For information on Fundamentalism please check the following links:
What
is Fundamentalism? and Why is it so dangerous?
Dr. Neilson, in his excellent article "Religion's Role
in the Terroristic Attack of September 11, 2001," addresses the questions
"What makes something fundamentalist?" and "How did this worldview influence
the terrorist actions?"
Friday, February 28, 2003
Terrorism is a by-product of fundamentalism. When we support Christian fundamentalism, we are as bad as governments that support Islamic fundamentalism. Until we demonstrate to the world that we are impartial in our fight against people who hate, we cannot and will not be taken seriously. As long as we tolerate fundamentalist ideology in our government, we are part of the problem not part of the solution.
This is a free country and we must permit fundamentalists to believe and teach as their conscience dictates. We must permit it, but we must be ever vigilant to guard against their attempts to impose their beliefs and ideology on others. This is a pluralist society and we must allow individuals and groups their own lifestyle, but only within the limits of respect for the freedom of others.
If the fundamentalists want to pull their children out of the school systems and indoctrinate them in their own schools we must permit them to do so, but we cannot support their schools with tax dollars.
If the fundamentalists want to form paramilitary groups and live in armed camps in the woods, we must permit it but when they become a threat to their neighbors we must stop them.
If they wish to post the Ten Commandments on their lawns, we must permit them to do so, but we cannot allow them to force the public schools to post them in the classrooms.
If the Amish wish to preserve a lifestyle from before the industrial revolution, we must permit them to do so, but they will have to modify their lifestyle to accommodate the growth of industry and technology around them. Similarly, fundamentalist groups must understand that for freedom to exist, their interpretation Gods commandments can only be implemented within the context of respect for the right of others to disagree.
We must protect and preserve freedom of speech. As a result we must allow fundamentalists such as Falwell and Robertson to set up TV networks and say what they believe. But there are limits to free speech. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. And whenever these people use these media for hate speech, we must all stand up and loudly denounce them for it. We must teach freedom and respect for others right to be different and right to disagree as diligently as the fundamentalists teach their dogma. Protect your children from hate speech. Use parental controls to block CBN.
In a democracy, the majority rules. But the majority doesn’t get to do whatever it wants to. In a democracy, the majority is given the responsibility for preserving and protecting the rights of the minorities. If the elected majority does not understand this, democracy cannot survive. Fundamentalists (both Christian and Islamic) believe that they have been commanded by God to follow His commands. Fundamentalists believe that their particular interpretation of those commands is absolutely correct and true. No disagreement can be tolerated. No compromise can be permitted. When fundamentalists become the majority and are elected to rule, democracy is finished.
This is what makes politically motivated fundamentalists such as Gary Bauer, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Ashcroft so dangerous. They do not understand the nature of freedom and the nature of democracy. The do not understand the compromises that must be made to ensure the survival of a pluralistic society.
This is a free country and we must permit fundamentalists to believe and teach as their conscience dictates. We must permit it, but we must be ever vigilant to guard against their attempts to impose their beliefs and ideology on others. This is a pluralist society and we must allow individuals and groups their own lifestyle, but only within the limits of respect for the freedom of others.
If the fundamentalists want to pull their children out of the school systems and indoctrinate them in their own schools we must permit them to do so, but we cannot support their schools with tax dollars.
If the fundamentalists want to form paramilitary groups and live in armed camps in the woods, we must permit it but when they become a threat to their neighbors we must stop them.
If they wish to post the Ten Commandments on their lawns, we must permit them to do so, but we cannot allow them to force the public schools to post them in the classrooms.
If the Amish wish to preserve a lifestyle from before the industrial revolution, we must permit them to do so, but they will have to modify their lifestyle to accommodate the growth of industry and technology around them. Similarly, fundamentalist groups must understand that for freedom to exist, their interpretation Gods commandments can only be implemented within the context of respect for the right of others to disagree.
We must protect and preserve freedom of speech. As a result we must allow fundamentalists such as Falwell and Robertson to set up TV networks and say what they believe. But there are limits to free speech. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. And whenever these people use these media for hate speech, we must all stand up and loudly denounce them for it. We must teach freedom and respect for others right to be different and right to disagree as diligently as the fundamentalists teach their dogma. Protect your children from hate speech. Use parental controls to block CBN.
In a democracy, the majority rules. But the majority doesn’t get to do whatever it wants to. In a democracy, the majority is given the responsibility for preserving and protecting the rights of the minorities. If the elected majority does not understand this, democracy cannot survive. Fundamentalists (both Christian and Islamic) believe that they have been commanded by God to follow His commands. Fundamentalists believe that their particular interpretation of those commands is absolutely correct and true. No disagreement can be tolerated. No compromise can be permitted. When fundamentalists become the majority and are elected to rule, democracy is finished.
This is what makes politically motivated fundamentalists such as Gary Bauer, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Ashcroft so dangerous. They do not understand the nature of freedom and the nature of democracy. The do not understand the compromises that must be made to ensure the survival of a pluralistic society.
It was reported on the news Tuesday morning that Vicente Fox, President of Mexico made a speech yesterday regarding Mexico’s decision not to support the US attempt to get a new resolution on Iraq through the UN. As part of that speech he said something to the effect that Mexico wants to win the war on terrorism without violence. The Administration of the US created this fiction of a “War on Terrorism” right after September 11 to give the appearance that they were doing something about the attack on America. Terrorism isn’t something you fight with armies and tanks, bombs and guns. Terrorism is something you fight with social change. This is only a war in the sense that the war on poverty was a war and the only way it will ever be won is without violence.
We had a war against the Taliban and we drove them out of Afghanistan.
We are now doing a bunch of war mongering with regard to Iraq but there is no military “War on Terrorism.” The whole point of terrorism is you can’t fight it. You just have to live with it until you can change the attitudes that lead to it.
Terrorism is a horrible thing that we must do everything in our power to eliminate. Frequently, terrorism is a by-product of religious fundamentalism. It is ridiculous to think you can counteract the forces of religious fundamentalism with military force. Fundamentalists believe that their way is the only way that can be allowed to exist and they must stamp out those who disagree with them. When the US moves in to replace Muslim regimes we look like we are taking this same intolerant stance with respect to Muslims. We must take strong action to show the world that we are not trying to eliminate those who disagree with us. We must take a strong stand against fundamentalism wherever we find it. If we hope to succeed, if we hope to have an internally consistent approach, we must take as strong a stand against the Christian fundamentalism that leads to white militia groups and to the bombing of abortion clinics as we do against Muslim fundamentalism that leads to bombing of the World Trade Center.
So what can we do about terrorism? What will work? How can we decide what will work and what won’t, how to proceed and where to start? There is a pretty good mental experiment that can be used to evaluate strategies for dealing with terrorism. No strategy will be effective with Muslim fundamentalists that would not be effective with Christian fundamentalists. If it wouldn’t work to fight the fundamentalism of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson it won’t work to fight the terrorism of Osama Ben Laden.
If we sent in troops and surrounded the state of Virginia and targeted our missiles on Lynchburg in an effort to shut down Liberty University, that hotbed of fundamentalism, do you think it would help solve the fundamentalist problem in the United States today? You can’t use military force to fight an idea.
The structure and organization of Islamic fundamentalism is analogous to the organization and structure of Christian fundamentalism in many ways. There is no centralized command. Many individuals, pastors of small rural churches, teach Christian fundamentalism to their congregations. Some of their members embrace the ideas fully some do not. There is no master list. There isn’t even a universally agreed upon list of beliefs or doctrines. Each of the thousands of small fundamentalist churches has it’s own unique beliefs. Several thousand such congregations exist in Eastern Kentucky alone. Where would you drop bombs to wipe out fundamentalism in Eastern Kentucky? If you sent in troops to ferret them out, whom would you hunt?
You have to fight ideas with ideas. Ideas are only changed through dialog. We must open channels of communication and through persistent, respectful, ongoing discussion and education we must foster open mindedness and tolerance. People fear the unfamiliar. Getting to know people who are different from you, who have different attitudes and beliefs from you, is the best way to develop open mindedness and tolerance. Fundamentalism grows best in a climate of ignorance and isolation. Shine the light of education and understanding on it and it withers.
We had a war against the Taliban and we drove them out of Afghanistan.
We are now doing a bunch of war mongering with regard to Iraq but there is no military “War on Terrorism.” The whole point of terrorism is you can’t fight it. You just have to live with it until you can change the attitudes that lead to it.
Terrorism is a horrible thing that we must do everything in our power to eliminate. Frequently, terrorism is a by-product of religious fundamentalism. It is ridiculous to think you can counteract the forces of religious fundamentalism with military force. Fundamentalists believe that their way is the only way that can be allowed to exist and they must stamp out those who disagree with them. When the US moves in to replace Muslim regimes we look like we are taking this same intolerant stance with respect to Muslims. We must take strong action to show the world that we are not trying to eliminate those who disagree with us. We must take a strong stand against fundamentalism wherever we find it. If we hope to succeed, if we hope to have an internally consistent approach, we must take as strong a stand against the Christian fundamentalism that leads to white militia groups and to the bombing of abortion clinics as we do against Muslim fundamentalism that leads to bombing of the World Trade Center.
So what can we do about terrorism? What will work? How can we decide what will work and what won’t, how to proceed and where to start? There is a pretty good mental experiment that can be used to evaluate strategies for dealing with terrorism. No strategy will be effective with Muslim fundamentalists that would not be effective with Christian fundamentalists. If it wouldn’t work to fight the fundamentalism of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson it won’t work to fight the terrorism of Osama Ben Laden.
If we sent in troops and surrounded the state of Virginia and targeted our missiles on Lynchburg in an effort to shut down Liberty University, that hotbed of fundamentalism, do you think it would help solve the fundamentalist problem in the United States today? You can’t use military force to fight an idea.
The structure and organization of Islamic fundamentalism is analogous to the organization and structure of Christian fundamentalism in many ways. There is no centralized command. Many individuals, pastors of small rural churches, teach Christian fundamentalism to their congregations. Some of their members embrace the ideas fully some do not. There is no master list. There isn’t even a universally agreed upon list of beliefs or doctrines. Each of the thousands of small fundamentalist churches has it’s own unique beliefs. Several thousand such congregations exist in Eastern Kentucky alone. Where would you drop bombs to wipe out fundamentalism in Eastern Kentucky? If you sent in troops to ferret them out, whom would you hunt?
You have to fight ideas with ideas. Ideas are only changed through dialog. We must open channels of communication and through persistent, respectful, ongoing discussion and education we must foster open mindedness and tolerance. People fear the unfamiliar. Getting to know people who are different from you, who have different attitudes and beliefs from you, is the best way to develop open mindedness and tolerance. Fundamentalism grows best in a climate of ignorance and isolation. Shine the light of education and understanding on it and it withers.
Wednesday, February 26, 2003
We Stand Passively Mute
by US Senator Robert Byrd
Senate Floor Speech
Wednesday 12 February 2003
"To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.
Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.
We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.
And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.
This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.
Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.
This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.
In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.
In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.
Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.
The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.
Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?
And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?
Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?
Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?
In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.
One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.
But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.
Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.
We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.
To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.
by US Senator Robert Byrd
Senate Floor Speech
Wednesday 12 February 2003
"To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.
Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.
We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.
And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.
This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.
Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.
This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.
In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.
In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.
Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.
The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.
Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?
And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?
Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?
Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?
In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.
One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.
But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.
Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.
We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.
To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.
Tuesday, February 25, 2003
One of the news casts this morning reported that US Intelligence Agencies had suggested that Iraq might have remotely piloted vehicles. They suggested that they might be able to use these to target cities right here at home in the United States. The graphic that they showed with this on the TV was of an old (30 years old at least) drone the fuselage of which would fit in your living room.
Ok. Lets just think about this for a second. Lets just picture the level of technology Iraq would have to have to develop such technology.
tick-tock
Ok. Thats long enough. Now lets think about the size of the fuel tanks necessary to give an aircraft enough range to reach New York from Iraq and the size of aircraft required to carry a significant payload.
tick-tock
Ok. Now lets picture the comand and control center necessary to track and control such a craft and the sophistication and level of training required of the personnel who man the command and control center. Picture the satellite up-links and down-links and the video synchronization problems and the size of the space program required to put these satellites in orbit.
tick-tock
Ok. Thats long enough. Any military person who has had more than 6 months experience knows that this is impossible. The US can barely target Iraq from off the coast of Kuwait, let alone from mainland US, so how could Iraq target us from Bagdad.
This is obvious bull shit. Why would they say that. Oh yeah, it wasn't our military that said it. The release was attributed to US Intelligence, or was it the US Office of Disinformation. This whole thing is so Orwellian that I keep looking at my digital wrist watch to see if it is 1984.
This is obvious propaganda designed to boost W's approval ratings. And Americans are such sheep that it will probably work.
Think people. Think. God gave you brains, now use them.
Ok. Lets just think about this for a second. Lets just picture the level of technology Iraq would have to have to develop such technology.
tick-tock
Ok. Thats long enough. Now lets think about the size of the fuel tanks necessary to give an aircraft enough range to reach New York from Iraq and the size of aircraft required to carry a significant payload.
tick-tock
Ok. Now lets picture the comand and control center necessary to track and control such a craft and the sophistication and level of training required of the personnel who man the command and control center. Picture the satellite up-links and down-links and the video synchronization problems and the size of the space program required to put these satellites in orbit.
tick-tock
Ok. Thats long enough. Any military person who has had more than 6 months experience knows that this is impossible. The US can barely target Iraq from off the coast of Kuwait, let alone from mainland US, so how could Iraq target us from Bagdad.
This is obvious bull shit. Why would they say that. Oh yeah, it wasn't our military that said it. The release was attributed to US Intelligence, or was it the US Office of Disinformation. This whole thing is so Orwellian that I keep looking at my digital wrist watch to see if it is 1984.
This is obvious propaganda designed to boost W's approval ratings. And Americans are such sheep that it will probably work.
Think people. Think. God gave you brains, now use them.
Monday, February 24, 2003
Lately I've been shocked at the growth of anti-intellectual, anti-scientific attitudes in the people I meet and in the media.
A couple of nights ago, I was channel surfing and caught the end of a discussion O'Reilly ("O'Reilly Factor" on Fox News Channel) was having with a group of experts. Apparently, they had been discussing the research that indicates that even very small children are sexual creatures (something that has been well documented in the scientific literature and has been known for some time. O'Reilly was incensed. He kept asking the people on the panel something like "What is the value to society of knowing this kind of thing," as if to say that knowledge that does not have an immediate, positive, social application should not be discovered. Perhaps he was saying that research that challenges established beliefs should not be allowed. This is the height of censorship for one thing. For another, it reflects shocking ignorance. His panellists sat their stunned. He asked the question twice, in the last 15 seconds of the show then without giving them the time or opportunity to develop an answer, he closed the show saying he didn't like Kinsey or his research either.
The fact is that babies and little children masturbate, they stimulate themselves, they play with themselves and each other if they have the opportunity, and they like the way it feels. Nearly all babies do this. We are born sexual creatures, it is natural, it is normal, and it has been going on for millions of years with no disastrous or harmful consequences.
If the general public is not informed of this information, we end up with the kind of thing we saw in Houston a few months ago in which a fanatically religious mother drowned her five children to get Satan out of them. Childhood sexuality is not sin, it is not evil, it is not satanic, it is not evidence for demon posession, and it is just a normal biological process. Yes, O'Reilly, there is a social consequence of creating a society that is ignorant of childhood sexuality. Yes, O'Reilly, there is a consequence of allowing supersition and ignorance to grow unchecked in our society. If you think research and education are expensive, you should try ignorance.
One of the things that I can't figure out is why O'Reilly takes this position. There are at least two possiblities.
One: He is so ignorant and uninformed and closed minded himself that he finds any discussion of sexuality offensive and objects to funding research designed to better understand human sexuality, or
Two: He is playing the ratings game and has decided that their is a large enough segment of the listening audience who hasn't thought this issue through and will respond positively, in a knee jerk way, to anybody on TV who comes out against sex.
Either way, this is real scary. I have nightmares in which I watch America plunging into the dark ages.
A couple of nights ago, I was channel surfing and caught the end of a discussion O'Reilly ("O'Reilly Factor" on Fox News Channel) was having with a group of experts. Apparently, they had been discussing the research that indicates that even very small children are sexual creatures (something that has been well documented in the scientific literature and has been known for some time. O'Reilly was incensed. He kept asking the people on the panel something like "What is the value to society of knowing this kind of thing," as if to say that knowledge that does not have an immediate, positive, social application should not be discovered. Perhaps he was saying that research that challenges established beliefs should not be allowed. This is the height of censorship for one thing. For another, it reflects shocking ignorance. His panellists sat their stunned. He asked the question twice, in the last 15 seconds of the show then without giving them the time or opportunity to develop an answer, he closed the show saying he didn't like Kinsey or his research either.
The fact is that babies and little children masturbate, they stimulate themselves, they play with themselves and each other if they have the opportunity, and they like the way it feels. Nearly all babies do this. We are born sexual creatures, it is natural, it is normal, and it has been going on for millions of years with no disastrous or harmful consequences.
If the general public is not informed of this information, we end up with the kind of thing we saw in Houston a few months ago in which a fanatically religious mother drowned her five children to get Satan out of them. Childhood sexuality is not sin, it is not evil, it is not satanic, it is not evidence for demon posession, and it is just a normal biological process. Yes, O'Reilly, there is a social consequence of creating a society that is ignorant of childhood sexuality. Yes, O'Reilly, there is a consequence of allowing supersition and ignorance to grow unchecked in our society. If you think research and education are expensive, you should try ignorance.
One of the things that I can't figure out is why O'Reilly takes this position. There are at least two possiblities.
One: He is so ignorant and uninformed and closed minded himself that he finds any discussion of sexuality offensive and objects to funding research designed to better understand human sexuality, or
Two: He is playing the ratings game and has decided that their is a large enough segment of the listening audience who hasn't thought this issue through and will respond positively, in a knee jerk way, to anybody on TV who comes out against sex.
Either way, this is real scary. I have nightmares in which I watch America plunging into the dark ages.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
