h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I think, re Michael Moore, the clue is in the title, 'Stupid WHITE Men.

I think it's an honorary term. It includes Condoleeza Rice after all.

Noggin

The exception that proves the rule, surely?

From the last link:

"What do fundagelicals instinctively oppose? Gay marriage, abortion, gun control, taxes, the UN (and the currently top-rated candidate for anti-Christ, Kofi Annan), withdrawal from Iraq, Michael Moore, Janet Jackson's left breast."

"What do they believe in? Christian values and the future as foretold in the Book of Revelation. According to a Time Magazine poll (which strains credulity but seems to be valid) 59% of Americans trust that St John's prophecies will be fulfilled - probably during their lifetime. November could be a last opportunity to vote for God's preferred candidate. Iraq (ancient Babylon) figures centrally in the fundagelist vision of things, as does the Rapture, and the imminent mass conversion of the Jews (hence fundagelist-Zionism)."


az

<

Which is odd really, given tht fundangelists usually take the reference to the whore of Babylon in Revelations to be a reference to Rome (them being great literalists and all ).

Still, when did consistency ever figure as a priority in fundangelist circles.

Noggin

From the original article:

"US. Gallup surveys consistently count 46% of the population as being self-described born again Christians, the bulk of whom live in middle America.
It is a stunning statistic, and one that escapes the attention of the chattering classes who populate the much less devout coastal strips."

From the last link:

"According to a Time Magazine poll (which strains credulity but seems to be valid) 59% of Americans trust that St John's prophecies will be fulfilled"


Are the statistics actually *stunning* and do they truly *strain credulity*, or is it just that people are refusing to believe they could be true?

az

"That's hilarious. What Moore did was actually comment explicitly on the way in which the American media portrays the black male as a violent, weapon toting threat to decent society"

Which would be why I asked for clarification.

I guess the major point is that the election won't be decided by evangelical christians, it's going to be decided by folks like my wife. Folks who would LIKE to vote Kerry but simply can't afford to. Not because they're millionares who love Bush but because his tax refund has made the difference between sinking and swimming. The 4K we got this year, and the $3k last year, made the difference because it was a substantial refund of the income tax she paid out.

That money, by the way, didn't get us a plush SUV or a boat or a new computer or a tv. Each year, it paid off some of the house (negative equity of about $9K and falling), put a new wardrobe of clothes on the backs of 4 kids (they grow so fast, as I'm sure you all know, and we're not talking about kitting them out in designer attire) and paid some domestic bills. It would be lovely to buy luxury items like books. I'm hoping that 'Dude, Where's My Country?' and 'Stupid White Men' show up at Goodwill sometime, because that's where I do my book shopping.

I'm sure this is a trap a lot of people are in. They want out of their situation and Bush appears to be helping them. Note: appears to be.

Az: George Bush and you...the difference being that George was elected to serve as President. That means he has a mandate from the country (eh...well, a mandate was arranged, quite possibly by his brother who is governor of Florida...) to make decisions for them. I would hope that a serving President would decide based on his intelligence, experience, advice of his cabinet and his own judgement. That last part is going to be colored, whether we like it or not, by what we regard as Right.

Your position on abortion, for example, is colored by your beliefs, It's a fallacy to suggest that you are able to step outside of who you are and take a truely dispassionate view. Even the decision that you shouldn't force a particular belief on others is part and parcel of your world view; are you wrong? Heck no! Are you taking a truely Empirical stance on the matter? Heck no! You can't. To comment on a human experience, condition or circumstance without allowing some of your own views, prejudices, experiences and ideals to color that decision...you'd need to be something other than human. Simply not possible.

Unless there's something you'd like to tell us? Klatuu barada niktu?

So why do we hold other humans responsible for doing the same thing? And isn't it better that you know what those influences are?

"Are the statistics actually *stunning* and do they truly *strain credulity*, or is it just that people are refusing to believe they could be true?"

I believe it.
One of the biggest selling titles out here is the 'Left Behind' series, which deals with the Rapture and the Tribulation and what will happen to the world in the End Days.

I tried reading one and found it repellant. I'm probably a servant of Satan, therefore, but they really are terribly popular. If you're interested in the sort of thing we can all expect, come the day, try popping over to http://www.raptureready.com

"I guess the major point is that the election won't be decided by evangelical christians, it's going to be decided by folks like my wife. Folks who would LIKE to vote Kerry but simply can't afford to. Not because they're millionares who love Bush but because his tax refund has made the difference between sinking and swimming. The 4K we got this year, and the $3k last year, made the difference because it was a substantial refund of the income tax she paid out."

Is the difference between Bush and Kerry that big when you only look at the direct financial consequenses to the public? Would those tax refunds have been $0 if Kerry had been in office? And where exactly is Bush getting that money from? Are taxes on other points higher, expenses lower, or is it all financed by deficit?
Whatever it is, I get the strong feeling that the Bush administration only looks at the short run. But then again, so do most voters I guess.

I notice you sidestepped the points about the economy gradient?

Let's try another example - if the economy really was in a depression when Bush took over, as e are told, how is that so many Millionaires have got richer over the last decade.

Sure there's a depression. It's amongst people who have their jobs outsourced to Mexico (virtually the whole American Car industry as chronicled in Michael Moore's 'Roger Ford and me'), where even jobs working in slaughterhouses are given to illegal immigrants because they will take even less than starvation wages (As chronicled in Eric Shlosser's 'Fast Food Nation'), where farmers are held to effective ransom by the agro-chemical industry ('Fast Food Nation' again).

But what it isn't is a depression where the rich folks are getting poorer.

And just in case anyone thinks that this country is any better under Bush's lapdog, Tony Bluergh, then bear in mind that the gap between rich and poor will be at the same level it was in 1930 sometime next year at the present rate.

<>

Bush?

<<>

Yes, the Christian Right.

az

"I notice you sidestepped the points about the economy gradient?"

Yep. Not an economist, as I said earlier, and when challenged to provide stats that show an upturn I did so.
As I understand it, since Bush took office we have had the following events:

The bursting of the DotCom bubble, which wiped out a lot of heavy investment.

The discovery that several major financial institutions were using accounting pracitces that were basically fraudulent (leading to less confidence in other companies and a dip in the stock market as people realise that if some people are inflating their worth, they might all be doing it).

The destruction of the World Trade Centre. Massive terrorist acts tend to depress the stock market, especially when one shuts down Wall Street.

None of these were under the control of the US Government, either Bush or Greenspan. It's true that Bush's policies are short term economics. However, I have used myself as an example that Bush's policies are NOT solely based on making the rich richer because I'm not rich, neither are any of the people in the immediate vicinity and yet they have mostly benefited from his policies. I have admitted that this is a bribe, and that among the people for whom this matters it's going to work. What's your problem now?

"how is that so many Millionaires have got richer over the last decade?"

If I knew that, would I be sitting in a trailer park?
Of course, one of Bush's stated aims is growing new small businesses and encouraging their expansion to provide new jobs. This sidesteps the whole "Dude, Where's My Entry Level Position Job?" thing (answer: India, and if you don't like it please rant and rave at the company responsible for moving them, not me). Successful small businesses and small enterprises tend to result in people becoming wealthy. We know a couple of families who have created sidelines that top their income up into the six figure mark. If they have prospered, it is reasonable to suggest that people in a wealthier position have also prospered.


"And where exactly is Bush getting that money from? "

It's a REFUND.
For those of you lwho might not understand, this is where the IRS says "according to the rules, you have paid too much income tax. Have some of it back."
This is money that people's companies have set aside to pay their employees taxes, or that people have paid during the tax year to pay their taxes.
And then they get it back.

I know, seems strange. The Inland Revenue never ever did that to me when I was a Brit.

Under Kerry, this wouldn't happen for nearly as many people as it does now. JK's tax plans do in fact make interesting reading. From what I can make out (still not an economist) he's proposing a major tax reform to close a number of corporate tax loopholes, but he's also going to increase the tax burden on the average joe.
And despite the reforms of welfare he's proposing, John Kerry is suggesting that Retired folks would like to work in mentor schemes so that they can earn up to 2K to defray the cost of medical bills. www.johnkerry.com Go see. It's interesting reading.

"Yes, the Christian Right"

In the case of Bush, yes. Would you be happier if he were influenced by Shiva? Or Eris? How about Satan?

Come on. I asked a fair question - can you expect anyone to utterly disassociate themselves from all emotion and belief when they make an important decision on anything with a moral component?

The thing is, any leader with a faith is going, at some stage, to resort to the tenets of that faith when they make a decision. That's what religion tells us it's for: to guide us when we need guidance. If you want to remove religion from the equation totally you have to insist that each and every politician be an agnostic and have no faith in anything whatsoever. That is an unreasonable demand, and in the USA actually unconstitutional.

'The destruction of the World Trade Centre. Massive terrorist acts tend to depress the stock market, especially when one shuts down Wall Street.'

Wars, of course, tend to inflate them as billions and billions of dollars is pumped into companies. Especially arms manufacturers that payed large amounts into the Republican election campaign.

'I know, seems strange. The Inland Revenue never ever did that to me when I was a Brit.'

Perhaps because the inland revenue here is not so institutionally incompetent as to have people over pay these vast amounts? Besides, my flat mate has had at least two tax refunds. Not those sort of amounts, granted, but see my first point.

And while we're at it, if this is an IRS f*ck-*p, how does Dubya get to clain credit for something which was presumably due to happen anyway? If blair tried to do that in this country he'd be laughed out of town.

'And despite the reforms of welfare he's proposing, John Kerry is suggesting that Retired folks would like to work in mentor schemes so that they can earn up to 2K to defray the cost of medical bills. www.johnkerry.com Go see. It's interesting reading.'

Statistics, polls and personal experience indicate that a great number of retirement age people would like to continue working in some capacity. Why waste their knowledge? Why not give them a chance to pass it on? In a country without a welfare state why not enable them to defray their medical costs in this way? As long as it's consensual and not mandatory, where's the harm?

'Come on. I asked a fair question - can you expect anyone to utterly disassociate themselves from all emotion and belief when they make an important decision on anything with a moral component?'

Next time out i shall be voting Liberal Democrat, despite the fact that they have promised to raise my tax bill. Not better for me (emotional), but better for everybody (moral). See how easy that is?

'If you want to remove religion from the equation totally you have to insist that each and every politician be an agnostic and have no faith in anything whatsoever. That is an unreasonable demand, and in the USA actually unconstitutional.'

But it's ok to point the dead finger at other religions and intone 'God told ne to do it?'

<>

Obviously this would be unreasonable. And most political decisions have a moral component. But they also have a factual component. And where the factual components are essentially fantasies, and the moral components are twisted to fit the fantasies, it's time to step away.

Using borrowed money to bribe a crucial group of electors is dishonest.

Basing your foreign policy on a religious eschatology is simply insane.

Noggin

Whether we like it or not, America is the most powerful country on the planet. And as such, America does have a "duty" to the rest of the world. As much as I hate to admit it, we need them. That's why when Americans vote in the next election, they have to think about the good of the entire world, not about the good of their wallets.

"And while we're at it, if this is an IRS f*ck-*p, how does Dubya get to clain credit for something which was presumably due to happen anyway?"

No, it's not a mistake.
It's not a matter of overpayment.
I think the rules are something like: if you are below a certain income level, have 'x' number or more dependants and/or have not signed up with Welfare you qualify for a refund.

There is a family tax credit available for incomes on a lower scale than ours, too.

You're presuming that Bush is taking credit for something that wasn't his idea. You're wrong. You misinterpreted what I told you because you can't see past what you characterise as the Evil George Bush.

"retirement age people would like to continue working in some capacity"
Yep, and in this country they pretty much have to. One of the things that annoys me most is Bush's insistence that prescription costs for those on Medicare (the US welfare health system which takes care of those on a fixed income) remain high. It doesn't make sense, and he's also making it difficult for US Citizens to get prescription drugs from Canada and Mexico, where they have a sensible policy on these things. So you often see things like 90 year old Walmart Greeters.

" In a country without a welfare state why not enable them to defray their medical costs in this way?"
Because for years they've been paying into a Social Security system that is meant to take care of them when they retire and it would appear that JK has no plans to change this rather sorry state of affairs other than by cutting into the hours they have to earn actual money. That 2K? That's A YEAR. 2 hours a day, five days a week for two grand a year is seriously undervaluing the skills these folks have to offer.

"As long as it's consensual and not mandatory, where's the harm?"
None, really. However, if you go visit the man's website you'll see his policy on Community Service ("It's not Just For Criminals Any More"):
High School students will have to complete a number of hours community service before they are allowed to graduate.

As my eldest, who is about to enter High School, said: 'when will I get time for that?'
Scary concept.

Not all his ideas are bad, but go take a look at his policies and see what you think. I think someone said to him 'a year in the army and a decent haircut would sort them out!' and he listened. Look at his policy on the ROTC. Can't afford College? Join the ROTC! Spend your highschool years being indoctrinated into the military and then, when you want to go to College, do so in the understanding that you will join up for 4 years afterwards! See, Poor Kids? You SHALL go to Harvard! And then Iraq! This, of course, is specifically what JK has accused Dubya of doing - pushing the military as the only way out of the poverty trap.

Oh. Go to George's website (georgebush.com) and check out his line of T-Shirts and stuff. Hilarious.

"Next time out i shall be voting Liberal Democrat, despite the fact that they have promised to raise my tax bill."
And were I still in the UK, I probably would too.
However, this isn't Britain and things seem to work rather differently. One way or another, you pay for everything whether it be the Democrat way via a tax bill or whether the Republicans 'give you the choice' of paying for it out of your own pocket.

"But it's ok to point the dead finger at other religions and intone 'God told ne to do it?'"
I don't.
What the rest of America thinks, we find out in November.

"Basing your foreign policy on a religious eschatology is simply insane."

Agreed.

Which group of foaming maniacs are you talking about, though? And if it is, as I suspect, Bush...

can we get a consensus as to which group is actually running him?
Petrochemicals?
Pro-Football?
The CIA?
(fnord)
Pharmaceuticals?
The Religious Right?
The Gnomes of Zurich?

Come one, come all to the Conspiracy Ball.

Conspiracy suggests something that is much more tightly organised than is actually the case, but the links between government, the religious right (or at least its leadership), and corporate boardrooms certainly exist. And it's a scary combination.

I take your point about Kerry, though. In fact given the electoral implications of the religious constituency, and the leverage of corporate finance in American life, it's hard to see any way out of the hole that's been dug.

Noggin

Interesting quote:

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
-Abraham Lincoln,
16th U.S. President (1809-1865)


az

'You're presuming that Bush is taking credit for something that wasn't his idea. You're wrong. You misinterpreted what I told you because you can't see past what you characterise as the Evil George Bush.'

No, you said it was a bribe. That makes it sound like Bush is taking the credit. If he isn't and the Americamn population are still giving him credit for it, then, like the stuff about Michael moore, it says way more about the gulllibilty of the average citizen than I ever could.

'High School students will have to complete a number of hours community service before they are allowed to graduate.
As my eldest, who is about to enter High School, said: 'when will I get time for that?'
Scary concept.'

Well, if he's like me when I was that age, perhaps some of the time he'll spend drinking, mucking about and generally wasting his time. Perhaps Kerry has a solution there to the gap between education and knowledge. Frankly most school age kids in this country would benefit from doing a bit of work in the community. Sh*t, next they'll be suggesting that they might LEARN from it.

'This, of course, is specifically what JK has accused Dubya of doing - pushing the military as the only way out of the poverty trap.'
Only difference being you get a college education out of Dubya's tour of the Middle East...

'can we get a consensus as to which group is actually running him?'
Much though the idea of Al Davis as the dark power gehind the presidency appeals to me, I'm a firm believer that you dance with them as brung you to the party. In Bush's case, thats tyhe religious Right, Petrochemicals (His own family ties, Haliburton and others as personified by Dick Cheney) and the arms industry, who paid more into his campaign fund than any other industry.

You're not telling me they did this from the goodness of their hearts?