 |
literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org
Literature, Poetry, Essays, Dialogues, Philosophy, Theology
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Sitaram
Site Admin
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 1079
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 2:33 am Post subject: How Free is Our Press? |
 |
|
Dear myspace reader:
I need you to read this an tell me if you think it is inappropriate or offensive, and would get my account deleted, or if it is safe to post. I would also appreciate any comments, feedback, suggestions. Thanks!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Indonesia
<p><a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Indonesia>Wikipedia – Islam in Indonesia article</a><p>
I often chat with an educated young woman in Indonesia, in her early 30s,
who works for an organization that promotes the welfare of the
disadvantaged and marginalized.
She always remains friendly, but we get into such arguments.
Today, it started when she said that Indonesia is not an Islamic society
under Sharia law. I quickly threw several links at her, including the
Wikipedia link above, to demonstrate that, while what she says is
technically correct, by virtue of one small clause in the constitution, yet, in
truth and practice, it is misleading to say that Indonesia is not Islamic,
because each and every year, various factions strive to enact Sharia, and
one province actually does have Sharia courts in force. So, it is silly to
boast that Indonesia is not an Islamic society, simply on the strength of a
technicality of clause. I mean, technically, if you had asked Khrushchev
in the 1950s if the Soviet Union was a free democracy, he probably would
have pointed to some clause in their constitution to prove that it is a free
democratic society.
http://www.regent.edu/news/Khrushchev05.html
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarti...-67f5-4b19-bd13-a729cdc24a54.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR
| Quote: |
<blockquote>
In the late 1980s, the government appeared to have many characteristics
in common with liberal democratic political systems. For instance, a
constitution established all organizations of government and granted to
citizens a series of political and civic rights. A legislative body, the
Congress of People's Deputies, and its standing legislature, the Supreme
Soviet, represented the principle of popular sovereignty. The Supreme
Soviet, which had an elected chairman who functioned as head of state,
oversaw the Council of Ministers, which acted as the executive branch of
the government. The chairman of the Council of Ministers, whose selection
was approved by the legislative branch, functioned as head of
government. A constitutionally based judicial branch of government
included a court system, headed by the Supreme Court, that was
responsible for overseeing the observance of Soviet law by government
bodies. According to the 1977 Soviet Constitution, the government had a
federal structure, permitting the republics some authority over policy
implementation and offering the national minorities the appearance of
participation in the management of their own affairs.
In practice, however, the government differed markedly from Western
systems. In the late 1980s, the CPSU performed many functions that
governments of other countries usually perform. For example, the party
decided on the policy alternatives that the government ultimately
implemented. The government merely ratified the party's decisions to
lend them an aura of legitimacy. The CPSU used a variety of mechanisms
to ensure that the government adhered to its policies. The party, using its
nomenklatura authority, placed its loyalists in leadership positions
throughout the government, where they were subject to the norms of
democratic centralism. Party bodies closely monitored the actions of
government ministries, agencies, and legislative organs.
The content of the Soviet Constitution differed in many ways from typical
Western constitutions. It generally described existing political
relationships, as determined by the CPSU, rather than prescribing an ideal
set of political relationships. The Constitution was long and detailed,
giving technical specifications for individual organs of government. The
Constitution included political statements, such as foreign policy goals,
and provided a theoretical definition of the state within the ideological
framework of Marxism-Leninism. The CPSU leadership could radically
change the constitution or remake it completely, as it did several times
throughout its history.
</blockquote>
|
Our conversation (which became an argument) touched upon various
topics, which I will not discuss here.
We were discussing the practice of child marriage. She was not aware
that in Iran, under the Shah, the legal age for marriage for girls was 15,
but after the revolution, the Ayatollah lowered the age of marriage for
girls to age NINE. Now, when I talk with my contacts in Tehran, they tell
me that they only see girls married as young as 14. But, in among the
nomadic tribes, you may possibly find a nine year old bride.
She was shocked to learn this. I then quoted Gandhi, from his
autobiography, who said that child marriage is a monstrous practice.
Gandhi was married to Kasturbai when they were six years old, but the
marriage was not consummated until they were age 12. The movie
“Gandhi” goes a little soft on these facts, to avoid shocking the audience,
and states that they were married at 12. She wanted to know what I
meant by “monstrous” and I said that when an adult marries a child, it is
like Frankenstein or Dracula, a monster.
Well, the conversation naturally turned to the topic of pedophilia. So,
suddenly she says, “Well, why is it that pedophilia is so frequent a
phenomena in the USA?”
I answered that in the USA, pedophiles will go on sex vacations to ASIA,
and it is in ASIA that they are provided with children for their purposes.
She became quite angry and said I was very cruel to say such a thing to
her. She said that in her country, people research to discover the truth,
but in my country, people make false statements based upon the distorted
and controlled propaganda media coverage.
She did not seem to feel that she was cruel in assuming that pedophilia is
popular only in the USA. But she thought me quite cruel to point out that
there is much documentary and news coverage of such sex trade in
certain Asian countries.
I often have people in places like Pakistan and Iran and China tell me that
my views are distorted because my source for news is controlled by my
government.
I explained to her that regularly, in the media, one sees our very
president ridiculed and mocked, in comedy shows like “Saturday Night
Live” and even in the adds on myspace.com where Bush is boxing with
Osama bin Laden, or arm-wrestling with Schwarzenegger. I said that if
reporters in her country were to criticize her government leaders or
policies in a similar fashion, they would probably find themselves in
prison, or executed.
In fact, the U.S. government has so little control over the media that the
New York Times can leak a story which is considered a compromise of
national security.
Just the other week, Oprah Winfree had a series of shows about child
prostitution in various countries. Now, Oprah is a real stoolie for the Bush
administration!
I told her that if she were to read “The Bookseller of Kabul” by a
Norwegian woman, or “Reading Lolita in Tehran” by Azar Nafisi, an
Iranian, then she would read about children being molested by relatives in
Islamic societies and poor women being lured to prostitution. Such books
are certainly not products of fiendish American propaganda. Except, I told
her, “You probably can’t PURCHASE such books in your country. They are
banned because they show Islamic society in a negative light.”
As far as censorship goes, I am constantly told by contacts in Pakistan,
Iran and mainland China that they cannot reach website links that I have
access to. And why is that? It is because their governments censor and
block those links.
My goodness! You know perfectly well that if today, some guards in
Guantanamo were to sit on a prisoner and fart up his nose, why tomorrow
it would be front page news, and the perpetrators would be facing a court
martial and it would be on all the talk shows, plus Saturday Night Live
and all the late night talk shows would be doing skits about unleashing
the Vice President after a meal of Boston Baked Beans as a secret
instrument of torture. I am not proud of what is going on at
Guantanamo. Don’t get me wrong. But we all know perfectly well that
shameful and ludicrous things have taken place there, and it leaks all over
the place in the media. So, I don’t call that very good censorship or
propaganda.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sitaram
Site Admin
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 1079
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
A myspace friend gave me this article as an example of a situation where
the press was controled.
A Republic or an Empire?
Lessons from Stanford
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
Couterpunch
Gentle reader, did you know that in April President Bush went to Stanford
University to speak to the Hoover Institution fellows at the invitation of
former Secretary of State George Shultz but was not allowed on campus?
The Stanford students got wind of it and blocked Bush's access to the
campus. The Hoover fellows had to go to Shultz's home to hear Bush's
pitch for war and more war.
A person might think that it would be national news that Stanford
University students would not allow the President of the US on campus. It
happened to be a day that hundreds of prospective freshmen were on
campus with their parents, many of whom joined the demonstration
against Bush. I did not hear or read a word about it.
Did you? I learned of it from faculty friends in June when I attended
Stanford's graduation to witness a relative receive her degree. The June
16 edition of The Stanford Daily reprints its April 24 report of the episode.
At the graduation, I was struck by the preponderance of Asians, Africans,
and Hispanics in the the student body. Stanford is truly an international
university, a noted difference from the days when I was a member of the
university. Looking at the list of graduates in human biology, which I
understand to be a pre-med degree, I count 24 white and Jewish males
out of a graduation class of 206. That means 88.35 percent of the
graduating class in human biology was Asian, African, Hispanic, and
female. If white males were a "preferred minority" protected by quotas,
they could certainly bring a discrimination suit against Stanford.
My count could be off a bit as a result of the modern practice of giving
girls boys' names and giving boys girls' names, but on the whole I was
able to resolve the gender issue by consulting middle names. One thing is
clear. At Stanford the days of white male hegemony are over.
To my readers I want to thank you for your emails and occasional old
fashioned letters delivered by US mail. I have learned that I am loved by
some and hated by others. I continually hear interesting things from
readers. Recently I heard from a Russian that Bush's slogan, "you are
with us or against us" comes from a communist song dating from 1950,
"The one who is not with us is against us." The slogan was part of the
propaganda used to suppress dissent.
Now for the main subject of the column. Martin Sieff is one of the few
remaining American reporters who actually report facts instead of
covering up for Bush. Sieff is elated at the US Supreme Court ruling
blocking the use of military tribunals to punish alleged "terrorists." Sieff
says the ruling means that "the United States is still a republic, not an
empire."
I hope Martin Sieff is right. But why will Bush pay any more attention to a
Supreme Court ruling than he does to the US Constitution, US law,
Congress, and public opinion? Bush and his criminal government have
decided that they can use 9/11 and the fear and mindlessness it has
brought to the American people to elevate the executive branch into its
own world of unaccountable power. As Congress, the Democratic Party,
and the media have all collapsed in the face of Bush's power grab, why
will Bush pay any attention to a court ruling?
The Supreme Court, like the Pope, hasn't any divisions or a police force
with which to arrest Bush. Moreover, as one reader pointed out, the
majority decision against Bush was written by an 86-year old man. His
decision shredded the incompetent and utterly ignorant ruling of the lower
court written by John Roberts, the new Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court.
An 86-year old man hasn't a lot of time left to protect our rights from
executive power grabs. All Bush has to do is to appoint one more
Federalist Society tyrant to the Court, and he will have a second rubber
stamp of his dictatorial ways. He already has Congress which has made it
clear that it is perfectly comfortable with Bush's high-handed behavior.
Democrats are too intimidated by 9/11 and the phony "war on terror" to
offer any opposition.
With the electronic voting machines supplied by Republican firms and
programmed by Republican operatives, Bush can control election results.
Don't bet very heavily that Americans will regain the constitutional
protections and democratic accountability that they enjoyed in the 20th
century.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan
administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial
page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The
Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at:
paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sitaram
Site Admin
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 1079
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 4:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| deleted |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SFG75
Moderator
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 133
Location: Nebraska
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting response to her Sitaram. I apologize for not getting here
sooner. Things have been quite busy as of late and my time on TBF has
really dove-tailed. You are quite correct about the pedophelia thing. U.S.
laws are very strict about that and communities are informed of when a
convicted pedophile moves into their community. It is also true that many
individuals with those inclinations go to Asian nations. Many of those nations
lack the legal resources, law enforcement standards, not to mention aversion
to such practices in the firstp lace. She may have been upset, but it's true.
Why are such things allowed in those nations? For one, there is definitely a
double standard. Strict laws like the sharia keep women oppressed and
create an underclass of individuals. Second, those laws are passed for so
called religious reasons, but are only meant to isolate women from political
and economic positions of power. Lastly, in putting everything in a religious
light, it allows them to consolidate power as they are merely following god's
laws in their own shallow minds.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
