Pat Robertson's latest failure to think before he spoke has ignited the sort of firestorm across the blogosphere one would expect (in case you missed it, he suggested on the air that the US should assassinate Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez). The number of posts and diaries, on leftest sites at least, is phenomenal. According to Madman in the Market Place on Liberal Street Fighter: "A search on Technorati brings up nearly 50K posts discussing “Pat Robertson” today." The responses from the State Department, DoD, and the administration have been a bit milder than I would have liked, but at least they're being clear that what he suggested is illegal.
But the award for the most disappointing response has to go to some of the organizations that really ought not choose this moment to be ambiguous about what Robertson said. I'm talking of course about Pat's political and spiritual allies, the organizations that claim to stand for traditional American values. From The New York Times:
Some of Mr. Robertson's allies distanced themselves from his comments. The Rev. Rob Schenck, president of the National Clergy Council, released a statement saying Mr. Robertson should "immediately apologize, retract his statement and clarify what the Bible and Christianity teaches about the permissibility of taking human life outside of law."
The Rev. Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals said he and "most evangelical leaders" would disassociate themselves from such "unfortunate and particularly irresponsible" comments.
"It complicates circumstances for foreign missionaries and Christian aid workers overseas who are already perceived, wrongly, especially by leftists and other leaders, as collaborators with U.S. intelligence agencies," Mr. Cizik added.
But other conservative Christian organizations remained silent, with leaders at the Traditional Values Coalition, the Family Research Council and the Christian Coalition saying they were too busy to comment.
The obvious parallels here are the Islamic clerics who don't condemn assassination fatwas or terrorism in rapid or clear enough terms for many Americans, but let's step back and give them a bit more credit than that. These folks have indicated they had other priorities. (they're busy...busy, busy...busy preachers...oh, oh...well, you know). What could be more important for such influential spiritual leaders than defending our values by condemning Robertson's blood-thirsty call for murder? Let's look and see, shall we?
The Traditional Values Coalition's frequently updated website reserves it's top spot today for an article titled "Of Liberals, Toads, And Growing Up In Middle America" and although it lists close to a dozen pieces on Roberts, there's no mention of Robertson. Top billing on the Family Research Council's website was reserved for "XXX Internet Domain Not Safer for Kids," and what kept the Christian Coalition so busy were news stories ranging from "Christian Doc: Parents Must Combat Media Vanity With Biblical Truth" to "California Court Declares One Child Can Have Two Moms."
That last story broke more or less the same time the Robertson story did. Conclusion: Liberals, porn, gay parents, and vanity are more pressing issues than murdering elected officials. Not only more pressing, but so incredibly pressing that despite the fact each of these organizations had made countless statements about each of these issues over the years, they couldn't interrupt that flow of thought long enough to say one way or the other whether Jesus wants us to kill Chavez...whether Jesus would even have an opinion about that.
There is most definitely something foul rotting in the hearts and minds of these people.
Yup.
I notice Robertson called for my tax dollars to pay for this murder.
See, in this case, I think he needs to privatize and "go in there" himself and take care of the deed. He won't though, being yet another cowardly piece of slime embraced by the Republican Party to keep their demagogic little coalition going .. so taxes get real low and all the government can afford is murder.
Posted by: John Thullen | August 23, 2005 at 11:36 PM
Can't argue with you, Edward. The three Christian organizations should condemn Robertson's repugnant statements, and they should do it very soon. Also frustrating is that Robertson's craven idiocy put communist Chavez on the moral high ground.
Posted by: Charles Bird | August 23, 2005 at 11:46 PM
Great post. -- And it's not as though Christ's opinion would be that hard to figure out (cough, ten commandments, cough cough).
What I find hardest to understand, as an ex-Christian, is why these organizations aren't particularly concerned to make it clear that this is not the religion they cherish. When I actually was a Christian, I always thought there was a really important line between those differences of interpretation that were genuinely debatable, to which one should respond with open-mindedness and tolerance, and those that were just not -- that held that Christianity required that we hate our neighbor, for instance, not to mention assassinate him. And as a Christian, I always thought that making those differences extremely clear was a matter not just of disowning revolting opinions, but of defending the faith.
Posted by: hilzoy | August 23, 2005 at 11:47 PM
No doubt about it,Pat Robertson desperately needs a savvy media consultant,someone who knows how to reach out to millions of Americans minus the stridency and exxtremism,someone who can sooth and influence at the same time. I hereby offer none other than Randi Rhodes,a voice of moderation,peace and tolerance. Whatever else she accomplishes with the hapless Robertson at least we won't have to go overseas to kill someone. And she might even be able to help Robertson with his fundraising,they know a lot about that at Air America. P.S. early reports indicate the possible hiring of Michael Graham by KFI-AM,Los Angeles,so you free speachers needn't have worried about his fate.
Posted by: johnt | August 24, 2005 at 12:02 AM
The crazy thing (or at least the craziest thing) isn't suggesting assassination -- it's suggesting that we need to go to war with Venezuela. If it were true that the US needed to go to war with Venezuela, then assassination wouldn't be a completely crazy idea, and the idea of "just assassination" doesn't seem any more out of line with the teachings of Christ than "just war" is. I don't think many theologians would view the need for cheap oil as an acceptable justification for war, though.
Posted by: KCinDC | August 24, 2005 at 12:19 AM
At least Robertson isn't crazy and seeing Communists everywhere. Oh wait, he http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:gsc3TTgN01cJ:www.patrobertson.com/PressReleases/thisweekgs.asp+%22pat+robertson%22+communists+in+US&hl=en>is href>.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS
But I was asking about Justice Ginsburg. And you now seem to be trying to equate her with these Communists.
PAT ROBERTSON
Well, she was the general counsel for this organization [ACLU] whose purpose right now is to rid religion from the public square. That's what they have announced.
...[my snip]
That's their initiative and Justice Ginsburg served as their general counsel, so ... [his snip]
His press release is titled "Prevent the Tyranny of Oligarchy". By preempting it with something else, perhaps.
johnt: I've never listened to Rhodes, but if she's ever spouted anything like Limbaugh's (Monday show) gleeful peaen to the possibility of Texas hunters getting impatient with demonstrators in Crawford then she certainly should be admonished.
Posted by: CMatt | August 24, 2005 at 01:20 AM
Communist?
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."--Inigo Montoya
Posted by: me2i81 | August 24, 2005 at 01:43 AM
He won't though, being yet another cowardly piece of slime embraced by the Republican Party to keep their demagogic little coalition going .. so taxes get real low and all the government can afford is murder
When Ari Fleischer in a press conference after 9/11 said that "people should watch what they say", it was my understanding that this was directed at Pat Robertson, who actually did run for President and did diddley-squat. Really, if Pat Robertson is embraced by the Republicans, then in the same fashion Al Sharpton is embraced by the Dems. As much as you might hate the term "idiotarian", it was coined with people like Pat Robertson in mind.
Look, Pat Robertson is al about himself, remember the "700 club" entry requirement is giving $700 to Pat Robertson. But if you insist otherwise, that all fundamentalists agree with Pat Robertson, then you would have to accept that all Presbyterians, United Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, and Anglicans want Israel eliminated from this world as a country.
And I think that really is equivalent.
Posted by: DaveC | August 24, 2005 at 01:52 AM
they couldn't interrupt that flow of thought long enough to say one way or the other whether Jesus wants us to kill Chavez...whether Jesus would even have an opinion about that.
Don't get all whacko. Do you really think that vast minions of fundys are ready to think that Jesus is ordering assasinations? I don't buy it any more than I buy that Catholics are all Communists because of Liberation Theology.
Posted by: DaveC | August 24, 2005 at 02:02 AM
Ugh, I heard that one this morning. Now if you want to compare a Christian preacher's statement to that of a jihadist, now is the time to do so.
Isn't it Andre the Giant's character who says that?
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | August 24, 2005 at 02:11 AM
Isn't it Andre the Giant's character who says that?
No, it's Inigo.
MINUS TEN NERD POINTS FOR HOLSCLAW
Posted by: chdb | August 24, 2005 at 02:16 AM
I noted that Chavez was frequently called a communist on this thread, but wondered if that also meant he is an atheist. A brief Google search and a skim of his Wikipedia profile were unconclusive, but one paragraph in a BBC profile suggests that he might not be:
For what it's worth.
Posted by: Lollius | August 24, 2005 at 03:32 AM
My thought here is that Robertson's comment reminds me of that 16th century pope's declaration that Catholics would not be held liable for violating the law against asassination when it came to the Protestant Queen Elizabeth.
Not sure where a person might go with this, but at least a couple lines of reasoning and/or questions come to mind.
Like, do such death sentences change character depending on whether they're directed against people of the same faith, a slightly different faith, a very different faith, a heretical faith, or no faith at all? If so, why do these degrees change the nature of the (rhetorical?) offense?
Or is it just nuts for one person to say that another person ought to die?
Posted by: Lollius | August 24, 2005 at 03:36 AM
No doubt about it,Pat Robertson desperately needs a savvy media consultant,someone who knows how to reach out to millions of Americans minus the stridency and exxtremism,someone who can sooth and influence at the same time.
Yeah, because when a Christian advocates assassination, his problem really is that he doesn't have a savvy media consultant.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | August 24, 2005 at 04:21 AM
Pat RObertson!!
skjf jkek akekr Hiemrkd
his work id alive
[word]
uuuugh
s(t)ay with me.
the wrd is
WIth God
and the word is GOD.
killlllll
Posted by: urrrrgh | August 24, 2005 at 04:24 AM
Or is it just nuts for one person to say that another person ought to die?
It's nuts that someone who professes to believe in the Ten Commandments advocates murder.
And just as nuts if Robertson thought that his bloodlust would do anything other than make Chavez a more powerful politician. Chavez couldn't buy positive publicity like this for all the oil in Venezuela.
Posted by: felixrayman | August 24, 2005 at 04:33 AM
DaveC--
I agree with you that no one should infer from all of this that fundamentalists--much less any larger grouping of Christians--are now all rooting for the assassination of Chavez.
But I don't think Edward_ said that, exactly. He noted that some groups had explicitly condemned Robertson's remarks, and then complained that other groups had not, when they should have.
There are at least three stances: endorsing, condemning, ignoring. I don't think anyone was arguing "they ignored, so they must be endorsing". I think Edward_'s complaint was simply "they ignored, when they should have condemned". And even that he applied only to a few named groups (TVC, FRC, CC), not to any larger groups.
As you may have gleaned from earlier posts, Edward_ is staunchly opposed to saying that all Muslims are terrorists or anti-West or whatever. Some Muslim extremists say outrageous things, but there are still peaceable and decent practitioners of Islam. I thought Edward_ was pretty careful to say the same thing here: Robertson's statements are outrageous, but that does not mean any larger group of Christians is implicated in endorsing his views. Even those who ignored instead of condemning were criticized for that, i.e. for ignoring, and not for endorsing.
Some other time I might take issue with you about the relative reach, wealth, and influence of Roberston vs. Sharpton. But that's a minor point.
Posted by: Tad Brennan | August 24, 2005 at 08:53 AM
Tad, to the extent that Dave C. was referring to my comment as well as Edward's, I guess I should chime in again.
I know all fundamentalists do not agree with Robertson. And I look forward to Tad's delineation of the differences between Robertson and Sharpton.
Since minor points are my bailiwick, let's hope it includes mention of the huge and successful efforts of the Robertson-led Christian Coalition from the late 1970's thru now with their money and mailing lists to elect candidates from schoolboard reps throughout Texas to the President of the United States. Let's hope it includes mention of the former liason between political operatives in the White House and the Robertson crowd: George W. Bush.
As to Sharpton, I'm on record somewhere in the dead archives of some other blog as recommending that demagogue Sharpton (Brawley) take a belly flop off a short pier. But not before he hands over his organization's money and mailing lists to the Democratic National Committee --- which won't happen because as usual over the past 30 years or so, the Republicans have managed to sidle up to the ferociously competent and resourceful demagogues like Robertson, while the Democrats are stuck with tincup sidewalk yellers like Sharpton, who have no money and no mailing lists.
Posted by: John Thullen | August 24, 2005 at 10:03 AM
John, Sharpton does get a bit of money and other help -- from Republicans.
Posted by: KCinDC | August 24, 2005 at 10:28 AM
As I'm basically still a fundamentalist Christian myself (having been raised as one and not having bothered to switch despite not attending Church regularly lately), DaveC, I am certainly not suggesting that Fundamentalists approve of assassination. Tad got it right. It's the fact that they're not distancing themselves from Robertson, implying that they're unconcerned about his outrageous suggestion, that I find disappointing. Being "too busy" to formulate a response (any response) indicates they don't want to distance themselves from him, despite the outrageousness of his comment. That may be because he's an ally on other issues, I don't know. It's shameful all the same though.
Posted by: Edward_ | August 24, 2005 at 10:38 AM
Killing in the name of Divine Justice is a tradition among fundamentalists of all religions.
The monotheistic religions, especially.
Christian Fundies use war language ALL THE TIME. They are in a perpetual war against Satan and all those who knowingly and unknowingly follow the Prince of Darkness.
It doesn’t shock me at all. On the run up to the war, you should have heard the warmongering emanating from the fundamentalist pulpit.
In the mouth of a traditional or liberal Muslim, jihad is a spiritual struggle…but in the mouth of a fundamentalist, it is justification for killing.
I really encourage many of you to attend Christian fundamentalist services, and you will realize the “religious extremism” is indeed pro-killing.
Posted by: NeoDude | August 24, 2005 at 11:01 AM
DaveC: But if you insist otherwise, that all fundamentalists agree with Pat Robertson, then you would have to accept that all Presbyterians, United Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, and Anglicans want Israel eliminated from this world as a country.
Which representatives of these groups called for the dissolution of Israel?
Posted by: Gromit | August 24, 2005 at 11:37 AM
It doesn’t shock me at all. On the run up to the war, you should have heard the warmongering emanating from the fundamentalist pulpit.
It's that Old Testament emphasis, I think.
What mystifies me, in my admitted ignorance of Judaism, is that Jews for the most part seem much more peaceful than fundie Christians.
I've assumed that the Jews benefit from centuries of Talmudic commentary, etc., to soften the evident brutalty of so many OT narratives, whereas the fundies refuse to allegorize etc.
Posted by: Anderson | August 24, 2005 at 11:41 AM
CMatt/Jesurgislac. CMatt Well at least we agree Randi Rhodes needs to be admonished[I think]. Too bad it won't happen here. A simulated shooting of the President,the American one,along with "take that you little bastard"kiss off. I've been listening to Rush off and on for a while,enough to say I doubt very much he was advocating mass murder but you're entitled to both your beliefs as well as your fears. Jesurgislac,for the record,Robertson is a stunning boob. However the concern for advocating violence/murder against left wing,Castroite gangster{ check out Human Rights Watch] seems highly selective and even overwrought. At least CMatt leaves the door open for criticism of Ms Rhodes,and you? Quo Vadis?
Posted by: johnt | August 24, 2005 at 11:46 AM
Gromit,
Israel’s religious extremists seem pretty violent.
According to them...Palestinians do not exist.
There are many “fundamentalist” Jews who believe ethnically cleaning God’s land.
Posted by: NeoDude | August 24, 2005 at 11:59 AM
Anderson,
"It's that Old Testament emphasis, I think.
What mystifies me, in my admitted ignorance of Judaism, is that Jews for the most part seem much more peaceful than fundie Christians.
I've assumed that the Jews benefit from centuries of Talmudic commentary, etc., to soften the evident brutalty of so many OT narratives, whereas the fundies refuse to allegorize etc."
No, it's that Jews were without a state for over 1900 years, and during that time were at one time or another forcibly evicted from nearly every European country. The inability to turn religious disputes into state edicts menat that the disputes needed to be resolved peacably. Once the state of Israel was recreated, this ceased to be, and this has become a small (but likely growing) source of tensions between non-Israeli Jews and Israelis.
Posted by: Dantheman | August 24, 2005 at 12:08 PM
You can find plenty of violent Orthodox sects if you're willing to look for them. Just like you can among any group.
Whenever I read one of johnt's posts, I like to imagine I'm opening a package of this.
Posted by: Phil | August 24, 2005 at 12:35 PM
God and Country, always brings out the right-wing extremist in any people.
Posted by: NeoDude | August 24, 2005 at 12:39 PM
That's just as offensive as:
Atheism always brings out the left-wing communist mass-murdering proclivities in any people.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 24, 2005 at 12:59 PM
No, it's that Jews were without a state for over 1900 years, and during that time were at one time or another forcibly evicted from nearly every European country. The inability to turn religious disputes into state edicts menat that the disputes needed to be resolved peacably.
Note that Baptists were treated in much the same way, just not for nearly as long. Nothing attracts the persecuted like the opportunity to become the persecutors.
Posted by: Anderson | August 24, 2005 at 01:05 PM
That's just as offensive as:
Atheism always brings out the left-wing communist mass-murdering proclivities in any people.
Not really, no.
Posted by: Anarch | August 24, 2005 at 01:14 PM
Slarti,
Last time I checked, extremist was not a synonym for mass-murderer.
Posted by: Dantheman | August 24, 2005 at 01:24 PM
That's hardly fair, Slarti. I'm an atheist, and I've managed to keep my murdering down to fairly manageable levels so far.
Posted by: Phil | August 24, 2005 at 01:32 PM
Agreed; nor is "left-wing" synonymous with either "communist" or "mass-murderer".
So you get my point, even if it wasn't well-made. Nor was what I was responding to.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 24, 2005 at 01:36 PM
You know, Phil, if I'd made that statement devoid of context, I could see you taking umbrage. To be clear, though, I wasn't equating leftishness with murdering or even communism, just showing how that kind of stupidity can piss people off. Looks as if it worked, but pissing off everyone left of center wasn't the purpose.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 24, 2005 at 01:39 PM
OK, let me try again:
[SARCASM]That's hardly fair, Slarti. I'm an atheist, and I've managed to keep my murdering down to fairly manageable levels so far.[/SARCASM]
:) :) :) LOLOL
Posted by: Phil | August 24, 2005 at 01:43 PM
OK, let me try again:
[SARCASM]That's hardly fair, Slarti. I'm an atheist, and I've managed to keep my murdering down to fairly manageable levels so far.[/SARCASM]
:) :) :) LOLOL
Posted by: Phil | August 24, 2005 at 01:45 PM
"Agreed; nor is "left-wing" synonymous with either "communist" or "mass-murderer".
So you get my point, even if it wasn't well-made. Nor was what I was responding to."
Actually, I don't. I can accept Atheism and God and Country as parallels. I can certainly accept right-wing and left-wing as parallels, and would not quibble with adding Communist too greatly.
But it looks like you decided to up the ante by changing extremist to mass-murdering. So if your point was that you know how to escalate a flame war, then I'll accept that it was made. Otherwise, no.
Posted by: Dantheman | August 24, 2005 at 01:48 PM
There certainly seems to be a lot of "secular" folk in the "God and Country (never wrong)" choir.
Neocons and the Daily Pundit crowd, are good examples.
Some European Fascists for another.
Posted by: NeoDude | August 24, 2005 at 01:54 PM
You know, DTM, I've already pled guilty to making the point badly. If my intention had been to make a statement equally as offensive as what Neodude said, you'd have a fine point. As it is, you have a point that's already been made and taken.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 24, 2005 at 01:58 PM
Ah. So it's the my-country-right-or-wrong crowd that you're poking? If so, maybe you could have, unlike me, made that point a little less ambiguously.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 24, 2005 at 02:03 PM
Actually (thullin...above) Chavez is already on the moral high ground.
The endless bashing of Chavez in the US is astounding.
Check his actualy accomplishments.
Posted by: john steppling | August 24, 2005 at 02:23 PM
UPDATE: He doesn't even have the courage to admit he was wrong:
That might fool folks who didn't watch the video and hear him state quite clearly "If he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it...” but he really can't think that this lame*ss "I was misinterpreted" ploy's going to get him off the hook, can he?
Posted by: Edward_ | August 24, 2005 at 02:31 PM
He's reframing his comment as advocating mere kidnapping!?!
This guy needs his access denied: he's a dangerous loon.
Posted by: Jackmormon | August 24, 2005 at 02:43 PM
JohnC: "Look, Pat Robertson is al about himself, remember the "700 club" entry requirement is giving $700 to Pat Robertson."
I'm no fan of Robertson, but that's a bit disingenuous. In principle, the 700 Club concept was about viewers of 'Christian Broadcasting Network' programming pledging to help cover the show's production costs, ala a PBS pledge drive. One might argue that Robertson has abused his influence, and his access to CBN resources, and that he's a terrible Christian leader, but 700 Club 'members' would uniformly say that they are pledging to support a television network, not an individual man.
--Jeff (just posted a large-ish writup about Robertson's history in the Christian community. Whee.)
Posted by: Jeff Eaton | August 24, 2005 at 02:44 PM
As long as he abides by the posting rules...
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 24, 2005 at 02:52 PM
Free advice to my fellow commenters:
Next time you're tempted to write a comment to the effect of either
(1) "aha, your incautious choice of words shows that, however reasonable you seem, you actually believe X," where X = "drinking puppy blood is fun," "only white Americans have feelings," etc.,
or
(2) "while your present post is unobjectionable, you continue to be despicable for all those previous posts that I've disagreed with" ...
... maybe that comment is better saved for your own private delectation?
Free advice, worth what ya paid for it.
Posted by: Anderson | August 24, 2005 at 02:58 PM
As far as Judaism's less violent history:
--I think the lack of opportunity probably is the primary reason, but I don't think the only one, and even if it were that would raise the question of WHY Judaism has never had the opportunity.
--it is not a proselytzing religion.
--it is not a religion that teaches or has taught that believers go to heaven and unbelievers go to hell. Compared to the two other monotheistic religions it is very vague and uncertain about an afterlife, and
--it takes a more optimistic view of human nature than Christianity. Judaism rejects the idea of original sin.
--there is an idea which I do not know if there is a parallel to in Christianity and Islam, that one has responsibilities to other men and women that are separable from one's responsibilities to God. Repenting and asking God for forgiveness is not the cure-all that it is in Christianity. "The Day of Atonement absolves from sins against God, but not from sins against a fellow man unless the pardon of the offended person be secured." Sins against others are sins against God, but they are not ONLY sins against God.
--the commentaries and interpretive approach are also very important. I think in general with religion the interpretive approach is a better predictor than the text itself. You can interpret the story of the flood to show that if God can kill thousands and thousands, including innnocent children, to punish for the sins of a few than it must be all right for us to do the same. Or you can interpret the story to show that destroying men to destroy sin has been tried before, by God himself, and it didn't and never will work. You can interpret the story of Jesus' sacrifice as showing that despite "God so loved the world" even in its fallen state that he gave up his son to save it, and we must try to love the world as best we can; or as showing that people are so evil that God could only save them by torturing His Son to death on our behalf, and God is thus entitled to ask us to kill and torture on His behalf.
Note that I was baptized Christian and am converting to Judaism so I am very far from an unbiased observer in this.
Posted by: Katherine | August 24, 2005 at 02:59 PM
But Edward, that wasn't Robertson speaking, it was the Holy Spirit. Pat is merely a vehicle.
(I also note that, technically, he didn't say "assassination"; he said "assassinate." But I would hate to defend a client on that thin a reed.)
Posted by: Anderson | August 24, 2005 at 03:00 PM
"has never had the opportunity" should obviously be "has had so many fewer opportunities".
Posted by: Katherine | August 24, 2005 at 03:02 PM
Thanks, Katherine---lots to think about.
I now wonder whether the Jewish experience of resorting to violence against the Romans, with the near-genocide that resulted, was a big influence on subsequent interpretation of the OT.
Anyway, you put it better than I did, that how a religion interprets its text is a better guide than what the text "says."
Posted by: Anderson | August 24, 2005 at 03:04 PM
Katherine,
Jews when they had the opportunity to persecute their fellow tribesmen based on religious disputes in ancient times have been willing to, in situations ranging from the Golden Calf to Jezebel. Further, while the late 20th century disputes between seculars and the Orthodox in Israel, and between diaspora Reform and Conservatives and Israeli Orthodox have been fairly non-violent (so far), I suspect that without a constant external threat to Israel they would not have been.
Posted by: Dantheman | August 24, 2005 at 03:09 PM
You know, DTM, I've already pled guilty to making the point badly. If my intention had been to make a statement equally as offensive as what Neodude said, you'd have a fine point. As it is, you have a point that's already been made and taken.
The problem wasn't so much that you made the point badly but rather that it was subject to the same error for which you were criticizing Neodude, i.e. carelessly overgeneralizing and oversensationalizing an otherwise legitimate point. That said, carry on.
Posted by: Anarch | August 24, 2005 at 03:11 PM
I mostly agree with John Thullen that Pat Robertson should take care of that sort of thing with his own money. After all killing foreign people was long the tradition and domain of missionaries. But that would not save the country any money because we would have to increase our military power just to defend ourselves from more enemies as he creates them. Plus we would have to go to all the expenses of extraditing him to face trial in some international tribunal.
Posted by: Bob Huckabee | August 24, 2005 at 03:21 PM
Given that quite a few people seemed to have missed that it was intended as an exemplar of the very same error I was accusing Neodude of, I think carrying on is the opposite of what I should do.
And it's probably just me. I've had far too much to think, and far too little sleep.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 24, 2005 at 03:21 PM
Given that quite a few people seemed to have missed that it was intended as an exemplar of the very same error I was accusing Neodude of...
For real? Well, um... d'oh?
Posted by: Anarch | August 24, 2005 at 03:24 PM
Again, making it only about the opportunity raises the question of WHY there have been fewer opporuntities. I am not arguing that opportunity and external role plays no rule--indeed, I said it was probably more important than any other single factor--nor am I arguing that Jews or Judaism have entirely clean hands. I'm just saying it has cleaner hands than many other religions, especially Christianity and Islam.
Dantheman, I realize we're dealing in counterfactuals, but I think you're quite wrong about the need of external threat to Israel to prevent violence between Orthodox and secular Israelis or Conservative/Reform v. Orthodox and I wonder what possible basis you have for your argument.
Posted by: Katherine | August 24, 2005 at 03:25 PM
Meanwhile, anyone else catch Robertson's completely dishonest claim that he was "misinterpreted"?
Robertson today: "I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out.' And 'take him out' can be a number of things, including kidnapping; there are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him."
Robertson before: "If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it," said Robertson on Monday's program.
Posted by: Catsy | August 24, 2005 at 03:26 PM
"(To) assassinate" is (the infinitival form of) the verb. "Assassination" is the nominal form. Pat Robertson was correct. And isn't there a white woman missing somewhere?
Posted by: Anarch | August 24, 2005 at 03:28 PM
Remember, Pat takes Scripture literally.
Posted by: Anderson | August 24, 2005 at 03:42 PM
Ah. So it's the my-country-right-or-wrong crowd that you're poking? If so, maybe you could have, unlike me, made that point a little less ambiguously.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 24, 2005
"My-country-right-or-wrong" and the "God and Country" crowd are cut from the same cloth. They are typically the same folks. They usually use each other and end up as apologist for the other.
Posted by: NeoDude | August 24, 2005 at 03:43 PM
Well, although he's violated the posting rules of civilized society, Robertson's show, it seems, cannot be dropped from the network according to the terms of the contract:
sourceThat must be some contract!
Posted by: Jackmormon | August 24, 2005 at 03:45 PM
Katherine,
"Again, making it only about the opportunity raises the question of WHY there have been fewer opporuntities."
Because Jews were not state actors for 1900+ years seems to cover it for me. There were violent religious disputes while the Kingdom of Israel existed in ancient times. There are strong religious disputes which have come fairly close to violence in recent times. I would less than surprised if evacuating settlers from the portions of the West Bank to be turned over to Palestinian hands in a future peace deal turned very violent and that such violence were specifically encouraged by some Jewish religious authorities.
"I'm just saying it has cleaner hands than many other religions, especially Christianity and Islam."
I'll tentatively agree, although one can argue not in the period between Joshua and David.
"I realize we're dealing in counterfactuals, but I think you're quite wrong about the need of external threat to Israel to prevent violence between Orthodox and secular Israelis or Conservative/Reform v. Orthodox and I wonder what possible basis you have for your argument."
On secular vs. Orthodox in Israel, I think the seculars realize they cannot fight the Orthodox and still hold off the Arabs, so they prefer to buy them off (through exemptions from military service, support for religious establishments, etc.). From the secular Israelis I've spoken to over the years, I've frequently heard the sentiment that once there is a permanent peace deal, the next big thing to do will be divorcing the Temple from the State, which has the potential for serious headache and even violence.
On Conservative/Reform vs. Orthodox, again, I think the diaspora Jews do not want to press the issue while Israel faces an existential crisis. On the other hand, I have noticed in recent years more of a focus in my synagogue on advocating for support for groups which will explicitly work for the rights of Reform and Conservative movements, both in winning funding for support of their religious institutions on equal terms from Israel and in voting for representatives to intenrational Jewish organizations. I doubt this issue will ever turn violent so much as it will alienate Disapora Jews from Israel.
Posted by: Dantheman | August 24, 2005 at 03:47 PM
"Well, she was the general counsel for this organization [ACLU] whose purpose right now is to rid religion from the public square. That's what they have announced."
It's frequently hard for me to miss an opportunity to respond to this Big Lie about "rid religion from the public square." This, either out of ignorance or thoughtlessness, or deliberation, utterly blurs the crucial and vast distinction between "the public square" and "the government square."
Unless you are, yourself, a communist, you don't believe that the only permissible areas of public life are those controlled by the government, and you don't even believe that many should be.
Should religion have no place in government or in being endorsed by government? Yes, that's what the ACLU and many of believe. Which leaves us free to put up as many religious symbols, pray 24/7 if we like, and speak of our religious faith in every area of the public that is not the voice of governmen.
Which is where Americans have no lack of religion. In public. I'm unaware of any churches being closed, or attempts to shut up Pat Robertson, by the government. No, what these people want is precisely the reverse: their religion being given government endorsement.
And they blur their speech about the difference between what's "public" and what's "government" in an Almighty Big Lie, with lots of sublies. (Yes, kids pray all the time in public schools; that's fine, just so long as the school isn't endorsing it or promulgating it; etc.)
Such a Lie shouldn't be let pass without being noted and taken down.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 24, 2005 at 03:48 PM
Italics begone?
Posted by: Anderson | August 24, 2005 at 03:49 PM
Robertson sold it to News Corp. in 1997 on the condition that "700 Club" air on the channel in perpetuity no matter who owns the channel.
Is such a contract enforceable? Can a *real* lawyer answer that for us?
Posted by: Anderson | August 24, 2005 at 03:51 PM
Errp. "intenrational" should be international.
Posted by: Dantheman | August 24, 2005 at 03:51 PM
I really should proof.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 24, 2005 at 03:51 PM
I guess it really doesn't go without saying that it wasn't clear what you meant to begin with, and that it could appear to a rational (although slightly boggled; see references to stubborn and balky estimators and other work-related anguish elsewhere) mind that what you wrote was a condemnation of both God and Country, as opposed to an indictment of a mindset. Given that my current, enhanced difficulty with clarity could apply equally to both input AND output channels, though, I blame myself.
Back to bashing on this problem. It turns out there were some modeling assumptions that turned out, on this particular piece of hardware, not to have been anywhere in the vicinity of accurate.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 24, 2005 at 04:41 PM
Posted by: matttbastard | August 24, 2005 at 05:12 PM
I notice, from mattbastard's link, that Robertson didn't feel it necessary to apologize for the kidnapping remark.
(I'm curious to see how the Abu Omar case turns out in Italy, though. An update on the story, from Laura Rosen, can be found .)
Posted by: Jackmormon | August 24, 2005 at 05:53 PM
Er, click the period for the link.
Posted by: Jackmormon | August 24, 2005 at 05:54 PM
Kind of Off Topic...but...anybody read Fitzgerald's Great Gatsby...who does this sound like?
"They were careless people, Tom and Daisy -- they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made" (188).
Posted by: NeoDude | August 24, 2005 at 05:59 PM
I have not seen anyone comment on one interesting aspect of Robertson's original speech: his evident frustration with the situation in Iraq:
"We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one strong-arm dictator."
Given that this is the *only* tangible accomplishment of the Iraq war so far, I agree with him that it has so far not been money well-spent.
But as evidence of murmurings in the base, I think Robertson's exasperation is more bad news for the "stay the course" crowd.
Posted by: Tad Brennan | August 24, 2005 at 06:21 PM
...and why would his cronies distance themselves from him? After all, it's not like Robertson advocated anything really anti-christian... like Chavez's wife having an abortion. If he'd have done that, then they'd have really had to sidle away. But a little routine assassination among "us christians"... not such a big deal to the faith-based crew, evidently.
After all, I hear the Venezuelan schools teach evolution in science class... so there's a legit argument...
Posted by: xanax | August 24, 2005 at 06:43 PM
The Christian Coalition's website links to an Agape Press News story that provides a sample of the response from the Christian Right to Robertson's comments.
Ed Vitagliano, spokesperson for the American Family Association, had this to say:
The article also contains another choice rhetorical nugget straight from the ass's - er, I mean horse's - mouth:
Posted by: matttbastard | August 24, 2005 at 08:08 PM
There's a big difference between this:
"The Christian commentator went on to say that Islamic terrorists seem to be motivated by "a spirit of murder.""
and this:
"...And it's almost like that seed of rebellion and uncontrolled anger has filtered into these people."
I mean, the first is almost a tautology--"those murderers have murderous intentions!"--the second is a pretty clueless way to smear a big chunk of humanity.
Posted by: Tad Brennan | August 24, 2005 at 08:13 PM
Tad: You must remember, coming from a Charismatic Pentacostal like Robertson, who actually believes in so-called 'spiritual warfare', the phrase "spirit of murder" is essentially saying that Muslims are literally possessed by demons, in this case, demons of murder.
Who do you think planted the seed of rebellion in the Sons of Ishmael? Could it be....
SATAN??!!!!1
Posted by: matttbastard | August 24, 2005 at 08:23 PM
Given that Robertson (and Falwell) blamed 9/11 on the gays and the atheists and so forth, it's not clear why anyone would be surprised by anything he says anymore.
Posted by: Ted | August 24, 2005 at 10:00 PM
mattbastard--
yeah, fair enough, "spirit of murder" means more like demonic possession than mere murderous intentions.
But, still--there's a big difference between saying that certain *terrorists* are possessed by murderous demons, and saying that *Muslims* are all possessed by murderous demons.
The first one is pretty lame as a psychological explanation (much less predictive value than Fafnir's Stroke Fairies as the cause of strokes, for instance), but it still disses people who deserved to be dissed.
The second one disses all Muslims. And maybe that's what Robertson is after in any case, if you are right about what he means by the 'seed of rebellion' line, which he applies to all the people of Ishmael.
Posted by: Tad Brennan | August 24, 2005 at 10:49 PM
"And maybe that's what Robertson is after in any case, if you are right about what he means by the 'seed of rebellion' line, which he applies to all the people of Ishmael."
Well, you know, he also had a considerable history of supporting the authenticity of the Protocols of the Elders Of Zion, although admittedly he's not been heard in public on that topic for a number of years now. But I can't see any reason to think, other than sheer charity, that he'd have any more likelihood to to this sort of thing with one people over another. Who knew Pat Robertson was really so ecumenical in his bigotry?
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 24, 2005 at 11:23 PM
Well, regardless, if this piece of outright hatred and bigotry, written by one Don Feder, is indicitive of Robertson's feelings on Islam and Muslims, he's moving ever closer to the Fred Phelps fringe.
Some choice excerpts:
This 2002 transcript of a commentary by Robertson (with dutiful rear-covering assistance from his son Gordon) is also interesting, as is Wikiquote's selection of Marion's Greatest Hits.
Posted by: matttbastard | August 24, 2005 at 11:34 PM
mattbastard--
thanks for the wiki cite.
"You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense, I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist." -- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club, January 14, 1991
Given that view, it would actually be fairly perverse of him *not* to accuse the whole of Islam of demonic possession.
Episcopalians? The spirit of the Antichrist? All I can think of is Eddie Izzard imagining the Spanish Inquisition run by Anglicans:
"Cake or death?"
Posted by: Tad Brennan | August 24, 2005 at 11:42 PM
upthread I said "I have not seen anyone comment on one interesting aspect of Robertson's original speech: his evident frustration with the situation in Iraq"
Now I have--Yglesias earlier today on TAPPED.
Posted by: Tad Brennan | August 24, 2005 at 11:52 PM
IIRC, Robertson made a number of references to 'New York Bankers' in his book The New World Order. In it he also spouts off clichéd conspiracy theories involving Freemasons, the Illuminati and the rise of the Anti-Christ.
This 1995 article, published in the Christian Century, provides both a detailed overview and a thoughtful critique of the book.
Also, Charles Bird made a comment early in the thread in which he stated that Robertson has basically ceded the 'moral high ground' to Hugo Chavez. This AP report seems to confirm his conclusion.
Posted by: matttbastard | August 24, 2005 at 11:58 PM
Tad - My personal favourite from the Wikiquote page:
Uh huh...
Posted by: matttbastard | August 25, 2005 at 12:18 AM
Ah, wiki's. At the moment I checked that link, it included this assertion: "Is the anti-christ."
Which is true, of course, but still amusing.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 25, 2005 at 12:54 AM
Speaking of Chavez's comeback (in what he said).
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 25, 2005 at 01:03 AM
Check his actualy accomplishments.
[...checking, ok...]
Chavez has been engineering a slow-motion communist revolution in the last 5-6 years, taking freedoms, packing courts with his compadres, land-grabbing, imprisoning political opponents, restructuring the legislature to one that is more pliable to the executive branch, destabilizing Colombia and Bolivia, strengthening alliances with Castro and Ahmadinejad and Mugabe, etc. (background through April 2004 here). Despite all the oil wealth, Veneuzuela's GDP per capita sucks. From the Devil's Excrement: "Since 1998, when Chavez became President or later, infant mortality is up 16%, death by malnutrition is up 40%, malaria is up 50%."
Yep, quite a few "accomplishments". Chavez should be very proud.
Posted by: Charles Bird | August 25, 2005 at 11:12 AM
BirdDog writes: Chavez has been engineering a slow-motion communist revolution in the last 5-6 years, taking freedoms, packing courts with his compadres, land-grabbing, imprisoning political opponents, restructuring the legislature to one that is more pliable to the executive branch, destabilizing Colombia and Bolivia, strengthening alliances with Castro and Ahmadinejad and Mugabe, etc.
1. taking freedoms
You mean, as opposed to how the Patriot Act functions? Can you challenge any of the statements made by Hugo Chavez in this interview? Would you care to compare and contrast George W. Bush's track record on removing freedoms with Hugo Chavez's?
2. packing courts with his compadres
As opposed to what George W. Bush is doing? (You might find this of interest.)
3. land-grabbing
Yes: Hugo Chavez has supported a program of land redistribution, in which unused or underused land can be transferred to landless farmers. Unless you can show that the land is in fact being transferred to Hugo Chavez, I think that "landgrabbing" is not an accurate way to describe this.
4. imprisoning political opponents
Precisely which political opponents are you referring to? The ones who attempted a coup to overthrow his government? Because, you know, if you try to overthrow an elected head of state, and this fails, I think you can expect to go to jail. No?
5. restructuring the legislature to one that is more pliable to the executive branch
As opposed to what George W. Bush and the Republican leaders have been trying to do, with all their complaints about "activist judges"?
6. destabilizing Colombia and Bolivia
Because only the US is allowed to destablize governments in Latin America? Sorry, only joking. I'm sure you're as fundamentally opposed to Reagan's and Nixon's actions against democracy in South America as I am. But do you have any actual evidence for this?
7. strengthening alliances with Castro and Ahmadinejad and Mugabe
Because only the US is allowed to form alliances with dodgy heads of state, of course. Strengthening alliances with Abdallah bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud or Islom Karimov or Pervez Musharraf - just fine, right?
8. Since 1998, when Chavez became President or later, infant mortality is up 16%, death by malnutrition is up 40%, malaria is up 50%.
Interesting. The easiest one of those factoids to check was on infant mortality. According to this website, in 1999, infant mortality was 26.51 deaths/1,000 live births. According to the CIA factbook, infant mortality is now 22.2 deaths/1,000 live births.
That's not a 16% increase: that's a small, but significant decrease. If your source got the infant mortality stats so wrong, why should we trust his stats on deaths from malnutrition or malaria?
Posted by: Jesurgislac | August 25, 2005 at 01:03 PM
1. taking freedoms
You mean, as opposed to how the Patriot Act functions? Can you challenge any of the statements made by Hugo Chavez in this interview? Would you care to compare and contrast George W. Bush's track record on removing freedoms with Hugo Chavez's?
Jes, your "look over there" response is entertaining, but seriously, your attempt at comparing Bush and Chavez is pathetic. If you think a pro-Chavez news source like VenezuelaAnalysis.com and a pro-Chavez organization like NACLA (linked to by the International Socialist Organization) supports your case, go to town. As for me, I'll remain skeptical of communist propaganda organs. Independent sources such as Freedom House and Reporters Sans Frontieres have more objective and credible views than yours of Venezuela's lessening freedoms. As for American freedoms "taken", what changes to our consitution were made during Bush's tenure? If you're trying to place some sort of equivalence between Bush and Chavez in regards to freedoms, then you're writing from ignorance.
2. packing courts with his compadres
As opposed to what George W. Bush is doing? (You might find this of interest.)
Again, your view that there is some sort of equivalence is stunning. If George Bush were to arbitrarily increase the number of Supreme Court slots by four or five, then appoint cronies to those new positions, then you might've had a valid point.
I observe that the article you favorably linked to--a pro-Chavez "news" organization--castigates Human Rights Watch. I must conclude then, that you believe Chavez's propaganda organ to be a more reliable and credible source than that of a respected human rights group.
3. land-grabbing
Yes: Hugo Chavez has supported a program of land redistribution, in which unused or underused land can be transferred to landless farmers. Unless you can show that the land is in fact being transferred to Hugo Chavez, I think that "landgrabbing" is not an accurate way to describe this.
Land-grabbing is exactly how to phrase it. Calling these confiscatory acts a "land redistribution" is despicable spin, tantamount to a lie. In your own link: "It is simply 'retaking' land which, while it has always been 'public property', was dubiously 'occupied' by private landowners and businesses." Chavez is trying to weasel the meaning of private property. These people held title to real property and Chavez took it without just compensation. If this isn't a land grab, then nothing is. The Guardian reports on it here. By calling these holdings "illegal", Chavez bypassed just compensation, effectively land-grabbing, despite the fact that they can trace back the chain of title over 165 years. Shades of Zimbabwe.
4. imprisoning political opponents
Precisely which political opponents are you referring to? The ones who attempted a coup to overthrow his government? Because, you know, if you try to overthrow an elected head of state, and this fails, I think you can expect to go to jail. No?
No, I wasn't referring to the ones who tried to overthrow him, but the ones mentioned in my organization's report here.
5. restructuring the legislature to one that is more pliable to the executive branch
As opposed to what George W. Bush and the Republican leaders have been trying to do, with all their complaints about "activist judges"?
Again, your equivalence meter is so off the charts it defies any semblance to logic and reason. Did George Bush re-write the American constitution? Did George Bush set up a "judicial emergency committee" to replace judges he doesn't like? Did George Bush declare a "legislative emergency" and appoint a seven-member committee to perform law-making functions? Did George Bush disband the Senate to form a unicameral legislature? Simply stunning.
6. destabilizing Colombia and Bolivia
Because only the US is allowed to destablize governments in Latin America? Sorry, only joking. I'm sure you're as fundamentally opposed to Reagan's and Nixon's actions against democracy in South America as I am. But do you have any actual evidence for this?
Nixon and Reagan opposed Cuba's and the Soviets' imperialistic attempts to spread communist governments in Latin America. I don't agree with all of our attempts to counter them, but that's another story. Publius Pundit has been covering Bolivia and Colombia pretty closely.
7. strengthening alliances with Castro and Ahmadinejad and Mugabe
Because only the US is allowed to form alliances with dodgy heads of state, of course. Strengthening alliances with Abdallah bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud or Islom Karimov or Pervez Musharraf - just fine, right?
Where did I say alliances with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan were "just fine"? Last I checked, our alliance with Karimov has weakened, and SecState Rice has challenged Musharraf and the House of Saud on the shabby treatment of its citizens. Given your response, I take it that you approve of communist Chavez's alliances with the likes of Castro, Mugabe and Ahmadinejad. Lie down with dogs...
As for the infant mortality data, I'll reserve judgment since the numbers come from disparate sources. For example, using this source and the CIA Factbook, infant mortality has risen since 2002.
Posted by: Charles Bird | August 25, 2005 at 05:17 PM
"If George Bush were to arbitrarily increase the number of Supreme Court slots by four or five, then appoint cronies to those new positions, then you might've had a valid point."
While otherwise just eating popcorn for this one (nah; actually, it's mostly tedious and completely, utterly, predictable), I'd like to note that the above would be utterly, completely, legal, so long as Congress passed the bill; there's no set number of Justices in the Constitution, and the number changed frequently throughout history; "the nine" is a relatively recent development.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 25, 2005 at 06:05 PM
Ah, Charles. Well done. A classic closed-eyes refusal to look at the facts. Thank you; you've confirmed my opinion of you.
Interesting that you describe "land redistribution" as "despicable spin": in fact, it's a precise description of what's actually happening. You may feel that it's disgustingly unjust* to take land from people who own it but do not make use of it and give it to people who need land and will make use of it, and you certainly have a right to that opinion: but land redistribution is an accurate description of this. Land-grabbing it is not.
As for the issue of property rights: here's a discussion paper on how an effective program of land redistribution can reduce rural poverty, which is a killer in Third World countries: or, if Oxfam is too Christian - sorry, too left-wing for you - here's another.
What it comes down to, I guess, is which is more important to you: preserving property rights, or saving lives.
*Or rather, horrifyingly Communist in the best early-Christian principles, but there you go.
As for the infant mortality data, I'll reserve judgment since the numbers come from disparate sources.
Actually, I suspect the numbers on the About page were simply cut-and-pasted from an earlier version of the CIA Factbook - the formatting was the same.
However, your source's claim for child mortality having risen by 16% looks dubious by either version, doesn't it?
Though, since you appear to prefer property rights to human lives, it's a little absurd for you to cite infant mortality at all.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | August 25, 2005 at 06:07 PM
Though, since you appear to prefer property rights to human lives, it's a little absurd for you to cite infant mortality at all.
Oh good grief. Knock it off, Jes; you've got enough of a point without that kind of BS.
Posted by: Anarch | August 25, 2005 at 06:32 PM
Gary, complaints about boring predictability have a certain tedium about them. But lest I fall into the same trap, I must say I find tedious complaints about boring predictability endlessly fascinating. Carry on.
Charles, my irony meter registered a remarkably high reading when you spoke of Nixon and Reagan's opposition to other people's imperialism in Latin America. They opposed imperialism mainly by supporting fascist killers who committed every sort of crime, including genocide (in Guatemala). I almost said Reagan was famous for coming to the defense of Rios Montt, but that wouldn't be accurate. I doubt very many Americans know Reagan defended the human rights record of a man whose army had just finished destroying 400 villages and killing tens of thousands of Mayan villagers. But enough of that--I sense myself becoming tedious and boringly predictable. What we need is another thread about how Muslims should confront the terrorist-supporting elements in their society.
Posted by: Donald Johnson | August 26, 2005 at 01:06 AM
Anarch: BS? Hmmm. Decreasing poverty, increasing access to education for all, improving health care systems - all of these things have a positive impact on such basics as child mortality. But right-wingers, though casting a sentimental eye on child mortality stats (and frequently, as with the source Charles cites, manipulating them to make a point) consistently and passionately argue against strategies for decreasing poverty, increasing access to education for all, improving health care systems - because the strategies that work are invariably, horridly (to them) socialist/communist strategies. Focus too hard on the importance of rich people getting ever richer, and ignore children dying: that's pure capitalism, profit before everything else, and in their efforts to claim that anything socialist/communist is inherently evil, they necessarily end up arguing that human lives just aren't important - not compared to property rights and profit.
Charles: Jes, your "look over there" response is entertaining, but seriously, your attempt at comparing Bush and Chavez is pathetic.
Actually, no. Your attempt to criticize Chavez in sweeping form by a list of things you think are bad and wrong when a socialist head of state does them, is pathetic: because lists like that may convince you and others who have an instant, kneejerk reaction that if Chavez is doing it it must be bad - but in that condensed and childish form, you simply list things that Bush is as guilty of as Chavez.
Now, if you wanted to do some extensive research, look up some real statistics, cite something other than right-wing propaganda sources....?
No, I realise all that would be too much like hard work. Knee-jerk tirades and tertiary sources making use of How To Lie With Statistics are much more your style.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | August 26, 2005 at 03:14 AM
Jesurgislac: BS? Hmmm. Decreasing poverty, increasing access to education for all, improving health care systems - all of these things have a positive impact on such basics as child mortality. But right-wingers, though casting a sentimental eye on child mortality stats (and frequently, as with the source Charles cites, manipulating them to make a point) consistently and passionately argue against strategies for decreasing poverty, increasing access to education for all, improving health care systems - because the strategies that work are invariably, horridly (to them) socialist/communist strategies.
Anarch is right, that jab was BS. The comment served no purpose but to insult Charles. Even if you can establish that he holds the positions you ascribe to him, you'd still have to establish that he does so out of callous disregard for human life, and not out of a sincere disagreement over the consequences of those policies.
Posted by: Gromit | August 26, 2005 at 07:37 AM
I take back the specific jab at Charles: that was over the line. The general comment, that people who devoutly believe in capitalism tend to disregard as unimportant the human lives lost or destroyed in the pursuit of profit, however, I stand by: I can cite you far too many instances that prove it.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | August 26, 2005 at 08:10 AM
There are quite a few instances of people who are anticapitalist destroying human life on a, um, wholesale basis. Are you claiming there's more of a correlation to capitalism than to other sets of values? I really, really hope you're not making a case that capitalism is the root of all murder, because that would just have some unfortunate results, here.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 27, 2005 at 07:42 AM
Slarti: I really, really hope you're not making a case that capitalism is the root of all murder
*blinks* When did I say anything like that?
Are you claiming there's more of a correlation to capitalism than to other sets of values?
Capitalism has been killing people or destroying their lives in pursuit of profit for a long, long time, Slarti, and continues to do so.
About 18,000 people die in the US each year because they have no access to health insurance. The US has a system where more than 43 million people have no access to health insurance because this system is highly profitable to insurance companies. Just one, current, close-to-your-home example, Slarti.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | August 27, 2005 at 08:10 AM