we are in agreement. Hurray

EXCEPT for your refutation of the my statement on peace.
your refutation is based on my population numbers being wrong.

I'm not sure exactly what your meaning is here. My main beef was with the video. It said your same statement about how everyone had been getting along well for a long time before. Then, at the 6 minute mark it suddenly changed course and declared that "in 1900 there were hardly any Jews in Palestine".

My beef is the video selectively wants to be able to use contradictory sets of facts. It will use the peaceful cooperation between Jews and Arabs as proof that before Zionism, things were fine. Then later, when it wants to paint Zionism as a foreign infiltration of Palestine, suddenly there were very few Jews in Palestine in 1900. Either there were centuries of Jews and Arabs living together peacefully or there were very few Jews, NOT both.

I also objected to the video declaring, again in the first 5 minutes, that the Zionists were unwilling to entertain any idea of sharing any land with Arabs. Quite plainly, the strongest counter argument is that in 1948 they went along with the other Jewish Palestinian leaders in declaring independence along the borders the UN had mandated. Clearly there is a time in 1948 where even the Zionists were content to accept a peace on terms that left 43% of Palestine for the Arab Palestinians. Clearly at this point in time, the neighboring Arab states, and not the Zionists, were the ones that instigated further hostilities. This is so clear, that you'd be hard pressed to find any Arab scholar who disagrees. The neighboring Arab nations were absolutely set and intent on rejecting and removing the newly independent Israeli state, no matter how peaceful or friendly it was willing to be.

I'm merely rejecting the video's view of Zionism as the sole instigator and agitator in the entire conflict. I don't deny in any way that Zionist's committed numerous atrocities, and worked actively to incite violence and conflict. I deny only that the Zionists were hardly the only faction in Palestine doing that after the British withdrawal. Ignoring the Arab majority's own active role in prejudice against non-Arab Palestinians is beyond dishonest, it's sinister. To mention how little land the Jewish Palestinians owned, without mentioning the active programs to legally block non-Arabs from purchasing land is sinister.

Sorry, the first 6 minutes of the video leaving me utterly convinced that it is not only one-sided, but deliberately and knowingly one-sided with intent of biasing it's viewers with half-truth.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Monsanto IS the government.

Monsanto has infiltrated and subverted our government.

Saying it is the government just encourages the naive idiots who think the only cure for corporations bribing the police is to eliminate the police.

After all, if Monsanto is the government, then limiting government's power to police corporate activity must also weaken Monsanto...

Just a minor quibble, otherwise I'm in agreement: Monsanto = Abstergo.

Absolutely you have a right to your opinion! I was quite clear that you can disagree with her.

It seems to me that you do concede my main point in your sentence that begins "She may not be a shill for the Government." That is what I was objecting to -- the ascribing of motivations.

Seems to me you are conceding that indeed you don't know her motivations.

So we agree! I like it when we can agree!

This is just a pet peeve of mine. Bugs me. I have observed how, in both public and private life, the presumption that someone knows someone else's motivations can lead to an escalation of tensions rather than to true debate about issues.

I struggle with it myself. It has taken years of practice to back away from statements like that.

I'm a great person in a crisis, after all this practice. Just recently, my dad got sick and his wife and family got seriously weird towards him. I managed to hold the center and didn't let it descend into emotional chaos, as both sides flailed away, ascribing motivations right and left.

I recognize that it is my pet peeve. It comes up a lot in the sift comments. Most times, I ignore it.

Couldn't tell you why this time I felt the need to engage. Maybe because I adore Rachel so much? Felt the need to defend her from an unfair attack? (Please note, I'm not saying you have to agree with her. Just that the ascribing motivations felt unfair. Which you agree is correct.)

Blah blah blah. Pet peeves. Annoying, aren't they?



In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
"Towards the end of the interview (~8:05) they begin discussing Assange and WikiLeaks, where she characterizes him as a self-describing "hero" who simply thinks information should be free for the sake of being free and an anarchist. She claims that the only information released was either minor or "unsafe" (so which is it?), yet nevertheless displayed inherent weaknesses in US information security protections.

I assume that she considers 'minor' many of the events revealed by the leaks, such as:
* Pfizer's pressuring/blackmail of Nigerian prosecutors to settle over the investigation of illegal tests of drugs on sick children
* US's role in sabotaging Cancun climate talks
* Cover up of US drone strikes that killed innocent civilians in Yemen by Yemeni and US officials
* The revelation that US armed forces turned a blind eye to Iraqi police torture and murder of prisoners
* Shell Oil's boastful admissions of infiltration in to Nigerian govt.
* etc., etc.
* etc."


LOL. What sir am I guessing at or presuming exactly? And what reasons am I "making up"? As stated above. If she's repeating the bullshit we hear on the "news" every day from our own elected officials, ("characterizes him as a self-describing "hero" who simply thinks information should be free for the sake of being free and an anarchist".) then she's certainly not in favor of his actions. Since she claims to be a journalist, why the hell isn't she doing her job? As the lawyer in the CNN video that's in the #2 spot pointed out several times to the CNN "Reporter" about her doing HER job. She may not be a shill for the Government, but she definitely isn't asking the right questions, nor is she blaming the correct people. She should be calling out the people who did the things in the documents instead of killing the messenger.

That's MY opinion. See, I have a right to mine as well. Don't recall ever saying no-one else has a right to theirs. But you certainly implied that I have no right to mine since it's clealrly: "just plain wrong headedness"

In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
So here's my pet peeve.... folks who think they know the motivations and intentions of other people without asking them.

You can disagree with Rachel about her point of view. To presume that you know what motivates her is just plain wrong headedness.

I see the same thing outside of the public realm, in every day life, all the time. I see it in posts here on the sift all the time.

How can you possibly know she is a shill for the government? You are guessing. You cannot possibly know that.

Disagree her opinion about Assange and Wikileaks for your own good reasons. I don't see that it is necessary to make up reasons.

In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
Sorry, I have to disagree. I'm not a big fan of anyone who thinks what Assange is doing is wrong/criminal. We should not be lied to by our own Government, period. They should not be allowed to continue to do things in our name that make America and the American citizens look bad. Their actions put our lives in danger. And quite frankly, I'm not very happy knowing there's people in the world that want to kill me because of things the American Government has done in my name without my knowledge.

She's proving herself to be just another talking head/shill for the Government agenda. In my eyes, at this point she and MSNBC (I'll also throw CNN in there for good measure.) for the most part are no better than the lying morons at FAUX NEWZ. They just have a different slant on their lies. One network lies in favor of the right, the other for the left. It's really quite disgusting the way these people sell their souls, and sell out the American people to have money, and fame. I really thought she was one of the good ones. Now, I have changed my mind.

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 OTTAWA 001258

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/22/2018
TAGS: PREL PGOV CA
SUBJECT: THE U.S. IN THE CANADIAN FEDERAL ELECTION -- NOT!

REF: OTTAWA 1216

Classified By: PolMinCouns Scott Bellard, reason 1.4 (d)

¶1. (C) Summary. Despite the overwhelming importance of the
U.S. to Canada for its economy and security, bilateral
relations remain the proverbial 900 pound gorilla that no one
wants to talk about in the 2008 Canadian federal election
campaigns. This likely reflects an almost inherent
inferiority complex of Canadians vis-a-vis their sole
neighbor as well as an underlying assumption that the
fundamentals of the relationship are strong and unchanging
and uncertainty about the outcome of the U.S. Presidential
election. End Summary.

¶2. (C) The United States is overwhelmingly important to
Canada in ways that are unimaginable to Americans. With over
$500 billion in annual trade, the longest unsecured border in
the world, over 200 million border crossings each year, total
investment in each other's countries of almost $400 billion,
and the unique North American Aerospace Defense (NORAD)
partnership to ensure continental security, excellent
bilateral relations are essential to Canada's well being.
Canadians are, by and large, obsessed with U.S. politics --
especially in the 2008 Presidential race -- and follow them
minutely (with many Canadians even wishing they could vote in
this U.S. election rather than their own, according to a
recent poll). U.S. culture infiltrates Canadian life on
every level. 80 pct of Canadians live within 100 miles of
the border, and Canadians tend to visit the U.S. much more
regularly than their American neighbors come here.

¶3. (C) Logically, the ability of a candidate, or a party,
or most notably the leader of a party successfully to manage
this essential relationship should be a key factor for voters
to judge in casting their ballots. At least so far in the
2008 Canadian federal election campaign, it is not. There
has been almost a deafening silence so far about foreign
affairs in general, apart from Prime Minister Stephen
Harper's pledge on September 10 that Canadian troops would
indeed leave Afghanistan in 2011 according to the terms of
the March 2008 House of Commons motion, commenting that "you
have to put an end on these things." The Liberals -- and
many media commentators -- seized on this as a major
Conservative "flip flop," with Liberal Party leader Stephane
Dion noting on September 10 that "I have been calling for a
firm end date since February 2007" and that "the
Conservatives can't be trusted on Afghanistan; they can't be
trusted on the climate change crisis; they can't be trusted
on the economy." He has returned in subsequent days to the
Conservative record on the environment and the economy, but
has not pursued the Afghan issue further. All three
opposition party leaders joined in calling for the government
to release a Parliamentary Budget Officer's report on the
full costs of the Afghan mission, which PM Harper agreed to
do, with some apparent hesitation. However, no other foreign
policy issues have yet risen to the surface in the campaigns,
apart from New Democrat Party leader Jack Layton opining on
September 7 that "I believe we can say good-bye to the George
Bush era in our own conduct overseas."

¶4. (C) The U.S. market meltdown has provided some fodder
for campaign rhetoric, with the Conservatives claiming their
earlier fiscal and monetary actions had insulated Canada from
much of the economic problems seen across the border.
(Comment: there is probably more truth in the fact that the
Canadian financial sector does not have a large presence in
QCanadian financial sector does not have a large presence in
U.S. and other foreign markets, and instead concentrates on
the domestic market. The Canadian financial sector has also
been quite conservative in its lending and investment
choices. End comment.) PM Harper has insisted that the
"core" Canadian economy and institutions were sound, while
promising to work closely with "other international players"
(i.e., not specifically the U.S.) to deal with the current
problems. He warned on September 19 that "voters will have
to decide who is best to govern in this period of economic
uncertainty -- do you want to pay the new Liberal tax? Do
you want the Liberals to bring the GST back to 7%?" The
Liberals have counter-claimed that Canada is now the "worst
performing economy in the G8," while noting earlier Liberal
governments had produced eight consecutive balanced budgets
and created about 300,000 new jobs annually between 1993 and
¶2005. The NDP's Layton argued on September 16 that these
economic woes are "the clearest possible warning that North
American economies under conservative governments, in both
Canada and the United States, are on the wrong track," but
promised only that an NDP government would institute a
"top-to-bottom" review of Canada's regulatory system -- not
delving into bilateral policy territory.

¶5. (C) On the environment, Liberal leader Dion, in
defending his "Green Shift" plan on September 11, noted that

OTTAWA 00001258 002 OF 002

"both Barack Obama and John McCain are in favor of putting a
price on carbon. Our biggest trading partner is moving
toward a greener future and we need to do so too." PM Harper
has stuck to the standard Conservative references to the
Liberal plan as a "carbon tax, which will hit every consumer
in every sector" and claimed on September 16 that, under
earlier Liberal governments, "greenhouse gas emissions
increased by more than 30 percent, one of the worst records
of industrialized countries." NDP leader Layton argued
that, on the environment, PM Harper "has no plan" while
"Dion's plan is wrong and won't work," unlike the NDP plan to
reward polluters who "clean up their act and imposing
penalties on those that don't," which he said had also been
"proposed by both U.S. Presidential candidates, Barack Obama
and John McCain."

¶6. (C) NAFTA? Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative?
Border crossing times? The future of NORAD? Canada's role
in NATO? Protection of Canadian water reserves? Canadian
sovereignty in the Arctic and the Northwest Passage? At
least among the leaders of the major parties, these issues
have not come up so far in the campaigns, although they seize
much public attention in normal times. Even in Ontario and
Quebec, with their long and important borders with the U.S.,
the leadership candidates apparently so far have not ventured
to make promises to woo voters who might be disgruntled with
U.S. policies and practices. However, these may still emerge
as more salient issues at the riding level as individual
candidates press the flesh door to door, and may also then
percolate up to the leadership formal debates on October 1
and 2.

¶7. (C) Why the U.S. relationship appears off the table, at
least so far, is probably be due to several key factors. An
almost inherent Canadian inferiority complex may disincline
Canadian political leaders from making this election about
the U.S. (unlike in the 1988 free trade campaigns) instead of
sticking to domestic topics of bread-and-butter interest to
voters. The leaders may also recognize that bilateral
relations are simply too important -- and successful -- to
turn into political campaign fodder that could backfire.
They may also be viewing the poll numbers in the U.S. and
recognizing that the results are too close to call. Had the
Canadian campaign taken place after the U.S. election, the
Conservatives might have been tempted to claim they could
work more effectively with a President McCain, or the
Liberals with a President Obama. Even this could be a risky
strategy, as perceptions of being too close to the U.S.
leader are often distasteful to Canadian voters; one
recurrent jibe about PM Harper is that he is a "clone of
George W. Bush." Ultimately, the U.S. is like the proverbial
900 pound gorilla in the midst of the Canadian federal
election: overwhelming but too potentially menacing to
acknowledge.

Visit Canada,s Economy and Environment Forum at
http://www.intelink.gov/communities/state/can ada

WILKINS

>> ^KnivesOut:

And then imagine what will happen when every advertiser is competing for your attention by monetizing and infiltrating those interstitial spaces.>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Imagine with me a strange new future. A future were augmented reality replaces the normal. Were buildings are plane, with no wall paper and decorative niceties. Where all (much) fashion and art isn't physical, but displayed directly in your brain/retina. Why paint my wall when I can just change a setting in my AR homepage. Today, I want every display space of my path down to my work to be in the theme of Gothic, Classical, Newaged, or Blue! Reality is so yesterday, prepare for augmented reality.



Indeed, perhaps we wouldn't mind though...like google? But if I could litter my view with a list of great artwork and architecture that some website compiled, perhaps an ad here or there would be worth it I am just imagineering here. "This wall brought to you be Sears"

And then imagine what will happen when every advertiser is competing for your attention by monetizing and infiltrating those interstitial spaces.>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Imagine with me a strange new future. A future were augmented reality replaces the normal. Were buildings are plane, with no wall paper and decorative niceties. Where all (much) fashion and art isn't physical, but displayed directly in your brain/retina. Why paint my wall when I can just change a setting in my AR homepage. Today, I want every display space of my path down to my work to be in the theme of Gothic, Classical, Newaged, or Blue! Reality is so yesterday, prepare for augmented reality.

Stana is particularly nice when they are 'infiltrating' an underground casino to pester the Russian mob.

This video is AWESOME!

>> ^quantumushroom:

Do you realize that, in your attempt to refute his point, you are actually providing evidence to support it? Nationalized student loan industry? Do you ever stop and think of how stupid some of the things that you've been trained to say actually sound? I'm not trying to insult. A "nationalized student loan industry" is literally, LITERALLY, one of the dumbest phrases I've heard in months.
How "trained" does one have to be to see the results of obamania? High unemployment, weakness to delight our enemies, cronies and closested communists infiltrating DC, the demoting of American exceptionalism by a community organizer who never worked a day in his life?
This POS Bill was snuck into obama's commiecare atrocity...
Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act
By having the government take over all federal student loan organizations, it would involve one of the largest expansions of a government program in recent memory. It would dismantle a system that has successfully served generations of Americans. Within a decade the Federal Direct Loan Program would be a trillion dollar operation, making it one of the biggest banks in the world. It would ultimately have responsibility for tens of millions of borrowers...
-- America's Student Loan Providers (July 21, 2009)


Holy shit, shroom. Direct lending of student loans is the only reasonable way to fix the mess of a system that we had. Do you have any idea what the status quo was? 1) Student Loan Industry lends money to students. 2) The loans are ZERO RISK to the Industry because a) it is the only type of debt that bankruptcy does not wipe out and b) the government guarantees the loans. 3) The Industry gets the interest on the loans--paid by the government, in the case of subsidized loans.

Student loans are FREE, RISK FREE money for the banks. They are guaranteed to collect. That is why they have such an axe to grind. This is their golden goose. And the government was already the one lending the money, in effect, because they were guaranteeing them in the first place.

Do you realize that, in your attempt to refute his point, you are actually providing evidence to support it? Nationalized student loan industry? Do you ever stop and think of how stupid some of the things that you've been trained to say actually sound? I'm not trying to insult. A "nationalized student loan industry" is literally, LITERALLY, one of the dumbest phrases I've heard in months.

How "trained" does one have to be to see the results of obamania? High unemployment, weakness to delight our enemies, cronies and closested communists infiltrating DC, the demoting of American exceptionalism by a community organizer who never worked a day in his life?

This POS Bill was snuck into obama's commiecare atrocity...

Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act

By having the government take over all federal student loan organizations, it would involve one of the largest expansions of a government program in recent memory. It would dismantle a system that has successfully served generations of Americans. Within a decade the Federal Direct Loan Program would be a trillion dollar operation, making it one of the biggest banks in the world. It would ultimately have responsibility for tens of millions of borrowers...
-- America's Student Loan Providers (July 21, 2009)

so according to mr root the housing bubble was due to giving houses away to blacks and hispanics?
hmmm..i didnt seem to get that memo.i was under the impression that was due to the newly deregulated financial industry exploiting certain loopholes allowing them to consolidate mortgages into securities which they then paid accountants off to give those securities an AA rating in order to better con..*cough* i mean "trade", on the open market.which then inflated housing prices waaaay past their actual value and when this house of cards began to tumble these very same financial institutions begged for bailout money and left the american public not only paying for the bailout but also left holding the bag on homes that are still...to this day..decreasing in value.

racism? sure.but not against blacks or hispanics but rather the poor and working class.
Root is a libertarian? not by my definition.he is a corporatist.
people have been so indoctrinated into believing that capitalism is synonomous with democracy.this is a fallacy perpetuated by big business and it is inherently false.
the governments ONLY job concerning big business should be fraud protection but we have not seen that in years and instead have been subjected to big business infiltrating by way of purchasing all three branches and since they OWN the media the message of the decade is "free market is GOOD,regulation is BAD".
really? REEEALLY?
if you still believe that you have not been paying attention.

i agree with many libertarian views but not with this dude Root.
running for president mr Root?
good luck with that.

Somehow I feel like Assange is being set-up to be the next international super-villain, a la Osama.

That, or he's already been co-opted and is working to include American anti-Iranian propaganda in leaks.

It'd be foolish to not at least give this some thought as a possibility.

Organizations that can significantly effect change are always the first to be targeted for subversion and infiltration.

Yogi was fairly calm and collected in all his statements, even after GenjiKilpatrick called him a "sick fuck" and said he was worse than an animal abuser. And you say yogi is flailing and frothing like a toddler? I don't entirely agree with his viewpoint, though he has some valid points, but he's not the one who needs a timeout.

I disagree. Perhaps I should have kept from responding to his reaction after Genji's post, but you can't claim that Yogi was being calm and collected in light of his response. You just can't. I'm not going to quote it because I trust that you've read it already, but he blasted anti-CoS as intellectually invalid by comparison to 9/11 conspiracies, and then blasted GenjiKilpatrick, claiming that he would amount to nothing altruistically, in a clear attempt to degrade his opponent. Both of these points stem from an underlying disdain for those who oppose his proposition, and a desire to reduce the potency of both the arguments and one of the people making them.

That's not calm and collected, that's common and seedy. It happens too much, and I see it too often, in all kinds of debates. I'm sorry, but I don't think it's acceptable for you to defend tactics like that.

It's all very well to infiltrate, plant a comment and exfiltrate, but if you want to be involved, be involved. Don't do a drive-by assessment and leave it hanging in the troposphere.

To that end, a question : which points of his are valid ones, that still endure after being responded to?

Edit : I done broked the comment system. I hope you'll be alright with italics.

I'd also like to add that I perceived the "calm and collected" statement, as well as the idea that someone here needs to take a time-out, as a derision of my commitment to the argument, as if I need to sit down and take a chill pill. Well, I'll not apologize for my passion on this issue and I'll have no-one else apologize on my behalf. I expect that my opposition can suffer the intensity of a proper argument. The thrashing and flailing comment was a low-point, I confess. None of the rest of it has received any response whatsoever.

I agree with a lot of what you say, and like I said in my reply -- it's common for the extremists on either side to be the loudest voices -- despite the fact that they're a vast minority.

There is no true "news" anymore, no matter which channel (or website) you visit, there is an ever present slant, being it right or left leaning, and some sort of agenda in play. The only TRUE method of absorbing news today is to listen to what both sides have to say, and coming to the middle ground on our own (which I try to do). For example, many sifters, diggers, or reddits will either love one opinion maker -- or hate them -- there is [almost] no middle ground. Example: Bill O'Riley is a XXXXX (you can fill in the blank), or the opposite occurs: Bill O'Riley is awesome! Same applies to Maddow, or Olbermann, etc. Fact is, Bill O'Riley is neither a XXXXX or awesome, he's just a person giving HIS opinion, some of which people will disagree with. But like anyone, there ARE things [people] will agree with him on, whether [they] like it or not. In either case, the truth lies somewhere between what Olbermann says and what O'Riley says for the sane people, as both have an agenda, clear or not. These tea-partiers are no different. Instead of getting annoyed by them, or hating them, or calling them all morons, you have to listen to what they have to say, and pick out the rational thoughts they have, not the ones infected by fear or hate. There ARE some things the tea-partiers say that makes sense, whether we like it making sense or not doesn't matter.

Oh, and I tend to ramble, too. Mostly because I like intelligent conversation.

The problem with the media, and the government today (either side), is that you will often see this, and I use this example because it's at the forefront of politics right now.

Republicans are often (almost always) accused of being an elite class of rich people protecting an elite class of rich people. You will often hear democrats regurgitate this, as if they're the voice of the middle class/under class people, which is what they market themselves as.

The problem I have with that is simple: Everyone in Washington (and I mean EVERYONE) and everyone that has a TV show (like Olbermann/Maddow), are VERY rich people. These very people ARE the elite they are supposedly protecting us from. So it's very insulting to me when they try to talk as if they're one of [us] (middle class). I've been to a few political events in my life that are non-party events (both Democrats/Republicans in attendance). It's quite amazing how much hate they spew at each other in the spotlight/on television, and now friendly they all are behind closed doors.

The republicans and democrats almost all universally care about one thing -- votes. And why wouldn't they when they're all paid hundreds of thousands of dollars per year to "fix" all the nations problems when all they end up doing is breaking it more with every change they make [for our sake]. Not to mention the back end 1 million plus dollar book deals they all end up having when they do get voted out and/or leave.



Sorry for rambling.

>> ^peggedbea:

hmmmm, i realize it's a geographic phenomenon and an example of a very vocal minority. but this phenomenon is having an impact on everything else (see the recent texas state board of education decisions), and i believe, a detrimental one at that.
and sure the only exposure to the media i have is through the internet, but it's also very sporadic and i'm generally pretty good at realizing hyped up bullshit when i see it.
let me clarify this last bit. i don't think they're misguided because they fear, hate, distrust the government. honestly, i think most of the time not trusting politicians is warranted and wise. BUT the trust they put in sources that intentionally misguide them("they" being the dozens of people that claim tea party affiliation that i have every day exposure to) is what i think is "misguided fear and distrust".
and yes, "authority" was just a device to emphasize that i speak to dozens of people with tea party affiliation every day, my family get-togethers are dominated by political conversations with tea baggers weekly, i hear loads of first hand "tea bagging nonsense" daily. i'm very curious, very friendly, and work a job where i go into peoples homes and a side effect is forging relatively intimate relationships with the whole household, so when my families are having these discussions (daily), i listen, and ask questions respectfully and try to seem unbiased. my experience is not from sensational news sources, but from the mouths of a movement i find misguided and threatening. my friends and family and neighbors and clients are scared. they tell me they're scared. and they're being scared by sources they trust and shouldn't and that makes me sad.
i think the most damning evidence that this far right, very vocal minority, is actually something to worry about is the texas state board of education. it was slowly infiltrated over the last decade or so by young earth creationists and the christian right. they planned it this way intentionally. the sources that fund the political campaigns of far right christian groups intentionally set their sites on the texas board of education because of the impact decisions in texas have on the rest of the country. the board of education votes every 10 years on new textbooks and new curriculum standards. because of how huge texas is, textbook publishers usually just sell whatever books texas orders to most of the other states in the country. this year the vote came up and and extreme far right political/religious agenda won. now, they have dictated the educational standards of an entire generation, very nearly nation wide.
also, another thing that makes me shudder is my city recently did a multimillion dollar renovation to the science museum. millions of those dollars came directly from oil and gas companies (that also silently fund the tea party movement). we now have a science museum in a major city that is largely dedicated to energy with zero mention of conservation, pollution or climate change. and almost zero mention of alternative sources of energy production in the future.
so my overall points being that, 1. i know,literally, dozens of people that claim tea party affiliation and i don't think any of them stupid or crazy. (but i think the movement as a whole is very stupid and very crazy and very deceptively steered, not individual people) 2. i don't think just because nationwide news outlets sensationalize things, that we can discount the very very real impact this extremely far right, mostly religious, and extremely loud minority is having.
but.. i ramble too.

hmmmm, i realize it's a geographic phenomenon and an example of a very vocal minority. but this phenomenon is having an impact on everything else (see the recent texas state board of education decisions), and i believe, a detrimental one at that.

and sure the only exposure to the media i have is through the internet, but it's also very sporadic and i'm generally pretty good at realizing hyped up bullshit when i see it.

let me clarify this last bit. i don't think they're misguided because they fear, hate, distrust the government. honestly, i think most of the time not trusting politicians is warranted and wise. BUT the trust they put in sources that intentionally misguide them("they" being the dozens of people that claim tea party affiliation that i have every day exposure to) is what i think is "misguided fear and distrust".
and yes, "authority" was just a device to emphasize that i speak to dozens of people with tea party affiliation every day, my family get-togethers are dominated by political conversations with tea baggers weekly, i hear loads of first hand "tea bagging nonsense" daily. i'm very curious, very friendly, and work a job where i go into peoples homes and a side effect is forging relatively intimate relationships with the whole household, so when my families are having these discussions (daily), i listen, and ask questions respectfully and try to seem unbiased. my experience is not from sensational news sources, but from the mouths of a movement i find misguided and threatening. my friends and family and neighbors and clients are scared. they tell me they're scared. and they're being scared by sources they trust and shouldn't and that makes me sad.

i think the most damning evidence that this far right, very vocal minority, is actually something to worry about is the texas state board of education. it was slowly infiltrated over the last decade or so by young earth creationists and the christian right. they planned it this way intentionally. the sources that fund the political campaigns of far right christian groups intentionally set their sites on the texas board of education because of the impact decisions in texas have on the rest of the country. the board of education votes every 10 years on new textbooks and new curriculum standards. because of how huge texas is, textbook publishers usually just sell whatever books texas orders to most of the other states in the country. this year the vote came up and and extreme far right political/religious agenda won. now, they have dictated the educational standards of an entire generation, very nearly nation wide.

also, another thing that makes me shudder is my city recently did a multimillion dollar renovation to the science museum. millions of those dollars came directly from oil and gas companies (that also silently fund the tea party movement). we now have a science museum in a major city that is largely dedicated to energy with zero mention of conservation, pollution or climate change. and almost zero mention of alternative sources of energy production in the future.

so my overall points being that, 1. i know,literally, dozens of people that claim tea party affiliation and i don't think any of them stupid or crazy. (but i think the movement as a whole is very stupid and very crazy and very deceptively steered, not individual people) 2. i don't think just because nationwide news outlets sensationalize things, that we can discount the very very real impact this extremely far right, mostly religious, and extremely loud minority is having.

but.. i ramble too.

Look, don't get me wrong, I'm undecided on the issue, and as such, am not propagating any particular side. Nor am I trying to fear monger, though I may be expressing my own concerns of the unknown, when I speak of Islam, I'm speaking of Islam as it is proscribed by the Koran. Though there certainly are many moderate muslims, the Koran's demands are worrisome:

"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies and others besides, whom ye may not know (8:60)"

"Strive hard (Jihad) against the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed. (66:9, See also 9:73)"

"Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them." (8:12-13)"

In regards to my comment on the founding fathers' views and expectations having been corrupted, I was referring specifically to the power given to the banks. Here's Thomas Jefferson's view on banks:

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.
Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The
issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to
whom it properly belongs."

As far as my worry about what they're preaching and praying for in mosques, how can I know for certain? Shall I infiltrate them? There's a mosque right around the corner from my house. Shall I attempt to gain entry? My best bet would be wearing a full cloth bag and pretending to be a chick! Yes... 'tis an excelent plan. Or maybe I'll just walk in and see how they react to my curiosity.

Funny story about that mosque actually, when I was a young kid I was biking around with a muslim friend and he needed to go to the mosque for a bit, he wanted me to come with said it wouldn't be long. I was pretty hesitant as I didn't feel it was appropriate, we biked to the back of the mosue where everyone was happy and cheerful and smiling and random muslims were coming up to shake my hand, lol, until my friend said nono he's not muslim. Anyhow, it was a little awkward. His holy book says this about me:

"Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve, then they would not believe(8:55)"

Regarding the Koran demanding the abolishment of all non-muslim religions, why would a moderate muslim have a different answer than a non-moderate muslim? The Koran either says it or it doesn't say it. Oh wait, I forgot. Religious words can be interpreted, misinterpreted and reinterpreted. Religion is so convenient and easily defended that way.

Also, Atheists are, or should be, fighting holy wars all day long. Fighting for better spending of resources, fighting for good science, and fighting against religion when it seeks to undermine, conceal, distort, exaggerate or otherwise abuse the truth to the great detriment of people.

And lastly, you defend Islams oppression of women by purporting that I should troll the streets in search of self-proclaimed moderate muslims and ask their opinions on the conditions of women? That's just silly. I can only speak on what I see, and what I see are TONS of women psychologically manipulated into roles of subordination. They gladly don their cloth bags in my neighborhood, if I were to spend the day on my stoop, in 35ºC weather, counting how many women walk by fully concealed, I would count many dozen.

One last thought: I'm not even American, I'm Canadian, but it seems Americans expect a lot of themselves. It's strange. You've got tons of people saying, "Hey, we'll be righteous and good, we will let them build a muslim community center a couple hundred feet from where muslims flew planes into our buildings and murdered close to FOUR THOUSAND of our brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers, in one fell swoop."

But then when Americans invade other countries, some undevelopped and third-world, murder, rape and pillage resources, everyone stays quiet. There's no outrage. It's funny to me is all, America portrays itself as some morale bastion of freedom, justice and righteousness when it's not. And that's fine. It doesn't have to be.

Quit being hypocrites and tell them to go fuck themselves. Maybe next time their brother knocks down your sand castle at the beach they'll speak the fuck up a bit louder and tell him to quit ruining their good thing.

I'm sorry if this has been inflammatory or offensive in any way. It's a very contentious issue, and I'm happy I'm not the one having to make a decision on this. I don't hate any group. I have a lot of disdain for religion in general, but I am not so ignorant that I would hate blindly, nor should the ignorant be hated upon.

“The tax which will be paid for the purpose of education is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance” -Thomas Jefferson