Question received: "And if Russia diverted Air Force One? Or should other politicians be grateful for the chance to comply with our government?" My answer:
I'd
only see an equivalence if they diverted Admiral General Aladeen or
Fielding Mellish (ref the films The Dictator and Bananas), or Kim Jong-un. I have no problem with the diversion of the presidential plane
of a banana republic leader who may be attempting to spirit away a
fugitive who otherwise very much deserves to be in jail.
Question: "If
Obama hypothetically might be giving a lift to someone the Russians or
Chinese wanted to imprison, and they used their pull with some countries
to get the plane grounded.. ?"
Answer:
Evo is rather like a flea compered to giant stature of Obama, and so I cannot wrap my brain around an equivalence.
Just goes to show humans with Amerindian DNA can be crackpots also. Whodathunkit.
Speaking
generally, the myth of the noble savage is one of the dogma points of
the ChomskyAmy Goodman ultra left. They've got many others also worth
rejecting, or at the very least examining closely to see if they can be
rejected.
"Democratically-elected
leaders of the things the collective social fiction calls
'nation-states', traveling in airplanes. (By the conventions of the
collective social fiction, the plane a national leader travels in is
sovereign territory.) That's the equivalence."
"I
was aware of the two things you posted, and I'm not the one calling
Morales savage, or noble. But Morales, and the late Chavez, were points
on a trend of Latin American countries shedding USian government and
business influence (without subsequently meeting assassination or a
puppet coup.)"
"That is a trend that is overall positive." "John
Kerry is indirectly quoted in one of the links, referring to Latin
America as the 'backyard of the United States.' That's long-standing
problematic attitude asserting a right to interfere."
"'Giant
Stature', I try not to believe in Great Men. Or do you refer only to
the difference in power of the nations? Would you prefer an analogy
where the leader of some Bolivia-statured African or Asian nation was
shunted aside in travels through the influence China or Russia had on
some other African or Asian nations?"
Regarding
Chavez, and apparently Morales, while the actions of apparent nutbags
may be in part, positive, it's difficult to separate their nutbaggery
status from the partial-good they may (and only "may") have done.
Do
you ever watch Russia Today (RT)? It's pretty much a constant drumbeat
for *supposed* freedom in America, while at the same time Putin's
Russia is becoming less and less free by the day. Authoritarian
governments are happy to glom onto the self-hating lefties. Thom Hartmann comes to mind. There's others. Hey, even Iran's Press TV has
George Galloway. Maybe they can hire Amy Goodman next, or fund in full
Democracy Now!. Makes you wonder who's funding Amy's near constant
hate-everything-American conspiratorial crazed drum beat - at the very
least uneducated drug addled hippies (your average Pacifica affiliate
listener) who're unfortunately & sadly sucked in by her tripe &
fear-mongering. Amy is a legacy of Vietnam, as are the drugie hippies,
but not everything is equal. Both ends of the spectrum have big
problems.
Also
here's something of note re Goodman: "On October 2, 2004, Goodman was
presented the Islamic Community Award for Journalism by the Council on
American-Islamic Relations." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Goodman
CAIR
knows who their friends are, apparently. So do Russia Today
(Putin/Russia) and Press TV (Iran). The left in America play right into
their hands. Does that mean everything the left says or wants is bad?
No, but as of now Amy Goodman is essentially in the same camp as tin
foil helmeted Alex Jones, as is Glenn Greenwald.
So,
should journalists, especially self-hating ultra-lefties like
Greenwald, be the arbiters of what passes for classified information?
No. How about Assange? Probably not. Did Assange & Snowden release
info which probably should be released? Maybe. But I do think there does
need to be classified information. Should embarrassing info be
protected? Well, probably not. But "journalists," particularly the
self-hating liberal types who play into the hands of governments like
Iran & Russia, cannot be fair arbiters as to what should and what
should not be released.
Some
presidents have gone too far in what they classify. But on the other
hand just opening the spigot so that any old "journalist" can decide for
themselves, that also goes too far. Greenwald seemed quite happy to be
the new arbiter for the entire body of classified info, as per what he's
said in interviews. That's a dangerous state of affairs in my view.
So, since journalists should not be the final arbiters of what passes for classified info, should Assange be in jail? Maybe.
Assange
is hiding behind a diplomatic structure which he himself has helped to
undermine. Is that fair? Not really. Should the integrity of the embassy
he's hold up in be honored in this case? Maybe not. Do I believe in
diplomatic immunity? Not really.
Now,
as for whether I personally feel Amerindians are "savages," they are no
more and no less savage than any other group of humans. They are just
as capable of doing just as much evil and good as any other group. And,
just because of the color of my skin, that doesn't make me or my family personally responsible for the sins of other humans who also happen to
share my same skin color. Children are not responsible for the sins of
their parents, nor for the sins of other people who may happen to share
the same "race" or skin color, or geographic origin. Now, that is an
abusive idea present in Amerindian culture. The constant drumbeat of
what "white culture" did to us, on and on - it's not healthy, and, it's
racist, retrograde, and may I venture to say "savage," but any group of
humans could well do the same, and I'm sure have.
Does
that mean I think the Indian Health Service should be abolished? No.
Does that mean I agree with what happened in places like Brigham City?
No. But, I didn't do it, my family didn't do it, and the current U.S.
and Utah governments did do it. We all agree it was a bad idea. So going
further than this, and assigning blame to people who are currently
alive & who had zero to do with past sins, that is abusive. Also
allowing Indian tribes to have things like casinos has resulted in
rather unsavory things like mass disenrollment. http://www.natlawreview.com/article/tribal-membership-revocations-dialing-dollars
So
anyway, all this goes to show there's more complexities than at first
glance. Name a group. Any group. Any hyphenated group who is just oh so
special and great, and dig a little deeper & be honest & we'll
find out what really lies underneath the veneer: Humans.
Lastly
I still have no problem with baring Evo from flying over any country,
and I have no problem with going in and arresting Assange, today, now,
and even baring in mind of where he is. Same goes for Snowden. Since, I
believe that journalists should not be the final arbiters of what passes
for classified info, and perhaps even more importantly, because
journalists can end up being chumps for otherwise authoritarian regimes
and groups (Russian, Iran, and Islam), I believe we should not allow the
Alex Joneses, Amy Goodmans, Glenn Grenwalds, or Julian Assanges of the
world to be the new classified info gatekeepers - because they can and
often are chumps and thin fronts for otherwise oppressive regimes. Question: "I
can't see most of it as any direct response to what I wrote so I assume
I'm serving as a proxy for the public figures you name."
Answer:
Not as a proxy. Issues were raised & so I responded generally as I saw fit. I realize you may or may not agree with the other protagonists mentioned.
Here's a more succinct list:
I don't have a problem with blocking Evo's plane.
Morales & Chavez are/were nutbags worth dismissing out of hand. Friends of Fidel are no friends of Americans (Americans not sucked in by the ultra left self hating propaganda & party line).
The sins of the CIA from the past are worth calling out. But that doesn't mean everything the CIA or NSA does today is necessarily bad, or not worth protecting.
I don't have a problem with stating Obama's stature in the world is greater than that of tiny flea Evo. And for those who view Obama as The Joker, he's your president too (to the tea baggers who wish The South had won the civil war).
Regarding Latin America today & intervention: I don't see a need for a blanket ban on intervention. Depends on the situation. Yes we can criticize what happened in the past. But on the other hand any country can be a candidate for intervention given the right circumstances. An Afghanistan situation, definitely. An Iraq one, maybe. And so on.
If some other country were to bar Air Force One from travel, well, we could retaliate in other ways. But, itsy bitsy (world stage size wise) Bolivia is not in much of a position to do much of anything, other than elect an oh so noble Amerindian who's otherwise a crackpot banana republic style leader, in my view.
The USA should support it's own companies just as much as China & Russia support theirs. Aggressively. Not illegally or in uncouth ways. But I don't have a particular problem with tying US economic aid to whether a country buys American.
Both my wife and I ate some chicken this past week & we haven't turned gay yet.
Ok, so this is turning out to be a long standing issue. Examine the history of science & religion. In the past scientists got locked up for doing science, because their work challenged the contemporary views of the world. And even today, atheists are being sent to prison for speaking their mind.
Galileo was found to be "...vehemently suspect of heresy," and later sentenced to prison. A relevant excerpt from his sentence - but read the whole thing when you get a chance:
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you,
the above-mentioned Galileo, because of the things deduced in the trial
and confessed by you as above, have rendered yourself according to this
Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely of having held and
believed a doctine which is false and contrary to the divine and Holy
Scripture: that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from
east to west, and the earth moves and is not the center of the world,
and that one may hold and defend as probable an opinion after it has been
declared and defined contrary to Holy Scripture. Consequently you
have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated by
the sacred canons and all particular and general laws against such delinquents.
We are willing to absolve you from them provided that first, with a sincere
heart and unfeigned faith, in front of us you abjure, curse, and detest
the above-mentioned errors and heresies, and every other error and heresy
contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, in the manner and form
we will prescribe to you.
Furthermore, so that this serious and pernicious error
and transgression of yours does not remain completely unpunished, and
so that you will be more cautious in the future and an example for others
to abstain from similar crimes, we order that the book Dialogue
by Galileo Galilei be prohibited by public edict.
We condemn you to formal imprisonment in this Holy
Office at our pleasure. As a salutary penance we impose on you to
recite the seven penitential Psalms once a week for the next three years.
And we reserve the authority to moderate, change, or condone wholly or
in part the above-mentioned penalties and penances.
And then later we have the Scopes Trial, where teaching evolution was illegal in Tennessee.
No conflict between science & religion? That's what the Templeton Foundation would have us believe.
It almost goes without saying that creation "science" (which is not a science) is a direct response from religionists who see science as a threat.
The approach of the creationist religionists is as follows:
We don't like the answers science gives, they disprove our literalist interpretation of scripture. Therefore we shall simply redefine what science is and what science means, and we'll blow as much smoke as possible and muddy the waters with half and partial truths regarding what the true state of scientific discovery is.
This is precisely the approach taken by the "creation scientists:" blow smoke, change definitions, and lie when you have to.
And, the exact same approach is taken by the Mormon Church in the following articles, as they pathetically attempt to respond to DNA evidence refuting key claims in their founding religious documents on the origins of the American Indians. Check out:
A talk by Dr. Southerton to at an Exmormon Foundation conference: http://exmormonfoundation.org/audio2006.html
...look under the text on that page that says
"Simon Southerton, Ph.D.: 'Losing a Lost Race: From Radishes to DNA and Outer Darkness'"
Mormon scriptures that directly tie American Indians with Israel:
2 Nephi 26:19
19 And it shall come to pass, that those who have dwindled in unbelief shall be smitten by the hand of the Gentiles.
Enos 1:16
And I had faith, and I did cry unto God that he would preserve the records; and he covenanted with me that he would bring them forth unto the Lamanites in his own due time.
D&C 3:18
18 And this testimony shall come to the knowledge of the Lamanites, and the Lemuelites, and the Ishmaelites, who dwindled in unbelief because of the iniquity of their fathers, whom the Lord has suffered to destroy their brethren the Nephites, because of their iniquities and their abominations.
D&C 3:19
19 And for this very purpose are these plates preserved, which contain these records---that the promises of the Lord might be fulfilled, which he made to his people;
D&C 3:20
20 And that the Lamanites might come to the knowledge of their fathers, and that they might know the promises of the Lord, and that they may believe the gospel and rely upon the merits of Jesus Christ, and be glorified through faith in his name, and that through their repentance they might be saved. Amen.
D&C 19:27
27 Which is my word to the Gentile, that soon it may go to the Jew, of whom the Lamanites are a remnant, that they may believe the gospel, and look not for a Messiah to come who has already come.
D&C 28:8
8 And now, behold, I say unto you that you shall go unto the Lamanites and preach my gospel unto them; and inasmuch as they receive thy teachings thou shalt cause my church to be established among them; and thou shalt have revelations, but write them not by way of commandment.
D&C 32:2
2 And that which I have appointed unto him is that he shall go with my servants, Oliver Cowdery and Peter Whitmer, Jun., into the wilderness among the Lamanites.
D&C 54:8
8 And thus you shall take your journey into the regions westward, unto the land of Missouri, unto the borders of the Lamanites.
D&C Section 57 Introduction - 1986 Edition
Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, in Zion, Jackson County, Missouri, July 20, 1831. HC 1: 189-190. In compliance with the Lord's command (Section 52), the elders had journeyed from Kirtland to Missouri with many varied experiences and some opposition. In contemplating the state of the Lamanites and the lack of civilization, refinement, and religion among the people generally, the Prophet exclaimed in yearning prayer: "When will the wilderness blossom as the rose? When will Zion be built up in her glory, and where will they Temple stand, unto which all nations shall come in the last days?" Subsequently he received this revelation.
D&C 57:4
4 Wherefore, it is wisdom that the land should be purchased by the saints, and also every tract lying westward, even into the line running directly between Jew and Gentile.
[Footnote on the bottom of page 103 of the 1986 D&C:]
4b IE by metonymy "Jew" here refers to the Lamanites, and "Gentile" to the white settlers.
But notice, in the Doctrine & Covenants sections referenced above, we have The Mormon God, Elohim, speaking directly to Joseph Smith, right? Hey, Mormon Church, and FARMS, can you get around that?
The Mormon Brain Software, which was running in my own brain for several years, was a set of memes that operated rather like a virus or a biological system that put up defenses.
...and they do in all religions. If you have a doubt, that's from Satan. So, this is the last resort of all religionists. A newer tactic is to try to redefine what science means and what science is. That's the tactic of creation "scientists" and Templeton Chumps alike. And another longer standing tactic is to blow smoke. And then, if all else fails, just threaten people with the fear that any doubt comes to them via an evil spirit. How perverse, but it's par for the course in cult-type religions.
