Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Nancy Pelosi: Impeachment off the table?

Right before the mid-term elections, Nancy Pelosi told 60 minutes that impeachment was “off the table.” She speculated that Republicans would "just love" the "waste of time" such proceedings would be. "Making them lame ducks," she concluded, "is good enough for me."

The problem is, even though the Republicans are lame ducks being served with a healthy side of subpoenas, they can still do plenty of damage in 679 days.

You may ask yourself “They've already destroyed practically everything. What more could they possibly do?” If you are sane, you may not be able to imagine what they could do. A sane person cannot predict what an insane person can do. During the Vietnam War, China was using weapons against us, and killing our troops. Did we attack China? No. Because that would have been insane.

In the current occupation of Iraq, spurious anonymous sources are claiming that Iran is providing weapons to the Shiah. These accusations are probably false because the Sunnis are responsible for 92% of the US casualties. Thanks to the kind donations of the citizens and government of Saudi Arabia, the Sunni insurgents have now acquired shoulder-fired missiles, and are currently using them to shoot down our helicopters at an alarming rate. No one says anything about that. Bush holds hands with the Prince Bandar because he is his oil buddy. That friendship is so strong, we overlook the fact that 18 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.

Bush and boyfriend

Not only does he hold hands with them, but also it has recently been revealed in a Vanity Fair article by Seymore Hersh that Bush is funding Jihadists connected to al Qaeda as part of a war with Iran he has ALREADY STARTED. Indeed, Raw Story reports that without the authorization of congress, covert operatives crossed over the border into Iran months ago and have been working with terrorists such as the MEK (Mujahedeen-e Khalq) to destabilize the country.

How are all these clandestine operations being funded? Some have speculated that they may be using some of the 12 billion in cash that Paul Bremer "lost" in Iraq (filling 18 tractor trailers, or 363 tons of hundred dollar bills) to give to the terrorists. John Stewart reported: "The House Oversight Committee trying to locate 363 tons of missing cash. Paul Bremer blames poor payroll records for the 12 billion dollars lost somewhere in Iraq. The Committee set up 2 websites -- just in case anyone sees the money that is stacked in $400,000 bricks each."

The theft is a high crime worthy of impeachment, because that money belongs to us, but giving aid and comfort to the enemy is not just an impeachable offence. It is treason, as is outing an undercover CIA agent to kill a story blowing the whistle on the lies this administration told to get us into war. Treason, according to our federal law is a crime punishable by death.

Impeaching Bush and Cheney is the very least we can and must do. If you see a crime being committed and you don't tell the police, you are guilty of being an accomplice. This process would be a civics lesson for the citizens of the United States. On the other hand, if we don't impeach them, it is sends the worst message to the world because it says we don't care about or uphold the rule of law, and the constitution. The best message to send to politicians is that they are not above the law, and We The People will not allow our employees to give themselves so much unfettered power that they are immune to prosecution. I know we probably couldn't get 18 Republicans to convict him in the Senate, but if we have a large unified American voice, (not a Democratic or Republican voice) that there is a party known as the Republican party that puts it's party before what is right and what is wrong. That is the best we can hope for, and it is the conversation that we need to have in this country right now, before it's too late.

Funding the Jihadists is yet another example of Bush doing the very same thing he accuses the "evil-doers" of. It fits the MO of the Bush administration, lacking confidence in the true casus belli, they conspire to invent additional ones, misrepresenting the available intelligence, crafting new “intelligence,” and then spreading these falsehoods to the public.

According to the British press, the US doesn’t even need an immanent threat of a nuclear weapons program, false flag operation, or Gulf of Tonkin type incident to trigger a war with Iran. The new “trigger” for starting a war with Iran is if there is a “major attack” on U.S. troops in Iraq that can be traced to Iran. How many troops have to be killed in order to qualify as “major attack”? 7? 3? 12? It could be anything, because George Bush is "the decider".

We can attack Iran for practically anything, without going to congress, using tactical nuclear weapons to destroy Iran’s nuclear production sites, military sites, and other key infrastructure. Bush doesn't need to go to congress for authorization to attack Iran. We are already there. If you think that the agenda for Iran is any different than Iraq, you have buried your head in the desert sand. The agenda is, "Nuke their ass, take their gas."

So my question to Pelosi is, if attacking Iran with nuclear weapons is on the table, how the hell can you say that impeachment is off the table?


Anonymous said...

"insanity" is the mistaken belief that liberalism, democratic party style, offers a true solution to any of the problems created by the maintaining the status quo of a demoniac society

shick said...

Anonymous, from your choice of words I assume you are a Hare Krishna devotee. I also happen to be a Hare Krishna devotee, AND I am involved in politics because liberals are very open-minded and celebrate diversity. There are a growing number of progressive spiritualists who are making a moral and political impact. Today is the 4th anniversary of the war and occupation of Iraq. The liberal group MoveOn.org has held many small protest vigils around the country. And in Washington on Friday night a coalition of liberal Christian groups, including Sojourners/Call to Renewal, led several thousand people in a march that began with a service at the National Cathedral. More than 200 participants were arrested praying in front of the White House, the police said. I am attending a program tonight inviting liberals over to have prasadam, and kirtan, which I call "mantra meditation for peace." I am doing this to spread Krishna consciousness. The greatest offence to the Holy Name is to criticize someone who is trying to spread Krishna consciousness. I am trying to do that and at the same time participate in civil society. Is that insane? Being a devotee doesn’t mean you live in a bubble. Prabhupada wanted devotees to get into politics. In fact, he encouraged them to run for office. Prabhupada took advantage of the hippie disillusionment of the establishment to preach to them. Liberals are just old hippies. I am preaching to liberals. Prabhupada preached to the hippies. Would that make Prahhupada insane as well? I understand what you are saying in that I know that lack of God consciousness is the reason everyone is trying to maintain the status quo of the "demoniac society.” You say that liberals are maintaining the status quo for this demoniac society just as much as the conservatives are. We are all members of society, and as a liberal, I care about the demons and anonymous devotees as well. When you call everyone a demon, you are implying that it doesn’t matter who we elect as our representative. You couldn’t be more wrong, my friend. It does matter who’s in office. Rogues, thieves, and power-mad war-mongering mass murderers are in office right now, and they are close to destroying this planet, as we know it. If you say it is all the same, you are hurting others, because your statement is at best, unrealistic and unpractical. At worst, it’s a cop out. It’s preaching ignorance and encouraging apathy. As devotee's we have been taught that we are to use everything that is favorable to God's will. That includes politics. Renouncing something that can be used in His service is called phalgu vairagya, false renunciation. THAT is insane.

shick said...

Anonymous, we all get what we deserve and desire. I am assuming you are an American, and since you live here, you will share the suffering of your fellow couch potatoes who deserve the rightous indignation of the Arabs/Palestinians if they unleash that upon us. I'm just trying to put my two cents in for the cause of peace. I'm very grateful for my schooling in the WV community, and your presumptions of my character as a result of that schooling are quite insulting. Where did you get your training from? I don't hear much more than resentment and ingratitude on your part for that. What could have possibly caused that, other than your own offences? Whatever happened to you, do you have it in your heart to forgive and let it go? You would be more peaceful if you did. I hear your acerbic rant, full of cynicism and resignation, but I don't hear any practical solutions from you. If you have something positive to offer, let's hear it. Anyone can be a critic. You seem like an intelligent person, so why don't we have a constructive conversation, and try to make a difference in this world as long as we're here?

Anonymous said...

Hey Scott. Talked to your brother at B-Side yesterday and he told me about your blog, so I thought I'd drop in and say hello. Drop me a line at spomplun(at)charter.net. Steve P.

Anonymous said...

Sankirtan Diary : About Celibacy, Preaching, Western society, and Liberalism
So this is more of a collection of scattered thoughts than any
real essay of sorts, but we will try to convert it into at least
rough essay format. It is my thoughts about certain subject
matter. Forgive me if some of it seems critical. This is primarily
based on my observations during my first two years in ISKCON.
If you have any appreciations, suggestions, criticisms, please
feel free to e-mail me.
-Bhakta Corey

About Celibacy, Training, Preaching

There is a popular opinion in ISKCON presently, that people are
not as open to spiritual life as they were in the 60s, and that
we should perhaps change our message, or the way we preach to

I must say that this theory is completely wrong. If anything,
the people and younger generation of today are far more open
than ever before. The problem is, in a lot of our temples, we
are not providing any kind of training, and thus when new people
come, they receive no training and eventually bloop. That is the
actual cause of the decrease of membership in ISKCON, not
because our preaching methods are wrong.

The problems that ISKCON has in creating devotees, can be solved
very easily. It is a simple three-step process.

1. First, you create a brahmacari ashram in each and every
temple. Only saffron wearing brahmacaris/vanaprasthas should be
allowed to live in the ashram, not foreigners trying to get
green cards, nor unemployed older men.
2. Second, you create a Bhakta Leader for each brahmacari
ashram, preferably a senior brahmacari or a vanaprastha, who
will train up the new men who join. Now, what does "train" mean?
Well, it means that you at least inflict discipline on the
student to grow, to come up to the standard. Nowadays though,
devotees are so afraid to inflict any kind of discipline, or
authority, that the result is we have a new generation of
devotees growing up, completely undisciplined and untrained. Any
mature human being will appreciate good authority and
discipline, and in the end, they will thank you for caring
enough to take the time to train them. Many of the parents in
Western society are now beginning to acknowledge their mistake
of being too undisciplined with their children, causing the
children to become ungrateful spoiled brats. So, training is a
very large subject, but we will leave it at that, for now.
3. Bhakta Leader takes his brahmacaris out on book distribution.

See, if we just followed the simple formula that Prabhupada gave
us, then this movement could quite easily be twice or thrice as
large as it was in its early days, when it had hundreds and
thousands of devotees living in the temples. It doesn't require
changing anything, but merely going back to what Srila
Prabhupada gave us.

I have personal experience of what I call an anti-renunciate
mentality that is popular right now in our movement. I have been
involved in this movement for about a year and a half, and
already I have met no less than eight different people who
expressed this anti-renunciate mentality. They all said
practically the same thing- "Why do you want to be celibate?
It's just fanatic!"

What it comes down to is very simple. There are a few fringe
devotees who do not follow the regulative principles of Krishna
consciousness very strictly. They are generally the ones whom I
found to express this anti-renunciate mentality. On the other
hand, we have a few devotees who follow very strictly. The
afore-mentioned fringe devotees (those who do not follow the
regulations very strictly) are forced to see their own short-
comings in following the process strictly in contrast with the
very-strict followers. So, one solution is to simply eliminate
the strict followers, so that there is no more contrast between
strict-followers and loose-followers. What it really comes down
to can be summed up in one word- envy. It seems that this envy
is there even on the heavenly planets (The demigods, being
envious of the austere life of the rigid brahmacaris, would try
to cause them to break their vows. -Srimad Bhagavatam 2.7.6
Purport). Now, what is wrong with trying to discourage

At least half, if not more, of book distributors are
brahmacaris. If we do not give protection and encouragement to
the renounced order (brahmacaris, vanaprasthas, sannyasis), then
book distribution will practically completely die out, even more
than it already has. The long term effect will be that after all
of the older devotees pass away, there will be no younger
generation to pass the movement on to, and so the movement will
be finished. Remember, today's brahmacaris are tommorow's
sannyasis. How will ISKCON go on, if in 20 years most of the
present day sannyasis have passed away, and there is no future
generation of sannyasis to replace them? We should never
underestimate the importance of having brahmacaris in our
movement, and not just a few, but hundreds and thousands.

(Disclaimer- In no way am I intending to minimize the service of
any devotee, regardless of their ashram. I am trying to make a
point of the importance of having a class of men in ISKCON who
follow the renounced path, and who are given full encouragement
and support from the rest of the devotees.)

There is so much talk about changing ISKCON, changing our
movement, to cater to the "new times". What I do not understand
is how previously, a couple of decades ago, we had hundreds of
people living in the temples (back when we were all following
the "old process", that is, the process that Srila Prabhupada
gave to us). Now, we are lucky if we can find even 5 people who
live in each temple, especially in North America, to take care
of the Deities. So, where did we go wrong?

Our first mistake was that we stopped book distribution in favor
for other forms of raising money- selling stickers, records,
paintings, etc. It is not very likely that this was pleasing to
Srila Prabhupada. Also, if books aren't going out, then
naturally people aren't going to be attracted to this movement
in very large numbers because no one will be receiving any

Our second mistake was that we practically destroyed the
brahmacari ashrams. When did it become a crime to want to live a
celibate lifestyle?

So, after committing these two errors and the resultant "fruits"
that have blossumed, we are using this as an excuse that "The
old process doesn't work anymore. We should do something new".
Well, we haven't been following the "old process" for quite some
time now, so to blame all of our present problems on the old
process is quite a faulty observation. But let's not dwell on
the negative, let's look at the positive that we can do to
rectify this situation. It is a simple three step process.

1. Maintain a brahmacari ashram in every temple- Only saffron
wearing and white clothed bhaktas live in the ashram- no
unemployed men, no college students, no green card workers
2. You employ a senior brahmacari or vanaprastha in the ashram
to act as the Leader for the ashram, to train the new men
3. Brahmacari Leader takes out his boys for book distribution

See, that isn't difficult, is it? It didn't require any fancy gimmicks. All it takes is to follow what
Srila Prabhupada gave us, not offend him by throwing away the
treasures which he gave us.

About Western Society

There is a popular trend today among some devotees, that we
should "westernize", or that is, introduce secular western
ideals into our traditional Vedic culture, such as liberalism,
equal-rights, new age beliefs, etc. Srila Prabhupada was
completely opposed to this. His books make the unmistakable
statement that western culture is demoniac. Western culture
encourages men to become weak, and women to become independent,
causing both sexes to become extremely degraded. Like this,
western society has produced nothing but fools and demons. The
problem is, westerners think that this raksasa culture is
"normal", because they have never even heard of civilized human
society, Vedic culture.

Even if by "westernizing", we could create more devotees, the
question arises- if we water down the standard that Srila
Prabhupada gave us, then will we attract watered down, or cheap
followers? In other words, "westernization", or introducing
atheistic western ideals into our traditional Vedic cultural
background, is an offensive idea and an offense to the previous

Prabhupada: They are daily one or two gentlemen, like you they
are coming. But they find our prescription very strict.
(laughter) And... but we are not going to change it. We are not
after vox populi. That is not our concern. We have got our
standard method.
Director: Yeah, sure. I believe that you should have these
standards if you want them, if anybody wants them.
Prabhupada: Yes. That is making us successful. We do not make
any compromise. This is our method. If you like, you take it. If
you don't like, you go away. Don't mind.

Sometimes people ask, if Prabhupada came here to give us love of
Krishna, then why didn't he speak only about prema? Why did he
speak so much about mayavada, western society, vedic culture,
and so many other things? Why did he speak so heavily against
everything short of pure devotional service? The answer is,
because he had to destroy all of the wrong ideas before we could
accept the truth. As long as we are still thinking that
something counterfeit is the real thing, then we can never have
the real thing. Prabhupada came here to destroy all of our
illusions, so that we can get that real thing- prema.

So this demoniac western society has practically outlawed speaking about God, or at least made it socially unacceptable. But, if you want to talk about two men sodomizing each other, that has now become socially acceptable. So, it is very unpopular to speak about God in the West, but you can suck a still living baby out of a woman's uterus and throw the baby into a trash can, where you can see the baby still wiggling, and this is socially acceptable. Need I say any more about the unspeakably demoniac degradation of this demoniac Western society? It is for this reason that we must not let any trace of this demoniac culture creep its way into this ISKCON movement. Demoniac western culture is part of the enemy that we as devotees are fighting- it has absolutely no place in ISKCON.

About Liberals

I recently came across some anti-war, anti-government websites
on the internet. It was amusing to read, because some of the
wild claims that these people make. For example, one website
made the bold statement "George Bush blew up the 9-11 World
Trade Towers". I was laughing by the time I finished the
article. So these wild conspiracy theories also fall into the
same category as rhetoric like: All the problems of the world
can be blamed on the big evil governments and big evil
corporations. Well, this kind of thinking falls into a certain
thought process, and let me give you a name for this thought
process: Liberalism. Liberalism is an anartha that must be given
up, or else it is quite possible that we might not make any real
spiritual advancement in this lifetime.

Why Liberalism is not Krishna conscious: It is much easier just
to blame the leaders (government and corporations) for all the
problems of the world, instead of accepting sastric conclusion
on this matter. Srila Prabhupada said the problems of this
material world are due to our explotive mentality. So any
liberal is going to claim that their explotive mentality is
somehow any less than the explotive mentality of the leader of a
government or corporation?

Here is a quote from Srila Prabhupada, where he tells us that we
shouldn't blame the government, since we are the fools who put
the big fools into power. In other words, he is saying that it
is our own fault, not someone else's.

"What is the use of this rascal government? The rascal
government must be there because we are rascals. You cannot
complain against the government. Because we select. It is the
days of democracy. We elect our representative. So why you
should, I mean to say, blame the government? You have created
the government. You have sent your representative, a rascal,
another big rascal. You are rascal, and another big rascal, you
have voted; so how you can expect good government? You send only
big rascals. That's all." Mayapura lecture, 1973

Another characteristic of a liberal is that they criticize the
leaders, but they themselves offer no positive solution to the

In short, it can be summed up like this. A liberal is someone
who blames everyone else for their problems, and they take no
personal responsibility for their own life, expecting to be
spoon-fed by the state from cradle to grave. A conservative, on
the other hand, is someone who instead of blaming everyone else
for their problems, take personal responsibility for their own
lives and understands that THE WORLD IS NOT PERFECT. Now, which
do you think fits in more with our Vaisnava siddhanta,
liberalism or conservatism?

So there is one major flaw in liberalism, and it is the inherit
theory of equality. According to the theory of equality, one
could come to the following conclusions:

Men and women are equal.
Heterosexuals and Homosexuals are equal.
Grhastas and sannyasis are equal.
Senior devotees and junior devotees are equal.

Why equality is not Krishna conscious: Why do we have four
different sections of society (sudra, brahmana, vaisya,
ksatriya) and four different ashrams (brahmacarya, grhasta,
vanaprastha, sannyasa) if we are all equal? Equality is rooted
in communism, and communism is based on atheism.

It can be summed up with a quote from a devotee I read off of
his website:

"ISKCON seems to have attracted many liberals (for want of a
better term) from the native western cultural matrix. The
difficulty they now find themselves in is that the Vedic culture
they have adopted is far more conservative (another term that
may be inaccurate) than anything they could have ever imagined.
And the more you dive into Krishna Consciousness the more
conservative, that is, regulated, you become."

The liberal academic people are very puffed up. When these scholars read
scriptures, they do so in an unsubmissive mood, and speculate
and interpretate the scripture to suit their own personal
speculations. It is these academic scholars who dare to find
fault with a pure devotee like Srila Prabhupada, such as
thinking that his books condemn modern civilization "too
strongly", or think that Srila Prabhupada's condemnation of the
theory of equality of women are "too heavy".

Everything Srila Prabhupada said is completely perfect. It is
the liberal academics who are very much imperfect.
Unfortunately, Srila Prabhupada doesn't fit into the tiny box
which is their liberal ideals. What is disturbing though, is
when some devotees accept these liberal ideals for the sake of
being "progressive". Progress doesn't just mean forward. We can
also "progress" backwards too, towards hell, especially if we
offend the previous acharyas by disregarding (or
misinterpretating) their instructions. So therefore who are we
going to accept? A few insignificant demoniac scholars, or the
ever liberated jagat guru Srila Prabhupada?

A recent poll found an overwhelming 85 percent of students at
Harvard classify themselves as "liberals". Incidentally, another
poll showed that 80 percent of students at Harvard had thought
about committing suicide in the past year. Coincidence? Didn't
Srila Prabhupada call these so-called educational institutions
"modern day slaughterhouses"?

Prabhupada: Gurukrpa Maharaja, what is the benefit of this
modern education?
Gurukrpa: No benefit. It makes them an ass.
Prabhupada: Making them demons, that's all.
Gurukrpa: They become puffed-up, thinking they know something.
They don't know anything.
-Morning Walk, 1977, Bhuvanesvara

Liberals are not capable of discussing a topic rationally.
Instead, they engage in name-calling (You're just a fascist,
you're just an old-timer, You're just a homophobe, You're just a
woman-hater, etc). Of course, it is always easier to just
blasphemy your opponent, rather than actually consider his
arguements and defeat them with your own set of arguements. For
example- I make a point, and instead of the other person saying
"Well, here is another point that defeats your point", the
liberal will say "You're just a big evil meanie!" In other
words, emotional (and intellectual) immaturity seem to go hand
in hand with liberalism.

Unfortunately, western society, modern society, is based on
liberalism. Therefore if we want to progress spiritually, or
even materially for that matter, the popular western ideals must
be removed from our consciousness, and we must begin to follow
at least the basic principles of Vedic civilization (and the
beginning of human civilization is restricting association
between men and women).

If you look at all the devotees who have blooped, all the
devotees who have fell down, you will notice one common
denominator- most of them were liberals. Therefore, it
is in our own best interest to train our devotees to be
conservatives, and it is also in accordance with our Vaisnava
siddhanta. If we purified ourselves of all of our liberal
contamination, then 50 percent of ISKCON's problems would be solved.
by Bhakta Corey (Brahmacari) at April 07, 2007 06:59 PM

unfortunately, conservatives, just as condemned as liberals also concoct and manipulate "data", as in "90 per cent of all the statistics on the internet are concocted at the time of their posting", (If you look at all the devotees who have blooped, all the
devotees who have fell down, you will notice one common
denominator- most of them were liberals. ) and deceit is not limited to a particular political bent. the last leg, truthfulness, has been compromised by those very individuals claiming to protect it. "kuli-yug"

shick said...

Unlike conservative blogs and talk shows, I welcome all contrarian comments into this discussion. I think it is healthy, because it makes us think and see things from different points of view.

Bhakta Corey said, "In short, it can be summed up like this. A liberal is someone who blames everyone else for their problems, and they take no personal responsibility for their own life, expecting to be spoon-fed by the state from cradle to grave. A conservative, on the other hand, is someone who instead of blaming everyone else for their problems, take personal responsibility for their own lives and understands that THE WORLD IS NOT PERFECT. Now, which do you think fits in more with our Vaisnava siddhanta, liberalism or conservatism?"

I agree with some of your points, prabhu, such as the laughable 9/11 conspiracy theories and book distibution, but there are many glaring inaccuracies in your analysis of liberals vs. conservatives.

First of all, I do not see very much responsibility coming from conservatives nowadays. Conservatives have dismantled the ethics committee, so in the last 6 years there have been NO investigations or subpoenas issued.

During the Clinton administration, there were hundreds of major multi-million dollar investigations into such things as Clinton lying about his blow job, "Travelgate" - the inappropriate use of travel agents, "Whitewater", the questionable use of Christmas cards, etc. All of which turned out to be nothing. Clinton lied, but no one died.

Under the conservative Congress, there have been NO investigations into such treasonous matters as lying us into war, war profiteering, election fraud, wiretapping, outing CIA operatives, and literally hundreds of other impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors. So exactly how are conservatives are taking responsibility? They are actually the ones who simply blame others; such as the media, the soldiers, and perfectly competent U.S. attorneys. The generals say they need more troops, so they fire them. They say the media reports only the bad things going on in the occupation, and they ignore the good things. They want to put in political hacks in the Justice Department in order to fix the elections, so they fire all the Attorneys that don’t do their bidding. They want to keep this occupation going until they are out of office and then blame the Democrats when THEIR OWN botched war fails. I may be wrong, but it makes me think that you are not at all aware of such irresponsible actions by conservatives. Is it sheer political naivety and immaturity that leads you to the absolutely laughable conclusion that “conservatives are the responsible ones" or are you just being a contrarion for the sake of being a contrarion? Prabhupada defines the word "muni" as one who argues for the sake of argument. Again, I welcome even that kind comment, because it can be so easily proved to be without substance, or "Vaisnava siddhanta", as you say.

Bhakta Corey, could you please explain to me what a "conservative" is? It used to mean "fiscally" conservative. Those kinds of conservatives don't exist anymore. The current conservatives in power have spent/borrowed more money than all the previous administrations COMBINED in the history of The United States of America. And where did all the money go? It has transferred trillions of dollars from the middle class to the upper class - the upper 1%. They spent it for tax breaks for millionaires and war, and at the same time cut all kinds of government social programs. Martin Luther King, (a very spiritual liberal), said, "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."

Conservatives think that everyone should fend for himself or herself, instead of caring for the less fortunate. A community mindset - a social safety net is intrinsic in Vedic culture. Instead of rugged individualism, a grhastha, before taking his own meal, is supposed to open his door and call out, "Is there any hungry man?" Is this what you call being a "spoon fed" liberal?

Jesus, "The Prince of Peace", who preached about caring for the poor and the sick and the imprisoned all throughout the Bible, was a LIBERAL. How do conservatives care for the poor? One look at Katrina will give you the answer. How do they care for the old? They want to destroy Social Security. How do they care for the imprisoned? They arrest innocent people, render them to secret prisons without seeing a judge, and torture them.

What to speak of Jesus, why did Krishna appear? Because the earth was overburdened by the millitary forces of demoniac kings. (Like King George, who is itching to start WWIII by baiting Iran)

Apparently, Krishna descends millennium after millennium to reestablish the liberal principles of peace and social justice.

Now, which do you think fits in more with our Vaisnava siddhanta, liberalism or conservatism? Martin Luther King Jr., or Dick Cheney?

Anonymous said...

Answer by Romapada Swami

Question:People should help people just for the sake of helping them, and without any additional motivation. The propagation of that kind of behavior is the positive part of society in general. Doing everything for God negates the basic human decency of every good act, even though the outcome might be the same. The difference in motivation removes all of the good will from the equation. Essentially, people who do things only for indirect purposes are only automatons. I don’t consider the act nearly as positive for society, because people appreciate and gain inspiration from a gesture that is truly from the heart. If everyone acted in the name of God instead of their fellow humans, and nobody formed deep attachments to other people, would the world really be a better place, or would the best aspects of humanity be lost? Note: The word ‘human’ can be replaced with ‘animal’. They are interchangeable.

Answer: Although the ideal of a positive society you are presenting is noble, practically we see that it is unrealizable and utopian without acknowledging God in the picture.

In the last several decades, after having made the state secular, carefully keeping any mention of God out of educational institutions and relegating religion to a sort of personal hobby or an unofficial non-governmental Social Welfare agency, there has been no dearth of researches and reform movements and humanitarian efforts targeting the upliftment of others, seeking in various ways to help people. Thousands of good-willed social scientists, educators & psychologists are all trying their very best to come up with improved methods for character education for children, and so on. For all that effort, the world should be becoming increasingly more peaceful, people becoming increasingly courteous and loving and accommodating of each other etc - but any objective and discerning onlooker can see that the trend is in the reverse, with crime, fraud and social unrest on the rise every day; even neighbors think twice to trust each other and so on.

Thus, when God is removed from the equation, it becomes increasingly difficult for individuals or groups of individuals of differing interests to focus on a common goal or identity for want of a common center. It is only a matter of time before whatever goodwill is present will diminish and vanish.

Definition of good:

Please consider, in the scenario you have presented, how would one define what is actually good? Actual goodwill would have to go beyond just helping an old lady across the street or giving some donation to the salvation army, or more seriously dedicating oneself to a noble and worth cause and feeling very good about oneself - there are many who do this, but simultaneously their life doesn’t necessarily reflect a high standard of character in many other aspects. In fact by their very lifestyle, knowingly or unknowingly, they are often hurting and destroying so many helpless victims unintentionally, even as they are trying to be “good” to certain others.

The very concept of competitiveness and getting ahead of others in life, on the basis of which the whole society is operating, is opposed to the ideal of goodwill. Rob Peter and help Paul - that is also not a very nice definition of goodwill. But in this world, if you want to help one entity, without keeping God in the center, it would invariably involve hurting or exploiting another. Sympathizing with the cause of women’s freedom often ends up with the consequence of terrible neglect and imbalances for the cause of children; someone may champion the cause of feeding the poor at the expense of killing innocent animals; another person’s compassion may extend a little further to include the animals also, but then what about the trees, and what about the lesser forms of life, microbes and so on?

For want of an absolute authority, everyone is left to come up with their own definition and limits of goodwill - but that’s like trying to drive on the highway with no rules and simply depending on the goodwill and good judgment of one another! The definition of good in a godless society is arbitrary or at best conventional — based on the current opinion of the majority, which simply means might is right, and what is right keeps changing with the changing whims of the public.

Thus when God is removed from the equation, it is not even possible to ascertain what constitutes being truly good to each other and have everyone come to an agreement. In such a condition how are we to train people at large and inculcate such character in them if at all we are able to even define it?

Vedic conception of welfare:

On the other hand, followers of Vedic culture understand that God is the Supreme authority, and also the best well-wisher of every living entity. Dharma is the codes of conduct laid by God Himself. His laws are universally applicable for all times and places. By following the God-given laws, all living entities are simultaneously benefited, without any side-effects so to speak. Contrarily, any man-made set of laws is bound to be defective; limited by our own limited vision and cannot be universally applicable.

Furthermore, the Vedic understanding of welfare is long-term (shreyas), not short-term, stop-gap solutions (preyas). Real welfare is to bring one to the end of all miseries by connecting them back to God. Material amelioration is likened to giving a plate of food to a lost child, or like blowing over a boil to give temporary relief. Whereas real and true help is to take the child back to the parents, to find a permanent cure to the disease, to address the root cause which has brought upon this suffering to others. In the ultimate sense this means to connect people back to their relation with God — it may include offering some kind words or prasadam or relief, but it goes further than that.

Devotee of God develops good qualities:

You have stated that those who act nobly or help others only to please God are automatons and in this I beg to differ. One who is accomplished in the art of acting in his relationship with God, a pure devotee, automatically develops all good qualities worth possessing. When such a person acts compassionately, it is not simply out of courtesy, formality or religious obligation, but he actually feels and is moved deeply by feelings of compassion, not just in a limited, self-centered or self-extended way - but for all parts and parcels of the Lord. It is certainly done from the heart, more deeply and genuinely than the humane courtesy or obligation one may momentarily feel upon coming across a needy person.

This was practically and amply demonstrated by Srila Prabhupada through his personal example. When, for instance, Srila Prabhupada first arrived in California to fulfill the order of his spiritual master, the scene was one of tumult and madness - the youth had become disenchanted with materialistic goals of Western culture and turned hippies. Feeling lost and confused, high on LSD and other drugs, dropped out of mainstream society, home & school and flocking the streets of San Francisco - their cause had stirred great public concern, becoming an uncontrollable social problem. All public authorities and responsible citizens including the police, civic leaders, social workers, and even the doctors were completely at a loss and having no clue how to handle and help these wild, intoxicated youth. In the midst of this pandemonium walked in Srila Prabhupada, an elderly and cultured sadhu from Vrindavana, with no precedents or experience with dealing with any such crises, with no resources or support, and provided the hippies a transcendental refuge and a higher alternative. He welcomed and gave shelter to them, fed them, directed and engaged them, treated them gently yet confidently, administered the process of devotional service to them fearlessly and not only that - in time he reformed and trained many of them to in turn become saints! The authorities of San Fransisco were not just appreciative but struck by his effectiveness in doing this single-handedly where all their collective efforts had failed.

This was because Prabhupada actually knew the science of God and how to administer it suitably in all situations; he was not perplexed but knew for certain what is the absolute good for everyone and confident that only this could factually help humanity while all other solutions would be patchwork at best. And what he did was deeply heartfelt, not a routine religious obligation, or meant for achieving some indirect goal or personal salvation - indeed it would have been impossible to take that kind of risks and face the kind of challenges that he did by routine formulas or selfish motivations. Thousands of people from all walks of life became deeply moved, inspired and felt their lives transformed by coming in contact with him and experiencing his love and affection. If you read some of the accounts of his activities, one cannot fail to be deeply moved by the intensity of compassion and love he personally felt for humanity that drove him to make such sacrifices at such an advanced age. There are many such examples in the history of the world. The kind of sacrifices that Jesus Christ or Haridas Thakur undertook on behalf of humanity is inconceivable for a mundane humanist.

So-called good qualities in non-devotees are unsteady and do not bear the right results:

On the other hand, one who does not understand how everything and everyone is related to God cannot actually manifest these good qualities in a steady and consistent manner. Their attempts to be kind, truthful, co-operative etc will only go so far as the extent of their attachments - some may have a lesser degree of attachment than others, but the point where their sense-gratification feels pinched, there ends their practice of virtue.

Besides, whatever good they may do is also frustrated in time and does not bear ultimately good result because of their lack of proper knowledge of the true nature of things. It is like the attempt of trying to water the individual branches of a tree and neglecting the root. Real and proper welfare is to connect the branches back to the root and to water the root, then automatically the branches become nourished.

A devotee-in-practice:

I was so far describing the nature of highly accomplished saintly devotees of God. There may be others who are mere beginners in the science of God and who out of good faith and in good association begin to worship God. Such persons may themselves not have developed these good qualities but *if* they act under the direction of a bona fide devotee, their acts are also flawless and truly beneficial - just as a nurse functioning under the direction of a qualified doctor is also rendering valuable service that is authorized and not whimsical.

Or like a child who is lovingly induced and educated by the parents to give some of her toys in charity. Such beginners are not automatons; rather they are simply at a less mature stage of devotional perfection, but on the right track. The child on her own may have not yet developed the maturity to realize the need for sharing and helping others, but because she is acting without resentment and out of affection for her loving parents, quickly she will also acquire that quality. However, if the nurse or the child tries to whimsically do something to help others without guidance, they may not be very effective.

Good intentions are not good enough:

Srila Prabhupada narrates a simple incident that graphically illustrates this idea - one boy was suffering from very severe case of typhoid and his mother had placed him under very strict diet and medical care. The younger brother of this boy felt very sorry for his sick brother. Out of affection and goodwill, he brought to him fried samosas and puris, but his mother noticed this and reprimanded the little boy for his foolish act. Despite his fine sentiments, his well-intentioned act could have proved deadly to the sick boy. In other words, good intentions are not good enough. Just as the goodwill of a doctor is heightened by his/her efforts to properly learn the medical science, similarly one who really wants to do good to others would take the time to learn and practice the science of Bhagavata-dharma by which real help can be rendered.

Proper conception of God and spiritual training:

There are some spiritually poorly-informed people who hold a fallacious conception that the idea of ‘God’ was simply fabricated by some wise ancestral philosophers in order to instill virtue or fear among common men, in-order to extraneously motivate them to be good. If that were the case and people are induced in the fashion of a child being coaxed to do something based on false promises, then your concern may be valid that such a tactic spoils the motivation behind a good act.

But that is far from the truth, at least when devotional service is guided by bona fide acharyas who know the spiritual science - as in the case of a qualified doctor or parent in the above examples. Even if someone begins with an indirect motivation of wanting some piety, because of acting under proper authority they render more valuable help and also quickly come to the right standard of knowledge and motivation - the key being proper spiritual training under qualified authority.

God is a real person, the Supreme Personality, on whom all other living beings are dependent upon to fulfill their needs. He is the Supreme Father and Maintainer, perfectly supplying the needs of all living entities, and He is the most well-wishing friend of every living being. Those who have forgotten their relationship with him are placed in this material world, and are something akin to being in a spiritually sick condition - God is still providing for them but with many restrictions. If we find some scarcity or suffering in this world, it is because of the living entities’ own diseased state of forgetfulness and disconnection from God, it is certainly not because Krishna has somehow neglected them or incapable of helping them.

Therefore the real welfare that we can do for anyone is effected when we act under the direction of the Supreme Father, which means under the direction of scriptures and saintly persons who represent Him. Trying to do so independently will actually not prove helpful and could even bear adverse effect.

Relationships in proper perspective:

Keeping Krishna in the center doesn’t mean we have no relationships with others; rather, we then have the proper perspective of our spiritual relationship with all beings. On the other hand, attempting to have an independent relationship with other parts and parcels of the Lord is unnatural and ineffective - like the fingers trying to independently feed the different limbs of the body.

Again consider the example of a family - a mature son who has received training from the father to serve his other siblings also simultaneously develops deep affection, care and concern for them, he works with them and helps them according to the father’s direction - but that is not independent of the relationship with their most loving, common father.

When human society is trained in this way in the culture and science of God consciousness, naturally everything will be harmonious - humans, animals, demigods and nature will all act in full co-operation with one another in their common service to the Supreme Lord. Try to attain unity and harmony any other way, keeping the Supreme Father out of the equation, it is bound to fail; quarrels, misunderstandings and selfish concerns will prevail, as is amply demonstrated by the state of affairs in the world around us!

shick said...

I agree with most everything Romapada Swami said, but I have to strongly object to this statement:

“Sympathizing with the cause of women’s freedom often ends up with the consequence of terrible neglect and imbalances for the cause of children.”

I'm sure Romapada Swami is a very nice devotee, but what century are devotees living in? How out of touch with mainstream society can you be?

This sounds like the conservative Rick Santorum, who got hammered in the Senate race in the mid-term elections, for preaching that kind of rhetoric.

My father is an astronomy professor at the University of Vermont. His colleague, a white woman in her sixties, loves Indian culture, always wears a Punjabi outfit, and visits India regularly. She also happens to be a gay feminist. She will not read Prabhupada’s books, however, because they offended her with proclamations like "women should not be given freedom," that they "can’t be trusted," that they are "less intelligent," etc.

I know Prabhupada came from a patriarchal culture, but if he had come 25 years later, after the women's movement had gelled a little in this country, he probably wouldn’t have said those things so many times throughout his books, because he would have experienced a more intense negative reaction that his references to women are receiving now. I find it hard even to read to my wife, because it seems like there's a reference to women every ten or twenty pages that offends her feminine sensibilities.

Preaching means being sensitive to the culture you’re preaching in.

In the early 80’s, my father came to New Vrindaban, and was also upset with the way we relegated women. In the temple, the women were in the back, and the men were in front. He went and stood in the back with them, in protest. The women wondered why he was back there, but he thought he was nice. Then, I thought he was making a fool out of himself in front of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. 15 years later, after I had matured a little, I realized that my old man was way ahead of his time. At one point, he confronted our temple president, and said, “Why do you say women are less intelligent? Why do you make them stay in the back of the temple?…” etc. Our president said, “You only say that because you have a mind like a woman.” Clever comeback. My father was of course, very insulted, and rightly so.

Is that good preaching? It may attract some sexist bigots, but it will not appeal to women, or to people like my father who is sympathetic to the civil rights of women. It leads to the kind of rhetoric spouted by conservative woman haters like Rick Santorum, Rush Limbaugh, and Michael Savage. It has not helped out movement, indeed it has turned many intelligent people away.

Here's some of Rick Santorums preaching on the subject of women:

"Santorum's book urges more moms stay home"

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

By Maeve Reston, Post-Gazette National Bureau

WASHINGTON-- Sen. Rick Santorum's bid for re-election in 2006 is already the most closely watched race in Washington and the "never say never" part of his answer to whether he'll run for president in 2008 only keeps those rumors flying.

So not long after his first book, "It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good," hit Washington bookstores over the Fourth of July weekend, his opponents were sifting through the 430 pages at warp speed -- culling controversial passages in which the Pennsylvania Republican criticizes public schools, America's "divorce culture" and argues that more American families should consider whether both parents really need to work.

Many early conversations about the book yesterday on the Internet centered on a section in which Santorum advocates parents spending more time at home with their children -- part of the book's central theme that fostering the traditional family headed by a married man and woman can solve many of society's ills.
"In far too many families with young children, both parents are working, when, if they really took an honest look at the budget, they might find they don't both need to," Santorum writes.

Many women, he adds, have told him that it is more "socially affirming to work outside the home than to give up their careers to take care of their children."
Feminists who demean the work of women who stay at home as primary caregivers, he says, have shaped that ideology.

"What happened in America so that mothers and fathers who leave their children in the care of someone else -- or worse yet, home alone after school between three and six in the afternoon -- find themselves more affirmed by society? Here, we can thank the influence of radical feminism," Santorum writes.

"Sadly the propaganda campaign launched in the 1960s has taken root," said Santorum. "The radical feminists succeeded in undermining the traditional family and convincing women that professional accomplishments are the key to happiness."

Throughout the book, Santorum targets "liberals" who, he says, advocates "no fault freedom" or freedom without responsibility. He aims his fire at entities he calls --"the Bigs" -- a category that includes "big media," "big universities and public schools" and some "big businesses" run by the "liberal elite," who he says shape American life and values in a way that is destructive.

He criticizes policies put forward by a likely 2008 contender Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. -- in part in her book "It Takes a Village" -- stating that they boil "down to little more than feel-good rhetoric masking a radical left agenda."

One example of the consequences of no-fault freedom, he says, is how sexual freedom has resulted in "the debasement of women, mental illness, and an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases, causing infertility cancer, even death."
"Who is he kidding?" asked Joan Williams, a professor at American University Law School and author of "Unbending Gender," a book about family and workplace conflicts."

"If that isn't about mothers, I don't what is," said Williams, who added that Santorum also relates conversations with women who tell him it is more "socially affirming" to go back to work after having children.
"I don't see him quoting men saying they work because it's 'socially affirming,' " she added. "What the senator is saying is that it's best to raise children with one woman who is economically vulnerable and socially isolated."

Here's a couple more hateful gems from Michael Weiner (Savage) and Rush Limpbaugh.

Michael Savage: “Basically if you’re talking about a day like today, Martin Luther King Jr. day, you’ve got to understand what civil rights has become, the con it’s become in this country. It’s a whole industry. It’s a racket. It’s a racket that used to exploit primarily heterosexual white male’s birthright, and steal from then what is their birthright and give it to people who didn’t qualify for it. Take a guess out of whose hide all of these rights are coming. They’re not coming out of women’s hide. No. There’s only one group who’s targeted. They’re coming out of white heterosexual males.

Rush Limbaugh: I have long told you, for example, undeniable truth of life #24, written back in 1987, feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society, and even to this day people pooh-poohed this, and say, “How could you possible say something like this.” Well, because I mean it. Because I believe there’s something to it.

It is exactly these types of misogynistic bigots that inspired John and Yoko to write this song. Get out your guitar and enjoy.

Women is the Nigger of the World
By:John Lennon/Yoko Ono
E G# C#m E A A7 E (intro)

(E)Woman is the (G#)nigger of the (C#m)world(E)
(A)Yes she is(A7)...(E)think about it

Women is the nigger of the world
Think about it...do something about it.


(F#m)We make her paint her face and (D)dance
(A)If she won't be a slave, we say that she don't (E)love us
(F#m)If she's real, we say she's trying to be a (D)man
(G)While putting her down we pretend that she's (B)above us

Women is the nigger of the world...yes she is
If you don't believe me, take a look at the one you're with

Women is the slave of the slaves
Ah yeh...better scream about it.

We make her bear and raise our children
And then we leave her flat for being a fat old mother hen
We tell her home is the only place she should be
Then we complain that she's too unworldly to be our friend

Woman is the nigger of the world...yes she is
If you don't believe me, take a look at the one your with
Women is the slave to the slaves
yeh...think about it

We insult her every day on TV
And wonder why she has no guts or confidence
When she's young we kill her will to be free
While telling her not to be so smart we put her down for being so dumb

Woman is the nigger of the world
Yes she is...if you don't believe me, take a look at the one your with

Women is the slave to the slaves
Yes she is...if you believe me, you better scream about it.

(F#M)We make her paint her face and (D)dance. (repeat over and over again)

Women are discriminated enough in this country. Vedic culture is sublime, but devotees don't need to twist it with fundamentalist, conservative, archaic, sexist, classist rhetoric. That is dangerous to society, and harmful to Srila Prabhupada's movement.

shick said...

Bhakta Corey, I know you like to lump all liberals together, and to infer that we are crazy conspiracy theorists who believe that George Bush blew up the world trade towers. How does that apply to me? The fact is that we don’t know what happened on 9/11. But there is enough damning evidence there that you don’t even need to produce a conspiracy. This will all come out in time now that Democrats have subpoena power. Anyway, this back forth commenting is getting a little boring, because you keep repeating yourself with Republican talking points, and taking Prabhupada quotes out of context (according to a senior Prabhupada disciple who I read your screed to. He also said the whole thing was difficult to listen to.)

Prabhupada used to ask, “Who is Crazy?” We can both play the game of calling each other crazy. But it won’t get us anywhere, because there are crazy people all through the spectrum of humanity.

Conservatives show crazy behavior as well. I used to be a Bhaktipada disciple. I think his authoritative fundamentalist mentality pushed him over the edge.

Jenneane Garafalo on Air America Radio, summarized an article that appeared in the bulletin put out by The American Psychological Association, Volume 129, May 2003, called "Political Conservatism As Motivated Social Cognition" by John Jost.


As I listened, I was shocked to realize that my spiritual master now has all the personality symptoms of a conservative! He was not always like this. He is now a different man. I don't know caused this change. Perhaps the head injury, or the decade he spent in prison, I don't know.

Here is a transcription of that broadcast:

Jenneane Garafalo: He talks about politics and psychopathy, and "Rapture Rightists", fundamentalists of any kind. It integrates theories of personality. Authoritarianism, intolerance, and intolerance of ambiguity. These people have to have the rules rigidly enforced for themselves and for others. They also have emotional needs of closure, regulatory force, and management. They also have ideological rationalization needs. They need to have social dominance, and justification for their system of belief. So, it's not just a religion. It's not just a club you join. It's a psychological need and dysfunction.

Sam Sedar: And it's on a mass scale. Frankly I think it does a disservice to Christians everywhere to call this a religion. These are cultists.

Jenneane Garafalo: And it says here there is a big problem with threat, low self-esteem, and the core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change. They see culture as a static force. It should not change. They are frightened. It's fear based psychosis.

Sam Sedar: And frankly, it's not a question of not wanting to change culture for them. They want to go back to a time that it never existed.

Jenneane Garafalo: And also the United States is #1 in psychological disorders! Thanks to the American Medical Association, June 2004. USA! Number One!

Jost says in his paper about Political Conservatism: We have reviewed several theories of individual differences, epistemic and existential needs, and individual and collective rationalization to arrive at eight specific hypotheses concerning the motivated social–cognitive bases of political conservatism. In what follows, we consider evidence for and against the hypotheses that political conservatism is significantly associated with (1) mental rigidity and closed-mindedness, including (a) increased dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity, (b) decreased cognitive complexity, (c) decreased openness to experience, (d) uncertainty avoidance, (e) personal needs for order and structure, and (f) need for cognitive closure; (2) lowered self-esteem; (3) fear, anger, and aggression; (4) pessimism, disgust, and contempt; (5) loss prevention; (6) fear of death; (7) threat arising from social and economic deprivation; and (8) threat to the stability of the social system.

I think it’s wonderful that you are distributing books. I distribute books as well. I go out with a brochure called Give Peace A Chance (a shortened version of my other blog thepeaceformula.blogspot.com) that talks about how Prabhupada passed out “The Peace Formula” at the UN building in 1965. (He must be another one of those crazy “leeberals”) I mention how he met with John Lennon and George Harrison (more commie pinko liberals) and talked about inner and world peace.

Here’s how I approach people. I give them a peace flag sticker, and tell them that we ask them to place it on their forehead for I.D. purposes. I say that’s because there are a lot of Canadians and you’ve got to be careful of them, eh? They get the joke, I give them the brochure, talk about John and George. If they give anything, it’s great, but if they give $5, they get Chant and Be Happy. If they give ten, they also get a CD of the conversation as well and a WTF “W” sticker. A part of the proceeds go to Moveon.org campaign to put and advertisement in major newspapers that says, “If you liked the war in Iraq, you’ll love the war in Iran.” I also invite them to my progressive film screenings where I feed them gourmet veggie prasadam treats, talk about interfaith coexistence, and have congregational “mantra meditation for peace,” with Sufi, Vaisnava, and Buddhist chants.

Progressive religious leaders know the positive and healing role of religion. They seek to advance rights, not restrict them, heal divisions, not attempt to profit from them, make our society more, not less inclusive, and advance mutual respect and cooperation among people who are different from each other.

You have no business attacking people like that and labeling them as this or that political persuasion. The fact is that you are not very well informed and politically immature. You should stay out of politics and stick to distributing books. That is the end of this discussion, because I can see that I am getting nowhere with you; probably doing more harm than good.

Anonymous said...

"the worldly people generally cherish doubleness of heart or duplicity, speaking out one thing abroad and concealing a different thing inside. and the funny part of it is that they are anxious to present this doubleness of their heart to the public as liberality or the virtue of conciliation. these double tongued men give to the creeds of persons, who are candid and do not adopt duplicity themselves, the designations of sectarianism, bigotry, etc. but we should associate with those who are candid, and not with the others."
Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati,
Sri Caitanya's Teachings, p. 211

shick said...

Thank you for the Bhaktisiddhanta quote. I will use it here and in the future. He used two significant words in this connection: "candid" and "duplicitous". Candid refers to those who tell the truth. Duplicitous refers to liars, those who distort the truth and try to pass themselves off for someone they are not. In psychology, it's called "projection".

11. Psychology. a. The tendency to ascribe to another person feelings, thoughts, or attitudes present in oneself, or to regard external reality as embodying such feelings, thoughts, etc., in some way.

They attribute evil characteristics in themselves to their enemies, while at the same time pretending to be liberal, or good. For example, Bush describing himself as a "compassionate conservative". Bush describes the evil terrorists, and he's actually describing himself. Whatever he promotes as good for the country actually destroys the country.

On April 11, NBC News announced that it was dropping MSNBC's simulcast of Imus in the Morning in the wake of the controversy that erupted over host Don Imus' reference to the Rutgers University women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos." The following day, CBS president and CEO Leslie Moonves announced that CBS has fired Imus and would cease broadcasting his radio show. But as Media Matters for America has extensively documented, bigotry and hate speech targeting, among other characteristics, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and ethnicity continue to permeate the airwaves through personalities such as Glenn Beck, Neal Boortz, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Smerconish, John Gibson, and Michael Savage.

Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati mentioned the tendency of duplicitous persons to use bigotry and sectarianism.

Although I don’t think Imus is a bigot - he was just trying to be funny using his retarded frat boy “humor” that he's been using his whole career. The above-mentioned talking heads, however, are real bigots.

I was willing to cut Imus a break, if he had a real discussion about the controversy, but when he stupidly blamed the black rappers for using the word “hos”, it’s another classic example of projection. I hope his firing of becomes n example to these real bigots. The hate speech has got to go. The people are not standing for it anymore. The people are saying that we will no longer allow hate speech to be used in partisan politics. Of course, the only color mass media understands is green. That’s really why Imus was fired.

There needs to be a real discussion of bigotry in this country, and the intentions of the hate-mongering mysogynistic homophobes like Michael Savage that Bhakta Corey reverentially quoted a couple of comments ago to bolster his mindless contrarion Republican talking points have to be exposed, so that they will stop misleading and corrupting innocent people like him. I have encouraged him to get out of the cesspool of Republican politics and just distribute books because I care about him. The talking points are polluting his mind. Even devotees are dumbed down by this propaganda. I have seen it with many of my devotee friends. This is not a game. These memes (ideological viruses of hatred combined with religous and political partisanship) are infecting and killing the good qualities of so many people.

Media execs hire people like Savage, because they see the short-term boost in ratings, but they don’t care about the long term effects on humanity at large.

Sycophants like Paula Zahn may say, like she did a couple nights ago, that liberals like Randy Rhodes of Air America Radio are doing the same thing, by quoting Rhodes' comment about how Bush hates Americans, but that is a real example of Bush's behavior. Randy is a principled moral person who doesn't judge people on hatred, but rather on their intention and behavior.

Was Bush being "compassionate" by thinking that as we were being attacked, the best use of his time was sitting in a classroom reading "My Pet Goat" to second graders? Was he being compassionate by staying on vacation while thousands drowned in Katrina? In the Katrina telethon, Kanye West said, "George Bush doesn't care about black people." I would go further and say he doesn't care about ANYBODY other than his base, who he defines as the "Have's and the Have Mores." His mother said the victims of Katrina were "better off" (in the Houston sports arena) because "they were poor anyway”. What a racist, classist pig! Is it any surprise that a person like George Jr. came out of her feted womb?

Here are some examples of some memes that these cretins are spewing into the airwaves.

Savage said he "agree[d] 100 percent" with a caller who said that gay rabbis would likely "rap[e] teenage boys"

Citing more sex-change operations, increased lesbian fertility clinics, Savage said of 9-11: "That was God speaking"

Further, on the March 28 broadcast of Michael Savage's nationally syndicated radio show, a caller asked if the British troops were given Bibles upon their capture. In response, Savage said: "I don't think these people need a Bible. They probably need a condom," adding, "By look of the British sailors, they look like they took them off the back streets of Liverpool." Savage went on to say that they were "lucky they found a job in the navy. I mean, I don't know. You take a look at them -- no wonder they were captured. I don't think they even know they were on a boat":

CALLER: And, you know, all these groups, you know, that are worried about whether the terrorists at Gitmo have a dinner mint on their pillow at night. Are these sailors getting culturally correct meals? Do they have a Bible? You know, where are these people asking these questions now?

SAVAGE: I don't think these people need a Bible. They probably need a condom. By the look of the British sailors, they look like they took them off the back streets of Liverpool. Thank you for the call. I don't think these people need a Bible. They're lucky they found a job in the navy. I mean, I don't know. You take a look at them -- no wonder they were captured. I don't think they even know they were on a boat.

Savage said gays are "doing these despicable acts to each other" and Sen. Boxer, a "loud-mouthed, foul-tempered" woman "bossing men around"

Savage called transgender murder victim a "psychopath" and a "freak"

Savage on "double-talking slut" Barbara Walters: "[T]he woman is vermin"

Savage on Sawyer: a "lying whore" who "in essence, is agreeing that the Holocaust didn't occur"

Savage on gay marriage, parenting: "It makes me want to puke. ... I think it's child abuse"

"What's good is bad,
What’s bad is good,
You’ll find out when you reach the top
You're on the bottom. -Dylan

Every thing they say is full of duplicity. Every lie forces them to tell another lie, and another, and another. Therefore they become compulsory liars, and it takes years of investigations and subpoenas into such things as Plame-gate to get to the obfuscated truth. On the other hand, it only takes a minute to be “candid”, and tell the truth.

Republicans accused the Kerry of being a "flip-flopper", who at first voted for appropriations for the war on the condition that Bush go again to the U.N. if conditions weren't met. The conditions WERE met - they didn't find the WMD's, but Bush pre-emptively struck Iraq without going back to the U.N. So Kerry, for good reason, "flipped" and voted against appropriations. Bush said Saddam kicked the inspectors out, but when he said it, they were show in Iraq on the TV. Bush is the one who ejected the inspectors from Iraq, just before he started "Shock and Awe". That is just another example of Republicans duplicity and projection of their own behavior.

Republicans have shown, by their own behavior, that they are the biggest flip-floppers and duplicitous liars.
FLIP: culture of life
FLOP: culture of death

FLIP: war as a last resort
FLOP: pre-emptive war

FLIP: no child left behind
FLOP: no child's behind left

FLIP: "The Clear Skies Act"
FLOP: fills our skies with pollution

FLIP: media information
FLOP: is media misinformation.

FLIP: religion
FLOP: is irreligion - meant to divide people with wedge issues, fear, and hate.

Up is down. Everything is it’s own opposite:
-A botched war is:
OPPOSITE a good re-election issue for the people who started it (although not so much now, because most people are beginning to grow tired of the rhetoric of these chicken-hawks)

-Money only flows from the rich to the poor
OPPOSITE instead of people who spend money, to the people who have money

-The greatest threat to marriage is when gay people get married
OPPOSITE rather than when other people do not

-The White house protects us
OPPOSITE by blowing a CIA operation

-Fiscal conservatism
OPPOSITE means that the government spends more

Republicans strongest argument for the ‘08 elections is that Democrats want to "cut and run."
But the are hypocrites, because they have:

CUT the funds for the strengthening of the levees and then
RUN from the responsibility for their breaking.

CUT the taxes for the rich, and
RUN up the deficit to maximum proportions.

CUT school funds and
RUN from their failed schools.

CUT the funds for the troops and
RUN from the responsibility for the 3000 dead and 40,000 wounded.

"That understanding which considers irreligion to be religion and religion to be irreligion, under the spell of illusion and darkness, and strives always in the wrong direction, O Partha, is in the mode of ignorance."

Bhagavad-gita 18.32