Politics: J'accuse!

[Not Me]

How many implants do you see?

SPREE- women in lingerie:
http://www.oliverwillis.com/apprenti...entice_fhm.jpg

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
On the one hand, there is a long tradition in mainstream Christianity of surreptitously baptizing Jews in some kind of game of theological "gotcha!" Google "Edgardo Mortara" if you want to see how harmful this practice was.

Not disputing that what the Mormons are doing is fucked up, but I do think kidnapping a child is a horrible crime, whereas baptising dead people is creepy wierd stuff but not something I would get too pissed off about, you know since they are dead and all.

When I did google that, I came across this link, which indicates that something good may have come of the kidnapping in that it may have been one of the stimuli for reducing the size of the territory that the Catholic church controlled:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgardo_Mortara

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Which sucks, and I understand why Jews are upset that people who died for being Jewish are having that taken away from them, even if it is only in the eyes of Mormons.

I don't think they are having anything taken away from them. I think some freaks are engaging in some superstitious hokus pokus. If I were a jew, I would just dismiss it as the meaningless act it is. But I am not a jew and perhaps I just don't get it. I understand why they are offended by this, but I wouldn't negotiate with the freaks to get them to stop it. I would just denounce them for what they are - arrogant bizarro nuts.

Quite frankly, the jews need to worry less about Mormons baptising dead jews and worry more about muslims who want all jews dead, YKWIM? Why get all bent out of shape that the Mormons are baptizing dead jews when the muslims are strapping explosive belts on their children in an attempt to blow live jews up. Here is a link on this if you want to know more:

Article about Muslim boy who was given a bomb to blow himself up and kill jews but the fuckers didn't even tell the kid that he was carrying a bomb and would be blown up

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
On the other hand, anyone who has done more than thirty seconds of ancestry research has grown to respect and appreciate the care that the LDS church gives toward preserving all historical documents that contain ancestry information --- immigration records; Holocaust records; slave graveyard records. I wish they could find a reason to do this other than providing forebears with temple ordinances.

They do have good genealogy records. I was able to use them to find out some interesting information about my own heritage. However, I was so creeped out by the people at the Temple Square (which I toured and now regret touring) that it made me never want to return to their library again.

I encourage the rest of you if you have never done so to take the tour of the Temple Square. It is creepy but enlightening regarding how cult-like mormons are. Not that all religions aren't cults. They are. Some are just more dangerous and damaging cults than others.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Not Me
They do have good genealogy records. I was able to use them to find out some interesting information about my own heritage.

You mean you found out you weren't really a black woman?

My point was not just that they have good genealogical records. My point was that there religious beliefs compel them to be the collectors, indexers, caretakers and providers of ancestry records, and that's not accidental --- it's the result of the religious belief in sealing. The LDS church is basically our nation's government ministry of birth and death records. Not that I want to engage on this with you, but this seems to be a pretty good example of the productive effects of religion, like the rah-rah cheerleading zeal that led to the construction of the European cathedrals. If only everyone had a purpose to create something as lasting.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Not that I want to engage on this with you, but this seems to be a pretty good example of the productive effects of religion, like the rah-rah cheerleading zeal that led to the construction of the European cathedrals. If only everyone had a purpose to create something as lasting.

Not that you or I really want to engage on this subject, either, (but as I am usually genetically unable to pass by a possible comment), given the crushing drain on the lives of the powerless subjects in order to finance their construction, were the cathedrals a "productive effect"? Where is the majesty or the merit, given the cost borne by the unwilling and the powerless?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
Not that you or I really want to engage on this subject, either, (but as I am usually genetically unable to pass by a possible comment), given the crushing drain on the lives of the powerless subjects in order to finance their construction, were the cathedrals a "productive effect"? Where is the majesty or the merit, given the cost borne by the unwilling and the powerless?

That's a difficult question to answer, because it probably depends somewhat on one's view of the value of the cathedrals as artistic works and religious centers today. I probably rank their importance higher than a person who believes the God to whom they were built doesn't exist. To such a hypothetical atheist, the cathedrals probably seem like a big jerk-off.

I also don't think the circumstances under which they were built is quite the Pharaoh/slave dynamic you imply. When they were built, the people who worked on them were poor and guileless, but not enslaved. A cathedral was a badge of honor and prestige for your town; many towns in medieval Europe had one (though many collapsed within a generation due to poor workmanship and an even worse grasp of algebra/trig). The Church could whip a town into cathedral building furor by pointing out that the hated rivals two towns over were building a really kick-ass monument. They also made your town a pilgrimage center, which helped with tourism, the economy, and the rise of literacy.

I wonder whether that's really the huge jerk-off one could make it out to be today, given that the average age was about 19. Can you imagine what our society would accomplish with an average age of 19? A lot of unwed pregnancies and hacked computers, that's what.

Last point: even if we assume the existence of a small community of unwilling individualists in Chartres in 1200 who thought a century-long building project was a bad idea, it's a very extreme view that would say only the people who supported a public works project should be required to make sacrifices. Even today, stupid and multi-decade public works projects are taking my tax dollars --- I assume the Big Dig got some federal lettuce. Projects that don't produce value for those who sacrifice for them get financed by people who oppose them all the time, even in 2004. It just takes a critical mass of gullible people.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
That's a difficult question to answer, because it probably depends somewhat on one's view of the value of the cathedrals as artistic works and religious centers today. I probably rank their importance higher than a person who believes the God to whom they were built doesn't exist. To such a hypothetical atheist, the cathedrals probably seem like a big jerk-off.

I also don't think the circumstances under which they were built is quite the Pharaoh/slave dynamic you imply. When they were built, the people who worked on them were poor and guileless, but not enslaved. A cathedral was a badge of honor and prestige for your town; many towns in medieval Europe had one (though many collapsed within a generation due to poor workmanship and an even worse grasp of algebra/trig). The Church could whip a town into cathedral building furor by pointing out that the hated rivals two towns over were building a really kick-ass monument. They also made your town a pilgrimage center, which helped with tourism, the economy, and the rise of literacy.

I wonder whether that's really the huge jerk-off one could make it out to be today, given that the average age was about 19. Can you imagine what our society would accomplish with an average age of 19? A lot of unwed pregnancies and hacked computers, that's what.

Last point: even if we assume the existence of a small community of unwilling individualists in Chartres in 1200 who thought a century-long building project was a bad idea, it's a very extreme view that would say only the people who supported a public works project should be required to make sacrifices. Even today, stupid and multi-decade public works projects are taking my tax dollars --- I assume the Big Dig got some federal lettuce. Projects that don't produce value for those who sacrifice for them get financed by people who oppose them all the time, even in 2004. It just takes a critical mass of gullible people.

What is it with you and slave labor?

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...3670#post83670

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
What is it with you and slave labor?

I don't even know who you are anymore.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Not Me
I have looked at the transcript several times since I made my original post. Everytime I read it, I become even more convinced that his message was garbled. If you read his WSJ editorial before you read/heard his comments at the hearing, I might have walked away with a different impression. But that just makes my point for me - what he said at the hearing wasn't clear. It came across to me as being an indictment of a Christian nation going after islamic terrorists and removing a dictator from oppressing an islamic people. That is his fault for not being clear. Lots of people who read the papers and watch TV news didn't read his editorial. He should be cognizant of that and be more careful of how he says things.

So are you retracting your accusation that he's anti-American, and saying only that he wasn't sufficiently clear for you to understand his point?

Or do you still believe that he's anti-American?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Not Me
I think it is up to 45 dead US soldiers this week. I don't know how many injured.

Some might even say that the war has taken a wrong turn. And that there's a risk of civil war.

But they would be anti-American, I guess.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Not Me
I cringed when I heard it [Bush's "Crusade" reference]. Again, see the difference between you and me?

You like a politician who characterizes a war in a stupid and offensive way, and Shape Shifter likes one who states an obvious point that everyone already knows?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
Not that you or I really want to engage on this subject, either, (but as I am usually genetically unable to pass by a possible comment), given the crushing drain on the lives of the powerless subjects in order to finance their construction, were the cathedrals a "productive effect"? Where is the majesty or the merit, given the cost borne by the unwilling and the powerless?

Geez, that's depressing. Next you're gonna tell me that I shouldn't enjoy looking at the Pyramids or the Great Wall of China, either.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I also don't think the circumstances under which they were built is quite the Pharaoh/slave dynamic you imply. When they were built, the people who worked on them were poor and guileless, but not enslaved. A cathedral was a badge of honor and prestige for your town; many towns in medieval Europe had one (though many collapsed within a generation due to poor workmanship and an even worse grasp of algebra/trig). The Church could whip a town into cathedral building furor by pointing out that the hated rivals two towns over were building a really kick-ass monument. They also made your town a pilgrimage center, which helped with tourism, the economy, and the rise of literacy.

I dunno. You make it seem like the Lil Rascals all huddled around the cute girl who yells "I know!! Let's put on a SHOW!" My reading leaves me contemplating a very cowed and nearly-enslaved peasantry paying, on pain of death, rather large and crippling percentages of their cashflow, usually to the church-landlord, sometimes merely as a multi-tithe apart from land rent. They could refuse, but then be shunned, driven out, denied salvation (which had a much more immediate impact to a people who died in their twenties and had to live in a religiously homogenous society that depended on communal life for . . . well . . . life), or actually even be killed at the direction of the priest. Not quite the "leave it in the anonymous envelope in the bowl" scenario.

I wonder whether that's really the huge jerk-off one could make it out to be today, given that the average age was about 19. Can you imagine what our society would accomplish with an average age of 19? A lot of unwed pregnancies and hacked computers, that's what.

Arbeit Macht Frei, I suppose. Kept them away from reality TV, at least, which may be the ultimate recommendation.

Last point: even if we assume the existence of a small community of unwilling individualists in Chartres in 1200 who thought a century-long building project was a bad idea, it's a very extreme view that would say only the people who supported a public works project should be required to make sacrifices. Even today, stupid and multi-decade public works projects are taking my tax dollars --- I assume the Big Dig got some federal lettuce. Projects that don't produce value for those who sacrifice for them get financed by people who oppose them all the time, even in 2004. It just takes a critical mass of gullible people.

Quantitative difference, first, I think. What is overtaxation? We likely define it differently. This is probably the good, exaggerated example that illustrates the concept. Once again, it takes the conservative to place a lower value on the implementation of the (admittedly pretty) stroke of some guy's imagination that costs everyone else their shirts. What price the satisfaction of some bishop's pride and sense of grace? How badly were these societies stunted as the price for perpetuating the ruling elite, when no one (aside from priests) had capital left for private investment? My readings lead me to believe the church was taking somewhere around thirty percent of gross income from the populace. That's a lot, for very little productive return.

Qualitative? A public project, as one part of a system of public administration, that transferred what little disposable income there was from the earners to the priests, to be dispensed as their tool to guarantee the continuity of their power, with little actual benefit to the payors? Sounds like Detroit, mid-eighties. Hell, sounds like OMB.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me
This is what Islam Online took away from Kerrey's comments:

http://www.islam-online.net/English/...rticle03.shtml



What Kerrey said came across to me (and apparently to muslims, too, who are now using his words to support their claims that the US is doing something wrong) as being very focused on the fact that we were going after muslims.

Al Jazeera doesn't seem overly preoccpied with Kerrey's comments. Perhaps your arab news source is more fair and balanced?

http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I don't even know who you are anymore.

It's not always a bad thing, as you have noted. But shit, even Bilderberg's offering dental now.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me
So are more ground troops needed? That might make things worse, but I dont' know.

People have been asking for more ground troops for more than a year. Generals have been begging for more troops. Instead of securing Iraq, our Secretary of Defense was more concerned with proving his theories of a light, mobile, and efficient army.

Were pre-war cost estimates part of this? Now that you've bought your dream makeup, can you admit that securing a hostile country is extaordinarily expensive? How much money did we save by outsourcing security in Iraq? From the account I read from Tucker Carlson last month, it appears that the security contractors are too busy protecting their own asses to provide any security in Iraq. So why are they there and why are we paying them so goddam much money?
W has proven that he's more concened with his tax cuts than the well-being of the troops, and Rumsfeld's trying to run a war on the cheap.

You have commented on "our side's" unwillingness to admit that we're wrong. Dammit, I supported going to war in Iraq. I now admit that I was wrong.

I am still comfortable with the moral cause for going to war. But, as many of the "murder marchers" have pointed out, we have that moral justification in many other places. Can you in honesty say that war in Iraq advances our self-interest?