The Denver Broncos played a competitive football fame with the Houston Texans, the only thing significant on television over the last 24 hours. However, my NFL recaps are on Sundays. Before getting to the democratic debate that changed history only in the sense that it may have been the least consequential debate ever, I want to say a brief word about the baseball steroid scandal.
Let all the players take steroids. Baseball is a colossally boring game, and the players still have to hit the ball. Anybody who gets indignant needs to blame the fans. That’s right, I blame baseball fans. They are obsessed with home runs. They left in droves after the 1994 strike, returning only in 1998 due to the McGwire-Sosa home run derby. 1-0 pitchers duels are not classics. They are dull. Baseball is not timeless or seamless. It is endless. It is as relevant to sports as the democratic party of Thomas Jefferson is relevant to politics. So either move every game to Colorado, or better yet, have the players go join the Hollywood writers on strike.
Speaking of dull and boring, the democrats debated today. I want to take an unpopular position and defend the moderator. Yes, she is a disaster. However, she was in a lose-lose situation today. She could be more polite, and be seen as a shill for the democrats, which she is, or she could be strident again and get battered again. She will never do another republican debate, but she had to make nice to avoid getting frozen out of both parties.
As for me, I am aware these debate columns are much longer than most of my columns. However, if this column is cut down today it will be seen as giving the democrats short shrift. Yes, on this blog I am the moderator, and like any moderator in need of improvement, it is all about me.
Excluding Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich was right, but Christopher Dodd, Joe Biden and Bill Richardson still could have been excluded as well. The fact that the debate format screwed the republicans by letting in everybody either intentionally or accidentally does not change the fact that they got it right this time with less candidates, albeit slightly.
The first question was legitimate. Should the budget be balanced every year? No candidate of either party would have the guts to say that deficits are irrelevant, that growth is the key, especially not the democrats.
Barack Obama babbled, ignoring the question. Richardson pointed out that as Governor, he was required by state law to balance the budget. He argued for the line item veto and balanced budget amendment, making me think I was watching the republican debate. He then praised the Clinton years, immediately again trying to suck up to get the VP slot. Biden wanted to gut the military. Dodd pointed out that running a federal government is more complex than a state government, politely disputing Richardson. He added nothing else. John Edwards blamed corporate power and greed, trial lawyer that he is. Hillary Clinton warned against tax cuts, and then offered blather.
Then the candidates were asked what situations would justify raising taxes. Again, this was a fair question. Richardson ducked the question. Edwards offered class warfare. Hillary tugged at heartstrings, but said she would raise taxes on corporations.
Continuing with the same theme, the next question was very intelligent. The moderator wanted to know how the candidates would pay for all their proposed new social programs when we would be in Iraq for some time to come. The answer of course is higher taxes, but the candidates had a chance to offer honesty. Biden blamed war spending at the expense of domestic priorities. Sounds good to me, except he was against this. Obama droned on. I was going to at this point refuse to write anything unless sit actually answered a question, but then I would have a blank piece of cyberpaper. Richardson avoided the question, as did Dodd.
Up to this point Bill Richardson was winning because he actually answered the first question, giving him one point, one more than everybody else. I wondered at that point if that one point would be enough to win when the debate was over.
The moderator continued to ask intelligent questions, and it is a disgrace the republicans did not get these questions. Given how much foreign debt the Chinese have of ours, it was asked how we should alter our relationship with China. The answer is that the issue is totally overblown, but again, that would require guts to say.
Richardson would get tougher with China, mentioning human rights. He is completely wrong, but at least he is offering answers. He never said how he would get tougher. The main issue is whether China is considered a friend or a strategic competitor. Richardson labeled China strategic competitor. Dodd blew it off the bat by stating it was an adversarial relationship. Usually such bellicose rhetoric is only used by democrats towards republicans. He actually said it was important not to get bellicose several seconds after I typed that he was. He bashed China, then asked for thoughtfulness.
The next question dealt with whether or not we should reform entitlements, and if so, how. Of course we should, but some liberals will not even concede that. Hillary did mention reigning in medicare problems by giving them the right to negotiate with the drug companies for lower prices, and deal with the HMOs. The expectations bar is so low that at least she offered specifics. Of course then she offered a blue ribbon commission, which I think cuts ribbons at shopping malls. Biden reiterated Hillary, which did not help him because she said it first, and articulately enough. Obama mentioned obesity rates, a valid point, but little else. Richardson mentioned diabetes, and mentioned getting junk food out of schools.
All of the candidates brought up legitimate points and then watered them down, but for the first time in any democratic debate, the children were becoming teenagers, if not full grownups. I still maintain that eliminating Gravel and Kucinich helped. Hillary and Richardson offered actual solutions.
Obama used his statement to offer his platitudes, which is for the most part his entire campaign. Edwards stuck to class warfare.
Like the republican debate, the moderator again asked how human rights should figure into the calculation of foreign trade. The correct answer is not at all, but these are democrats. Biden reiterated the problem, avoiding a solution. Richardson mentioned sanctions. Again, he may be completely wrong, but at least he offering something. Dodd praised Carter on human rights. Apparently that does not count U.S. hostages. Edwards again referred to his father as a guy who worked in a plant, when his dad actually owned the plant. Hillary wants smart, pro-American trade. She is brilliantly bland. She speaks so forcefully that one often fails to realize that there is no substance Yet she is downright substantive compared to Obama, who can make a roast beef sandwich seem like a 10 course meal with his loftiness. There is no there there. None. As Chris Rock says, “speaks so well is not a compliment.” Dodd interjected, offering nothing. Richardson won the round by offering more than nothing.
Biden used his statement to list off some of his accomplishments, which are respectable. Richardson started out by kissing rumpus, his specialty, but he did mention that the Iraq War was being given short shrift in the debate. He is wrong on the war, but right about it being overlooked.
The moderator, under harsh scrutiny by the media, much of it justified, continued to ask intelligent questions during this debate. She wanted to know how the candidates would pay for their energy independence proposals. Would democrats state how they would pay for anything? Of course not. Biden mandated all cars be flexible fuel cars by 2009, and was very bold in stating that corn ethanol would not take America the whole way. In Iowa, this earns him “guts points.” Richardson offered nothing. He offered several suggestions but then said they would not be mandates. Dodd offered higher carbon taxes. He earns major guts points for this. Hillary lectured the audience and blamed republicans, although more briefly than usual. Obama mentioned that anybody can talk tough on these issues in front of the Sierra Club, but he did this in front of auto groups in Detroit. Edwards preached. Dodd and Biden won the round.
Hillary then tried to make a joke about whether the candidates should raise their hands, in an attempt to bash republicans for having the nerve to raise the level of discourse. The audience laughed moderately.
A vote to replace farm subsidies with an insurance program with incentives was missed by all the candidates. The moderator asked how they would have voted, which is ridiculous considering that they could all lie. Dodd said he would have voted for it. Obama spoke about capping subsidies, but could not directly give a yes or no answer, saying he probably would have voted against it, but could support it with revisions. Bill Clinton would have been proud with that answer. Biden said he would have voted for the bill. Clinton would have voted against it, but voted today for something similar. She kissed up to Tom Harkin, even more than the other candidates. Dodd and Biden gave the clearest answers.
Hillary’s statement was a thinly veiled set of cheap shots and ludicrous promises such as ending the War on health care for all, knowing full well she has not voted to end the war. Dodd used his statement to mention that he was the only candidate to serve in the Peace Corps and the military, and emphasized the importance of service.
Richardson had the best statement, with Biden and Dodd offering decent enough statements. The top 3 candidates offered the worst three statements.
When asked how to make education the best in the world, I figured none of the candidates would have the courage to attack the NEA or discuss merit pay for teachers. Edwards wants universal pre-k for children age 4. He then offered great ideas to lower standards, but the question was about raising them. Richardson wants pre-school for all children under 4. He would give teachers a minimum wage of $40,000. He wants more money for art. He bragged about giving teachers more money, which to him means results. Obama would change No Child Left Behind, but not scrap it. He mentioned putting away the tv sets and video games. Personal responsibility never hurts for a good sound bite. Dodd reiterated Obama, which did nothing for Dodd. Hillary claimed that she worked on education issues for a long time, neglecting to say that her efforts in Arkansas failed, and got her husband fired from the Governor’s mansion. She wants a “holistic” view of this, baby boomer that she is. She offered nothing substant9ive, but did it forcefully. Edwards also stated that anyone who works while in college should get free tuition credits for books. It’s a disastrous idea, but at least he offered something. Biden spoke more and added little more. Edwards won the round by default, another 1 (1/2 actually) to multiple zeroes win.
The candidates were asked what they would all accomplish in their first year. Let the litany begin! Obama would end the Iraq War and stabilize the country, completely contradictory ideas. He would then review every executive order of George W. Bush. Then he would have health care conversations. At least he did not promise to fix the problem in a year, only to talk about it. Biden would end the war, end torture and holding prisoners. I do not think he meant he would free all jails. He would give all children catastrophic insurance. Richardson would end the war, start health care and energy initiatives (anyone can start something). He then vowed to weaken effective terror fighting tools, but he phrased it differently. Dodd would change the discourse, which I guess meant he would stop talking. Our current President is a nice guy. It is his opponents that keep attacking. Edwards, the king of promises, ironically noted the promises everyone else was making, although most of them were promises to talk about stuff, not actually do anything. It was like they were running for democratic seats in congress. Edwards then offered a laundry list, said it was not doable unless we brought people together, and then bashed corporations, who he apparently does not believe deserve the same civility as everyone else. Hillary attacked Cowboy Diplomacy, even though Bush is a rancher. She also stated that Bush vetoed stem cell research, which was a complete lie.
It is one thing to be wrong about virtually everything. It is one thing to be shrill and then wonder why there is a lack of bipartisanship. It is another to directly lie so brazenly, and of course this lie went unchallenged by the moderator and the rest of the candidates. They all did terribly in that round, with Edwards being the least awful by promising the least, albeit barely.
Hillary was asked about transparency in her government. She bobbed and weaved like Muhammad Ali. She then criticized the current administration for stonewalling and denying information requests, confusing the current leaders with her and her husband’s time in power. She then claimed she supported public financing, even as she is most likely to opt out of it if she reaches the general election. To lie twice in a question about honesty in government is impressive, even for her.
Biden was asked a cheap shot question about insensitive racial remarks that he already apologized for. He was dignified in his response to this out of line question. Obama defended Biden, which automatically lets Biden off the hook because the media says it does. Also, it kept Obama looking like a saint, and prevented him from answering an actual question about an issue.
Edwards was asked how he could get anything done when he was so anti-business. This was a fabulous question. Edwards stated we have an epic battle, and of course he means American corporations, not terrorists. So I guess he can get nothing done, because if he could, he did not say how.
Dodd was asked a ludicrous question about whether or not he was running for the White House to avenge his father being censured in 1967. This moderator was begging to have Bill Parcells tell her it was a stupid question. Dodd mentioned his father’s love of public service. He did not directly answer the question, which in this case was totally justified. His answer was dignified and classy, which I do not normally say about Dodd. The crowd clapped in approval.
Richardson was asked about lax security while he was energy secretary, including Wen Ho Lee. Richardson did say that he had made many mistakes, and admitted he handled it badly. He said he has made many gaffes and was glad the moderator did not raise them all, which elicited laughter. It was a very humanizing moment. He also mentioned getting some things right.
Obama was asked how he could represent change when he had a bunch of Clintonites advising him. Hillary started cackling obnoxiously, stating that she wanted to hear that answer as well. It was totally crass on her part, but then again, she is her. Obama then got off the line of the night by stating that soon enough, he would be looking forward to her advising him as well. She cackled even louder but then scrunched up her face, and boy did she look ticked. He then went back to his standard stump speech, although he did briefly say something nice about Bush Senior in passing.
On substance, the bottom 3 candidates continued to do better than the top 3 candidates. Biden, Dodd and Richardson appeared heartfelt. They can admit their mistakes. Hillary cannot. Yet for style points, Obama’s remark did well in the round.
Another pointless question asked about using signing statements. Signing statements have existed since 1776. Photo ops are part of life. Hillary bashed President Bush, and apparently was miffed that he had the nerve to veto something she proposed. Oh, the horror. This according to her means he perverts the rule of law, which was the next phrase she used, again confusing the current leader with her and her spouse. Edwards tried to jump on the bandwagon, but it was little more than a “me too” following of Hillary. Edwards stated that Bush thinks he is king, which seems odd given that he voluntarily stepping down as ordered by the Constitution, which apparently is not what kings do.
The candidates were then asked their New Years’ resolutions, which was almost as dopey as the previous day, except that at least they did not have to make resolutions for others as the republicans were asked to do.
Hillary promised to spend time with her family and exercise, and rebuild optimism. Apparently she forgot her slashing attacks a few moments earlier. Edwards spoke of human suffering. He could not even answer a question about resolutions. Dodd also failed to answer the question, but elicited humor for wishing for Iowans to caucus correctly. Richardson also made the audience laugh by vowing to lose weight, which he vows every year. He is no Ronald Reagan, but his self effacing jabs did seem sincere and warm. He wished for Congress and the President to stop fighting. Perhaps he should tell the congressional leaders to stop calling the President a liar and a loser. Biden soberly stated that he vows every year to remember where he came from, because life can change in a moment. It was a very sincere moment because at age 29, he lost his wife and child in a car accident. He did not explicitly mention this as he has in the past, but it again showed a very human side of him. Obama vowed to be a better father and husband.
For some reason, Richardson and Biden, and sometimes Dodd, appear sincere when they show their human side, while Hillary and Edwards come across as completely fake. Obama is inbetween.
The last question dealt with lessons learned from Iowa. Yes, a brilliant question about what the candidates learned at school. The moderator was dreadful with republicans, and had a good first half with the democrats, but clearly reverted to nonsense towards the end. Perhaps she was as tired or bored as most people are with these leftist lightweights.
Hillary joked that she ate her way across the state, which was funny the first time Richardson said it a few minutes earlier. Edwards decided what the voters learned, not what he learned. Dodd also made the food joke, and also told the voters what they learned. Richardson joked that what was best about Iowans was that they liked underdogs. Unlike the others, his jokes did not fall flat. He was very gracious. Biden made a statement that could be seen as arrogant or appropriate. He stated that Iowa deserves him because they take the process seriously. Yes, that is a pompous statement, and Biden can be a gasbag, but in all fairness, he does take this seriously, mitigating what initially seemed arrogant. However, when he said that citizens told him that without him this democracy would be in trouble was a giant ego balloon, even for him. Obama spoke about the core decency of the people, and he admired the generosity of spirit, looking forward to tapping into it further.
Hillary and Edwards were disasters. They competed to see who could be the most hateful and insincere. Obama got in the best single line of the night, but was otherwise bland. He was average. The moderator was better. Dodd handled himself better than average for the most part. Biden did very well, but the clear winner of the debate was Bill Richardson. He was underwhelming in past debates, but spectacular in this one.
The democratic party is the biggest loser because its three strongest candidates are at the bottom and its three weakest candidates are the only ones with a chance to win the nomination.
The republican party should be pleased that the democrats have yet to figure this out. Yet caution should abound. In 2004 the democrats were about to nominate a complete disaster, and instead chose a safer loser, but one that was not a lunatic.
Although I am Jewish, I will now pray for a white Christmas, filled with many ice storms that keep the candidates from campaigning at all, so that people can enjoy bowl games and holidays in peace. At least none of the candidates are currently doing steroids. Besides, Hillary is more into gymnastics.
Oh, and in relevant news, the Texans defeated the Broncos 31-13.
eric
“The democratic party is the biggest loser because its three strongest candidates are at the bottom and its three weakest candidates are the only ones with a chance to win the nomination.”
This is a good point, though I would not include Edwards among the weakest as I assume you are here. Edwards can win the nationals – Hillary and Obama will have a hard time overcoming the misgynist/racist vote, which would certainly come out in force if one of them is nominated. Edwards has the “are you better off today” vote wrapped up, as voters recall what a huge mistake they made in ’00 and ’04. Hillary has this as well, but I doubt it’s enough to overcome the visceral hatred of her among the common masses. Richardson, Biden and Dodd would all make great national condidates. It’s a shame the Dems live in such fantasy land.
JMJ
@#$%^&*)(*&^@#$%^&@#$%^ er !
Jersey, are you feeling alright ? Or did you have a spritual awakening ?
That”s the most truthful,accurate and ageeable statement I’ve ever heard out of you !
(except for Dodd)
Thank you, Micky. Actually, I’ve been saying this for quite a while now.
JMJ
Yea right.
Yes I have. Look at my blog. I’ve consistently been on this theme since it was relevent. I do not believe, nor have I ever believed, that Hillary or Obama can win the nationals, regardless of polling. When it comes time to pull that lever, voters will not pull for Hillary or Obama – and plenty will pull specifically against them. I think it’s kind of sad, really, but I think that it is the reality. We shall see. One thing I’ve also been saying from the beginning is to watch for Huckabee. I’ve been following this guy for years. I think he could beat almost any Dem any time. The GOP has a simliar problem as the one Eric pointed out about the Dems. Giuliani, Tompson and Romney, I believe, are beatable, mostly because of their propensity to collapse all on their own. McCain or Huckabee, on the other hand, would be very difficult to beat in the nationals.
JMJ
Oh, and while I do believe that I am the master prognosticator (note my amazing humility!), I have been surprised to see the endless flagging of the Richardson campaign. I expected more from him.
JMJ
No offense , but I only go to your blog so I can chew you out without having to put Eric throught the inconvenience of editing me.
About six months ago I was at a lib blog and they were all lit about the prospect of a Hillary/Obama ticket.
They got all indignent when I told them they were nuts and that Obama and Hillary will destroy each other before that ever happens.
And I believe it was on this blog I told you a while back that “IF” I were a dem ( God it hurt to say that) I would push for Richardson only because it seems that you can count on what he says. And he doesnt sound like he’s trying to sell me a timeshare.
Regardless of any of that the next prez will be a conservative.
Its starting to look a lot like Christmas. I put balls on my tree and named it Bush.
Jersey ! What are you going to do for Christmas ? Or would it be hypocrtical for an athiest to do anything at all ?
Eric:
I tried to use the link to the “THOMA$ REPORT” on your page, but all I got was “no suitable nodes to facilitate your request.” The closest I got was a link to the Town Hall home page. maybe you should use the complete URL, which is: http://thomasreport.townhall.com/Default.aspx
RAY THOMA$
Good one and title is priceless.
“No offense , but I only go to your blog so I can chew you out without having to put Eric throught the inconvenience of editing me.”
I can live with that! :)
“About six months ago I was at a lib blog and they were all lit about the prospect of a Hillary/Obama ticket.
They got all indignent when I told them they were nuts and that Obama and Hillary will destroy each other before that ever happens.”
You made a very good point.
“And I believe it was on this blog I told you a while back that “IF” I were a dem ( God it hurt to say that) I would push for Richardson only because it seems that you can count on what he says. And he doesnt sound like he’s trying to sell me a timeshare.”
Forgive my forgetting that, but again, good point.
“Regardless of any of that the next prez will be a conservative.”
Here we part ways, but only half-way. Regardless of who wins, conservatism will be on the wain. Huckabee, and the top GOPers are not nearly as “conservative” as our current president. On the other hand, the top Dems are not nearly as liberal as conservatives think they are. So we will have a far more consrvative future than I would like, I do not think we will see conservatism as you would like.
“Its starting to look a lot like Christmas. I put balls on my tree and named it Bush.”
That’s both benignly funny and extremely disturbing at the same time! LOL!!!
“Jersey ! What are you going to do for Christmas? Or would it be hypocrtical for an athiest to do anything at all?”
I tend to get a little depressed at Christmas these days because my family is spread out all over the USA. When I was young, I had a very close-knit family in the Northeast. Now, we’re all over the place. But I love Christmas and such, so it’s hard for me this time of year. If you really read the Bible, it doesn’t matter if you’re an atheist or a monk, love really is the answer. It’s a shame that most “Christians” today are more concerned with what they hate as opposed to what they should love. I guess it’s just easier to hate. Poor dummies.
JMJ
@ Jersey; “Its starting to look a lot like Christmas. I put balls on my tree and named it Bush.”
Jersey said; That’s both benignly funny and extremely disturbing at the same time! LOL!!!
It was ERICS idea ! :-)
Dude, I dont know what kind of Christians you ran into in your life, or lately.
But the majority of them are just a little “TOO” nice if you ask me.
What if the recent massacre at the New Life church in Colorado springs had taken place in a Mosque instead ?
Do you think we would see the same calm and prevailng forgivenss in the worlds muslim population that we see coming out of Americas Christians , the New Life church and the victims loved ones ? I doubt it.
The worst and most challenging statement I’ve heard so far has come from Gov. Bill Ritter Jr.
“When innocent people are killed in a religious facility or place of worship, we must voice a collective sense of outrage,” Gov. Bill Ritter Jr. of Colorado said in a statement.
Where are the muslims who should be speaking out against the a**holes that have hi jacked their religion and morphed it into some obscure practice that seems to of come from nothing but a cauldron of evil ?
I hope they are watching what Americans, and especially Christians are doing right now as a lesson as to what the real American is all about !
Democrats… even more boring than baseball.
And just as crooked.
There are plenty of Muslims voicing outrage at terrorism. Unfortunately, most of the Muslim countries are run by crooked despots, including our “friends,” and fundmentalism has been exaserbated by this and by our imperial misadventures in their lands. So the atmosphere is bad for free speech and moderation in most Muslim countries.
As for the Colorado shootings, Christians basically did that to themselves. Murray – armed with an assault rifle that shouldn’t even be legal – was homeschooled by religious fundamentalists and was spurned by the New Life church of Ted Haggard fame. He was disillusioned by faith and probably suffered severe psychological problems. He should have gotten help, but instead was spurned, and so he flipped his lid and went on a killing spree. It’s a terrible tragedy, but it was not just some random act of violence out of the blue, nor was it an act of terrorism or an attack from a non-Christian per se. I’m an atheist, but not because I have some personal problem with any church. I simply do not think there”s a God. The odds seem insurmountable. This kid was raised a Christian fundy, was spurned by the Christian fundy community, and probably needed serious help that the Christian fundy commmunity simply would not, and probably could not, offer him. Throw in the Christain fundie gun nuts who make weapons like his assault rifle as common as potato chips on the streets of America, and you have the making of a disaster. I feel terrible for the victims, but I hope the lesson learned here is that religion is not the answer to every problem in life – and sometimes it is the problem. And sometimes a good psychiatrist is what’s really needed. (That, and sensible gun laws)
JMJ
Still if this were perpetrated by a western white man and happened in a mosque anywhere in the world the reaction would make the Dansh cartoon reactions look like a picnic.
There are outrageaously large amounts of eveidence that Muslims just cant handle their religion being skewed in the least.
Do we really need to go down the list ? I think maybe just the most recent headlines in the last few months would be sufficient evedence of a lack of tolerance on the part of mainstream muslims as opposed to the tolernce of Americas Christians.
There is absolutley almost no comparisson at all.
I think there are plenty of comparisons. I have heard very little outcry from the Christian community – especially the Christain Right – regarding our colonial oil war in Iraq, for example. Matthew Murrray specifically complains of the lack of Christian compassion and intolerance of criticism as part of the reason for his breakdown.
From the perspective of an atheist, Micky, there really isn’t a whole lot of difference between the three religions of the God of Abraham.
JMJ
Still, you can go to other references on different subjects, it doesnt change the fact that when Christians get bashed they do not turn to public riots of violence where people die and the whole community is uprooted and trashed.
Colonial war in Iraq ? Fine, call it what you want , it wont help.
Matthew Murray is freckle on the ass of this whole subject, besides that…
You yourself admit he was a nut needing the help of a good shrink.
Now we are supposed to listen to him ?
The guy probably went into deep depressions everytime he got a fresh zit
Anyone who believes that the two can be compared is looking at the scale completely from the side.
Whats ironic is that while the moonbats on the left defend mainstream Islam and even radical Islam. The history of all its totalitarian regimes and rule should be the one thing in this world the left opposes the most.
Instead they get all upset because an American police officer describes a suspect by skin color, yet they defend those that wish to kill Americans, go figure.
Heres a little FACT for those who think otherwise.
In the history of religions is obvious that Religion and Politics is a lethal mixture… in the name of Religion many battles and wars have been fought… often not because of the Religion itself, but using Religion as an excuse.
Look even today at the many civil disturbances and wars around the world which are at least partly caused by religious intolerance: Middle East, Israel-Palestine, Sudan, Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Tibet… see The Dark Side of Christianity: Inquisition, Crusades, bad Popes, Priests scandals…
In Islam the problem is accentuated because the Ruler of a Muslim country is at the same time the Political and Religious leader… starting with Muhammed himself who personally fought many wars to defend and expand Islam, and of course he is the model for all the Muslims… and because the final aim of Islam is to conquer the whole world for Allah… by peaceful means, or by war, as started by the Prophet himself. Empires of Islam.
Christians have apologized for he atrocities of the Crusades and Inquisition, even the Pope John Paul II, but I don’t know of any Muslim apologizing for the atrocities done by Islam in the name of God for centuries… hundreds of battles, wars, all kinds of terrorism, suicide bombers… the last one today, September 11, 2001, in the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington…
I have met many Muslims in New York, Palestine, Egypt, North and South Africa, India, China, and all of them are good people, good friends, hard workers, reliable… however, in Islam there have been hundreds of totalitarian regimes for centuries, starting with the Prophet Himself, with Muhammed (peace be upon him)… the aim of most of them, like Hitler or Stalin, was to expand Islam to the neighboring countries, if necessary by war, with thousands of wars made in the name of God, and millions killed for the only crime of not being a Muslim…
If you look at “A Brief Chronology of Muslim History” it looks like the history of battles and wars in the world:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/history/chronology/
http://www.barkati.net/english/chronology.htm
Empirs of Islam
Most of the hundreds of Muslims rulers, caliphs, sultans or ayatollahs, had a totalitarian regime, a dictatorship as complete as the one of Hitler or Stalin… even a more complete dictatorship, because it always included the total religious ruling on top of the political, social, and economic ruling.
The Muslims in a Muslim Country:
Most Muslim countries today are part of the third world of under-developed countries… many rulers use their huge oil wealth and money for personal wealth and for the cause of Islam, instead of the betterment of the poor brothers Muslim citizens… look at Sudan, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Palestine… Kadafy in Libya, the Kings in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria…
The non-Muslims in a Muslim Country:
Inside of most Muslim countries is like the Nazi regime or Communism: Islam often makes the lives impossible to the non-Muslims, imposing severe taxes (the Jizya or poll tax), and even killing millions… like today in Sudan: We’re talking here not about discrimination, but persecution of the worst sort: slavery, starvation, torture, murder…. for the only crime of being a Christian… about 1.3 million of them dead only in Sudan, in a country with only 5 million Christians:
World Report: Sudan Sudan – UN – killings Slavery in Sudan
Amnesty International 1999 Annual Report on Sudan Sudan: Amnesty International Campaign
And Honor Killings in other Muslim countries, like Jordan, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Morocco, Egypt, the Gulf States, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Turkey, Yemen…
And, on top of it, when there is not enough power, all kinds of terrorism, suicide bombers… and all of it in the name of Allah, the Islamic Holy War… based on the teachings of the the Quran and Hadith.
From what he’s written, he was physically and emotionally abused by a family and community of religious fanatics. Their relgious fundamentalist beliefs made the kid nuts.
The problems in the Muslim world today are no more or less the faullt of Islam than the problems of the Christian West. A brief summary of the histories of the two regions will show you that. When the Muslim world was it’s it’s historical apex, their relgion was manifested much more peacably. When the West was at it’s historical low, religion was manifested and cruel and fanatical.
All religious fundamentalism is by default bad. It is a manifestation of beliefs through the prism of fear, hysteria, and cruelty. It is the reflection of a troubled society. And it has a way of snowballing out of control in unfortunate directions.
JMJ
JMJ wrote;
“The problems in the Muslim world today are no more or less the faullt of Islam than the problems of the Christian West. A brief summary of the histories of the two regions will show you that. ”
You’re still wrong. By the one fact and principle that Islam has progressed very little in the field of human rights if not regressed to where its at today.
First you mention the muslims are no more at fault than christians today. That is a lie.
The evidencf of atrocities commited by muslims these days far out weighs the atrocities commited by christians today.
For every one atrocity or radical action by a christian taking place today 10 of the equivalent or worse are commited by Muslims.
I’ll do the contest with you. I’ll shred you , I have the evidence, put your money where your mouth is. YOU WILL LOSE.
JMJ wrote;
” brief summary of the histories of the two regions will show you that. ”
The summary is right above in my last post. And it proves you to be absolutly wrong.What the hell are you babbling about ?
I just gave you all the facts and you still go forth saying the same thing.
JMJ said;
“From what he’s written, he was physically and emotionally abused by a family and community of religious fanatics. Their relgious fundamentalist beliefs made the kid nuts.”
You dont know any more about this nut than anyone else. His writting may only be a reflection of other residual and underlying problems . Such as depression , being organically ill , or drug use. You or myself just dont know yet.
Besides his reasons have little to do with the tolerance levels compared between Muslims and Christians.
Micky,
“You’re still wrong. By the one fact and principle that Islam has progressed very little in the field of human rights if not regressed to where its at today.”
The point I was making is that societies progress and regress over time, while religion itself tends to stay the same – it just gets used differently. When times are good, religion can be benign, even benevolent – or occasionally horrific. When times are bad, religion tends more to be used as a giant social stick. Murray was the product of a family that so zealously and vehemently believed that mass popular culture was satanic that they indoctrinated in their son a worldview of complete dispair and disillusion. While it may well be true that our culture is regressing and possibly fatally cannibalistic, religion is not the answer for turning that around – as we now see in the Middle East. Religion tends to make bad things worse and good things… eh. Got me? You can disagree with me if you like, but this is not a matter of win or “LOSE” (jeez, man, the hyperbole!). I just honestly want to know if you understand my opinion.
JMJ
Still, you only offer opinion and speculation.
You know nothing about Murray. His family very well could of influenced his behavior. A host of other things could of accentuated , morphed and amplified it.
Part of my training as a substance abuse counselor involved “roots of behavior manifestations”, you’re way off base.
I understand that your opinion is founded from your feelings about religion, and not much more.
And please, stop ducking when you are confronted on your own statements like this one; “problems in the Muslim world today are no more or less the fault of Islam than the problems of the Christian West. A brief summary of the histories of the two regions will show you that. ”
Islam is its own worst enemy as are most religions that are taken out of context or aligned by perception. Notice I did not say “radical Islam” Moderate Muslims are committing far greater atrocities TODAY in the name of God than Christians are. The Christian progression of tolerance levels have maintained a steady rise in the last century , where Islam has remained the same if not gotten worse.
Take a look.
No churches or synagogues have been destroyed in Saudi Arabia since it was established in 1932 —because none are allowed. Those who want to establish churches “are, unfortunately, fanatics,” according to the Saudi First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defense and Aviation and Inspector General, Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz, in an interview with the Associated Press on March 13, 2003. He concluded: “There are no churches – not in the past, the present or future….”
There is no declared Muslim state, which offers full civil rights to members of other religions. Many Christians work in Saudi Arabia, but they are not allowed to practice their religion in public because there is no religious freedom in Saudi Arabia. The State Department’s report on Religious Freedom points out that the Saudis do “not always respect this right in practice and do not define this right in law.”
Last April, 40 Pakistani Christians including men, women and children were arrested for holding prayers in a private home in Riyadh. Needless to say, their prayer-books were confiscated.
Moreover, in the 1990’s, Christian religious services in the American Embassy were terminated at the Saudi government’s request. And even websites devoted to other religions and to religious freedom and tolerance are blocked by the Saudi government.
And the Saudis not only oppress all other religions but actively promote an ideology of hate in their own country and abroad. Freedom House documented how the Saudi government is involved in propagating internationally a “religious ideology that explicitly promotes hate, intolerance, and other human rights violations, and in some cases violence, toward members of other religious groups, both Muslims and non-Muslims.”
In Iran, where the president has repeatedly said, “I want to stop Christianity in this country,” last month, a Protestant pastor has been murdered because he himself converted from Islam. It is important to note that all five schools of Islamic law agree that the penalty for conversion – “apostasy” – is death.
In Indonesia, especially in the Moluccan islands, thousands of Christians were massacred and tens of thousands driven from their homes in the last decade alone by Islamist mobs.
In Egypt, Christians face persecution in the form of rapes, kidnappings and forced conversions as well as economic discrimination and restriction on their property and on what they can build.
Similar situations apply in most Gulf States, which were Islamized long ago. In Yemen, “the government forbids conversions, requires permission for the construction of new places of worship and prohibits non-Muslims from proselytizing.” The country has two churches in the city of Aden. One of the churches was bombed on January 1, 2001. And on December 30, 2002 – three Southern Baptist missionaries working in the Baptist Hospital at Jibla were killed.
In November 2005, Qatar allowed to construct the first church in 14 Centuries. However, no “freestanding cross” to identify the building as a church is allowed. Yet, this is seen as a big step towards reform.
However, radical Islamists adhere to medieval traditions and laws mandating the Jihad. According to the Dictionary of Islam: conquered by jihad, subjugated people are given three choices:
1) convert,
2) pay a head tax, or
3) die.
Thirteenth Century jurist Ibn Taymiya, often quoted by Osama bin Laden, wrote that spoils of war “received the name of fay since Allah had taken them away from the infidels in order to restore them to the Muslims…. [The] infidels forfeit their persons and their belongings which they do not use in Allah’s service to the faithful believers who serve Allah and unto whom Allah restitute’s what is theirs….”
This creed dictated that in conquered regions, ancient religious sites be confiscated and infidels banned from using them. Thus, the Dome of the Rock was constructed on the ruins of the Temple Mount in 691 AD., Al-Aqsa Mosque over the Basilica of St. Mary in 712, AD, and the Grand Mosque of Damascus, was built over the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist in 715 AD.
In India, the Vikramasli temple was razed to the ground in the 13th Century, and its foundation- stones thrown into the Ganges. According to scholar K.S. Lal, thousands of Hindu temples were destroyed and their stones used to build mosques.
Muslim scribes recount the detestation on a church in Georgia in 1551 by Safavid Shah Tahmasp. “The Shah and his nobles went to see the church and slew twenty evil priests and broke the bell of 17 maunds…and destroyed the doors of iron and gold and sent them to the treasury.”
Only when infidels surrendered could they preserve religious buildings, and then only if a clause specifically allowed them, but in that case modifications and improvements were prohibited. Furthermore, 11th Century jurist Abu Al-Hasan Al Mawardi wrote that non-Muslim dhimmis “are not allowed to erect new synagogues or churches in the territory of Islam and any built are to be demolished without compensation.”
In countries with a Muslim majority, Islamists regularly target churches, synagogues and other non-Muslim holy sites for desecration and destruction. The list of old and new examples of Islamic edicts preaching intolerance of others and calling for their destruction as well as the destruction of their holy sites is long.
Unless those – still the majority of the world – who do not adhere to such dogma, take action to stop this aggression, our future is in jeopardy.
The history of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, headed by Yasser Arafat, is filled with religious violence. From 1975 to 1982, when the PLO operated in and from Lebanon, it terrorized Christian communities and ransacked their churches. Even after the newly established Palestinian Authority committed to religious tolerance in the Oslo Accord, its own police forcefully took over Abraham’s Oak Russian “Holy Trinity” Monastery in Hebron, on July 5, 1997, wounding several monks and nuns.
Then, in January 2000, the PA evicted five White Russian monks from their 19th Century Jericho Monastery.
In September 1996, Palestinians destroyed the synagogue at Joseph’s tomb in Nablus. Then, in October 2000, the reconstructed synagogue and yeshiva at Joseph’s Tomb was sacked and burned by mobs, and Rabbi Hillel Lieberman, who went there hoping to save Torah scrolls and other holy objects, was murdered. The next day his bullet-ridden body was found in a cave. Today, the Jewish holy site is buried under the new mosque that was built over the ruins of Joseph Tomb.
The PA’s Tanzim terrorist group invasion and desecration of Bethlehem’s Church of Nativity, in May 2002, was premeditated, according to their commander Abdullah Abu-Hadid. He stated on record: “The idea was to enter the church in order to create international pressure on Israel… We knew beforehand that there was two years worth of food for 50 monks. Oil, beans, rice, olives, good bathrooms and the largest wells in old Bethlehem.”
The PA terrorists “stole gold objects from the monks, ate their scarce food, and urinated on the church floor.”
Muslims have attacked the “infidels” and their houses of worship in order to take over their properties for centuries. In the September 1955 “Istanbul Pogrom,” Muslims sacked the homes, businesses and churches of tens of thousands of Greek Christians, Armenians and Jews in Istanbul. “Dozens of Greek men and women were raped, and a number of men were forcibly circumcised by the mob.” Today, of the 200,000 of the Greek community, only 1,500 live in Istanbul. And only 24,000 Jews remained of more than 100,000 at the beginning of the last Century. As for the Armenians, their massacre in 1915 has been well documented.
In the Balkans, since the Serbs were defeated in Kosovo in 1999, more than 100 ancient Orthodox holy places were destroyed, some dating back to the 13th through 15th centuries.
The destruction of the two fifth-century Buddha statues lining Bamiyan Valley’s soaring cliffs, in March 2001, came after a fatwa ordered by the Taliban that all Afghan “idols” be destroyed as anti-Muslim.
Islamists scholars supported the destruction of the Buddha statutes. Among the supporters was American Muslim, Sheikh Ali al-Timimi, who in July this year was sentenced by a judge in Virginia to life in prison because he worked to get a group of young Americans Muslims to obtain terrorists training so that they could go to Afghanistan and fight with the Taliban against the “infidels.” He wrote that there is “overwhelming evidence from the Quran and the Sunna where we have been commanded to destroy all images and flatten all graves.”
Unfortunately, many other holy sites of other religions have been destroyed because of the intolerant Islamists – both Shiite and Sunni dogmas that teach disrespect for the rights of Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims. The most flagrant proponent of this hate lately is Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who not only denies the Holocaust as a historical event, but uses every opportunity to reiterate that Israel “must be wiped off the map.”
Statements like this encourage not only the massacre of Jews and their holy sites, but also are responsible for the mass murder of Christians and the razing of churches worldwide—in Indonesia, Pakistan, Sudan and Nigeria—which happens in in 83% of nations with Muslim majorities, according to Tom Barrett in American Daily.
To remedy the situation, the UN—as well as all other international organizations—should sanction all the countries that do not allow religious freedom and withdraw all membership privileges of all the countries that do not provide legal protection and equal rights to all their citizens.
I think this should clarify the tolerance issue.
Its a hell of a lot more than anything you have offered to counter my claim that Muslim are far less tolerant than Christians.
Micky, you said, “You know nothing about Murray.” I do know a little. I’ve read a great series of reports about him and his writings. He was one twisted guy – and twisted by religion. Then you said, “Islam is its own worst enemy as are most religions that are taken out of context or aligned by perception.” All religion is without context (there is no real, tangible, scientific God) and all of it’s precepts are subjective (there is no real, tangible, scientific Morality).
I’m saying that Middle Eastern actors are now behaving badly but it has nothing to do with their religion but for after the facts. I’m saying that if the Middle East was Christian today it would be the same. The conditions on the ground of real, tangible, scientific life in the Middle East are such that whatever religion they chose wouldn’t change the real, tangible, scientific conditions on the ground. There’s far more to life than religion. Religion is just an excuse to act more badly about something that is bad. Religion just compounds problems.
But sometimes relgion does get carried away on it’s own, and this is just another example of the similarity of all Abrahamic beliefs – the Holocaust. We’re hearing rhetoric today from the Muslim world that is right on with what Hitler was talking about in the 30’s – and well before. But take Judeo-Christianity away from the Europeans and it’s hard to imagine the Holocaust would have happened. The Holocaust was about hating another people for their different religion by a Christian-majority population. It was only a couple generations ago ya’ know. Many survivors live today. Don’t try to pretend that somehow Christians are more or less tolerant than anyone else just because they haven’t murdered millions of Jews in the last 60 years.
JMJ
As far as “context” of religion goes. I’m talking about how every religion there isand its Spiritual or theological context goes.
Your semantic attempt was pathetically dumb. I use that term with many educated theoligan s and ordained priests and not one of them ever try to discount it as inaplicable or wrong.
That was ridicilous.
The middle east would most definatley and no doubt as presented by THE FACTS ! that I presented be the same if it were Christian.
You need your head checked. You are in full blown denial mode. READ the facts I presented.
The facts present how differently Islam reacts to “the science” than Christians do.
Muslims have ALWAYS reacted badly to the “science” as listed above.
JMJ said;
“Don’t try to pretend that somehow Christians are more or less tolerant than anyone else just because they haven’t murdered millions of Jews in the last 60 years.”
Dont try to insinuate that I said or suggested any such thing.
What I did say in my last post (which you obviously did not read or understand)
I said;
“The Christian progression of tolerance levels have maintained a steady rise in the last century , where Islam has remained the same if not gotten worse.”
In addition to that Chritian progression of tolerance since the holocaust has skyrocketed to increased levels of tolerance never seen before in the Christian community.
Nazis are practically extinct or in small numbers.
Islam has gotten worse, most notably if anything just by the eruption of the radical islam fundamentalist movements springing up everywhere today.
The history only proves one thing.
Jews and Christian over time have become more tolerant and accepting of other religions.
Islam has not .
Do the math, you will lose, I challenge you to prove me wrong, you will lose.
CORRECTION.
The middle east would most definatley and no doubt as presented by THE FACTS ! that I presented “NOT” be the same if it were Christian.
JMJ wrote;
“Micky, you said, “You know nothing about Murray.” I do know a little. I’ve read a great series of reports about him and his writings. He was one twisted guy – and twisted by religion. ”
That right, you know a little. But you show no proof of your findings.
Show me these reports and findings you use to bolster your arguement.
And if you do, it will still have nothing to do with tolerance.
Can you ell me if you heard even one voice from any of these countries denouncing and condeming the treatment and actions threatend against Gillian Gibbons who was arrested in Khartoum and accused of insulting the Prophet of Islam by letting her students name a teddy bear Muhammed?
Afghanistan, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Brunei, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Eritrea, Egyp,t Gambia, Guinea, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq ,Jordan, Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Maldives, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, SyriaTajikistan,Turkey,Tunisia,Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, United Arab Emirates ,Yemen
I did the research a week ago and found nothing from the mouths of any of these countries defending this lady.
Micky, who are you to tell people what they should and shouldn’t believe?
JMJ
Where did I tell anyone to believe anything ?
Oh , by the way. Unless you can come up with some kind of proof on your findings with murray.
Otherwise you are asking me to believe you regardless of the truth
Jersey!, who are you to tell people what they should and shouldn’t believe?
Are we just supposed to take your word for everything ?
There’s a whole serious of great blogging by Daniel DiRito on the subject here: http://www.teambio.org/author/daniel-dirito/
Check it out.
JMJ
Oops – I plugged the wrong blog! Sorry, Eric. I should have posted this: http://www.thoughttheater.com/2007/12/going_to_the_matt_reach_out_bring_them_back.php
(It’s bad form to reference places where one writes posts themself – again, my apologies Eric. – still I like my friends at the aforementioned location );)
JMJ
That link was pathetically weak ! You call that research or evidence of conditions responasable for Murrays actions ?
It was nothing but some guy trying to relate to Murray. No psychological evaluations, no police transcripts or profiles. Not even a copy of his writtings. Just a bunch of sappy empathy.
I think you’ve watched Carrie one too many times.
Blame it on the religion right ? It would be too far a strecth for the imagination if he were just a f****d up kid right ?
But – like I keep mentioning – and you keep avoiding, is that the subject was tolerance.
Here Jersey, this is how its done.
I did my own research. The Denver post has numerous stories on Murray.
All of which support the probable scenario of a kid who wanted to be a part of something he had no business doing, combined with some serious mental health issue going way back only made things worse. The straw that broke him was more than likely the rejections he recieved from the church. But those rejections were warranted to due to his previous behavior. As duely noted in just about every news article there is on him.
Here is testimony from people who actually knew him and lived with him.
Not some moonbat bleeding heart.
==================================================================
Uncomfortable memories
Werner shared a dormitory with 18 other people, and Murray slept on a bottom bunk next to his. Now a cook who ministers in his free time, Werner said his time with Murray left him with some uncomfortable memories.
One experience jarred Werner enough to note it in his diary.
“It was Oct. 23 of 2002,” Werner said Tuesday in a telephone interview from Brazil. “He was tossing and turning in the middle of the night, talking to himself. I asked him if everything was OK, and he said, ‘I’m just talking to my voices.’ ”
The response jarred Werner.
“I said, ‘Dude, you’ve got to be kidding,’ ” Werner recalled. “And he said, ‘Don’t worry, Richard. You’re a nice guy and you have nothing to worry about. The voices like you.’ ”
==================================================================
“Sprinkled with tears”
Among the online writings purported to be from Matthew J. Murray:
Murray wrote of finding solace in cutting himself, describing it as “a beautiful work of art shaded in crimson sprinkled with tears as you descend into the darkness of loneliness (sic) and despair drowning and sinking with no one around, even when you’re doing it with your friends.”
He wrote that he found a “secret drug addiction,” which “can completely alter blood pressure, heart rate, brainwave patterns and other bodily functions,” revealing at the end of a page-long post that the “addiction” was rock music, and the person who had helped make it a powerful force in his life was Marilyn Manson.
==================================================================
Now- I like Marilyn Manson for the sake of the music.
I have one the most unbelivable stereos probably on the island , and I CRANK IT !
I have had serious bouts with depression, am diagnosed bi-polar and have been through a HELL of a lot more that Murray probably would of ever gone through. I got hassled and rejected alot in school. We only had three white boys in a school of 400.
And I have never shot anyone, never mind killing four people and injuring a bunch of others