Need Clarification

[Kesdjan]

Hi,

I have a conservative teacher who makes some pretty outrageous claims. I would like to cut through all the B.S., but I don't know where to look.

She claims for instance that Hugo Chavez has stated that he supports terrorism and/or the killing of Americans. Could any one give me a source quote for this?

Also, this page claims the Iranian government "executes children for being sexually active, shuts down opposition media and persecutes religious minorities". Is there any foundation for these assertions? And whats all this about the Iranian people shouting "death to America"- do the really hate us or is this more b.s (and if it is b.s. where did this distortion originate).

Finally, are there any essays, signs editorials, etc., that comprehensively discuss the basic similiarities between the major two parties. We of course know of the foreign policy similarities but what else is similiar. Also, to those living in other countries, an American Government textbook I have from school says

Several of the multiparty nations of Western Europe have long been plagued by governmental crises. They have experienced frequent changes in party control as coalitions shift and dissolve. Italy furnishes an almost nightmarish example: It has had a new government on the average of once every year since the end of World War II.
Historically, the American people have shunned a multiparty approach to politics. They have refused to give substanitial support to any but two major parties and their candidates. Two of the factors mentioned above- single-member districts and the American idealogical concensus- seems to make the multiparty approach impossible in the U.S.

This seems like blatent propaganda. How bad is the mult-party system really?

 

[atreides]

You are going to loose this argument, and you shouldn't get into it. If I had to fight it I would find all the instances of quotes of American anti-arab anti-chavez stuff, but then again, I wouldn't get into it with this person. There is nothing to be gained, in her world, she is right, so you can never be. The best way to work with people like this is to agree with them and feed their fervor, or at the very least, don't get in the way, but it helps to draw them out into making more and more outrageous claims. The best offense against such people is to make them look worse than the object of their attack. But again, I would let this sleeping dog lay.

 

[ark]

They have refused to give substanitial support to any but two major parties and their candidates.

I would argue that one party system and no elections at all is even better. People can concentrate on working for this party instead of thinking about politics. No money lost on elections. No changes in the government. Slowly but surely Americans are discovering this important fact.

The money saved on elections could be spent on building still more jails. Now USA has over 15 times more people in jails (per 10,000 of the population) than, say, Finland - a parliamentary republic with a multiparty political system, but why to stop at this ratio? Why no to go for a factor 100? It's feasible. All these "potential terrorists", after all, should be preventively put in jails!

 

[Joe]

context is everything, and this is an interesting study in the slanting of information by the press in order to serve a specific agenda, not to mention the 'cherrypicking' by your teacher of data that corroborates her beliefs.

For starters, there's nothing like a little hypocrisy, now is there:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/1999/01/28/usdom761.htm

State Governor Urged to Stop Execution of Juvenile

(01/28/99) -- Human Rights Watch today called on Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating and the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board to grant clemency for Sean Sellers, who was sentenced to death for murders committed when he was sixteen years old. Sellers is scheduled for execution by lethal injection on February 4.

" No one should be executed for crimes committed as a minor. The rest of the world has renounced this appalling practice. The United States should too. "

While only nine executions of juvenile offenders are known to have occurred outside of the United States since 1990, Sellers' execution would bring the U.S. total for this period to ten.

So which is worse: Executing a 16 year old or just arresting them at 16 and letting them rot in prison for a few years and then executing them? This kid was lucky he wasn't born in Florida, otherwise he might have had a visit with "old sparky"

In terms of executing civilians, including minors, and in the most barbaric way (public beheading) the Saudis Stand out as the worst.

Yet here's a nice pic of your glorious leader and the other despicable excuse for a human being known as Saudi King Abdullah. Note they are holding hands.

By presenting such articles, I assume your teacher is trying to make a case for demonising Ahmadinejad, and bombing Iran. In that case, her beef should first be with the clerical courts in Iran, one of which was responsible for the execution and which do not answer to parliament as stated in the article cited.

The claims of religious persecution come from an Iran organization in exile in the US which is VERY cosy with the US government (i.e. it is probably owned by the CIA) and itself appears to be significantly right of center in terms of 'morality'.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/bahai5.htm

Basically, it seems that your teacher has no idea of the reality of what is going on in the world and like so many others is therefore unqualified to speak or teach on the subject. She is of course, entitled to her opinion

As for the American political system; that's a real funny one, especially the term "American idealogical concensus". Now tell me, does such a thing just evolve by itself as a true represenation of what Americans think? Do Americans think? Or are they thunked by someone else? American policy makers tell American citizens that American citizens prefer a two party system, and American citizens agree that that is what they think, they even have a nice word for it: "consensus"



Joe

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

As for the American political system; that's a real funny one, especially the term "American idealogical concensus". Now tell me, does such a thing just evolve by itself as a true represenation of what Americans think? Do Americans think? Or are they thunked by someone else? American policy makers tell American citizens that American citizens prefer a two party system, and American citizens agree that that is what they think, they even have a nice word for it: "consensus"

Just like we value freedom in America because Americans are freedom-loving people! Yes that means if you are born in America, you are fundamentally different from everyone else in the world since you are genetically predisposed to love freedom and democracy and a 2-party system. Really, we can't explain it any other way! It's like Americans are... like.. holy and chosen by God to be freedom-and-democracy-loving! That's gotta be it! People in other countries are genetically predisposed to not be as fond of freedom and democracy, which is why THEY accept all those other inferior forms of government, but Americans never accept anything other than freedom and democracy, which is why we are the epitome of freedom - we are born that way around here and won't have it any other way! Honestly, ask any American if they love freedom, they'll tell you that of course they do, because they are an American, so duh!

 

[atreides]

There isn't very much freedom in america, or the world for that matter. The two party system is essentially a false dilemma, either one or the other. Technically speaking, a multiparty system is more free than a two party system, which is really only 1 step away from a dictatorship.

But why not discuss this. I have never, as an american been asked if I prefer a two party system. I cannot recall ever being asked, or any of my friends or family being asked. I don't recall hearing of an election or vote where we all decided it would be this way. I have never seen a single piece of evidence indicating that I or any other person actually had a choice in this matter.

And who says america is free? I don't remember much freedom growing up. You have to do what your parents tell you, what the police tell you, what the government tells you. You can't say this, you can't do that. Most of the life of an american is learning all of the things he can't do, all of the things he can't say, and the many situations where you can't do or say what you can't do or say.

So what is freedom? The dictionary says that freedom is: the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint, exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc, the power to determine action without restraint,ease or facility of movement or action.

Well, I can say with certainty that there is absolutely, based upon that definition, no freedom in the United States.

There is no freedom of speech, because it is regulated, controlled and interfered with by the FCC and the Attorney General. For instance, should I want to talk on the radio, there is a long list of words I can't say without receiving a hefty fine, and some things I can't say without losing my right to broadcast, and even a couple that could cause me to loose my physical freedom. There is also no freedom of speech through other artistic mediums. There are some pictures I can't paint, some photographs I can't take. While we might agree that these restraints are good, we are not arguing the goodness or badness, we are simply stating that regulation and restriction cannot be present within freedom.

Let's find another freedom, what about freedom to practice religion? This is also regulated and monitored. Again, probably rightly so, as some religious practices can be harmful and dangerous, but restriction and regulation in any form cannot be present within freedom.

Well at least we are free to wear what we like, right? No, wrong again. We have business and community dress codes. In my hometown is was an offense to wear a thong on the beach. The faculty at my highschool used to go around with rulers in their hands measuring girls blouses to make sure they were "acceptable." Sure, technically you are only considered free or an american when you are 18, but the point still stands.

Anyway, the point being is that there is no freedom, not even technically in the world at large. No country and no citizenry is free, by a long shot. It is all just differing degrees of totalitarianism. It just so happens that the totalitarian regime in america, and those of western europe, have sold everyone on the idea of limited freedom, an oxymoron.