On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 10:42:04 -0700, (paghat)
opined:

What you said exactly was "Buddhism can be considered atheist." You never
mentioned Mahayana, which in any case is not unique among buddhism in
assuming the gods came after the ultimate reality, but which most
certainly does preserve a gigantic role for the gods -- that is hardly
atheism which is what you claimed buddhism to be. The Dalai Lama believes
in many gods & says Tara oversees the doings of all Buddhas. Tara,
Savioress, Deity, is the most important of many goddesses of Mahayana
buddhism.

You bolstered your false claim with a made-up quote from the Dalai Lama.
That you're not well versed in Buddhism is fine; most christians don't
know squat about christianity, but they love Jesus & that's enough. And
for you to be a good Mahayana buddhist requires no specific knowledge
(fortunately for you) but does require that you practice kindness.
Although even that generally evades you, you could start now!

I said nothing of any deities.

Oh just stop with the fibbery. First of all, an atheist is NOT someone
believes in all gods but doesn't believe they created the world; an
atheist is someone who believes there is no God or gods. You followed up
with your original dumb statement "Buddhists can be considered atheists"
-- vis, nonbelievers in god or gods -- with the even dumber statement
"Deities are bodhisattvas." Well, not all deities are bodhisattvas by any
means, but if saints & bodhisattvas ARE regarded as no different than
gods, then Tibetan buddhism is rampant at several levels with every
conceivable sort of god from Kali as originator of Time right on down to
bodhisattvas who hold themselves back from the ultimate enlightenment to
remain & assist the unenlightened. All of which puts buddhism about as far
away from "Atheism" as arch-theism ever gets.

Even the limited issue of how the universe was created is not as you
represent it, since in Mahayana buddhism creation issued from out of Kali
as a manifestation of Time, & will someday be restored to Kali putting an
end to this bad universe.

She is not Creator precisely but is the greatest power by which the
universe came into being, & by the same power is sustained. It was spun
out of her radiant trangle before the beginning, & will be devoured by her
at the end of time, & beyhond both ends of that calander is the One
Supreme Reality -- which is to say, Kali. That is the basis of Mahayana
creation & uncreation myth, which developed directly into Tantricism which
increases the importance of Kali as the One Reality (Nirvana). It is a
word-game to say she brought the universe into existance but did not
create it, for the universe is of herself & not separate from her; that
what she seemingly created doesn't actually exist but is an illusion so
she created nothing; & it is that nothingness which we through faith,
kindness, & knowledge may eventually recover.

But as the Dalai Lama interprets Mahayana, all that is required is simple
human kindness, therefore it focuses more on the role of Tara as ultimate
compassion, the Goddess born into this world from a teardrop. Such gods &
goddesses as that came along long after the universe was manifest. When
Mahayana became Tantricism Kali's role was more of a focus, but the fact
that Mahayana focuses more on Tara does not really diminish the Kali.

Before Mahayanism, Siddhartha's original teachings more greatly restricted
the significance of the Hindu gods, even Kali, real though they could be,
they had no serious purpose in the path of enlightenment. Mahayanismn, or
Northern Buddhism, restored the Hindu divinities to their former
significance, & added mew divinities. The Mahayana position for Kali is
closest to that for hindu saktism, which likewise believes no god actually
created because only Mahakali as Ultimate Reality is real, & anything any
god believes he achieved was actually the result of the existance of an
Ultimate Power, which is Mahakali.

The Dalai Lama is not the
living god, has never once said that, nor has anyone else said that who is
Buddhist. He repeatedly says he's a simple Buddhist monk. He is not god,
living or dead.

The Dalai Lama is the living embodiment of all Tibetan gods, & is a
double-incarnation of two specific gods.

The humble beauty of a God manifesting as a simple monk is the point, kiddo.

He also never says he is a teacher; he is instead an example. Ask him if
he's an important man. He will smile & say he is an unimportant man.

Though the Dalai Lama embodies all Gods, he is in particular a
manifestation of two divine beings: First he is Amitabha, God of the
Western Paradise, & a sun-god. Because Amitabha cannot descend to the
world of matter as anything but light, in order to manifest physically he
first descended into the bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara (the male twin of
female Tara), & it is Avalokiteshvara who descends into every incarnated
Dalai Lama.

So the Dalai Lama is Two Gods, Two Gods, Two Gods In One. This is the
Double-Incarnation of the Living God.

In Mahayana buddhism Amitabha is definitely a God, though not in the sense
of an Almighty God, since he repre3sents a level of godhead all
enlightened beings can achieve. Whether Avalokiteshvara as "mere"
bodhisattva is also a god is more questionable, but you're not the first
one to assume indeed that bodhisattvas are gods. Even of bodhisattvas are
more like saints, Amitabha certainly is a god, & he is visible to all as
the Sun, is present in all heat energy, is ruler of all meditations, whose
warmth is kindness, & who receives prayers from Mahayana buddhists who
address him as Shining Lord, Unbounded Light, Opulent Sun, the Infinite
Revelation.

In other forms of buddhism it is denied that Amitabha is a god at all, but
in the form you mention, Northern Buddhism, Amitabha is the tutelary God
of Lamism, & most assuredly a sun-god & addressed as one. In Mahayana
portraits he is usually red, dressed in layers of monks robes. So when the
Dalai Lama says "humbly" he's a monk, that's because he is a manifestation
of the god of monks.

To some extent he duplicates or supplants Kali as the chief authority &
energizing power of the physical universe, but where her power is
devouring, his is gentleness, though even the Shining Lord can devour
illusions & flesh & materiality with his fire of knowledge. (I take much
of this from THE SHADOW OF THE DALAI LAMA. It would be possible to play
word-games that Dalai Lama is not a manifestation of the Gods, but Victor
& Victoria Trimondi are the western authorities on this, & barring an
ability to read both Tibetan language & Sanskrit, will stand as better
authorities than you or I -- & they are clear, the Dalai Lama is
worshipped as a manifestation of the Tibetan gods. Is he really? Of course
not -- unless you share that faith -- & that you can claim to be a
Mahayanist denying every basic tenant of that faith is oh so Zen).

Paghat loves to know everything.

I'm perfectly aware that knowing more than you know doesn't mean I know a
great deal at all. But really, that you persist in abhoring a love of
knowledge is very unbuddhist of you.

I feel sorry for her. She's a very angry woman.

Don't project your anger on others. I rarely engage you in anything
because you're nuts. I really thought that in my first factual correction
you'd have no reason to lose your marbles again, but as you like to be
rude while you repeat & justify your errors, I can play it your rude way
too. A civil conversation being impossible with you, then a heated one
will do.

If you weren't so damned angry it wouldn't bother you so much to have such
a big error corrected. You could have as easily laughed at yourself &
said, Oh I know, I don't know where I got that dumb statement, but oh
well. You may well have good reasons in your life to be angry instead of
amused, sure, so when you project that on me, ninety-nine times out of a
hundred I overlook it. And will probably overlook it the next ninety-nine
times you pull that one out.

But the only real correction I intended before you got so ****y was when
you call this sort of stuff Atheism which is simply silly. You heap lies
on silliness pretend the Dalai Lama personally told you so. That you can't
even now admit to posting outrageous nonsense is almost comical. Sticking
to the entirely incorrect idea that buddhists are atheists is your
stubbornness, not mine; your response to the correction is your anger, not
mine. I will own up to my own failure at kindness similar to yours, but
then I'm not pretending to be a follower of mahayana northern buddhism. I
like to discuss this stuff because I loved my mom whose faith it was, &
because I find human capacity for myth-making to be fascinating stuff, NOT
because I think you're ignorant though you respond as though that's the
whole point. Yet when in the past I've attempted to be kind to you, you've
just gotten ****ier. But I will even so close with as kind a thought as I
can muster in your behalf:

It's not important that you know so little; it's more important, for your
own well being, that you cease to get so peevish & defensive about your
own mistakes.

-paggers

You win.


Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 01:12:58 -0400, "Lady Blacksword"
wrote:

(snip)
Remember tho, thoses who believe that they believe nothing are the most
dangerous, as they have nothing but themselves to live up to, and nothing
but their own morals to uphold. And if you assume that there's nothing
waiting at the end, what's the use in caring about now? You'll be gone,
totally, Right? So what's it matter if you **** up the world...........

Well, speaking for THIS atheist, it matters more for me than it does for those
people who think they'll have another chance in some "afterlife", since I see no
credible evidence of any afterlife, so, as far as I know, this is the only world
I get. If I only have one world, I'm probably gonna take better care of it than
somebody who thinks they're only in this world to prepare them for another one.

"paghat" wrote in message
news
In article , (The
Watcher) wrote:

snip
From which we learn, at least, that not all evils in this
world are inspired by religious fanatics, even atheists can suck bigtime.

Remember tho, thoses who believe that they believe nothing are the most
dangerous, as they have nothing but themselves to live up to, and nothing
but their own morals to uphold. And if you assume that there's nothing
waiting at the end, what's the use in caring about now? You'll be gone,
totally, Right? So what's it matter if you **** up the world...........
Murri

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 01:12:58 -0400, "Lady Blacksword"
wrote:

(snip)
Remember tho, thoses who believe that they believe nothing are the most
dangerous, as they have nothing but themselves to live up to, and nothing
but their own morals to uphold. And if you assume that there's nothing
waiting at the end, what's the use in caring about now? You'll be gone,
totally, Right? So what's it matter if you **** up the world...........

Well, speaking for THIS atheist, it matters more for me than it does for those
people who think they'll have another chance in some "afterlife", since I see no
credible evidence of any afterlife, so, as far as I know, this is the only world
I get. If I only have one world, I'm probably gonna take better care of it than
somebody who thinks they're only in this world to prepare them for another one.

Wow, this thread has exploded. I'm not sorry I read my way through it.
Whether or not we are here as gardeners, 9/11, the Iraq war, and this
election may well turn out to be pivotal events of our lifetimes. I want to
address one little issue - WMDs in Iraq. We KNOW (or knew) that there WERE
WMD's in Iraq, because we were one of the suppliers of WMD's to Iraq in the
1980's. (Hence the famous picture of Donald Rumsfield, all smiles, jovially
shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in 1986). We supplied them to Iraq because
it was fighting a big 10 year long war with Iran in which there were well
over 1,000,000 casualties. People get worked up over the wrong angle of WMD
arguments. The question should not be, and should not have been in 2002/2003
"did Iraq once have WMDs?". The question should have been, "did Iraq have
WMD's in sufficient quantity left after 2 major wars to pose any kind of
threat to the Western world?". The answer, even before the UN weapons
inspectors, and LONG BEFORE David Kay, was "no". The answer was known, and
the CIA issued oodles of caveats in its assessments, which anyone reading
between the lines could have interpreted easily. But there was no will to
interpret facts that way - in fact, there was significant and unrelenting
pressure to read the facts the opposite way. The administration issued a
legal paper before the war to try to cover its butt, about legal
justifications for pre-emptive wars. The ONLY legal justification was/is to
demonstrate an immediate or imminent danger. The paper purported to show
that, since terrorists might get access to WMD's under certain regimes, any
information regarding possession of WMD's by such regimes was adequate to
justify a pre-emptive war, since terrorists act without warning - hence the
imminent danger part. That is why there was such an incredible push to drum
up the quantity of such weapons and the danger they would present to the
western world. Without those weapons in sufficient quantity, the whole legal
justification for the war has evaporated completely, meaning that
essentially we are occupying Iraq illegally, and have been since April 2003.
All the grandstanding by Bush about how evil Saddam Hussein was and how
important it was to get rid of him does not make it any more legal. There
are reasons why the Bush administration has sought every possible reason to
exempt the US from any sort of authority wielded by the World Court. The
reality is that the people of Iraq could sue the US for an illegal invasion
and occupation, and easily win.

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 08:26:50 -0700, (paghat)
wrote:

In article , (The
Watcher) wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 13:56:46 -0700, (paghat)
wrote:

(snip)
But when asked about atheism, the Dalai Lama's rote reply is that "Atheism
is preferable to a complete lack of spirituality." Meaning, I presume,
that Belief in nothing is still belief. The Dalai Lama says it is okay for
you to not believe in things, the only philosophy that matters is kindness
-- not your forte either.

The Dalai Lama should stick to the Buddhism and leave the atheism to the
atheists.

He'd probably like to, but the Beijing atheists attempting cultural
genocide are busily oppressing Tibetans, imprisoning them if they are
caught with even a photograph of the Dalai Lama, banning his return home,
& giving free land to any Chinese who will move into Tibet to eradicate
Tibetan culture. From which we learn, at least, that not all evils in this
world are inspired by religious fanatics, even atheists can suck bigtime.

Yes, atheists can, but I wouldn't blame ALL atheists for the actions of some
atheists, or judge all of them by the acts of some of them.

"gregpresley" wrote in message
...
Wow, this thread has exploded. I'm not sorry I read my way through it.
Whether or not we are here as gardeners, 9/11, the Iraq war, and this
election may well turn out to be pivotal events of our lifetimes. I want
to
address one little issue - WMDs in Iraq. We KNOW (or knew) that there
WERE
WMD's in Iraq, because we were one of the suppliers of WMD's to Iraq in
the
1980's. (Hence the famous picture of Donald Rumsfield, all smiles,
jovially
shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in 1986). We supplied them to Iraq
because
it was fighting a big 10 year long war with Iran in which there were well
over 1,000,000 casualties. People get worked up over the wrong angle of
WMD
arguments. The question should not be, and should not have been in
2002/2003
"did Iraq once have WMDs?". The question should have been, "did Iraq have
WMD's in sufficient quantity left after 2 major wars to pose any kind of
threat to the Western world?". The answer, even before the UN weapons
inspectors, and LONG BEFORE David Kay, was "no". The answer was known,
and
the CIA issued oodles of caveats in its assessments, which anyone reading
between the lines could have interpreted easily. But there was no will to
interpret facts that way - in fact, there was significant and unrelenting
pressure to read the facts the opposite way. The administration issued a
legal paper before the war to try to cover its butt, about legal
justifications for pre-emptive wars. The ONLY legal justification was/is
to
demonstrate an immediate or imminent danger. The paper purported to show
that, since terrorists might get access to WMD's under certain regimes,
any
information regarding possession of WMD's by such regimes was adequate to
justify a pre-emptive war, since terrorists act without warning - hence
the
imminent danger part. That is why there was such an incredible push to
drum
up the quantity of such weapons and the danger they would present to the
western world. Without those weapons in sufficient quantity, the whole
legal
justification for the war has evaporated completely, meaning that
essentially we are occupying Iraq illegally, and have been since April
2003.
All the grandstanding by Bush about how evil Saddam Hussein was and how
important it was to get rid of him does not make it any more legal. There
are reasons why the Bush administration has sought every possible reason
to
exempt the US from any sort of authority wielded by the World Court. The
reality is that the people of Iraq could sue the US for an illegal
invasion
and occupation, and easily win.

Nice summary. Maybe the Iraq invasion was a good thing in one respect. Now
that we know how duplicitous and incompetent the Bush administration is, I
doubt that they will be handed authority to make war on other countries.
Just think how bad the situation would be now had Bush picked Iran instead
of Iraq.

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 14:03:20 GMT, "Vox Humana" wrote:

(snip)
Nice summary. Maybe the Iraq invasion was a good thing in one respect. Now
that we know how duplicitous and incompetent the Bush administration is, I
doubt that they will be handed authority to make war on other countries.
Just think how bad the situation would be now had Bush picked Iran instead
of Iraq.

This summary should be archived in case John Kerry wins. He hasn't even been
elected president yet, and he's already talking about the possibility of making
war on other countries. Is anybody surprised by this? Was anybody expecting
something different?

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 08:26:50 -0700, (paghat)
wrote:

In article , (The
Watcher) wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 13:56:46 -0700, (paghat)
wrote:

(snip)
But when asked about atheism, the Dalai Lama's rote reply is that "Atheism
is preferable to a complete lack of spirituality." Meaning, I presume,
that Belief in nothing is still belief. The Dalai Lama says it is okay for
you to not believe in things, the only philosophy that matters is kindness
-- not your forte either.

The Dalai Lama should stick to the Buddhism and leave the atheism to the
atheists.

He'd probably like to, but the Beijing atheists attempting cultural
genocide are busily oppressing Tibetans, imprisoning them if they are
caught with even a photograph of the Dalai Lama, banning his return home,
& giving free land to any Chinese who will move into Tibet to eradicate
Tibetan culture. From which we learn, at least, that not all evils in this
world are inspired by religious fanatics, even atheists can suck bigtime.

Yes, atheists can, but I wouldn't blame ALL atheists for the actions of some
atheists, or judge all of them by the acts of some of them.

In article , "Lady Blacksword"
wrote:

"paghat" wrote in message
news
In article , (The
Watcher) wrote:

snip
From which we learn, at least, that not all evils in this
world are inspired by religious fanatics, even atheists can suck bigtime.

Remember tho, thoses who believe that they believe nothing are the most
dangerous, as they have nothing but themselves to live up to, and nothing
but their own morals to uphold. And if you assume that there's nothing
waiting at the end, what's the use in caring about now? You'll be gone,
totally, Right? So what's it matter if you **** up the world...........
Murri

Certain the Beijing government would fit that mode, but I suspect
individually, as opposed to a "system" like the Chinese brand of communism
(itself a religion in its own way, with Mao its deity), the reason the
majority of wars are inspired by religion is because of a belief that THIS
world doesn't matter. In deism, or pantheism, or atheism, THIS is the
world that exists, there is no better place, & that MIGHT inspire greater
levels of preservation. Though what's even more likely is we're
biologically harmful to the environment & faith or unfaith ultimately has
less to do with it than our termite-like need to use up all resources then
kill each other for others' resources, & we'd have an excuse to keep
doing' it with or without the god excuse.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com

In article says...
This summary should be archived in case John Kerry wins. He hasn't even been
elected president yet, and he's already talking about the possibility of making
war on other countries. Is anybody surprised by this? Was anybody expecting
something different?

To be fair, John Kerry got caught in a question about a hypothetical
situation whether or not he would authorize a pre-emptive strike.
Hypotheticals are tricky in that nothing in the world is entirely
black and white. Kerry handled that question badly because he is either
a very bad candidate or getting some bad advice. At this point, with
Bush's approval numbers so bad, Kerry should be way ahead in the race but
he's only dead even. Would Kerry pull a Bush style pre-emptive war? I
don't think so. Bush Jr. surrounded himself with the PNAC crowd as his
advisors, Kristol, Perle, Feith, Libby, Wolfowitz, Frum, etc. If you
don't know what PNAC is look them up on Google. These people have a
charter that includes a plan to liberate China. They were around the
White House during daddy Bush's term but they had little influence and
were often referred to as the crazies, the people who wanted to invade
everyone. I don't think John Kerry would let these people into the White
House let alone listen to their plans for world domination.

If you vote for Bush, you give PNAC a mandate for another 4 years. The
only thing keeping us now from invading either Syria or Iran is that we
don't have enough troops. Four years is a long time to rectify that
situation.

Bush wasn't incompetent. He orchestrated the attacks.

The facts are that Bush had predefined plans on attacking Iraq.
Bush knows where the Anthrax came from. The Anthrax came
from the Army Base in Fort Detrick, Maryland. Furthermore,
the Anthrax was delivered ONLY to Democrats. Why ?

Condoleeza Rice and Ashcroft stopped flying on commercial
aircraft in July 2001. Messages were being passed up to the
Bush Administration that Osama bin Laden was getting ready
to attack the World Trade Centers. Messages were being passed
up to the Bush administration that bin Laden associates were in
the United States planning to fly airplanes into World Trade
Centers. After all, Rice and Ashcroft stopped flying on
commercial airliners in July 2001. It all adds up to one thing.

It was orchestrated by the White House. The well recognized
"chatter" started making a widespread happenstance on 9/1/2001.

Putting the blame on the lack of communication between the FBI
and the CIA is a cheap shot by the President. The ONLY lack
of communication that continues to go on, starts from President
Bush. Bush knew it was going to happen. Bush supported it. The
lack of communication still occurs, because Bush doesn't want
folks to know. He has something to hide.

Name two things that Bush did in 2001 ?

He vacationed the first 9 months of 2001 ? He knew he needed
a vacation for what was going to happen ?

He took a trip all of a sudden on 9/11/2001 to Florida to read
a story about goats to children and visit his brother Jeb Bush ?
How many times has George Bush performed this procedure ?
What is he trying to cover up ? He did this for one specific
reason and it wasn't the children he was thinking about. After
all, God chose Bush to kill 100,000 people starting with the
first 3000 people in the World Trade Center ?

Something isn't right with the story. Of course Bush will find
weapons of mass destruction now. He knows how to do this
now.

Bush wasn't incompetent in no means. He orchestrates
everything. He is the conductor.

The buck starts in one place. It stops in one place. And thats
the way it is.

Again, the strain of Anthrax found in those letters originated from
one United States Army Base... in Fort Detrick, Maryland. And
Bush has conveniently forgotten about the details of the Anthrax.
He can now find that Anthrax anywhere in Iraq that he wants to
find it. He knows how to do this. Can he be trusted ?

Something isn't right.

http://www.911forthetruth.com/


"Vox Humana" wrote:

Nice summary. Maybe the Iraq invasion was a good thing in one
respect. Now that we know how duplicitous and incompetent
the Bush administration is, I doubt that they will be handed authority
to make war on other countries. Just think how bad the situation
would be now had Bush picked Iran instead of Iraq.

In article says...
This summary should be archived in case John Kerry wins. He hasn't even been
elected president yet, and he's already talking about the possibility of making
war on other countries. Is anybody surprised by this? Was anybody expecting
something different?

To be fair, John Kerry got caught in a question about a hypothetical
situation whether or not he would authorize a pre-emptive strike.
Hypotheticals are tricky in that nothing in the world is entirely
black and white. Kerry handled that question badly because he is either
a very bad candidate or getting some bad advice. At this point, with
Bush's approval numbers so bad, Kerry should be way ahead in the race but
he's only dead even. Would Kerry pull a Bush style pre-emptive war? I
don't think so. Bush Jr. surrounded himself with the PNAC crowd as his
advisors, Kristol, Perle, Feith, Libby, Wolfowitz, Frum, etc. If you
don't know what PNAC is look them up on Google. These people have a
charter that includes a plan to liberate China. They were around the
White House during daddy Bush's term but they had little influence and
were often referred to as the crazies, the people who wanted to invade
everyone. I don't think John Kerry would let these people into the White
House let alone listen to their plans for world domination.

If you vote for Bush, you give PNAC a mandate for another 4 years. The
only thing keeping us now from invading either Syria or Iran is that we
don't have enough troops. Four years is a long time to rectify that
situation.

On Board With Kerry, The No-Free-Speech Candidate:

Even his supporters keep saying vote for Kerry because Bush is just so
appallingly awful. I keep looking for a POSITIVE reason to vote for Kerry,
but every day seems to further guarantee that voting for him is going to
instigate the gag reflex.

Previously he distanced himself from the Woopi Goldberg non-scandal of
making a minor joke within a major truth about Bush, & being roundly
criticized for being almost vulgar (even if no more so than Dick "****
You" Cheney). Now there are two comediennes Kerry is distancing himself
from -- Woopi plus Margaret Cho.

Cho was to be a volunteer, unpaid benefit entertainer for the misnomered
"Unity" event by the Human Rights Campaign, which Human Rights turn out
not to included free speech. The (dis)Unity event will coincide with the
Democratic National Convention, & Cho was un-invited to perform because
2) The (dis)Unity fairies thought Cho might be so interesting she would
siphon attention away from the issues of the event (which is not all human
rights, but gay rights); & 2) the (dis)Unity fairies did not want Cho's
raunchiness to reflect on Kerry the way they think Woopi's raunchiness
reflected on Kerry.

The (Dis)Unity fairies first became alarmed when they found out Cho had
been escorted from a show in San Diego for her take on on current events
-- though anyone concerned with even moderate rights would have wanted to
scoot up as close to Cho as they could get, having been hired to speak her
mind comedically then getting escorted outdoors for having done so. Even
the innocuous Linda Rondstat was denied access to her own hotel room after
the Alladin hotel cancelled her performances & escorted her outside merely
for having dedicated a song to Michael Moore. This anti-free-speech
environment is not one that alleged Democrats, Kerry supporters, or anyone
who can even think, should be & pandering to.

If these are the kinds of people supportive of Kerry, there's something
very wrong. When Kerry distances himself even from the simplest issues of
free speech, he proves himself a man unworthy of trust & with no
leadership capacity.

Cho's comedy has been compared to that of Richard Pryor, George Carlin, &
Lenny Bruce, & her brand of humor has also been called "Kinisonian." She
is certainly capable of toning it down & probably would have done so if
asked to (& that would have been bad enough), doing her kids-are-present
or free-tv versions. The nature of her humor has hardly been a secret
until now, but the Human Rights Campaign had no problem with hiring her
until after such anti-free-speech events as her ejection fromn the San
Diego performance, right-wing flack against Woopi Goldberg, or Linda
Ronstadt being fired for a simple song dedication she'd been doing for
weeks. Any kind of "Rights" organization, upon observing such diminishing
of rights, should NOT be out in front of the issue supporting a lack of
rights. Karen Taussig, Cho's manager, said the rescinded invitation was
due to the organization's desire to pander to Kerry who distanced himself
from Woopi & so certainly would not applaud Cho, & the HRC spokesman
indeed referenced the Woopi Goldberg incident as their reason for
cancelling Cho's performance.

Dipshit Mark Shields speaking for the HRC said "The event is designed to
be about the unity of the community behind John Kerry," & in a later
interview said the firing of Cho was "about wanting to keep the focus on
the unity of the gay community." Because, apparently, divisiveness is
unity & war is peace. Dykes 'round here now assum the Human Rights
Campaign is run by a bunch of ****ing sissy nitwits who wouldn't know a
human right if it beat them up in the park. The National Gay & Lesbian
Task Force has justifiably withdrawn from the event not wanting to be part
of an event which is now exclusively identified with No Free Speech
Allowed.

Hooray for the NGLTF -- hiss boo for the Kerry-suckup sissies of the
seriously misnomered Human Rights Campaign. Margaret Cho was last year's
recipient for the Task Force Leadership Award for her ongoing, sincere, &
effective work for the gay & lesbian community; & the ACLU is set to honor
her this coming September with their First Amendment Award. But the Human
Rights Campaign thinks sucking up to the Kerry standard is what matters.

There are now unbounded depths to HRC's merited shame, their devisive
behavior within the gay community, their SELL-OUT to the Kerry campaign's
lowest behavior, & their desire to pander the Bush ideal of free speech
excluding comics like Woopi & Margert & singers like Linda -- though of
course it's fine that Dennis Miller tells anti-fag jokes about
Kerry/Edwards at Bush fundraising events & rallies.

For the Task Force statement of support for Cho, & Cho's publicity release
on this topic, see this page:
http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0722-03.htm

If Kerry had any sense he'd have his people on the horn to get BOTH Woopi
AND Margaret at the Convention, slapping the no-free-speech thugs in their
collective faces. But nooooooo, his people want DISTANCE.

It gets harder every day, but I have to keep reminding myself, with Bush
the other option, even a dog's pecker wearing a straw hat would be a
better choice. So give Kerry a straw hat.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com

In article , (The
Watcher) wrote:

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 12:33:04 -0500, Mark Anderson
wrote:

he's not all that different from Bush in that respect.

If you vote for Bush,

Don't plan on doing that, either.

Below is the text of an e-mail I received today from a presumed
progressive who will not vote for Kerry. It was unsigned, so maybe it's
just one of those things that make the e-mail rounds, but it all seemed
tragically dead-on to me:

------------

*Dear Senator Kerry,
*
You**and your organizational supporters continue to send me letters*and
emails requesting that I support you in defeating President Bush in the
2004 election.**Like most Americans I would like nothing better than to
see*the*end of the*policies of the Bush*Administration*.* These*
policies*have turned a surplus into a deficit,*increased**international
and domestic*dangers*to Americans,*and isolated our country
diplomatically.**At home, the*Bush policies**have been a disaster for the
great majority of Americans, creating ever more joblessness and
homelessness, loss of health care,*security, privacy, and freedom.**The
2004 presidential election is**an opportunity to address*these
failures.**I*want*a*candidate**who*recognizes the*crises that we face and
proposes real solutions to change course.* You are not that candidate. You
do not act*or speak as if there*were*any* crisis to be resolved. What you
have to say about issues of war and peace is either*alarming or trivial.
*
Please understand that this election is not a popularity contest, as far
as I am concerned.* I do not care*that**you served in Vietnam and**that
*George Bush did not.* I don't care*whether*you had better grades**at
Yale *than Bush.**I*am not impressed*that you present yourself as**a
better*champion of minorities and the poor.**But I do care about your
voting record and where you stand on the issues.**Here is*what this means:
*
1. On Iraq: you advocate sending more troops and bullying NATO and other
allies to ³share² in the illegal occupation of Iraq. That position is
worse*than the Bush position, not better.**First,* it not only disregards
international law, which says we have no right to be in Iraq, but it also
compounds the problem by**pressuring*other countries*to participate in the
illegality.* I don't* suppose* you hold
these*views*opportunistically,**wanting*to appear tough to ³centrist²
voters.** *I think you**honestly*believe that we have the right to force
ourselves on the Iraqis.** *That makes you just as dangerous as George
Bush.

2.*On Civil**Liberties: you have voted for the*egregiously unpatriotic
³Patriot Act.²** *That is all that anyone who*cares deeply for*the United
States¹ Bill of Rights needs to know,* to**recognize*that you are*not
a*civil libertarian.

3.*On*Civil Rights for Homosexuals, your difference from*Bush¹s positions
do not make*your positions*laudable.* While your voting record on civil
rights for homosexuals*is better than his positions,*your unashamed
supposition*that you or anyone else has the right to deny a basic civil
right, such as*marriage, to anyone else, a right from which you yourself
fully benefit, is*despicable.**

4.*On*Fair Trade and jobs,** you have supported all the major trade
agreements that the Republicans have supported. Now you say that if
elected president you would put all such agreements under a 120-day review
and take unspecified "necessary steps" if they are found to be unfair to
Americans.** *Again, I*look at your voting record**to make up my mind*
whether you can be trusted*on this.* I think you are not to be trusted.* *


5.*Health Ca* Forty-five million Americans have no health care
insurance*or inadequate coverage despite*more money per capita being spent
on health care* in the US than anywhere else in the world.* Our infant
mortality statistics are worse than those of fifteen other countries.
Still you remain opposed to universal health care.**

6.*You propose to cut the deficit in half within four years while
continuing to increase defense spending.** *Your math does not add up,*
even if you**were to propose**increased* taxes on the wealthiest
Americans. The current defense budget is bigger in real terms than the
average**it was *during the cold war despite persistent questions**about
waste and lack of sufficient* over*sight, questions that you yourself do
not raise.

7. On the Israeli-Palestinian*conflict, your rhetoric*matches* your
record, and they are both*wrong.* You have supported Israel¹s illegal
occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, which is nothing short of ethnic
cleansing. The*ongoing sickening destruction of Palestinian society,* to
establish and defend illegal Israeli settlements paid for by US tax
payers,**is thanks in part to your*supine voting record in the Senate,
along with that of other Democrats and Republicans.***

8.* On fighting terror you are as hypocritical and dishonest as Bush.*
You have chosen to alarm the public about*the possible dangers of ³nukes²
in Iran and North Korea.**Using fear to prepare the public for*an*illegal
war is a*wellworn Bush*tactic, and*will**very likely*lead to more
anti-American terror.
*
Your record in the Senate and the positions you have taken*leave much to
be desired.* As for*your strategy,*many people*believe*your chicken
approach to campaigning*to be a strategic decision that you have**had
*to*make.* They tell informed Americans that you are actually opposed to
the Iraq war, but for political reasons must*hide this.* The theory is
that you are trying to capture the centrist voters.* Whatever its lack of
honesty, I*might*believe*it to be*your motivation if the polls were
suggesting the opposite of what they*do*in fact*indicate.**But when**so
many people*are opposing the*Iraq war,*as they now do, all that is needed
is a leader who will**be*a leader and say what must be said in opposition
to the war.* It would have made you popular despite your dull
rhetoric.**Instead, you*are continually*losing the opportunity to attack
George Bush on the war* and on other*vulnerable**issues.**Many people
credit you for helping turn public opinion against the Vietnam War thirty
years ago.* But*you yourself had supported and*fought in the war, and
only*later changed your mind.* How many more people must*die in Iraq,* be
jobless and homeless and without hope in our own country,* before
you*come to your senses on these current issues?***
*
*It*is not clear what you and the Democrats (*with some*notable
exceptions) have to offer.* On the one hand, you do not use the**many
*opportunities**available to you*to discredit the*Bush Administration.*
On the other hand,* you complain when someone like Ralph Nader does speak
to the issues. *I understand that you**might *feel the progressive vote is
owed to you.* I am sure*that Ralph Nader*infuriates you,* in*providing*
informed voters with a real*alternative.* Let me*put your mind at ease
about*that.** *If there were*no independent or third party candidate
running for the 2004 presidential race,* I*might decide not to
vote.**Because between a chicken hawk**such as Bush and
a*chicken**politician like yourself, there is very little choice.*

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com