Bjørn Stærk blog - Obligatory election round-up

A.R.Yngve | 2004-11-06 11:57 | Link

It's the 1980s all over again. It's so tiresome to know what will happen the next four years:

-Every time President Bush makes a necessary decision or political move (tax reform, Social Security reform, foreign policy), this will be condemned by the media and European politicians.

-No matter how good the state of things are, the media will describe the world as terrible under (and because of) President Bush.

-For the next four years, an incessant chorus of conspiracy theorists will claim that the 2004 election was "stolen", and that John Kerry should be President. No such evidence will ever be found.

-Saddam Hussein will be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. (On what grounds? you may ask. I'm sure the Nobel Committee will come up with an eloquent explanation.)

The rest, as they say, is history...

OldSwede | 2004-11-06 12:44 | Link

Hi, New here. Found this blog, via Europundits, thanks to LGF.
Is it just me, or is there a concerted movement that aims to separate USA from Europe? Looking back over the years, say back to about 1967, I would say that yes, at least some people try very hard to do so. Why?
In the 80's, we had the Pershing II debacle. The big, scary, US wanted to place medium distance nuclear missiles in Western Europe, with the consent of the governments involved. Does anyone remember all the demonstrations and, frankly, riots, before this happend?
Only, the Soviets had already deployed the SS20 system in Eastern Europe, which was threatening the military balance on the whole continent.
Point is: The forces behind America-bashing in Europe seems to be the same now as then. But; the USSR is no more. What is going on?

A.R.Yngve, Sweden | 2004-11-06 13:00 | Link

Good question, OldSwede. What is the drive behind these trends?

I'm starting to wonder, as I get older, if ideologies are just smokescreens for primitive forces in the collective human psyche. Maybe there is some tribal thing going on.

Picture the world powers and "blocs" as a number of tribal chieftains 10,000 years ago:

Thag: "Big Ice going away! I see great new hunting grounds! Let us seize this opportunity the Gods grant us!"

Ooog: "No! Ooog tired of Thag telling everyone what to do! Let us stay where we are, in this swamp where we are safe!"

Thag: "Ooog always ungrateful! Did I not slay wild lions from the East, and save our women? If Ooog is such a great hunter, then Ooog should mind his own business and not try to dictate Thag's foreig policy."

Ooog: "And I shall. Just you wait."

Thag: "But your tribe is small and weak, and you throw rocks instead of chucking spears, like my tribe does."

Ooog: "Of course you will lend us the support of your best spear-chuckers. Or we shall not move out of the swamp. That's my final word."

Thag (sighs): "There you go again, Ooog."

-------------------
;-P

-A.R.Yngve
http://yngve.bravehost.com

Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2004-11-06 13:52 | Link

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the
money power of the country will endeavour to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

Abraham Lincoln

Allan, Melbourne | 2004-11-06 14:04 | Link

Yngve:
Thag: "Big Ice going away! I see great new hunting grounds! Let us seize this opportunity the Gods grant us!"

yes, the new hunting ground is in the middle east. And the new hunt is oil.

RSN | 2004-11-06 14:56 | Link

The most peculiar aspect of to Europe's stand is that - because of the Cold War - Europeans have come to take it for granted that they mattered.

But the fact is that, as far as middle America is concerned, Europe doesn't exist.

I for one would like to see the dissolution of NATO, and a general repudiation of treaties between Europe and the US. That would free the US to take unilateralist action whenever it needed.

And should that lead to an arms race, so be it. America thrives on competition, and there's no way in hell that the social welfare states of Europe could ever win that competition.

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-11-06 15:30 | Link

RSN: But the fact is that, as far as middle America is concerned, Europe doesn't exist.

Does that say more about Europe or about middle America? Europe is not a major part of the world, and it is not where the future will hold the most excitement. But it is still a major part of your civilization, Western civilization.

To what purpose would you dissolve NATO and other treaties between us? Is unilateralist intervention a goal in itself, or a means to reach a goal, a stable, peaceful, world based on liberal democratic principles? For if that is the goal, to abandon the European-American alliance would undermine it.

Or what kind of world do you envision? One where liberal democracies do not stand together, or one where they do? This is not about unilateralism - NATO did not prevent the Iraq war. It is about saying a pointless "fuck you" to your ideological siblings for the sake of your own nationalist ego.

Luckily I don't believe you speak for "middle America". You speak for a small and dangerous offshoot of the interventionists.

Alfred, New Hampshire USA | 2004-11-06 15:39 | Link

I, like many Americans, find the European reaction to the American election to be a mixture of amusing and worrying. Amusing because there is often a childish lack of understanding of America involved. This is nothing new of course. Europeans have misunderstood America for 500 years now. What is worrying is that so few Europeans even try to understand America. The idea seems to be that Europe is right, America is wrong and why can't those dumb Americans see that. Americans on the other hand do not see themselves as dumb. Perhaps that is too many of us judge smart using money as a measure and America doesn't look to bad on that scale.
Europeans often complain if Americans so much as comment on European elections and yet make all sorts of noise about American elections. This double standard costs Europe a lot of respect in America. Europeans ask "what will America do to mend relations with Europe?" Many Americans want Europe to move first. Europe blames Christians for Bush. We blame the lack of Christians in Europe for much of what we see as wrong with Europe.
European culture is in decline. The last time I was in Norway I had an easier time finding American food than Norwegion. This is not the fault of a "stupid" America. And it is not a matter of America forcing itself on Europe. Rather than try to weaken America Europe should look to learn from and build with the strengths and knowledge that America has to share.

David, Iowa | 2004-11-06 15:45 | Link

"I see in the near future...the Republic is destroyed."

As with pretty much everything you write, Ex-C, this is false.

Dar | 2004-11-06 16:29 | Link

The Van Gogh murder, and the sociological crisis it reveals, should be occupying the minds of europeans now, not the american election.

Europe has become a social welfare state without goals, without a vision. Stasis is the goal. Well, europe, there's a cancer growing on your stasis, and the cancer is very close to home. Not across the Atlantic.

There are strong ties between the US and Europe. But there are also strong ties between the US and Africa, the US and Asia, the US and Spanish speaking america.

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-11-06 16:36 | Link

Alfred: Many Americans want Europe to move first. Europe blames Christians for Bush. We blame the lack of Christians in Europe for much of what we see as wrong with Europe.

It's curious, then, how it is Christians who are among the most vocal defenders of the European way of thinking about the world. One would think that both European and American Christians being synced with the same God, they would share much of their worldview. The opposite is true.

Perhaps this has nothing to do with religion, but with two worldviews which span both religion, social and financial ideology. Nothing odd about this - internal and external politics are only determined by each other in the fantasy world of bipolar ideologists. In the real world, you can find a center-left Tony Blair supporting George W. Bush, and Norway's most prominent religious leaders despising everything he stands for.

European culture is in decline. The last time I was in Norway I had an easier time finding American food than Norwegion.

European culture is in decline because we eat hamburgers? Because we've borrowed aspects of other cultures which we like and made them our own? This from a member of a society which built itself almost entirely from scratch on pieces of other cultures, a society which sets the gold standard of cultural borrowing.

I'm as critical of Europe's myths about the US as you are, but I wish more Americans would realize that these fantasies about the moral and cultural decline of Europe are symptoms of that same inability to deal with a foreign culture on its own terms. You're making the same mistake. You make it with the same eagerness and the same faith in your own superiority as Europe does. Look where it got us. Look how it appears to outsiders. I suggest you learn from us and not repeat our mistakes. Then I will do my best to ensure we learn what we need to learn from you. Deal?

Totoro, U.S. | 2004-11-06 17:20 | Link

A.R. Yngve, Sweden , , ,

You said: "I'm starting to wonder, as I get older, if ideologies are just smokescreens for primitive forces in the collective human psyche. Maybe there is some tribal thing going on."

I agree. I'd go even further and see our purely primate selves in action. In the end, we are an unusual form of self-aware apes. "Tribal" is related somehow to bands of primates. It's probably impossible to find duplicates of human behavior among chimpanzees, bonobos, baboons, etc., but there are similarities worth thinking about.

On the most simple level--why do many Bush voters feel it necessary to hide their views from their Kerry-supporting friends? Answer: these individuals are members of a band, and they don't want to be ejected or attacked by the band. That's a primitive animal response to a social environment.

As humans, of course, we intellectualize and say to ourselves: "Don't be a conformist. Stand up for your rights. Argue for your point of view." But there is definitely a social cost in terms of the primate band.

OldSwede | 2004-11-06 17:41 | Link

USA and western Europe have formed an alliance since 1917, or 1941, depending of interpretation of history. We may not have shared all values at all times, but we did for sure enjoy the most important ones together.

More or less in unity, NATO was formed and communism defeated. USA and Europe have a lot of history and interests in common.

Media is a tool and a symptom, not the real cause, even if MSM is responible for skewed and biased reporting, falsification and worse.

Now, the old adage "divide and conquer" springs to mind. Evidently, Europe and USA at the same time is too strong. Therefore, some people works hard to divide us. Question is: who have an interest in this and why?

IHMO western civilization relies on defending a common set of values, not necessarily christian even though that is one factor that unit us.

Alfred, NH, You Sir is both right and wrong at the same time.

Yes, if You just watch MSM reactions, You are right. What You fail to observe, however, is the fact that there are a lot of Europeans that understands America better than MSM, and that You have more friends than You would believe possible.

Regarding elections, there are some sort of double standards. Our (European) elections are our affairs, so US should keep out (they say). But, since USA is the only real superpower, the outcome affects the whole world, therefore we (and everybody else) ought to have a say...

Well, I for one would be only too happy to vote for mr. Bush, but the US election is for Americans to decide.

RSN, sir:
You remind me of an old joke:
A Swede asked an american: "When we are discussing USA we point to the ghettos, the poor people, the war in Viet Nam and the useless health care system. What do you point out when you discuss us?"
Answer: "We never discuss you."

Øyvind | 2004-11-06 17:44 | Link

David, it's quite an impressive fraud, though - almost like that brilliant Indian speech that was invented by Hollywood.

Anyway, being one of these nuttie leftists I don't particularily like Bush, but I wasn't surprised by his victory either. There are obviously many reasons, I don't think homophobia ranks that high. A recent "hi" from good old Osama probably played a bigger role, and the capture of Saddam, no that was a PR success story.

Conspiracy theories we'll always see. After all the United States is ruled by a United Nations shadow government that, under the rule of CIA-trained bin Laden, uses the Aliens from NSA, the Jews from Canada and the Monsters of Dungeons and Dragons, steals away the guns, the freedoms and everything else worth fighting for. Did I mention the Illuminati, the Priory of Zion and the Vatican and those guys who shot rockets at the Pentagon? No? How bizarre.

The United States' foreign policy wouldn't have been that different with Kerry - the flipflopper supported the war on Iraq, anyway, and boy, was that a mistake (I shouldn't have written that, now this will end up being another debate about the rightness and wrongness of the Iraq war - I encourage myself to write about how to currently promote democracy in Iraq the next time).

Maybe Kerry would have been better at gathering international support, but Bush might surprise us yet. When it comes to domestic policy, of course, I think the Americans made a bad choice, but I'll try leaving them to their own mess. As long as it doesn't get too bad.

And I've still got a few years to wait for the next American revolution.

Ø.

OldSwede | 2004-11-06 18:00 | Link

Öyvind: "And I've still got a few years to wait for the next American revolution."

Excuse me, Sir, would You be kind to explain exactly why there should be another revolution in USA? On what do You base this dire prediction?

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-06 18:05 | Link

There's always revolutions.

Ø.

OldSwede | 2004-11-06 18:09 | Link

Öyvind, Sir, that was not a honest answer to a honest question. What are You refering to?

Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2004-11-06 18:10 | Link

David, Iowa

"I see in the near future...the Republic is destroyed."
As with pretty much everything you write, Ex-C, this is false. ''

False according to your false website ??

How about this one ?

''The first step in a fascist movement is the combination under an energetic leader of a number of men who possess more than the average share of leisure, brutality, and stupidity. The next step is to fascinate fools and muzzle the
intelligent, by emotional excitement on the one hand and terrorism on the other.''
Bertrand Russell: Freedom, Harcourt Brace, 1940)

You might also find this ' christian ' American site very interesting:

http://www.godhatesamerica.com/

Øyvind | 2004-11-06 18:17 | Link

Dear Mr. OldSwede,

as you might noticed my tone in the post you originally responded to was somewhat unserious. My comment on having to wait a few more years was, too. A couple of decades, perhaps :)?

Yours faithfully,

Øyvind

OldSwede | 2004-11-06 18:21 | Link

Ex-C, Sir,

I understand perfectly well that mr. Staerk will not allow personal attacks, but I must ask You: are You for real?

I followed your link, and found something that whas both anti-american and un-christian at the same time. What are You driving at?

I am sure that there is a nice blog for You somewhere, named "al-"-something. Why not go there and let serious people discuss serious matter?

OldSwede | 2004-11-06 18:26 | Link

Öyvind, Sir,
I think that You will have to wait longer than that. The US constitution has been in force since 1776, and as far as I can tell, the americans have no plans whatsoever to abandon it. Or, are You refering to some other kind of revolution?

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-06 18:32 | Link

Dear Mr. OldSwede

Maybe I will have to wait for a long time. Until then I guess the Canadians, the Jews, FBI, the United Nations, the Illuminati, Lions Club, Skulls and Bones, etc. etc. will have to continue competing for the power.

And, Mr. OldSwede - that was a joke.

Øyvind

Gill Doyle, California | 2004-11-06 18:33 | Link

I read this morning in my New York Times that the Norwegian prime minister, K.M. Bondevik, has suggested that it might be time for Norway and the U.S. to part ways. He is suggesting that Norway reconsider joining the European Union -- a move that it has for a long time now resisted.

At the same time, Schroeder and Chirac argue that W's reelection underscores the need to create in Europe a real counterweight to the U.S.

What's going on here I think is this: European leaders who are interested in a strong EU -- an EU that can really challenge the U.S. economically and politically -- are exploiting (and even encouraging, I would say) Europe's visceral hostility to George W. Bush. They are using anti-Americanism now, much as U.S. leaders once used anti-Communism, to get their people behind an idea. Iran's leaders have done the same. For those European leaders who are focused just now on building a powerful EU, George W. Bush is a godsend. Chirac and company have set US up now as the devil doll that they'll use to rally support for a strong EU. What I fear is that they may lose control of that anti-American furor that they hope to exploit. Their people may one day demand that they adopt policies toward the U.S. that could lead to a more serious confrontation than these leaders actually desire.

Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2004-11-06 18:35 | Link

OldSwede | 2004-11-06 18:21 | Link

''Ex-C, Sir,

I am sure that there is a nice blog for You somewhere, named "al-"-something. Why not go there and let serious people discuss serious matter?''

First of all, my link was for someone else, it was NOT for you, why on earth you got involved in the first place ? are you a snoop or something ?

Please, dont intervene in other people's posts and the way they write so that the rest will take you ' seriously '.

Dont be sad, here is one sweet for you:

http://www.humiliateamerica.com

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-06 18:39 | Link

It beats me why ex-C is linking to them, but here's some more info on the wackos in the Westboro Baptist Church. I mean, if the Republicans are homophobic, then what are these people.

Wonder if Petter Nome would be interested in making a documentary about them? What do you think, Bjørn?

http://www.adl.org/special_reports/wbc/default.asp
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/w20.html
http://www.rslevinson.com/gaylesissues/features/collect/guest/bldriley01.htm
http://cjonline.com/webindepth/phelps/stories/080394_phelps09.shtml
http://www.cjonline.com/indepth/phelps/stories/080394_phelps02.shtml

Øyvind

OldSwede | 2004-11-06 18:40 | Link

Ex-C, Sir,

What is the point of a blog if it just is a set of interleaved private conversations? Why not just use the phone or email?

If You value Your privacy, what, excactly, are You doing here? Me and most of the rest of the blogosphere asks?

OldSwede | 2004-11-06 18:47 | Link

Mr. Gill Doyle, Sir,

I think that You are pointing out something important. But what I fail to grasp is why USA would have any problem with a strong EU (or vice versa). There are other aspiring super-powers in the world, and I think that USA and EU must stick together. Then, a strong EU is in the interest of USA.

Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2004-11-06 18:55 | Link

Very interesting article regarding the USA and Europe after Bush re-election in the right wing british newspaper: The daily telegraph:

French call for stronger EU to keep America in check:

...Reacting to Mr Bush's victory, Michel Barnier, the French foreign minister, said four more years of a unilateralist administration in Washington required Europe to develop its own diplomatic and defence machinery.

"Our world needs several powers. We are in the process of gathering the pieces and the will to become another power," he said.

President Jacques Chirac heightened the tension by announcing that he would skip a lunch today with the Iraqi prime minister, Iyad Allawi, intended to bestow increased legitimacy on the Baghdad government in the build-up to elections early next year - ostensibly because of a funeral in the Gulf.

Graham Watson, MEP, the leader of the European Liberal group, said Mr Bush had the effect of drawing Europeans together, making them more conscious of their own distinctive moral brand and view of the world.

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/11/05/wus205.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/11/05/ixnewstop.html

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-11-06 19:07 | Link

OldSwede: I understand perfectly well that mr. Staerk will not allow personal attacks, but I must ask You: are You for real?

Yes. And yes. I do not allow personal attacks. And I do not like it when guests try to chase away other guests from my blog. Stop it or leave.

OldSwede | 2004-11-06 19:10 | Link

Ex-C, Sir, i owe You one.

Entering this blog, I wondered. 'who wants to separate USA from Europe, and why?'.

You, yes You Sir, have answered that question to my satisfaction, and for that I thank You, Sir.

We are not facing the communists any more.

Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-06 19:30 | Link

You write stuff that ridicules others for making stupid stereotypes, and you quote a writer that is really good, then you ruin your own credibility by writing:

A lot of flat-earth Christians did vote for Bush, and Bush worked hard to appeal to them. The question I'd like to see tackled is "why did all those non-wackoe conservatives and centrists vote for Bush as well?".

Which demonstrates that you accept a lot of stupid premises. I find what you wrote here so offensive.

Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-06 19:38 | Link

>> I understand perfectly well that mr. Staerk will not allow personal attacks, but I must ask You: are You for real?

OldSwede, I must warn you that Ex-C is a dangerous person, he has made death threats against people in this blog, including myself. I encouraged him to go to Iraq to fight in the Jihad. But apparently, the 3 ID is a bit too much for him. He prefers the unarmed.

Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-06 19:42 | Link

>> Yes. And yes. I do not allow personal attacks. And I do not like it when guests try to chase away other guests from my blog. Stop it or leave

Bjørn, I see your true colors. OldSwede has been perfectly reasonable. Have you deleted death threats? They would seem to be a "personal attack". When a person makes death threats and is still a welcome guest, it says somethine about the host.

Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2004-11-06 19:47 | Link

OldSwede

''Ex-C, Sir, i owe You one.
Entering this blog, I wondered. 'who wants to separate USA from Europe, and why?'.

You, yes You Sir, have answered that question to my satisfaction, and for that I thank You, Sir.

We are not facing the communists any more.''

I am very flattered !!

It is worth to note that it was not The Muslims who voted for Bush re-election after all ! the real people who want to separate America from Europe and indeed the rest of the world are the evangelical christians who were behind Bush's re-election in the first place.

OldSwede | 2004-11-06 19:47 | Link

Dear Gunnar,

Thank You for the warning. I have seen guys like that straight in the eyes before, though, and so far they have failed to make any lasting impression.

But I must ask You and mr. Staerk: If this is the case, why is he still here?

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-11-06 19:49 | Link

Gunnar: Which demonstrates that you accept a lot of stupid premises. I find what you wrote here so offensive.

I accept that it is - but I have little respect for Christians who deny obvious scientific knowledge, or who want to cross the border between state, church and the private sphere by legislating arbitrary moral codes. They have their reasons. Those reasons are incompatible with my ideals - and many of the ideals we've built our societies on.

But don't assume that I think all Christians are like this, or even most Christian conservatives. I don't - I brought this up only to point out that while I think Bush wanted the votes of these people, it's ridiculous to attribute his victory to them.

OldSwede, I must warn you that Ex-C is a dangerous person, he has made death threats against people in this blog, including myself.

Send the links to me, and I'll look at them. Remember: I've only glanced quickly at the 300 comments in that van Gogh thread. Gave up actually reading them after the first 50.

Bjørn, I see your true colors. OldSwede has been perfectly reasonable.

No. "I am sure that there is a nice blog for You somewhere, named "al-"-something. Why not go there and let serious people discuss serious matter?"

I take that as a request for Ex-C to leave. That is not acceptable.

OldSwede | 2004-11-06 19:53 | Link

Ex-C, Sir, You are welcome.

I am deeply impressed by Your insights in american politics, and Your ability to attribute the outcome of an election, comprising 100+ million voters, to a single group and a single cause. So far, everybody else have failed this.

Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2004-11-06 19:53 | Link

Bjørn :

Gunnar wrote the following to oldSwede:

''Gunnar: I must warn you that Ex-C is a dangerous person, he has made death threats against people in this blog, including myself.''

This is an outright LIE, I challenge him to produce one single link or sentence in which I threaten him !

You see Bjørn, the momement I participate in any debate, the personal attacks and the accusations against me start, they want to derail discussing the main issue of this thread.

OldSwede | 2004-11-06 20:00 | Link

Mr Staerk, Sir,

I never intended to chase anyone away. If I made that impression, then I must apologize to You. I am all for free speech, as long as it includes everyone.

IMHO the links my opponent posted were quite irrelvant to the topic discussed. Therefore, I simply asked for his true motives to participate.

Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2004-11-06 20:01 | Link

OldSwede

''Ex-C, Sir, You are welcome.

It is ok, it is my pleasure to shed some lights for you:

Conservative Christians turned out in force

http://www.oxfordpress.com/business/content/shared/news/stories/ELEX_RELIGION_1104_COX.html;COXnetJSessionID=BNfIrNZ4FGgt9l2V5S0OM7rUx7iALRMk8P0ct8j3YORgaAXI72Ge!423478077?urac=n&urvf=10997676248450.036141060356071675

Religious political revival:

Many conservative Christians see huge turnout of brethren for Bush as a mandate for their social agenda

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usrel054030745nov05,0,1589089.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines

A moral dilemma :

The evangelical churches became instruments of political organisation. Ideology was enforced as theology, turning nonconformity into sin, and the faithful, following voter guides with biblical literalism, were shepherded to the polls as though to the rapture.

http://207.44.245.159/article7220.htm

Religious right relishes chance to push agenda :

Abortion and gay marriage to be targeted as moral crusaders demand election payback

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1343992,00.html

You see, my problem is that I read a lot of politics and I save what I read, have a look at the above sites for some insight.

Gill Doyle, California | 2004-11-06 20:09 | Link

OldSwede wrote: "I think that You are pointing out something important. But what I fail to grasp is why USA would have any problem with a strong EU (or vice versa). There are other aspiring super-powers in the world, and I think that USA and EU must stick together. Then, a strong EU is in the interest of USA."

I agree with you, OldSwede, when you say that the US and Europe should stick together. I don't know that the Bush administration is particularly opposed to a strong EU. Personally, I am not bothered by that prospect. In fact, I think it is inevitable, as you suggest, that China, Europe, and other powers will emerge to challenge the U.S. Sure, we had better learn to live together, and competition can be a good thing.

However, anti-Americanism does worry me. I worry, as I said before, that world leaders who want to exploit fear of and contempt for the U.S. might, at some point, lose control of what is a dangerously irrational popular force both in Europe and in much of the muslim world. If that force is not reined in, I fear that it could push Europe toward serious conflict with the U.S.

OldSwede | 2004-11-06 20:11 | Link

Ex-C, sir,

Your links proves that there indeed is conservative Christians in America. However, they fail to prove that these were crucial to the outcome of the election.

You Sir, need to prove that they are either more than 4 million nationwide, or at least that they were 150,000+ in Ohio.

OldSwede | 2004-11-06 20:19 | Link

Mr. Doyle, Sir,

Thats exactly my point. I reject the presumption that there would be any real conflict between USA and EU. But, I feel that there are a lot of people over here who wants to create such a division. One of the vehicles they use is anti-Americanism, which is working just fine so far.

Me, I do my best to counter anti-Americanism whenever I find it justified.

Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2004-11-06 20:24 | Link

Gill Doyle, California

''However, anti-Americanism does worry me. I worry, as I said before, that world leaders who want to exploit fear of and contempt for the U.S. might, at some point, lose control of what is a dangerously irrational popular force both in Europe and in much of the muslim world. If that force is not reined in, I fear that it could push Europe toward serious conflict with the U.S.''

Hi Gill:

You suggested to rein in the anti American force sweeping Europe and the Muslim world, what you fail to realize is that YOU are the ones fueling this force by your irrational anti- muslim pro Israeli foriegn policy, Israel for example is allowed and indeed supplied with the latest American WMD plus BILLIONS of Dollars every year while Iran is threatend with invasion for trying to have nukes !! dont you think it is the time to look at your actions first ?

May I refer you to very informative article written by an American journalist called Manuel Valenzuelas titled:

Eternal Darkness of the American Mind

Our government is as much a terrorist as those in Beslam, Bali, New York and Madrid. It is time we stop thinking ourselves the enlightened culture we are not. It is time to stop a hypocrisy that seems to validate the atrocities we commit while castigating those made against us.

http://207.44.245.159/article6997.htm

Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-06 20:29 | Link

>> but I have little respect for Christians who deny obvious scientific knowledge, or who want to cross the border between state, church and the private sphere by legislating arbitrary moral codes.

An unsupported and unsupportable view. As I've demonstrated to Dave in Australia, there is no use of force in a democracy. With logic, I demonstrated that is in fact the anti-christians who want to impose a moral code and standards of decency on other people. They don't believe in democracy.

Your view is unsupportable, since no moral code is any less arbitrary than any other. You may think that Christians have a moral code, and that you do not, but that is impossible. As soon as you state an opinion about what is right and what is wrong, you are stating a moral code.

Philosophically, a moral code is the foundation on which politics is based, so it cannot be avoided. Everyone who expresses a political opinion either by words or by a vote expresses support for a moral code.

It's a marketplace of ideas. Civilized people have two choices: express ideas and support them with arguments and persuasion, or you can state opinions without support, and denigrate opposing viewpoints as based on arbitrary moral codes.

But in doing so, you don't persuade. Especially since what is your moral code based on?

I'm a Christian, and I certainly don't deny any scientific knowledge, but I supported the pro-life position without any reference to religion. The pro-abortion view denies scientific knowledge.

Even more non-sensical is the statement about cross state and religion, when Norway has a state church. We couldn't bury my father on a certain day, because the government has a holiday and the priest was a government employee. And you lecture American on the separation of Church and State. Amazing!

And as I've demonstrated to dave, you are distorting the concept of "separation of church and state". It refers to the fact that Government cannot establish a state church, like Norway has. The consitution also says that congress can pass no law abridging the freedom of religion. The idea that Christians are to be excluded from political life is ludicrous, it's says a lot more about the one who said than anything. Almost all the US founding fathers were religious. No one can claim that they didn't bring their moral codes into politics. That's democracy in action.

One can't pretend to support democracy and at the same time deny the democratic rights of people who you disagree with, and claim that they are imposing their moral codes on you using democracy, while denying that you want to impose your will on them without using democracy.

Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2004-11-06 20:33 | Link

OldSwede

Ex-C, sir,

''Your links proves that there indeed is conservative Christians in America. However, they fail to prove that these were crucial to the outcome of the election.

You Sir, need to prove that they are either more than 4 million nationwide, or at least that they were 150,000+ in Ohio.''

Sure, here is my proof:

http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#bodies

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Evangelical-Lutheran-Church-in-America

Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-06 20:53 | Link

Your links proves that there indeed is conservative Christians in America. However, they fail to prove that these were crucial to the outcome of the election.
You Sir, need to prove that they are either more than 4 million nationwide, or at least that they were 150,000+ in Ohio.

What are you two arguing about? Of course, there are christians in America, and they have every right to participate in the democracy, and any group around the size of the winning margin in a certain state can be said to have been "crucial" to the election.

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-06 21:17 | Link

I support Bjørn when it comes to his statements about the border between state and church. It might sound strange, Gunnar, but the fact that Norway has a state church does not even mean that all Norwegians believe it should be that way.

I am opposed to it, I would prefer a moderate secular rule. Not because I'm that secular myself, but because a society where a religion is made the religion often ends up discriminating. There are many obvious examples in the world, and you don't have to go to Saudi Arabia.

To take an example, Gunnar, just as you I am - on a personal level - opposed to abortion. I think abortion is unethical in most situations (but I don't have problems thinking about situations where it wouldn't be). However, I do not equate abortion with murder, and I do think people should have the possibility to take ethical choices for themselves. This means I support the current abortion laws of Norway.

I know some "pro-lifers" think of abortion as murder. Therefore I'll include another example. On a personal level I believe sexual conduct should be a product of love. However, I do not believe in prohibiting sex after one night stands. The first thing is having a moral code. The second thing is to impose that code on others.

Of course, a society needs some common moral code, against murder, theft, rape, throwing nuclear waste into drinking water sources, etc. As many as possible of the ethical choices must however be left for the individual.

If two guys want to marry, for instance, that's up to them - not up to me. Heck, if four guys and three girls all want to marry each other and live as one h(a/i)ppy family, that should be their own problem - and not mine.

Øyvind

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-11-06 21:40 | Link

Gunnar: Your view is unsupportable, since no moral code is any less arbitrary than any other. You may think that Christians have a moral code, and that you do not, but that is impossible.

Yes. I do not argue from revelation here, that somehow I've glimpsed the obvious Moral Truth while Christians just make it up as they go along. I do believe that my views follow from a desire for general human well-being combined with a rational outlook, but I don't think this is the time and place to convince you of that. It should be enough to point out that you and I have arrived at different outlooks on life, and on what moral behavior is. From my point of view, legislating consensual sexual behavior is an imposition of arbitrary, irrational and harmful rules on a society which should be above that. From your point of view, I assume, it is not. Our views are incompatible. We could argue over this, but I've probably heard your views, and you've probably heard mine. We disagree, it's as simple as that. It follows from my views that people who oppose same-sex marriage, or who deny important science I consider to be solid, do harm to society, and that it is important to fight them.

There's no need to go down to the level of fundamental axioms here, (although seven years ago I would have enjoyed it very much). I was just expressing a disapproval which follows naturally from my views about these issues.

I thought it was not necessary for me to include token condemnations of Norway whenever I criticize the US for a similar flaw. And I thought you'd read this blog long enough not to assume that I'm a major supporter of everything status quo in Norway. I oppose the State Church. I admire your American separation of church from state, which we should emulate. Whenever the subject comes up, I don't hesitate to express my disapproval of this and many other laws and practices I disagree with. In this case, the subject was religious support for George W. Bush, not the Norwegian state church, so I didn't mention the state church. Do you really think I should have?

My opposition to religious politics is political, not meta-political. That is, I oppose them within the democratic system. I believe such ideas are dangerous and wrong, and that people should not support them. That's not depriving anyone of their rights, it's how democratic debate works. Nor does it mean that I'm opposed to religious politicians, only to religion in politics. We Westerners have a common ground to base our political decisions on, a set of ideals nearly all of us have in common, and which it is sensible of us to build our society on. Politicians who champion religious issues are one of many kinds of politicians who go beyond those ideals in a way I believe is harmful.

OldSwede | 2004-11-06 22:00 | Link

Ex-C, Sir,

I have to tell You Sir that the fact that there are millions of Christians, of different dominations, in USA is no news and irrellevant.

I ask You to provide us some proof of how, exactly, these people voted. Nobody else have done that so far, and i challenge You to present some tangiable evidence, not just irrelevant links. Or, are You just incapable of that?

OldSwede | 2004-11-06 22:07 | Link

Gunnar, Sir,

You are right, of course. The focus here is on the last margin votes. I have not seen any conclusive proof of the assumption that the Cristians, anti-gays or, for that sake, martians, delivered those last thousands votes on top of - what? 120,000,000?

Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-06 22:17 | Link

øyvind,

You may be surprised to learn (due to prejudices and bias), that I basically agree with the ethical views you expressed, and so does every one in the conservative christian movement. I have no reservation making this claim, provided that you accept the obvious truth that voting your own values is NOT imposing your will on others. It's not the use of force, if so, then every vote would be imposing your morality on others.

I am opposed to it, I would prefer a moderate secular rule. Not because I'm that secular myself, but because a society where a religion is made the religion often ends up discriminating.

And there is NO chance that the US government could ever establish a religion. We have the constitution to prevent that.

Of course, a society needs some common moral code, against murder, theft, rape, throwing nuclear waste into drinking water sources, etc. As many as possible of the ethical choices must however be left for the individual.

Every political opinion and every vote expresses a moral code, by definition. Just like it's valid to express a view of morality regarding murder and rape, it's valid for a democracy to determine other rules.

The first thing is having a moral code. The second thing is to impose that code on others

It is a non-sequiter to say that a certain vote imposes a moral view, while another does not. You only mean that a particular vote does not match your moral code.

What is "imposing a moral code" is a judge whose job it is to interpret the consitution and laws passed by congress, deviating from this job, and legislating from the bench, violating the US system of checks and balances, and the will of the people. NO ONE VOTED to make abortion legal in the US. That moral code was IMPOSED upon us, contradicting the will of the people. And it is an utter falsehood to claim that overturning Roe V Wade, and bringing democracy back into the process is imposing a moral code on other people. It is the EXACT opposite.

Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2004-11-06 22:26 | Link

OldSwede

''Ex-C, Sir,

''I ask You to provide us some proof of how, exactly, these people voted. Nobody else have done that so far, and i challenge You to present some tangiable evidence, not just irrelevant links. Or, are You just incapable of that? ''

I believe I made my case, I think you are not reading what I posted for you, here they are again:

Conservative Christians turned out in force

Religious political revival:

Many conservative Christians see huge turnout of brethren for Bush as a mandate for their social agenda

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usrel054030745nov05,0,1589089.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines

A moral dilemma :

http://207.44.245.159/article7220.htm

Religious right relishes chance to push agenda :

Abortion and gay marriage to be targeted as moral crusaders demand election payback

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1343992,00.html

OldSwede | 2004-11-06 22:37 | Link

Ex-C, Sir,

These are opinions, not proof. I have checked them.

Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-06 22:57 | Link

From my point of view, legislating consensual sexual behavior is an imposition of arbitrary, irrational and harmful rules on a society which should be above that. From your point of view, I assume, it is not.

A straw man, since no one has suggested "legislating consensual sexual behavior". My point of view is that your description of someone else's moral code as "arbitrary, irrational and harmful" is claiming that your own code is not "arbitrary, irrational and harmful". Since in this discussion and another on gay marriage, I have successfully shown that the christian moral code is non arbitrary, rational, and helpful, and the opposite is irrational and harmful, your point of view isn't supported. It's just denigrating the other view without supporting your own.

My opposition to religious politics is political, not meta-political. That is, I oppose them within the democratic system. I believe such ideas are dangerous and wrong, and that people should not support them. That's not depriving anyone of their rights, it's how democratic debate works. Nor does it mean that I'm opposed to religious politicians, only to religion in politics.

Well, I'm glad you admitted that, which is more than Dave the aussie would admit. You cannot oppose morals in politics since one is based on the other by definition.

By saying that you oppose "religion in politics", you are only saying that you oppose another voter's moral code.

I live here, and I have never heard anyone in the christian conservative movement try to persuade other people by invoking a claim of "divine revelation". They argue points in a secular way. Instead of dismissing an argument, simply because it's made by a religious person ( a logic fallacy), or just denigrating the view as "irrational", why don't you try to make a case based on facts, evidence and reason?

Dave, Australia | 2004-11-06 22:59 | Link

Gunnar,

Your references to reflex neural activity within fetuses as evidence of person hood is the only unscientific fact I've seen referred to here on this site re: abortions.

It is a proven medical fact that the brain structures and nerve-cell connections that characterize the thinking and feeling parts of the brain are not completed until between the 7th and 8th months of gestation. Only after 30 weeks to the brain waves show patterns of waking consciousness when pain can be perceived by the fetus. The reflex actions that are present before this stage do not indicate ability to feel pain.

I can see here that this is an example of the flat earthness that Bjoern mentioned in his article, and that I targeted in the van goeth murder thread.

If you allow the religious right (or any other orgnised religion) to posess political dominance in control of a state, than the result will be no better than an Islamic theocracy. I am not denying the role that majority should have in determining a nation's social policy, but I am avidly against the use of democracy to oppress minority rights.

And I believe that reproductive freedom of women is something that needs to be protected. How can woman claim to be free when the state and church have control over her body???

Cheers,
David Elson.

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-11-06 23:21 | Link

Gunnar: A straw man, since no one has suggested "legislating consensual sexual behavior".

I'm thinking of the various discussions we have - in Norway and the US - about which rights two (or more) people who love each other should have depending on their sexual orientation. I believe those rights should be independent of sexual orientation.

My point of view is that your description of someone else's moral code as "arbitrary, irrational and harmful" is claiming that your own code is not "arbitrary, irrational and harmful". Since in this discussion and another on gay marriage, I have successfully shown that the christian moral code is non arbitrary, rational, and helpful, and the opposite is irrational and harmful, your point of view isn't supported.

Perhaps you should leave it to others to determine whether you have "successfully shown" that your point of view is logical.

The sense I use "arbitrary" in here is "random", ie. caused by random historical circumstances. This is the case with many religious views. Believers are to a large degree bound by the random historical circumstances of the birth of their religion. They often find it difficult to abandon individual aspects of their faith, even when these aspects spring from circumstance, and not a well thought out philosophy.

Again, these are my views. My point is just that it is not self-evidently meaningless to call some moral principles arbitrary and others not.

I live here, and I have never heard anyone in the christian conservative movement try to persuade other people by invoking a claim of "divine revelation".

I don't know what you mean by the christian conservative movement - there are several, from what I understand. But there are many Christians who base their politics on divine revelation. Creationists, for instance.

And I believe there are many others who, while they rationalize their views with secular arguments, hold them in the first place because of divine revelation.

Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-06 23:43 | Link

Your references to reflex neural activity within fetuses as evidence of person hood is the only unscientific fact I've seen referred to here on this site re: abortions

I may have referenced neural activity as evidence of "life", not as evidence of "personhood". I reject this concept as unscientific. What is your scientific basis for "personhood". If there is such a concept, what is your scientific evidence for when it begins?

The reflex actions that are present before this stage do not indicate ability to feel pain.
I can see here that this is an example of the flat earthness

It's exactly the opposite. Your arguements are an example of irrational flat earthness. You are apparently arguing above that if one cannot feel pain, then one is not human. So, the adult that cannot feel pain is not human either. Completely irrational.

And I believe that reproductive freedom of women is something that needs to be protected

But you haven't supported that view by demonstrating either a) there is no human right to life, b) the fetus is not human, or c) it is not alive

David, Australia | 2004-11-06 23:46 | Link

I do not beleive that it is wrong to hold moral values (motivated by religious belief) and attempt to implement these beliefs in state policy. What is wrong is when you attempt to force these religiously motivated morals onto those who can not defend themselves against the majority.

It doesn't matter to me if women choose not to have abortions due to moral reasons or choose to do so for pragmatic reasons (it matters little to me), what is important to me, is that their right to have this choice is maintained.

There are certain sexual or other acts which I regard, as a conservative Australian, as extremely immoral and as such I would never committ them. I would never however declare that such things should be banned and deprive others of their "god" given freedoms (to pardon the pun), to act as they desire.

Totoro, U.S. | 2004-11-06 23:51 | Link

I voted for Bush because only he seemed serious about the War on Terror. Kerry seemed like a candidate who promises everything to everyone but in fact would be quite incompetent as a leader.

Regarding issues such as abortion, after seeing how liberals run to the courts every time they don't get their way, I decided to give the state legislatures (the voters) a chance to express themselves. Rule by lawsuit is not really democratic, is it? John Edward, of course, is the great practictioner of rule by lawsuit, so I wasn't too fond of him.

On another thread I referred to Thomas Sowell's The Vision of the Anointed. This book has a lot of interesting and worthwhile ideas about voters, democracy, and social experiments. I recommend it for a good analysis of conservative opinion by a writer who does not come across as a religious fanatic. I have no idea what religion he follows, if any. His arguments are all secular.

For example, Oyvind mentioned that he thought it was OK for there to be marriage among several men and women (we're talking "marriage" here--not just people living together, which they can do now). This is an idea explored in Robert Heinlein's The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress.

Should "group marriage" (polygamy) be legalized by 5 justices on the Supreme Court for a country of 300 million people? Or, should such an idea be discussed among the voters and accepted or rejected by state legislatures? Ditto abortion questions and gay "marriage" questions. I have my own opinions, not necessarily the same as those of President Bush. But I think these are valid questions that should be decided by voters, not by lawsuits and a few justices.

BTW I discussed gay marriage with a gay man yesterday. I asked him why he cared whether or not he could be "married" or if calling it a "civil union" was OK. He said that calling it a civil union would be fine so long as he and his partner (husband) had the same rights as married people, including the same tax benefits. End of discussion. We both agreed.

See, it's possible for reasonable people to discuss things reasonably without calling each other homophobe and pervert.

OldSwede | 2004-11-07 00:00 | Link

Totoro, US,

IMHO, this cannot be expressed in a better way.

Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-07 00:09 | Link

about which rights two (or more) people who love each other should have depending on their sexual orientation. I believe those rights should be independent of sexual orientation

There are no such rights. Marriage is not a civil rights issue. Marriage is a mechanism by which society encourages the formation of good and productive citizens. You may disagree with the meaning of the word, and it's purpose, but the meanings of words are for people to decide by consensus, and not for you to impose by fiat. It's scientifically provable that children do best when they are raised in a family with a mother and father. Marriage exists as a structure to raise children.

There is nothing stopping people (2 of the same sex, or any combination of people) from living together and having consensual relations. But they don't have the right to force other people to sanction it as the preferred means to raise children. That's for a democracy to decide. Utah was allowed in the union on the condition that it outlaw polygamy. There is no logical reason to expand marriage to same sex unions without allowing polygamy as a valid marriage. It's the opposite. Scientifically, it can be shown that children of polygamists aren't as likely to be well adjusted adults (Bin Laden).

Perhaps you should leave it to others to determine whether you have "successfully shown" that your point of view is logical.

Why, I'm perfectly capable of judging when another debater doesn't come up with a rational counter argument, or resorts to ad-hominem or resorts to simply calling the other argument "irrational" and "arbitrary". In these case, they lose, and I win.

But there are many Christians who base their politics on divine revelation. Creationists, for instance.

What they base their views on is irrelevant to how they argue them. There are no examples of any political points that are made with religious or "divine revelation" arguments. There are some fundamentalist protestants who believe in creationism. It may be irrational, kind of like believing in "gay rights" or "personhood". But what political point is anyone trying to make based on creationism? None that I know of.

And I believe there are many others who, while they rationalize their views with secular arguments, hold them in the first place because of divine revelation.

I'm not one of them. However, it's irrelevant as to why someone started believing something. For example, someone could be walking down the street, and a criminal liar could tell him something. If that person then looks into it, and finds it to be true, and makes arguments to other people, you would claim that it's not true, since he found out about this truth from a lying criminal. Your view is irrational. Deal with the argument.

Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-07 00:16 | Link

I do not beleive that it is wrong to hold moral values (motivated by religious belief) and attempt to implement these beliefs in state policy. What is wrong is when you attempt to force these religiously motivated morals onto those who can not defend themselves against the majority.

Democracy has to be limited by basic human rights, but otherwise, using democracy isn't the use of force. By your logic, the prohibition of adult murder is the majority forcing it's moral view onto the minority. As such, your logic is clearly wrong.

Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-07 00:21 | Link

Totoro, US,
IMHO, this cannot be expressed in a better way.

Agreed. Well said Totoro. When I converted to Catholicism, I didn't have to change my philosophy or political viewpoint one bit. Let the people decide.

Pete, Paris | 2004-11-07 00:22 | Link

The start of this thread concerned the recent re-election of GWB and I'd like to pitch in on that.
As far as I'm concerned, Bush won the election because the USA was "attacked" on 9-11, and Bush successfully channelled the understandable nationalist rage and desire for revenge that swept a country that has only ever been attacked once before, and never before on its mainland. The attack terrified and angered all Americans, as it was meant to do, and Bush's crew milked it, and are still milking it, for all it's worth. He was in place when the attack occurred, and assumed the role of "Leader" and apparently directed the counter-attack. It would be skimpy to claim that America has been brainwashed by Fox, but the claim is not entirely untrue nonetheless. To the extent that reasonable citizens are mostly unwilling or unable to believe that their own government will actually lie to them, will actually exploit them, then guided media coverage goes a frighteningly long way in winning over public support. There is an incredible wealth of information - much more serious than one might suppose if one relies only on comments about this information from right-wing news sources - to indicate that the 2000 Presidential election was in fact fixed, that there is a great deal more to the event 9-11 than is beamed through the media projector, and that the US attack on Afghanistan and Iraq were in fact being planned well before 2001. Someone on this thread said something about the American Constitution still being valid - this is not entirely true - although its title is still the same, civil liberties have been greatly restricted, and the reason given for this is the "terrorist threat" - it may get worse. Incidentally, although more subtly done in Europe, our countries are also tightening their "security" networks, thus reducing civic freedom. Someone else speaks of US imperialism in the Middle East - this too is true, insofar as most of the trouble we are currently facing has its roots in the invention of the State of Israel, the manner in which it was invented, the way it has been run since 1948, and the indisputable fact that it has served from the start as an outpost and military bulwark of American colonialism. Add to that the fact that the power behind the Israeli government remains fervently Zionist and thus absolutely, though hypocritically, impervious to Palestinian claims to the land they were ethnically cleaned off. The Western mode of society, and here I include England, France, Germany, Russia, etc, is based on a particularly ferocious form of capitalism which is seen by many in the world as immorally parasitic - the major player in this league, however, remains the United States, and this is why most of the anger is directed at them. The "Indians" are attacking the fort - Bush is playing John Wayne in a John Ford movie - most Americans will relate to that at some level. The fact that his stories are full of holes means a lot less than his Hollywood posturing. I shudder to think who Tony Blair thinks he's playing. (Debbie Reynolds?) Kerry didn't make it because a nation under attack will not change leaders at a time of crisis, particularly when the challenger seems to lack healthy nutrition and true resolve. I completely agree that Osama's timely appearance without doubt gave GWB a handy nudge in what was none the less a close race - that's a point worth noting and remembering. The Bush - bin Laden partnership still operative? It's a mistake to see this conflict as a problem of religion - it's no more a problem of religion than, for example, Northern Ireland. It's primarily a question of whether people have a right to live their lives in their own land without interference from foreign sources. There are many nations which suffer under repressive regimes, and some of these are Islamic. This does not mean that Islam is an evil religion - any more than Christianity may be faulted by the un-Christian behaviour of certain self-proclaimed Christians. Similarly, all Jews are not evil because the government of Israel often chooses to act in an inhuman manner. Human beings should have the right to choose a government that does actually serve their interests - this is not the case anywhere at the moment - the people of the US and other Western powers are governed by a corrupt group who are in thrall to a minority of extremely powerful industrialists - it is not hard to prove the truth of this. Fighting to defend conflicting religious dogmas is to my mind missing the point, I'd go so far as to say that it's falling into an insultingly easy trap. The US is not necessarily altogether in the right because some bastards knocked down the WTC.

I bet my best friend 5 Euros that GWB would win the election, and then hoped I was being too cynical. On reflection, I wonder if it isn't a good thing - in the sense that we've seen Bush in action, we know what to expect. The main problem with the US from our European point of view is of course Iraq and the lunatic War on Terror, and if Kerry had won, I suspect that nothing would have changed in US strategy. It would, however, have been correspondingly harder for European leaders and public opinion to stand firm against the US. Plus the fact that the probable deception when Kerry changed almost nothing would have been depressing.

Knowing very little about economics, I can't say too much here, but I'm prepared to bet that Europe does represent a growing potential threat to the US the more it confirms its status as a multinational economic entity.

That's a long post, but I'll finish by saying that I agree that for we Europeans, there is of course an element of the soap opera in our fascination with this election - however, it's also clear to the world that the current storm of fire and steel raining on innocent human beings is getting closer and closer to everybody's doorstep, and the US of A is the major weather man.

Best wishes

Pete

David Elson, Queensland , Australia | 2004-11-07 00:23 | Link

Well perhaps I should articulate my point as follows. If an unborn entity has a neurological system that is so poorly developed that it possess no sense of consciousness and indeed not even the basic reflex of pain perception, than at this early stage this collection of cells, of human potential can in no way be considered a human being anymore than a fertilised human egg in a test tube.

Life is not the same as humanness. The steak I ate for breakfast once experienced far more neural activity than anyone of these unborn children, tell me was it wrong for me to eat it? I say no!

b) The foetus is definitely a member of the human race but it is not a realised person, any more than my sperm or big toe nail is definitely belonging to the human race, but is not a person.

c) A foetus is alive, but is not anymore alive than any other part of a women’s body until it has achieved biological independence from her. This is much different to being socially dependent upon someone in the same way as a babe is dependent upon its mother for food and love, but in the way that my arm is dependent on the body for oxygen and blood.

a) There is no such thing as a right to potential life. Every sperm, every egg, and with the advent of cloning, every discarded cell is another potential human life. If each and every potential life was legally compelled to be realised, imagine how unpragmatic this would be.

Medically a human foetus is not really viable (able to be removed from the mother and survive, until between 25 and 30 weeks after fertilisation. I.e; when its brain begins to display activity reminiscent of adult activity. Fetuses younger than this--however alive and active they may be--lack the necessary brain architecture. They cannot yet think

http://home.earthlink.net/~rdmadden/webdocs/Abortion_Philosophy_Sc.html

http://www.2think.org/science_abortion.shtml

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-07 00:33 | Link

Thing is, Gunnar, no one forces you (now, that would be a story worthy of attention) or anyone else in any Christian movement to take abortions.

Therefore, in this case, no moral code is imposed upon you. If you want to make abortions impossible / illegal / whatever, however, you are indeed imposing a moral code on someone else. Voting for ones views is democracy. Voting for forcing others to live according to those views is more often than not totalitarism disguised. The Iranian mullahs are pro-lifers too.

All of this of course doesn't mean that a society as a whole doesn't need any moral codes, as I've already mentioned. If you have good arguments for why Norway or the United States should change its practice as society, I'd love to hear them.

Øyvind

OldSwede | 2004-11-07 00:36 | Link

Pete, Paris, Sir,

You have the nerve to place the words "attacked" and "9-11" whitin hyphens as if these were fictional events. I sincerely hope, for Your sake, that this was mistake. Please, tell me that You did not intend this.

David Elson, Australia | 2004-11-07 00:49 | Link

Regarding the election:

The democrats worked hard to mobiles ethnic minorities (black Americans traditionally vote Democrat) and the youth vote to increase the size of their electoral supporters. Every report that I have read has indicated that the Bush camp managed to counter act this through an even greater mobilisation of the Christian (specifically evangelicalistic right; coming out in support of the incumbent President’s policies on gay marriage, stem cell research, abortion and genetic research.

Reports on PBS especially seem to indicate that the people interested in issues of economics and healthcare (something that interested predominately democrat voters) was a minority in this election. Whereas those who voted republican did so due to "social" issues (mentioned above)

Peter;

"Western mode of society, and here I include England, France, Germany, Russia, etc, is based on a particularly ferocious form of capitalism which is seen by many in the world as immorally parasitic"

Hahahah. It is more parasitically immoral to take things without giving, I think you'll find that most nations hold mutually beneficial relations. Or do you think that when Toyota (A Japanese producer) sells cars to the Chinese conusmer that they are parasiting of off their wealth? Or when Indonesian firms sells textiles to Australians that they are parasiting off us?

http://www.onebigvillage.com.au
www.JohanNorberg.com
www.Frihandel.nu
www.Heureka.org
www.thefreeworld.com
www.reason.com

"Knowing very little about economics, I can't say too much here, but I'm prepared to bet that Europe does represent a growing potential threat to the US the more it confirms its status as a multinational economic entity."

Unfortunately this is not true. There is no European state that has a GDP that is as high as America, and comparing the EU and America, with the European nations being compared as states to America's states they still come up short, with the richer EU nations merely equally the poorer US states in terms of economic growth :-)

Read the report "US vs the EU" by Fredrik Bergstroem, Robert Gidehag courtesy of the Timbro Institute. http://www.timbro.com/

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-07 00:55 | Link

Totoro:

I have to read that book soon.

Anyway, you wrote: Should "group marriage" (polygamy) be legalized by 5 justices on the Supreme Court for a country of 300 million people? Or, should such an idea be discussed among the voters and accepted or rejected by state legislatures?

From an idealist point of view, and because it's an example that can start an interesting philosophical discussion; why are either of those two alternatives necessary? Why should it be necessary for "group marriage"-wannabes to have the approval of society to marry?

(Of course, "marriage" is in reality a social ritual, and anyone could live together as "married" in the Western world, without being it, but I just use "group marriages" as a philosophical example here)

Ø.

RSN | 2004-11-07 01:09 | Link

Bjorn:

"To what purpose would you dissolve NATO and other treaties between us? Is unilateralist intervention a goal in itself, or a means to reach a goal, a stable, peaceful, world based on liberal democratic principles? For if that is the goal, to abandon the European-American alliance would undermine it.

Such language! Pretty soon you're going to have to ban yourself from your own website. ;-)

I seriously doubt that just because there are several liberal democracies in the world, we must assume that they automatically have to be allies, or share common goals. France obviously does not share common goals; France pursues it's own self-interest. So why should not America?

I would pursue this even further, and say that that would perhaps be the best for everyone concerned, instead of still pretending that there is something worthwhile that binds us together, other than the anti-Soviet alliance.

I see NATO, the UN, and other international treaties and organizations as an impediment. What Iraq points out is that when push comes to shove, coalition partners can be found for every contingency.

NATO and the UN only serve to tie us down to unworkable alliances, whose multitudinous voices only impede action when action is needed. It is better for everyone to act as an independent agent, in a competitive environment.

This best suits American interests, of course, as Americans thrive in such environments.

Gill Doyle, California | 2004-11-07 01:21 | Link

Pete in Paris and Ex Christian -- the two of you seem convinced that the US is a an ugly imperium that deserves to fall. I am concerned that a growing number of people in Europe feel that way. My question to you is this: given that you think we in the U.S. are a threat to world peace, what would you like your governments (or the EU) to do about it?

Dar | 2004-11-07 01:42 | Link

This constant Islamic violence around the world is certainly connected. It is based upon specific muslim writings and scholars. It is kept alive by radical muslim clerics both in muslim nations and in the west. Young men in Holland and England are being radicalized every day by radical clerics. Prepped for suicide squads, for religious-based violence against "infidel" targets.

Paris is surrounded by violent muslim neighborhoods. Perhaps "Pete" lives in one of them. Perhaps he himself is a radical. No one would know.

Europe continues to accept muslim immigrants, who often end up on the dole. Dole supported immigrants are more likely to be radicalized than working immigrants. Is this how you want your countries to be destroyed? Because it is working.

Totoro, U.S. | 2004-11-07 01:48 | Link

Pete, Paris . . .

I didn't read your entire post because it got quite long and covered too many subjects. I do want to respond to your view that 9/11 caused Americans to be scared and therefore easily brainwashed.

What 9/11 taught those like me who paid attention is that our society is quite open and interconnected. A few terrorist actions could cripple entire cities.

This is not some fantasy fear. I could tell you a few ways to cripple my city, but I'm not going to in case a terrorist is reading this. The point is, it's almost a no-brainer.

Therefore it became necessary to (1) Hunt down the terrorists wherever they are, in the U.S., Europe, etc., or in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc. (You can decide what I mean by "etc.") (2) Stop the Saudis from financing more terror and jihadism without crippling the global economy (that's the Blood for Oil part). (3) Let terror-supporting nations know that if they mess with us, we'll mess with them.

Capiche, paisano?

OldSwede | 2004-11-07 01:53 | Link

Tororo, Sir,

10-10.

Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-07 01:53 | Link

The foetus is definitely a member of the human race but it is not a realised person, .
c) A foetus is alive, but is not anymore alive than any other part of a women’s body until it has achieved biological independence from her.

This is non scientific and circular reasoning. Define "realized person" scientifically. What, a "realized person" is one that manages to avoid being killed?

C is simply really bad science. Take a biology course. A baby in the womb is completely different from a skin cell, or a wart. In fact, the only similarity is that they are both attached to the mother. If there are two people joined together, which is the body part of the other?

Biological Independence also CANNOT be the essence of humanity. A growing baby in the womb only needs what every human needs: oxygen, nutrition, water, and waste removal. A newborn infant is similarly prone to a quick death without these things. Simply being detached cannot be the moment when a human life is created. Besides being an irrational a-priori argument, it goes against every shred of common sense. That means that a doctor created life with a snip of the umbilical cord. There is no parent, doctor or scientist on earth that would agree with that.

They cannot yet think

Thinking cannot be the definition of humanity, unless you believe that retarded people don't have rights.

However, your opinions are just not supported by scientific evidence:

Dr. Jerome Lejeune, "Father of Modern Genetics" and discoverer of the cause of Down's Syndrome, stated, "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion . . . it is plain experimental evidence."
Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at Mayo Clinic, stated, "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

The widely used medical textbook The Developing Human, Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th Edition, Moore, Persaud, Saunders, 1998, states at page 2 that "A zygote is the beginning of a new human being ...." At page 18 this theme is repeated: "Human development begins at fertilization...."

Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-07 01:57 | Link

Therefore, in this case, no moral code is imposed upon you. If you want to make abortions impossible / illegal / whatever, however, you are indeed imposing a moral code on someone else. Voting for ones views is democracy. Voting for forcing others to live according to those views is more often than not totalitarism disguised.

Then, why do we have laws against rape or stealing? By your reasoning, this would be imposing a moral code on other people. As I've demonstrated, this "moral code" stuff is a complete red herring. Every vote and every political act implies a moral code.

Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-07 02:04 | Link

From an idealist point of view, and because it's an example that can start an interesting philosophical discussion; why are either of those two alternatives necessary? Why should it be necessary for "group marriage"-wannabes to have the approval of society to marry?

Great point. There is no civil rights aspect to this. There is nothing in a marriage that can't be handled with a contract. They want something from the state, ie the people. What is this? They want a stamp of approval, which is not something that can be forced. Redefining marriage only destroys the concept (which might also be the goal), which is harmful to society. No one has even tried to dispute this.

Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-07 02:51 | Link

NATO and the UN only serve to tie us down to unworkable alliances, whose multitudinous voices only impede action when action is needed. It is better for everyone to act as an independent agent, in a competitive environment.
This best suits American interests, of course, as Americans thrive in such environments.

That's correct. NATO only had a purpose to provide a unified front against soviet aggression. It's outlived it's usefulness. Certainly, there is no reason for the US to defend these European nations that won't lift a finger to defend the US. In fact, UN expansion is perceived by Russia as a threat, which is against US interests, since Russia is a more important ally than old europe. With Russia, we have more in common, since they have a tendency (although still in development) towards being pro-capitalism (they have a flat tax), pro religion, and are anti-islamo fascists.

As for the UN, it's completely absurd to grant a bunch of dictators power to determine legitimacy in foreign policy. How can a bunch of dictators and human rights abusers fight against dictators? We should form a new org: United Free Nations with an objective standard for what constitutes freedom. The UN can move to Paris.

David, Australia | 2004-11-07 03:04 | Link

Define "realized person" scientifically. What, a "realized person" is one that manages to avoid being killed?

A foetus that successfully reaches a stage where it is recognizable as possessing human cognitive facilities. Besides, according to your logic every natural miscarriage that occurs should be investigated as a potential murder, with women being charged with manslaughter if they are found to have accidently contributed to a miscarriage. Things such as diet, exercise, smoking, drinking (alcohol) can adversely effect the success of a pregnancy.

Many primates are genetically very similar to humans. Should we ban the killing of apes because they are similar to us?

Biological Independence also CANNOT be the essence of humanity

Aside from offending your religious sensitivities why not?

Simply being detached cannot be the moment when a human life is created.

Well why not use the stage of development as being the guide for when to is fully human (30 weeks) and allow abortions up to this point? Of course when children are born they still require parental care, but at this stage of development, it matters little if they are cared for by their parents or by surrogates, something that definitely can not be considered at a foetal stage!!

Thinking cannot be the definition of humanity, unless you believe that retarded people don't have rights.

What a ridiculous argument. Mentally disabled people can think, just at an impaired level. Your statement is an affront to disabled people every where.

Do you honestly believe that each and every zygote is an actual person?

That song from Monty Python’s Sperm is Sacred Song was just a satire I didn’t expect you to take its lyrics literarily! ;-)

There is no doubting that fertilisation is the beginning of a new human life, however let us look to the standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for a definition of what being human entails “when the baby's brain waves can be detected (at 25 wks), or when the baby is able to survive outside the womb” (normally after 30wks).

An unborn, unformed and undeveloped person or foetus, is just that, a person that has not yet reached a stage of development where they are fully human. This is not based on whether the child is in or outside the womb, but is determined by the nonarbitrary development of the child within the mother’s womb.

Let people choose to have abortions where the child is still not greatly developed, if they don't want to they won't. This doesn't force anyone to do anything.

There is no reason for one group to force its beliefs through legislation onto another, and that includes those who get their truths from liars.

RSN | 2004-11-07 03:08 | Link

Gunnar, I agree with your sentiments, but disagree on some points:

- The UN should not be allowed to exist without the US, since it can be used against us. But America can cripple the UN by exercising a permanent veto to all resolutions. Then, as a condition for lifting the permanent veto, the US can make two significant demands: 1.) any member state of the General Assembly loses its voting rights should it not conduct democratic elections in its own country, and 2.) the Secretary General must be American.

- As to NATO, we can easily dispense with that, but we should make separate, bilateral defense treaties with countries that are friendlier to the US (UK, Poland, Rumania). These treaties should be periodically reviewed for their timeliness.

I just don't see why we should carry on the fiction that the US is an "ally" of France or Germany, given that they are actively working to bring harm to the US.

OldSwede | 2004-11-07 03:21 | Link

Hello, Gunnar Sir,

The real conflict is not about the good old USSR, but new threats. UN was, maybe, good ín the cold war framework. But now?

The Soviets had a lot of things going against them. Like, mass murder. Not very popular, if you ask me.

Now, we have a new world. Also, we have a new enemy: Islam. Please observe, that I do not adress any racial issues here. It is just the religion itself.

NATO will in the future work as the tool to contian Islam. Therefore, it is still needed. Further, what, exactly, make You think that Europe can be written off? It may come as a suprise to You, but i do think that Europe will surprise you.

Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-07 03:45 | Link

A foetus that successfully reaches a stage where it is recognizable as possessing human cognitive facilities.

define "human cognitive facilities".

Besides, according to your logic every natural miscarriage that occurs should be investigated as a potential murder

What you wrote is a contradiction. If it's natural, then it couldn't possibly be murder. But certainly, if a man deliberately kicks the pregnant woman in the abdomen, he would be guilty of murder. That matches how people would view an act like that. The people have passed laws making the murder of a pregnant woman a double homicide. For miscarriages, there is a presumption of innocence, at least in civilized countries.

Biological Independence also CANNOT be the essence of humanity ... Aside from offending your religious sensitivities why not?

Because it's circular reasoning! You cannot use the conclusion you want to reach as a reason to come to that conclusion. Take a logic course. The rest of my paragraph explains why. Are two people joined at the hip not human, since neither is biologically independent?

Well why not use the stage of development as being the guide for when to is fully human (30 weeks) and allow abortions up to this point?

Because it would be arbitrary and irrational, which is what you accuse those who disagree with you of being. What is so different about the 29 week old baby? I went through this whole process as an aethiest. I read someone who said that the pre-born have no human rights. I said to myself, wait a minute, one day before birth, the baby is no different in any essential way from the baby after birth, other than the baby has been born. So, I kept working myself backwards, and concluded that there is no point in development where the essence is different from what was just before.

What a ridiculous argument. Mentally disabled people can think, just at an impaired level. Your statement is an affront to disabled people every where.

Babies in the womb think, just at an impaired level. Your statement is an affront to the millions of pre-born humans alive at this very moment. In fact, the scientific evidence is that babies think far more than adults. They start out tabula rasa, and they actually learn to operate. SIDS research has revealed that babies learn from their mother to keep their own breathing going. Babies learn to move their limbs by randomly send signals. They move around to get comfortable. Babies in the womb have now been seen to put their hands in front of their eyes to block a bright light. This is a complex learned behaviour.

I was shocked one sunny day, when I had my hand on my wife's abdomen. Suddenly, I felt someone scratch the palm of my hand. It was absolutely freaky and I jumped back. Trygve saw my hand as a dark spot, reached up, and touched me.

>> Do you honestly believe that each and every zygote is an actual person?

Absolutely, The truth is supported scientifically, logically, and emotionally (as a parent).

>> That song from Monty Python’s sperm

Straw man, since no one has said that a sperm is a human.

Pete, Paris | 2004-11-07 03:52 | Link

I'll try and be clear - I do not believe that Americans per se are imperialistic, evil, dumb, or anything else in general - I know a lot of Americans here in Paris, and we get on fine - incidentally, most of them agree with me on many of the points I make. I'm saying that I understand that 9-11 scared a lot of people, and rightly so, this is precisely why it was perpetrated - however, these fears have been and are being exploited for reasons which have nothing to do with "terrorism" - this is not to say that there are not people who will resort to what is called "terrorism" to express themselves. The roots of the terror problem that our world is now attempting to deal with are inextricable from the behaviour of capitalist societies, in this instance, particularly Israel and the US - no-one who is interested in the situation can possibly be ignorant of this. I know a number of Arab people too, mostly from Algeria or Tunisia, though not exclusively, some from Lebanon - they're all peaceful Muslims by the way. But I have experienced - and shared - their frustration and sometimes anger at the way, for example, major injustices in the Middle East (Palestine and also Iraq) are treated in the Western media. They know full well that in the West, Palestinians in particular, and, for at least the last 15 years, Arabs in general, are viewed as suspicious and dangerous a priori, while Israeli and US aggression is treated as "repression of terror" or "counter-insurgency" etc. This biased form of media coverage is systematic and dangerous in itself, worsening a problem instead of clarifying it - this is only to be expected, however, since the major media are also part of the economic power structure.

When I talk of "parasitic" capitalism, I'm talking about the attitude of huge Western (mostly US) conglomerates who "out-source" the fabrication of their products to poor countries where they engage people at slave labour conditions after having made other possibilities more or less impossible. I'm talking about the US-controlled World Bank which offers "loans" to poor countries conditional to the signing away of their national ressources to such companies. For example. Not to mention the rapacious arms market (US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, etc etc) which sells whatever weapons it can to whoever wants to buy them, without the slightest moral qualms whatsoever. Profit is king, suffering counts not at all. That is what I call parasitic capitalism. This does not make individual Americans evil, just as genocidal massacres in Palestine do not make all Jews murderers.

My point is that the American government, like the British and French governments, is not acting to serve the interests of its people - that is my beef - I'm not an Islamist terror sympathiser, I don't believe in terror, whether it's "cottage-industry" terrorism or state terrorism. But the two are linked. European resistants to the Nazi regime were labelled terrorists, but they saw themselves as freedom fighters. Yes, old Swede, I'm afraid I do see 9-11 as a manipulated event which has been used not to better serve the people of the USA, but to further the interests of a small group of people at the expense of the many - US citizens, Iraqi citizens, English citizens, anyone will serve as cannon fodder. If the people were honestly consulted and their opinions were acted upon, we would not be in this mess. That is democracy - what we have today is not democracy - we have the right to cast a vote for a man who will promise us anything at all to get into power and then once in power, will apply the programme for which he was financed from the beginning. We have absolutely no say over the way government spends the money that we earn. This is not democracy. Ask yourself the question "Has my government ever lied to me about an important issue?" If the answer is yes, do you think it will never happen again?

Finally, though I didn't weigh in on this subject, I'd like to express my agreement with Gunnar on (at least) the subject of abortion. I believe that every human being should have the right to choose what they do with their own life, as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. That's why I don't agree with abortion. If left to develop naturally, an embryo will grow into a fully-fledged human being - I can't see that there's any way that at some point it is not a human being. A human being is there from the moment of conception, or not at all. For the same reason, though human beings should have a right to choose to end their life if they wish, there should never be a situation, medical or otherwise, where people can legislate about the right to life or death of others.

Talk to you tomorrow

Best wishes

Pete

Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-07 03:57 | Link

Let people choose to have abortions where the child is still not greatly developed, if they don't want to they won't. This doesn't force anyone to do anything.
There is no reason for one group to force its beliefs through legislation onto another

Since you just repeat your viewpoint over and over again, it seems like you're not really thinking about what I write. Every piece of legislation is declaring something to be right and wrong. You can't avoid the fact that politics is based on morality, so your statement is non-sensical. By that logic, we couldn't outlaw rape or stealing, since it would be forcing are views upon others.

Philosopher George Mavrodes drives home this point in the following story:

Let us imagine a person who believes that Jews are human persons, and that the extermination of Jews is murder. Many of us will find that exercise fairly easy, because we are people of that sort ourselves. So we may as well take ourselves to be the people in question. And let us now go on to imagine that we live in a society in which the "termination" of Jews is an every-day routine procedure, a society in which public facilities are provided in every community for this operation, and one in which any citizen is free to identify and denounce Jews and to arrange for their arrest and termination.
In that imaginary society, many of us will know people who have themselves participated in these procedures, many of us will drive past the termination centers daily on our way to work, we can often see the smoke rising gently in the late afternoon sky, and so on.

And now imagine that someone tells us that if we happen to believe that Jews are human beings then that's O.K., we needn't fear any coercion, nobody requires us to participate in the termination procedure ourselves. We need not work in the gas chamber, we don't have to denounce a Jew, and so on. We can simply mind our own business, walk quietly past the well-trimmed lawns, and (of course) pay our taxes.

Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-07 04:03 | Link

The UN should not be allowed to exist without the US, since it can be used against us.

We can't control what other people do. We would just ignore it, and take part in the UFN.

But America can cripple the UN by exercising a permanent veto to all resolutions.

By staying in it, we agree with the premise that dictatorships and subjugators have an opinion worth hearing. This only strengthens the premise.

As to NATO, we can easily dispense with that, but we should make separate, bilateral defense treaties with countries that are friendlier to the US (UK, Poland, Rumania). These treaties should be periodically reviewed for their timeliness

Agreed.

John Anderson RI USA | 2004-11-07 04:25 | Link

Oy.

For those afraid of "Bush the born-again Christian", may I ask their feelings about Carter? Yes, I am a bit uneasy - I do not approve of zealotry/fanaticism - but I don't see Bush doing more than he did on the silly cosmetic-additions-to-rifles ban: paraphrase "If Congress passes an extension, I will sign it, but darned if I will get behind it and push."

Israel since 1948: people have forgotten that in 1967 the Israeli Air Force flew French Mirages - because the US had blocked military exports. Some support, yes?

As far as I am concerned, "marriage" is a religious and social construct: what States do (at least in the US) as a legalistic construct is license and/or recognize a living arrangement, with an OPTIONAL religious component, that has also been called "marriage" for some centuries. Some religions do not "recognise" marriages by other religions, but the State does. On the other hand, the State may not recognize certain religions: in my own State, a Shinto priest cannot be licensed to sign the "marriage certificate" so Shintoists who want the protections of law must also be married in a civil ceremony.

Gill Doyle, California | 2004-11-07 04:28 | Link

Pete -- you didn't answer my question. What would you have your government (or the EU) DO about America? I know now what you think about America. But what do you want Europe to DO about it?

Totoro, U.S. | 2004-11-07 05:18 | Link

Oyvind, Bergen . . .

You said: "Why should it be necessary for "group marriage"-wannabes to have the approval of society to marry?"

It's really not a question of "approval." There are many legal implications, like the tax codes, for example. I'm sure there are many other examples, but I'm not familiar with them. I could make up some.

For example, if someone is killed by a big corporation (like Halliburton) through negligence, could John Edwards be the lawyer for the 20 spouses of the person, each of whom would be awarded millions for loss of conjugal rights plus mental suffering? As you can see, I'm just making this up.

But my point is reasonable--there are legalities related to marriage. The same legalities could apply to "civil unions." But polygamy? Should we be encouraging this?

We have the right to control and shape our society just like socialists have the right to control and shape their society. What's the difference?

Syvia, Denver | 2004-11-07 05:46 | Link

Bjorn noted that there hasn't been much comprehensive analysis of the US election. This despite the inordinate amount of attention that was focused on it.

I am an "unaffiliated voter", in other words, I do not belong to any political party. I have had a tendancy in the past to vote more Democratic. I voted for Bush.

The Conservative Christians may be a significant voting block, but they are not a swing vote. They have no place to go, and so were locked into voting Republican, just like last time. It was voters like me, and disaffected Democrats who seem to have pushed the election to Bush.

I can only speak for myself, but here goes:

1. Kerry has a most undistinguished record in the Senate. If he's so for all of these different progressive programs, why has the man not authored any significant legislation all these years?

2. Kerry's military record is questionable at best. According to his chain of command he is unfit. That's not good. Apparently all of that stuff that was seared into his memory was at best lightly toasted. The man's either a serious liar or is delusional.

3. His post VietNam antics were dispicable.

4. His "foreign allies" nonsense. The French are not our friends. Anyone who paid attention could see that the vast amount of weaponry that was supplied to Saddam was French, Russian, German. What allies is he refering too? The man doen't seem to know US history. Or if he does, it is from a European perspective. I'm not sure which is worse. (Just read the histories of The Barbary Coast).

5. He surrounded himself with ex-Carterites and Clintonistas. Not exactly foreign policy wizards, those guys.

6. He plans to do what exactly, in Iraq? Iran? Negotiate? To whom, may I ask is he referring to?
What's this guy's policy, anyway, aside from appeasing anti-Americans in France, Belgium and Germany? That's not a policy, that's State Department drivel. He's running for President of the United States, not Chief Negotiator.

7. The MSM. The behavior of the MSM was deeply offensive to me, as well as the Hollywood crowd. They behaved as a fifth column. I will not empower that.

There are some other issues, but these were some of the important ones for me.

OldSwede brought up some interesting points. I have al