su influencia, para los fines que creamos convenientes y por los medios que creamos convenientes."
Tanto el partido republicano como el demócrata han hecho suya esta idea. George Bush, en su discurso de toma de posesión, el 20 de enero de 2005, afirmó que difundir la libertad por todo el mundo era la "exigencia de nuestro tiempo". Años antes, en 1993, Bill Clinton, hablando en una ceremonia de entrega de diplomas en la academia militar de West Point, declaró: "Los valores que han aprendido ustedes aquí (...) podrán difundirlos por todo nuestro país y por todo el mundo, y dar a otras personas la posibilidad de vivir como ustedes han vivido y desarrollar las capacidades que Dios les ha concedido."
¿En qué se basa la idea de nuestra superioridad moral? Sin duda, no en nuestro comportamiento hacia otros pueblos en otros lugares del mundo. ¿Se basa entonces en el alto nivel de vida de la gente en Estados Unidos? En 2000 la Organización Mundial de la Salud publicó su clasificación de países en términos de situación sanitaria general, y EE UU ocupaba el lugar 37 de la lista, aunque gasta más dinero por persona en cuidados de salud que cualquier otro país del mundo. Uno de cada cinco niños de este país, el más rico del mundo, nace en la pobreza. Hay más de cuarenta países que tienen una mortalidad infantil más reducida, entre ellos Cuba. Y hay otro signo evidente de enfermedad social: tenemos la mayor población reclusa del mundo, más de dos millones de personas.
Una estimación más honesta de nosotros mismos como pueblo podría prepararnos para la próxima batería de mentiras que acompañará a la próxima propuesta de imponer nuestro poderío en algún otro lugar del mundo. También podría inspirarnos la elaboración de una historia diferente de nosotros mismos, arrancar nuestro país de las manos de los mentirosos y asesinos que lo gobiernan, y -mediante el rechazo del nacionalismo arrogante-- unirnos al resto de países de la raza humana en la causa común de paz y justicia.
__________________________________________________________________________
Howard Zinn es el autor de "A People's History of the United States" (Una historia popular de los Estados Unidos) y de "Voices of a People's History of the United States", junto a Anthony Arnove.´
Texto original:
http://progressive.org/mag_zinn0406
http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=28776
³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³ r3°
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 25 2006 1:52 pm
From: r3°
El enlace correcto del artículo original
en idioma inglés es:
http://www.progressive.org/mag_zinn0406
³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³ r3°
==============================================================================
TOPIC: America's Blinders
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/ec79fed132cbbd8d
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 25 2006 1:50 pm
From: r3°
America's Blinders
By Howard Zinn
April 2006 Issue
Now that most Americans no longer believe in the war, now that they no longer trust Bush and his Administration, now that the evidence of deception has become overwhelming (so overwhelming that even the major media, always late, have begun to register indignation), we might ask: How come so many people were so easily fooled?
The question is important because it might help us understand why Americans-members of the media as well as the ordinary citizen-rushed to declare their support as the President was sending troops halfway around the world to Iraq.
A small example of the innocence (or obsequiousness, to be more exact) of the press is the way it reacted to Colin Powell's presentation in February 2003 to the Security Council, a month before the invasion, a speech which may have set a record for the number of falsehoods told in one talk. In it, Powell confidently rattled off his "evidence": satellite photographs, audio records, reports from informants, with precise statistics on how many gallons of this and that existed for chemical warfare. The New York Times was breathless with admiration. The Washington Post editorial was titled "Irrefutable" and declared that after Powell's talk "it is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction."
It seems to me there are two reasons, which go deep into our national culture, and which help explain the vulnerability of the press and of the citizenry to outrageous lies whose consequences bring death to tens of thousands of people. If we can understand those reasons, we can guard ourselves better against being deceived.
One is in the dimension of time, that is, an absence of historical perspective. The other is in the dimension of space, that is, an inability to think outside the boundaries of nationalism. We are penned in by the arrogant idea that this country is the center of the universe, exceptionally virtuous, admirable, superior.
If we don't know history, then we are ready meat for carnivorous politicians and the intellectuals and journalists who supply the carving knives. I am not speaking of the history we learned in school, a history subservient to our political leaders, from the much-admired Founding Fathers to the Presidents of recent years. I mean a history which is honest about the past. If we don't know that history, then any President can stand up to the battery of microphones, declare that we must go to war, and we will have no basis for challenging him. He will say that the nation is in danger, that democracy and liberty are at stake, and that we must therefore send ships and planes to destroy our new enemy, and we will have no reason to disbelieve him.
But if we know some history, if we know how many times Presidents have made similar declarations to the country, and how they turned out to be lies, we will not be fooled. Although some of us may pride ourselves that we were never fooled, we still might accept as our civic duty the responsibility to buttress our fellow citizens against the mendacity of our high officials.
We would remind whoever we can that President Polk lied to the nation about the reason for going to war with Mexico in 1846. It wasn't that Mexico "shed American blood upon the American soil," but that Polk, and the slave-owning aristocracy, coveted half of Mexico.
We would point out that President McKinley lied in 1898 about the reason for invading Cuba, saying we wanted to liberate the Cubans from Spanish control, but the truth is that we really wanted Spain out of Cuba so that the island could be open to United Fruit and other American corporations. He also lied about the reasons for our war in the Philippines, claiming we only wanted to "civilize" the Filipinos, while the real reason was to own a valuable piece of real estate in the far Pacific, even if we had to kill hundreds of thousands of Filipinos to accomplish that.
President Woodrow Wilson-so often characterized in our history books as an "idealist"-lied about the reasons for entering the First World War, saying it was a war to "make the world safe for democracy," when it was really a war to make the world safe for the Western imperial powers.
Harry Truman lied when he said the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima because it was "a military target."
Everyone lied about Vietnam-Kennedy about the extent of our involvement, Johnson about the Gulf of Tonkin, Nixon about the secret bombing of Cambodia, all of them claiming it was to keep South Vietnam free of communism, but really wanting to keep South Vietnam as an American outpost at the edge of the Asian continent.
Reagan lied about the invasion of Grenada, claiming falsely that it was a threat to the United States.
The elder Bush lied about the invasion of Panama, leading to the death of thousands of ordinary citizens in that country.
And he lied again about the reason for attacking Iraq in 1991-hardly to defend the integrity of Kuwait (can one imagine Bush heartstricken over Iraq's taking of
Kuwait?), rather to assert U.S. power in the oil-rich Middle East.
Given the overwhelming record of lies told to justify wars, how could anyone listening to the younger Bush believe him as he laid out the reasons for invading Iraq? Would we not instinctively rebel against the sacrifice of lives for oil?
A careful reading of history might give us another safeguard against being deceived. It would make clear that there has always been, and is today, a profound conflict of interest between the government and the people of the United States. This thought startles most people, because it goes against everything we have been taught.
We have been led to believe that, from the beginning, as our Founding Fathers put it in the Preamble to the Constitution, it was "we the people" who established the new government after the Revolution. When the eminent historian Charles Beard suggested, a hundred years ago, that the Constitution represented not the working people, not the slaves, but the slaveholders, the merchants, the bondholders, he became the object of an indignant editorial in The New York Times.
Our culture demands, in its very language, that we accept a commonality of interest binding all of us to one another. We mustn't talk about classes. Only Marxists do that, although James Madison, "Father of the Constitution," said, thirty years before Marx was born that there was an inevitable conflict in society between those who had property and those who did not.
Our present leaders are not so candid. They bombard us with phrases like "national interest," "national security," and "national defense" as if all of these concepts applied equally to all of us, colored or white, rich or poor, as if General Motors and Halliburton have the same interests as the rest of us, as if George Bush has the same interest as the young man or woman he sends to war.
Surely, in the history of lies told to the population, this is the biggest lie. In the history of secrets, withheld from the American people, this is the biggest secret: that there are classes with different interests in this country. To ignore that-not to know that the history of our country is a history of slaveowner against slave, landlord against tenant, corporation against worker, rich against poor-is to render us helpless before all the lesser lies told to us by people in power.
If we as citizens start out with an understanding that these people up there-the President, the Congress, the Supreme Court, all those institutions pretending to be "checks and balances"-do not have our interests at heart, we are on a course towards the truth. Not to know that is to make us helpless before determined liars.
The deeply ingrained belief-no, not from birth but from the educational system and from our culture in general-that the United States is an especially virtuous nation makes us especially vulnerable to government deception. It starts early, in the first grade, when we are compelled to "pledge allegiance" (before we even know what that means), forced to proclaim that we are a nation with "liberty and justice for all."
And then come the countless ceremonies, whether at the ballpark or elsewhere, where we are expected to stand and bow our heads during the singing of the "Star-Spangled Banner," announcing that we are "the land of the free and the home of the brave." There is also the unofficial national anthem "God Bless America," and you are looked on with suspicion if you ask why we would expect God to single out this one nation-just 5 percent of the world's population-for his or her blessing.
If your starting point for evaluating the world around you is the firm belief that this nation is somehow endowed by Providence with unique qualities that make it morally superior to every other nation on Earth, then you are not likely to question the President when he says we are sending our troops here or there, or bombing this or that, in order to spread our values-democracy, liberty, and let's not forget free enterprise-to some God-forsaken (literally) place in the world.
It becomes necessary then, if we are going to protect ourselves and our fellow citizens against policies that will be disastrous not only for other people but for Americans too, that we face some facts that disturb the idea of a uniquely virtuous nation.
These facts are embarrassing, but must be faced if we are to be honest. We must face our long history of ethnic cleansing, in which millions of Indians were driven off their land by means of massacres and forced evacuations. And our long history, still not behind us, of slavery, segregation, and racism. We must face our record of imperial conquest, in the Caribbean and in the Pacific, our shameful wars against small countries a tenth our size: Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq. And the lingering memory of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is not a history of which we can be proud.
Our leaders have taken it for granted, and planted that belief in the minds of many people, that we are entitled, because of our moral superiority, to dominate the world. At the end of World War II, Henry Luce, with an arrogance appropriate to the owner of Time, Life, and Fortune, pronounced this "the American century," saying that victory in the war gave the United States the right "to exert upon the world the full impact of our influence, for such purposes as we see fit and by such means as we see fit."
Both the Republican and Democratic parties have embraced this notion. George Bush, in his Inaugural Address on January 20, 2005, said that spreading liberty around the world was "the calling of our time." Years before that, in 1993, President Bill Clinton, speaking at a West Point commencement, declared: "The values you learned here . . . will be able to spread throughout this country and throughout the world and give other people the opportunity to live as you have lived, to fulfill your God-given capacities."
What is the idea of our moral superiority based on? Surely not on our behavior toward people in other parts of the world. Is it based on how well people in the United States live? The World Health Organization in 2000 ranked countries in terms of overall health performance, and the United States was thirty-seventh on the list, though it spends more per capita for health care than any other nation. One of five children in this, the richest country in the world, is born in poverty. There are more than forty countries that have better records on infant mortality. Cuba does better. And there is a sure sign of sickness in society when we lead the world in the number of people in prison-more than two million.
A more honest estimate of ourselves as a nation would prepare us all for the next barrage of lies that will accompany the next proposal to inflict our power on some other part of the world. It might also inspire us to create a different history for ourselves, by taking our country away from the liars and killers who govern it, and by rejecting nationalist arrogance, so that we can join the rest of the human race in the common cause of peace and justice.
Howard Zinn is the co-author, with Anthony Arnove, of "Voices of a People's History of the United States."
http://www.progressive.org/mag_zinn0406
³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³ r3°
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Ron Paul, Friend of Peace, the Soldiers, and the American People Re: U.
S. hedges on whether Iraq bases permanent
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/aac0a694f267ac6
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 24 2006 8:59 pm
From: Mitchell Holman
acoustic@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote in
news:e0227a$5gt$1@reader2.panix.com:
> Why do we need ``enduring'' bases? Why do we need to sacrifice more
> American soldiers to maintain those ``enduring'' bases? And why do we
> want to spend more money on building those expensive bases while the
> health care of the American people is being neglected?
>
>>Although the House approved the measure, lawmakers are demanding the
>>Pentagon explain its base plans and have unanimously passed a
>>provision blocking the use of funds for basing agreements with the
>>Iraqi government.
>>
>>"It's the kind of thing that incites terrorism," Rep. Ron Paul,
>>R-Texas, said of long-term or permanent U.S. bases in countries such
>>as Iraq.
>>
>>Paul, a critic of the war, is co-sponsoring a bipartisan bill that
>>would make it U.S. policy not to maintain such bases in Iraq. He
>>noted that al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden cited U.S. military bases
>>in Saudi Arabia as grounds for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
>
> Thank you, Representative Paul for your prinicipled work on behalf of
> world peace, the security of the American people, and the lives of US
> soldiers. I also appreciate your speech in the House denouncing Bush
> and his supporters in Congress for preparing a military attack against
> Iran.
>
> You are a Republican I will vote for and contribute to!
Ron Paul is a Libertarian (actually ran for office
several times in that party) before switching to the GOP
out of political necessity. That is why he has more
principles than the rest of the NeoCons put together.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: HOW ISRAEL CONTROLS WHAT YOU READ
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/508d9a807a59d05d
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 24 2006 10:04 pm
From: "serwad"
"docremington" <docremington@safe-mail.net> wrote in message
news:1143173896.572945.216090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Theodore Herzl wrote:
>> The fact that Harvard was pressured into removing the logo only proves
>> just how powerful and corrupting the Israeli lobbies have become. By
>> removing the logo, the University is protecting themselves from the
>> Jewish attack dogs that work tirelessly to deflect criticism of the
>> Israeli regime.
>>
>
>
> Most likely, Thermodore, they just took the trouble reading the
> Walt-Mearsheimer bunk, and the undertaking left them with gaping
> mouths.
>
>> Israeli propaganda and disinformation groups like Camera cannot refute
>> the article so they attempt, for instance, to compare Israel's bigoted
>> Law of Return, which grants immediate citizenship to those of Jewish
>> faith while denying citizenship to the non-Jewish indigenous population
>> that was ethnically cleansed from their homeland to make Israel.
The fact that Israel, with it's 4.8 million Russian and Polish immigrants,
with an average IQ of 90, and a aggressive behavior, caused by years of
inbreeding, are sitting on 400 plus nukes, are the real monsters we have to
fear.
Iran never attacked a unarmed US ship.
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 24 2006 10:05 pm
From: "serwad"
The fact that Israel, with it's 4.8 million Russian and Polish immigrants,
with an average IQ of 90, and a aggressive behavior, caused by years of
inbreeding, are sitting on 400 plus nukes, are the real monsters we have to
fear.
Iran never attacked a unarmed US ship.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 24 2006 10:07 pm
From: "serwad"
"Ariadne" <ariadne.mac@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143187138.477730.222820@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Theodore Herzl wrote:
>> The fact that Harvard was pressured into removing the logo only proves
>> just how powerful and corrupting the Israeli lobbies have become. By
>> removing the logo, the University is protecting themselves from the
>> Jewish attack dogs that work tirelessly to deflect criticism of the
>> Israeli regime.
>>
>
> And NORMAL people know that THE TRUTH has everything
> to do with it.
The fact that Israel, with it's 4.8 million Russian and Polish immigrants,
with an average IQ of 90, and a aggressive behavior, caused by years of
inbreeding, are sitting on 400 plus nukes, are the real monsters we have to
fear.
Iran never attacked a unarmed US ship.
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 24 2006 10:07 pm
From: "serwad"
"Sheldon Liberman" <sheldon@liberman.com> wrote in message
news:1143173296.133458.209720@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> KANGAROOISTAN wrote:
>> JEWS MAY CONTROL WHAT GETS PRINTED IN THE WEST BUT THEY CAN NOT CONTROL
>> WOT WE READ
>>
>> JEWS ARE ABOUT 1/3 OF 1% OF THE WORLDS POPULATION
>>
>> YANKS ABOUT 5%
>>
>> THE OTHER 94 @2/3% CAN READ THE TRUTH VERY EASY
>>
>> AND ONE DAY WHEN THE JEWS AND YANKS STOP AND LOOK AROUND THEY WILL FIND
>> THE WORLD HAS LEFT THEM BEHIND TELLING EACH OTHER LIES THAT NOBODY ELSE
>> BELIEVES
>>
>> POOR SILLY BASTARDS
>>
>> ISRAEL IS DOOMED
>>
>> AMERICA IS BANKRUPT
>>
>> AND THEY STILL CANT EVEN SEE THIS
The fact that Israel, with it's 4.8 million Russian and Polish immigrants,
with an average IQ of 90, and a aggressive behavior, caused by years of
inbreeding, are sitting on 400 plus nukes, are the real monsters we have to
fear.
Iran never attacked a unarmed US ship.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Emerging Jewish Consensus in Israel
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/756dc1f711a4d8e4
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 24 2006 10:08 pm
From: "serwad"
<drdavez28@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143170876.351911.169150@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Israeli's understandably do not want to live next to a group of people
> with combustion problems.
The fact that Israel, with it's 4.8 million Russian and Polish immigrants,
with an average IQ of 90, and a aggressive behavior, caused by years of
inbreeding, are sitting on 400 plus nukes, are the real monsters we have to
fear.
Iran never attacked a unarmed US ship.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Israel May Be Next al-Qaida Battleground
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/c8c9da1d258d18b0
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 24 2006 10:10 pm
From: "Ed"
"Gary Renzetti", while in the midst of bending over for his Islamofascist
boyfriend,<lizgary@connection.com> wrote in message
news:6e5ee$4424ace0$d1b712ee$30947@PRIMUS.CA...
nothing of any importance or truth.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 25 2006 1:34 pm
From: "Ben Cramer" <[remove]bencramer7@gmail.com>
"Ed" <nesorde@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C82dnUJgxq0CKbnZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Gary Renzetti", while in the midst of bending over for his Islamofascist
> boyfriend,<lizgary@connection.com> wrote in message
> news:6e5ee$4424ace0$d1b712ee$30947@PRIMUS.CA...
>
> nothing of any importance or truth.
Sorry to hear that rozenboig. You can get help for it, yanow.
>
>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Making Latinos Illegal, Brown Skin, Yellow Star
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/5f21410494b6f132
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 24 2006 10:16 pm
From: "serwad"
"jgarbuz" <jgarbuz@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:1143132701.258714.27580@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> The State Department (formerly DoD) wrote:
>> As I write, the US Senate is debating legislation that would make migrant
>> peoples a felonized, legally scapegoated racial and cultural under-caste,
>> a
>> move with deeply dangerous implications for us all.<
>
> They are criminals because they broke the law by illegally entering the
> United States againt
> US law! I too am an immigrant, but we entered legally when Truman
> allowed 50,000 JEws
> from the DP camps to immigrate to the US legally. And the JEwish state
> had not yet been
> established and was in war. Meanwhile, there has been an international
> border between
> the US and Mexico since 1847, and the Mexicans have a state of their
> own, and if they
> want the right to come into the US, they must do so in a legal way!
yes, arsehole, but you came to America which has stolen native lands of the
South, Arizona, New Mexico,Yexas and most of California belong to tghe
natives of what is now mexico. Most of those Latinos who were here during
the mexican possession were forced South of the line. They have far more
rights in United States, than you, I, or any other American of European
origin! So get your Jewish arse ready to move back to Poland where you were
hatched!
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 24 2006 10:17 pm
From: "serwad"
"Miriam Cohen" <mimiNOgalSPAM@cox.net> wrote in message
news:hZFUf.937$Aa1.463@dukeread05...
> jgarbuz wrote:
>> The State Department (formerly DoD) wrote:
>>
>>>As I write, the US Senate is debating legislation that would make migrant
>>>peoples a felonized, legally scapegoated racial and cultural under-caste,
>>>a
>>>move with deeply dangerous implications for us all.<
>>
>>
>> They are criminals because they broke the law by illegally entering the
>> United States againt
>> US law! I too am an immigrant, but we entered legally when Truman
>> allowed 50,000 JEws
>> from the DP camps to immigrate to the US legally. And the JEwish state
>> had not yet been
>> established and was in war. Meanwhile, there has been an international
>> border between
>> the US and Mexico since 1847, and the Mexicans have a state of their
>> own, and if they
>> want the right to come into the US, they must do so in a legal way!
>>
>>
>>>Maybe it wasn't such a lie, what the German people said after Hitler --
>>>"we
>>>didn't know."<
>>
>>
>> Oh, it's amazing how Hitler gets into every discussion! Were JEws
>> illegally entering Nazi
>> GErmany??? What the fuck does Hitler got to do with any of this???
>
> It's the brown skin. Our border with Canada is far more porous than our
> border with Mexico. When you people start bitching about mainly *WHITE*
> Canadians "taking all the good jobs, using our taxes to get free medical
> care", etc, then *MAYBE* you'd have a point (other than the one atop your
> head). You may "argue" that terrorists come from Mexico, but Alex Seredin
> came from Canada and the only thing that keeps him from being a terrorist
> is that he's a coward and only capable of calling names and telling lies.
> For the record; Latinos *DON'T* take jobs away from US citizens they take
> the dirty, gritty hard low paying jobs that fat lazy Americans *WON'T* do.
"Terrorist" to you is somebody like a purse snatcher, I am a pussy snatcher!
==============================================================================
TOPIC: California has been sold to the Chinese
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/1e01036ef2a70796
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 24 2006 7:16 pm
From: "John S."
Thornbird wrote:
> My recent visit to Southern California gave me the impression that I was in
> China, not America. I feel like I've wasted my money making trip thousands
> miles away from home only to land right in the middle of a mega-Chinatown!
>
> Every where I went in Greater Los Angeles, I saw heap of Chinese. San
> Gabriel Valley looks more like Hong Kong than California. Stores are all in
> Chinese. Only Chinese language was spoken, no English! Libraries are filled
> with Chinese books (though they put them under the label "international").
> From Arcadia to San Marino to South Pasadena to Alhambra, the Chinese were
> filling the city. Driving around these cities can be hazardous to your
> mental health - not just physical one. The Chinese's driving reflect their
> mentality and nature: dangerous obnoxious and pushy. They love to drive
> Mercedes and BMW to show off their wealth while in reality, they have
> destroyed the good names of these fine German cars. The Chinese think
> driving a Mercedes would elevate them somehow in the American society.
> Their stores are filthy and the restaurants are B- and C-rated (by the LA
> county health department), with rat drops infested their chop suey and chow
> mein. But they don't care because that's normal to them.
>
> This is the Chinese culture the world would have to put up with. The
> Chinese somehow get the idea that their large quanity (no quality) can
> overrun any thing and any country they wish. Granted there are billions of
> Chinese and they can fill every fox hole on this planet, their existence is
> an annoyance to a civilized society.
>
Hmmm...can't attract any comments so you are repeating the message to
yourself?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: America's Blinders (text only)
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/7fc5511cdad8620
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 25 2006 2:16 pm
From: "r3°"
America's Blinders
By Howard Zinn
April 2006 Issue
Now that most Americans no longer believe in the war, now that they no
longer trust Bush and his Administration, now that the evidence of deception
has become overwhelming (so overwhelming that even the major media, always
late, have begun to register indignation), we might ask: How come so many
people were so easily fooled?
The question is important because it might help us understand why
Americans-members of the media as well as the ordinary citizen-rushed to
declare their support as the President was sending troops halfway around the
world to Iraq.
A small example of the innocence (or obsequiousness, to be more exact) of
the press is the way it reacted to Colin Powell's presentation in February
2003 to the Security Council, a month before the invasion, a speech which
may have set a record for the number of falsehoods told in one talk. In it,
Powell confidently rattled off his "evidence": satellite photographs, audio
records, reports from informants, with precise statistics on how many
gallons of this and that existed for chemical warfare. The New York Times
was breathless with admiration. The Washington Post editorial was titled
"Irrefutable" and declared that after Powell's talk "it is hard to imagine
how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction."
It seems to me there are two reasons, which go deep into our national
culture, and which help explain the vulnerability of the press and of the
citizenry to outrageous lies whose consequences bring death to tens of
thousands of people. If we can understand those reasons, we can guard
ourselves better against being deceived.
One is in the dimension of time, that is, an absence of historical
perspective. The other is in the dimension of space, that is, an inability
to think outside the boundaries of nationalism. We are penned in by the
arrogant idea that this country is the center of the universe, exceptionally
virtuous, admirable, superior.
If we don't know history, then we are ready meat for carnivorous politicians
and the intellectuals and journalists who supply the carving knives. I am
not speaking of the history we learned in school, a history subservient to
our political leaders, from the much-admired Founding Fathers to the
Presidents of recent years. I mean a history which is honest about the past.
If we don't know that history, then any President can stand up to the
battery of microphones, declare that we must go to war, and we will have no
basis for challenging him. He will say that the nation is in danger, that
democracy and liberty are at stake, and that we must therefore send ships
and planes to destroy our new enemy, and we will have no reason to
disbelieve him.
But if we know some history, if we know how many times Presidents have made
similar declarations to the country, and how they turned out to be lies, we
will not be fooled. Although some of us may pride ourselves that we were
never fooled, we still might accept as our civic duty the responsibility to
buttress our fellow citizens against the mendacity of our high officials.
We would remind whoever we can that President Polk lied to the nation about
the reason for going to war with Mexico in 1846. It wasn't that Mexico "shed
American blood upon the American soil," but that Polk, and the slave-owning
aristocracy, coveted half of Mexico.
We would point out that President McKinley lied in 1898 about the reason for
invading Cuba, saying we wanted to liberate the Cubans from Spanish control,
but the truth is that we really wanted Spain out of Cuba so that the island
could be open to United Fruit and other American corporations. He also lied
about the reasons for our war in the Philippines, claiming we only wanted to
"civilize" the Filipinos, while the real reason was to own a valuable piece
of real estate in the far Pacific, even if we had to kill hundreds of
thousands of Filipinos to accomplish that.
President Woodrow Wilson-so often characterized in our history books as an
"idealist"-lied about the reasons for entering the First World War, saying
it was a war to "make the world safe for democracy," when it was really a
war to make the world safe for the Western imperial powers.
Harry Truman lied when he said the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima
because it was "a military target."
Everyone lied about Vietnam-Kennedy about the extent of our involvement,
Johnson about the Gulf of Tonkin, Nixon about the secret bombing of
Cambodia, all of them claiming it was to keep South Vietnam free of
communism, but really wanting to keep South Vietnam as an American outpost
at the edge of the Asian continent.
Reagan lied about the invasion of Grenada, claiming falsely that it was a
threat to the United States.
The elder Bush lied about the invasion of Panama, leading to the death of
thousands of ordinary citizens in that country.
And he lied again about the reason for attacking Iraq in 1991-hardly to
defend the integrity of Kuwait (can one imagine Bush heartstricken over Iraq's
taking of
Kuwait?), rather to assert U.S. power in the oil-rich Middle East.
Given the overwhelming record of lies told to justify wars, how could anyone
listening to the younger Bush believe him as he laid out the reasons for
invading Iraq? Would we not instinctively rebel against the sacrifice of
lives for oil?
A careful reading of history might give us another safeguard against being
deceived. It would make clear that there has always been, and is today, a
profound conflict of interest between the government and the people of the
United States. This thought startles most people, because it goes against
everything we have been taught.
We have been led to believe that, from the beginning, as our Founding
Fathers put it in the Preamble to the Constitution, it was "we the people"
who established the new government after the Revolution. When the eminent
historian Charles Beard suggested, a hundred years ago, that the
Constitution represented not the working people, not the slaves, but the
slaveholders, the merchants, the bondholders, he became the object of an
indignant editorial in The New York Times.
Our culture demands, in its very language, that we accept a commonality of
interest binding all of us to one another. We mustn't talk about classes.
Only Marxists do that, although James Madison, "Father of the Constitution,"
said, thirty years before Marx was born that there was an inevitable
conflict in society between those who had property and those who did not.
Our present leaders are not so candid. They bombard us with phrases like
"national interest," "national security," and "national defense" as if all
of these concepts applied equally to all of us, colored or white, rich or
poor, as if General Motors and Halliburton have the same interests as the
rest of us, as if George Bush has the same interest as the young man or
woman he sends to war.
Surely, in the history of lies told to the population, this is the biggest
lie. In the history of secrets, withheld from the American people, this is
the biggest secret: that there are classes with different interests in this
country. To ignore that-not to know that the history of our country is a
history of slaveowner against slave, landlord against tenant, corporation
against worker, rich against poor-is to render us helpless before all the
lesser lies told to us by people in power.
If we as citizens start out with an understanding that these people up
there-the President, the Congress, the Supreme Court, all those institutions
pretending to be "checks and balances"-do not have our interests at heart,
we are on a course towards the truth. Not to know that is to make us
helpless before determined liars.
The deeply ingrained belief-no, not from birth but from the educational
system and from our culture in general-that the United States is an
especially virtuous nation makes us especially vulnerable to government
deception. It starts early, in the first grade, when we are compelled to
"pledge allegiance" (before we even know what that means), forced to
proclaim that we are a nation with "liberty and justice for all."
And then come the countless ceremonies, whether at the ballpark or
elsewhere, where we are expected to stand and bow our heads during the
singing of the "Star-Spangled Banner," announcing that we are "the land of
the free and the home of the brave." There is also the unofficial national
anthem "God Bless America," and you are looked on with suspicion if you ask
why we would expect God to single out this one nation-just 5 percent of the
world's population-for his or her blessing.
If your starting point for evaluating the world around you is the firm
belief that this nation is somehow endowed by Providence with unique
qualities that make it morally superior to every other nation on Earth, then
you are not likely to question the President when he says we are sending our
troops here or there, or bombing this or that, in order to spread our
values-democracy, liberty, and let's not forget free enterprise-to some
God-forsaken (literally) place in the world.
It becomes necessary then, if we are going to protect ourselves and our
fellow citizens against policies that will be disastrous not only for other
people but for Americans too, that we face some facts that disturb the idea
of a uniquely virtuous nation.
These facts are embarrassing, but must be faced if we are to be honest. We
must face our long history of ethnic cleansing, in which millions of Indians
were driven off their land by means of massacres and forced evacuations. And
our long history, still not behind us, of slavery, segregation, and racism.
We must face our record of imperial conquest, in the Caribbean and in the
Pacific, our shameful wars against small countries a tenth our size:
Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq. And the lingering memory of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is not a history of which we can be proud.
Our leaders have taken it for granted, and planted that belief in the minds
of many people, that we are entitled, because of our moral superiority, to
dominate the world. At the end of World War II, Henry Luce, with an
arrogance appropriate to the owner of Time, Life, and Fortune, pronounced
this "the American century," saying that victory in the war gave the United
States the right "to exert upon the world the full impact of our influence,
for such purposes as we see fit and by such means as we see fit."
Both the Republican and Democratic parties have embraced this notion. George
Bush, in his Inaugural Address on January 20, 2005, said that spreading
liberty around the world was "the calling of our time." Years before that,
in 1993, President Bill Clinton, speaking at a West Point commencement,
declared: "The values you learned here . . . will be able to spread
throughout this country and throughout the world and give other people the
opportunity to live as you have lived, to fulfill your God-given
capacities."
What is the idea of our moral superiority based on? Surely not on our
behavior toward people in other parts of the world. Is it based on how well
people in the United States live? The World Health Organization in 2000
ranked countries in terms of overall health performance, and the United
States was thirty-seventh on the list, though it spends more per capita for
health care than any other nation. One of five children in this, the richest
country in the world, is born in poverty. There are more than forty
countries that have better records on infant mortality. Cuba does better.
And there is a sure sign of sickness in society when we lead the world in
the number of people in prison-more than two million.
A more honest estimate of ourselves as a nation would prepare us all for the
next barrage of lies that will accompany the next proposal to inflict our
power on some other part of the world. It might also inspire us to create a
different history for ourselves, by taking our country away from the liars
and killers who govern it, and by rejecting nationalist arrogance, so that
we can join the rest of the human race in the common cause of peace and
justice.
Howard Zinn is the co-author, with Anthony Arnove, of "Voices of a People's
History of the United States."
http://www.progressive.org/mag_zinn0406
³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³ r3°
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Three Ways to Remember Rachel
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/6f69fcc00c58349
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 24 2006 10:20 pm
From: "serwad"
"AnonMoos" <anonmoos@io.com> wrote in message
news:44237D6C.82D97690@io.com...
> clifffreeling@yahoo.com wrote:
>>AnonMoos wrote:
>
>>> 1) Burn a flag, while
>>> 2) Wearing a phoney pseudo-islamic headscarf, and
>>> 3) Shouting your hatred of your own country.
>
>> Nobody decent could love a country run by Zionazis.
>
> That's nice; however, anti-American sentiment doesn't go together very
> well with attempting to present Corrie as an idealistic clean-cut
> all-American girl -- nor with the relentless cynical attempts by
> shameless political opportunists to try to manipulate the Corrie case
> into becoming the next mass-media Natalee Holloway affair.
>
>> ------------------- "Don't worry about American pressure on
>> Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans
>> know it." ----Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 2001
>
> That's appropriate for a bigot like you -- use a fabricated phoney
> lying quote as your sig!
Hardly "phony". It was taped when baloon did not realize that the
microphone was on!
--
A tyrant must put on the appearance
of uncommon devotion to religion.
Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal
treatment from a ruler whom they
consider God fearing and pious.
On the other hand, they do less easily
move against him, believing that he has
Gods on his side.
Aristotle
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Michael Jackson's Latest Hit!!!
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/174db3513d55e1c9
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 25 2006 11:21 am
From: "hitler"
so xtian is unforgiving
"Feelers" <enjoylife488@hot.com> wrote in message
news:1143239393.277078@ftpsrv1...
> so islam more forgiving than christianity?
>
> "1" <2> wrote in message news:44246eec$1@news.starhub.net.sg...
>> He turned to Islam may be because he was sick of all the accusation of
>> child molestation. Remember Prophet Mohammed had taken in a child as
>> young as nine year old as his wife. That is enough to brighten his hope.
>>
>> "Feelers" <enjoylife488@hot.com> wrote in message
>> news:1143234863.740096@ftpsrv1...
>>>
>>> http://www.teeth.com.pk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/01/MichealJackson_sIslam.mp3
>>>
>>> So is he now a 'terrorist'?
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Analysis: Impact of Bush's India visit
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/72d876612e755fb7
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 24 2006 7:22 pm
From: "messenger777"
Analysis: Impact of Bush's India visit
By KUSHAL JEENA
NEW DELHI, March 24 (UPI) -- The successful visit by U.S. President George
W. Bush to India has brought New Delhi closer to the global
non-proliferation order and will assist in removing barriers to high
technology, Indian foreign analysts said Friday.
"Bush's visit has changed the global image of India. It has now come much
closer to the world non-proliferation order dominated by the Western
countries," said senior analyst A.B. Mahapatra.
Mahapatra said in the long run the visit would also help in removing various
barriers to high technology, as U.S. allies have also shown interest in
doing civilian nuclear business with India.
India, he said, has successfully managed to convince the big powers of the
effect of the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal, but has to work hard to impress the
smaller members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group.
India and the United States signed a landmark civilian nuclear energy deal
during President Bush's March visit, following a prolonged series of hard
bargaining, under which India has agreed to separate its civilian and
military nuclear installations.
However, a list submitted to the visiting U.S. delegation announced that out
of 22 nuclear facilities, 14 would be placed on the civilian list and opened
to international safeguards.
India will keep the eight remaining installations under military control,
and will have the freedom to decide whether future reactors are put on the
military or civilian lists. Indian scientists, who were initially wary of
the deal and expressed their resentment, have now realized that the deal is
in the country's interests.
"India's atomic energy scientists have now realized that 14 instead of eight
nuclear separation plan is workable and India could well maintain its
deterrence capability. Besides, scientists could also carry out new areas of
research in critical application of nuclear technology," said Ranjit Kumar,
another analyst.
The visit also changed the traditional Indian mindset about the United
States, which stated that it never wanted friendly relations with India and
was an unreliable partner. The view stemmed from the Cold War, although
relations have improved in the interim.
President Bush was impressed with the level of skill, seriousness and
honesty, shown by the Indian establishment during the official-level talks
on the civilian nuclear energy deal. Officials claim Bush struck up a
personal rapport with the Indian prime minister when the two met in Delhi.
"My government is committed to provide the country with energy security,"
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told Parliament after Bush's visit.
The Indian government and citizens appear impressed by the sincerity shown
by President Bush in his attempt to push through the nuclear deal in the
U.S. Congress. He also won over some U.S. lawmakers who were wary of India's
proliferation record.
"Bush would be remembered both in the United States and India as a president
who not only improved Indo-U.S. relations, but also helped India change its
global image," said Shruti Shukla, a student of international relations at
the prestigious Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi. It is widely believed
by the analysts that President Bush went extra miles to clinch the deal, or
it would have taken more time to sign.
The Indian foreign establishment is currently working overtime to win over
as many as members of the 45-member elite Nuclear Suppliers' Group as
possible. The Bush visit also helped India garner the support of the 'big
five' of the NSG.
New Delhi has already signed two civilian nuclear deals with France and
Russia. Following the visit of the Australian Premier to India early this
month, Canberra has agreed to consider India's request to buy nuclear fuel
from Australia provided the U.S. Congress stamps its approval on the deal.
India has changed in its earlier position on NPT and now talks about setting
a deadline for signing the NPT provided the deal goes well.
On the other hand, the United States also put its weight behind the deal,
and opposition diminishing. Recently Japan, South Korea, Australia and
Canada have agreed to send delegations to India to get a complete briefing
on the deal and work out the means for civilian nuclear cooperation with
India.
Opposition to the Indo-U.S. deal has reduced in the Indian domestic front
remarkably. The main opposition National Democratic Alliance, led by the
right-wing Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party and its allies, who were
earlier opposed to the deal, has now changed its position and is supporting
the deal.
"The conditions to the deal and its implementation characteristics were main
stumbling blocks but that has evaporated with more international support in
favor of the agreement and now it has to be carried forward to its logical
conclusion," Mahapatra said.
Indian Leftists still continue to oppose the pact, but in a lesser way. The
ruling Congress party hopes that Leftist opposition will decrease following
the assembly elections in West Bengal. Leftist parties and the BJP have
linked the deal with India's vote against Iran at the international nuclear
watchdog in Vienna, the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The prime minister, national security advisor and defense minister together
briefed the leaders of the major political parties to convince them of the
deal and the opportunities therein.
"They (against the deal) should be made to understand that the improvement
in Indo-U.S. relations is in the interest of the country both economically
and strategically," Mahapatra said.
"Given the positive approach that Mr. Bush himself has adopted towards
India, it would be a pity if the opportunities now available for a wider
strategic partnership are missed out," said G. Parthasarthy, a senior former
Indian diplomat.
In a changed scenario, the United States also shares India's concern
vis-à-vis its western and eastern neighbors. Washington has endorsed New
Delhi's approach in dealing with increasing activities of Islamic
fundamentalists in eastern Bangladesh and the continued presence of terror
infrastructure in western Pakistan.
President Bush's refusal to offer Pakistan a similar deal in line with
Indo-U.S. civilian nuclear deal has left Pakistan dismayed and it is now
threatening to rope in China to counter it, although analysts say it is
unlikely to happen in that fashion.
© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved
==============================================================================
TOPIC: 9/11 Unedited Video Shows More of What Happened at WTC
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/7c8e278217eb819e
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 25 2006 11:24 am
From: "hitler"
any new X-box game called 9-11
"artie morty" <artiemorty@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:11i722hpcu1hqdkm52utntsc4pv72igs0e@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 20:25:22 +0800, "Observer"
> <observer111@yahoo1.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"artie morty" <artiemorty@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>news:se3522dr5r0ioj1npl890h740no5mdn6k3@4ax.com...
>>> >Is this the best defense you have to
>>> >hide the fact (not a theory) that you
>>> >actually did not pass High school maths?
>>> >LOL.
>>> >
>>>
>>> At last - someone with the intelligence to understand.
>>
>>
>>On a more serious note....it is beginning
>>to show somewhat, that all the supporters
>>of the 911 official version have absolutely
>>avoided talking (or answering) the issues
>>with measurable scientific theories or
>>mathematical illustrations.
>>
>
> People needed quick answers, and perhaps the answers that were given
> came in haste, and were written with emotion rather than fact.
>
> The answers given may have been what people wanted, or even needed to
> hear.
>
>>What they have offered so far are "explanations".
>>Why is that?
>>I think that it is NOT by chance that they have
>>stayed away from anything remotely
>>measureable or easily presented calculations
>>such as heat and velocities....simply because these
>>have NO leeway whatsoever to bullshit your way
>>thru.
>>You cannot make energy required to heat up,
>>liquify and then vaporise tonnes of steel appear
>>from NOWHERE, can you?
>>Or tweak the melting point of titanium to suit
>>your version?
>>Or total amount of energy needed to melt a
>>finite amount of steel?
>>But of course, you can "explain" them.
>>See what I'm getting at?
>>
>
> Definately - you can't explain the event you have mentioned, not from
> any science I know - and that is really the basis of the movie that
> led to this discussion.
>
> Very intelligent scientists are sitting back scratching their heads
> saying 'this is impossible' - not improbable, impossible.
>
> And they are willing to risk ridicule to express this belief.
>
> That's courage and conviction.
>
>>Even simple studies in vectors will show that
>>it would be IMPOSSIBLE for the wings of an aircraft
>>to change direction at and fold neatly into a hole
>>to be conveniently "vaporised" into thin air.
>>
> It is certainly strange - it as never happened before and no
> calculation will verify the fact.
>
>>Now, there are many "engineers" (or so they claim)
>>who swore that all these are possible.
>>How come these experts baulk when asked
>>to show their calculations as to how they
>>arrived at their conclusions?
>>Surely heat and energy calculations are the most
>>straightforward to present?
>>Did they fail to study Thermodynamics in first year?
>>Did they fake their credentials?
>>Hmmmmmm.....
>>LOL.
>>
> I really have to wonder what most people would do if they had the
> choice of doubting the official report, publishing the fact that they
> doubted the report, or receiving a large lump sum of money simply by
> saying the have no doubts.
>
> I think money talks!
>
> Artie...
>
>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: SAYANIM
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/8a494914ed8eb434
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 24 2006 10:28 pm
From: "serwad"
What Is A Sayanim ?
The Sayanim is a Jewish person, that can be called on to assist another
Jew in any cause. Since birth, the Jewish people have been taught of their
superiority and need for cohesion. The Sephardic Jews are the upper level of
the network, and the Ashkenazim, which constitute 95% of all Jews, are the
worker ants. Since the Sephardics first converted the Ashkenazim, they
brainwashed them into the idea that the world is their enemy, but their
fellow Jew is a "Quiet Guardian".
Who Is A Sayanim?
Every Jewish person is expected to be a potential agent, in varying
degrees.
What Will They Do?
If the Jewish people sense a potential threat, the Jewish Sayanim is
authorized to commit anything from simple harassment to business ruin, and
even multiple murders. The Columbine Massacre was a perfect example. The
police knew there were seven people involved, but five students, two sets of
parents, one employer and psychiatrists, provided alibis and corrupted
evidence.
Examples
Your Jewish accountant will relay any bookkeeping info to a Jewish
competitor, your friendly Jewish pharmacist will assist, your Jewish
doctor, a clerk at VISA will supply credit information, the list is endless.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: International Stuff
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/5d1b6b36a66fef20
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 24 2006 7:29 pm
From: "marika"
Frank Kalder wrote:>
> This is one of Germany's foremost newspapers on a weekly basis
> [www.zeit.de].
>
>
My grandfather used to get this really interesting magazine when I was
little. It compiled a number of articles with different viewpoints on
subjects of interest to people who liked politics. I remember zeit
being one of the ones quoted, as well as pravda and another one that
had to be german -- spiegel.
Tobi doesn't know how easy he has it
mk5000
"back in the early 70s, we were really up against the wall when it came
to getting major people to perform on the show -- it was brand-new.
And then one day Stevie Wonder walked in the door, Aretha Franklin
walked in the door, James Brown walked in the door. And those three
artists gave us the credibility that we were longing for and put us on
the map"--Don Cornelius of Soul Train
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Food for Thought
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/a2229bb1d49ce59b
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 24 2006 7:36 pm
From: "jb"
"Mark Donovan" <mdon@don.org> wrote in message
news:cMTUf.5$b07.3@trnddc05...
>
> "jb" <jbenbo(4)@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:eXSUf.131$Fl.40@fed1read09...
>>
>> "Mark Donovan" <mdon@don.org> wrote in message
>> news:lwRUf.15691$bu.3700@trnddc04...
>>>
>>> 8. What will happen to the souls of those people, who, by his Divine
>>> Will, happened to be born in Muslim families within the Muslim
>>> countries, where Christianity is strictly forbidden, such as Saudi
>>> Arabia and Maldives?
>>
>> What some fail to understand is they can secretly believe and actually
>> do. Islam recognizes Jesus as a prophet but of course not the way
>> Christianity does. Christianity is not forbidden, but conversion is
>> forbidden.
>
> Check your facts. I wasn't talking about Afghanistan. Christianity and all
> other than Islam religions are forbidden in both Saudi Arabia and
> Maldives. 100% of population there are Muslims.
You forget that there are lots of foriegn workers there (Saudi Arabia) so
not 100% of the population are Muslim. There are radio and TV programs that
reach various Muslim lands and also get responces from Muslims who believe
in Jesus. Just because conversion is forbidden does not mean that there are
not secret believers. Remember Muslims respect Jesus as a prophet but not
the way the majority of Christians do. This means they might be more open
to his teaching than we are aware of. There are lots of unknown factors I
knew a man who was brought up in the Nation of Islam and never heard about
Jesus Christ. One day he heard a voice speaking to him telling him to go to
church knew the voice was Jesus and he did. I have seen God work in a lot
of different (miraculous)ways so you know things can be happening behind the
scenes that we are not aware of.
>
> Check at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sa.html
>
> Also:
> http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1012.html
>
> "STANDARDS OF CONDUCT AND RELIGIOUS POLICE: Islam pervades all aspects of
> life in Saudi Arabia and is the official religion of the country. Public
> display of non-Islamic religious articles such as crosses and Bibles is
> not permitted. Travel to Makkah (Mecca) and Medina, the cities where the
> two holiest mosques of Islam are located, is forbidden to non-Muslims.
>
> The norms for public behavior in Saudi Arabia are extremely conservative,
> and religious police, known as Mutawwa, are charged with enforcing these
> standards. Mutawwa are required to carry special identification and
> usually are accompanied by uniformed police. However, in some cases they
> have detained persons even without police presence. To ensure that
> conservative standards of conduct are observed, the Saudi religious police
> have accosted or arrested foreigners, including U.S. citizens, for
> improper dress or other alleged infractions, such as consumption of
> alcohol or association by a female with a male to whom she is not
> related."
>
> On Maldives (from
> http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_961.html):
>
> "Religious Laws: Public observance of any religion other than Islam is
> prohibited. Religious gatherings such as Bible study groups are
> prohibited"
>
> Trust me, if by divine God's will you were born in one of the above
> countries, you would be a fine Muslim today, no question about it. So what
> would then happen to your soul?
>
> Mark
>
> This
>> does not mean that they can control what people believe about Jesus.
>> Yet it is important to recognize what the salvation that Jesus offers is.
>> It is freedom from the wrath that people already have stored up within
>> them. God is reflecting back peoples own wrath and depravity on them.
>>
>> Proverbs 1:29-33 (NIV)
>> 29 Since they hated knowledge and did not choose to fear the LORD, 30
>> since they would not accept my advice and spurned my rebuke, 31 they will
>> eat the fruit of their ways and be filled with the fruit of their
>> schemes. 32 For the waywardness of the simple will kill them, and the
>> complacency of fools will destroy them; 33 but whoever listens to me will
>> live in safety and be at ease, without fear of harm."
>>
>> [1]
>>
>> [1] The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 (electronic
>> ed.). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> --Mark
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Mike Wallace does not even deserve to be in the same room with
President GW Bush! Let alone shake his hand!
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/64c77b490599ab19
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 24 2006 7:38 pm
From: "£ - E A R T H L I N G Ƨ"
<thenightcrawler@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:1143245803.872135.244420@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Talk about yucky, zkornholer...
>
> Klintoon gave Wallace his DNA sample along with the handshake.
>
> Bush can't compete with that.
>
Telles's Law... In any Usenet discussion with Republicans,
the probability of Clinton being brought into the argument reaches 100% as
the facts buildup against them.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "soc.culture.usa"
group.
To post to this group, send email to soc.culture.usa@googlegroups.com or visit
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to soc.culture.usa-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/subscribe
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com
