Author Topic: Political Processes - Can we talk? (Read 125906 times)

Frybabe · « **Reply #120 on:** March 08, 2013, 12:22:05 PM »

This morning I saw an article listed on BBC titled "What if women ruled the world". http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-21661744
The reader comments , as far as I read them, are a bit less enthusiastic than the writer.

Frybabe · « **Reply #121 on:** May 19, 2013, 08:22:58 AM »

I am reading Jon and Rumer Godden's Two Under the Indian Sun. In India during WWI the two pre-teen girls were exposed to both the beauty and horrors of Indian life. In the chapter called "Cain" they describe a situation that involved their favorite, a gatekeeper named Guru.

Guru took in a young woman (not sure whether they actually married) who was pregnant. The young woman was from a family where her father regularly beat her, apparently because she was too pretty. Not only that, but it turned out that the father raped her, which is how she got pregnant. Guru took her away from that while the father was away for several months. Guru was of one caste, while the woman was of another. That in and of itself was a big no-no.

When the father returned, he found his daughter and beat her to death in a fit of rage and jealousy. Guru ran away but was apprehended and sent to prison for seduction, a crime at the time. The newly born baby was taken in by mata rani.

The story is disturbing, especially since this kind of thing continues to this day in parts of the world. The young woman was dead. Guru, who was trying to take her away from an awful home life, was punished. There is no mention if the father was punished. The baby was given to the care of "mata rani".

I cannot figure out who mata rani was. My Google research came up only with the fact that she is a mother goddess. The child lived, so was mata rani her grandmother? A temple nun? The other thing I am puzzled about is whether or not Muslims in India observe a caste system like the Hindus do (or did). I know that some Muslim families participated (and still do) in "honor killings", but what about Hindus? Is this why no mention of the girl's father being punished? The excuse for beating a female child for being too pretty is something I've read in other books/articles regarding family life.

I continue to be bothered by the fact that attitudes and laws regarding women that allow and even encourage such behaviors still exist in the world.

BarbStAubrey · « **Reply #122 on:** May 19, 2013, 12:44:29 PM »

Have you seen the movie 'Water' - rent it and all will be explained - very disturbing - seems mata rani is also a house that young girls as young as 5 and 6 who are married to old men and the old man dies she is brought to live her life out in a house run by a mata rani with all the consequences of the birth of the child in the story you just read. I have been staying away from all these novels from that part of the world including Hassan about Afghanistan - too disturbing with no way to making a difference.

Frybabe · « **Reply #123 on:** May 19, 2013, 02:47:30 PM »

Thanks, Barb, I'll look into the movie.

Two Under the Indian Sun is a memoir of sorts, not a novel, making it all the more disturbing. The Godden girls got their eyes wakened up to such things early on. I believe the eldest was only 10 or 12 when they were sent to India during WWI; Jon was eight and Rumer was seven. They were there five years before being sent back to England to finish their schooling. The whole family seems to have spent much of their lives in India, sometimes going back to England for a period of time.

Frybabe · « **Reply #124 on:** May 19, 2013, 03:02:06 PM »

I just looked up Water. It is the third of a film trilogy. The first, Fire, includes arranged marriages and homosexuality. The second, Earth, revolves around a girl with polio, the story being told by her.

BarbStAubrey · « **Reply #125 on:** May 19, 2013, 10:49:04 PM »

hmm just looked at the case and it says nothing about being a part of a trilogy - I am speaking of the Deepa Mehta Film Water with Lisa Ray and John Araham and Seema Biswas- she had to finish part of the film without the background since they kicked her out of India - the film was finally finished and released in 2006 - OK found it - she did Fire and Earth earlier but they must all be stand alone because there was no hint that Water had been preceded by other connected stories.

http://www.amazon.com/Water-Lisa-Ray/dp/B000GIXE86/ref=sr_1_2?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1369018084&sr=1-2&keywords=water

Frybabe · « **Reply #126 on:** May 20, 2013, 07:33:27 AM »

I thought so too Barb. Wikipedia called them the Elements trilogy, Water being the last. Hmmmm, there are four elements. What happened to Wind? I wonder if Deepa Mehta is still persona non gratia in India.

Frybabe · « **Reply #127 on:** June 19, 2013, 08:14:00 AM »

Here is an unexpected by of news from BBC. I didn't know that women were allowed in the Afghan military, let alone pilot a helicopter. Will this continue once the US/UN presence is gone?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22943454

mogamom · « **Reply #128 on:** July 07, 2013, 10:07:29 PM »

Happy (belated) Independence Day!

Some recent Rasmussen polls to ponder:

“Saturday, July 06, 2013
Americans still share the values enshrined in the Declaration of Independence 237 years ago and remain wary of too much government. It’s clear, too, that many aren’t happy with the government they’ve got.

Eighty-one percent (81%) believe “all men are created equal.” Ninety-two percent (92%) agree that all men are “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Seventy-two percent (72%) believe “governments derive their only just powers from the consent of the governed.”

But just 25% of voters think the federal government today has that consent.

More Americans than ever (63%) think a government that is too powerful is a bigger danger in the world today than one that is not powerful enough.

Thirty-eight percent (38%) believe the U.S. Constitution doesn’t put enough restrictions on what government can do. Still, 56% think the foundational document shouldn’t be tampered with, and another 33% believe it needs only minor changing.

Just 47% now believe the United States is a nation with liberty and justice for all, the lowest level measured in six years. Still, 77% say if they could live anywhere in the world, it would be the United States. “

Perhaps, fundamentally, we are not so divided after all.

kidsal · « **Reply #129 on:** July 14, 2013, 08:15:44 AM »

Believe women are allowed in the Afghan military because women only would be allowed to search other women. Good for them they have a woman pilot. Listened to a TV show the other day that said the US was having trouble training pilots for the Afghan Air Force. Finding people to maintain aircraft is probably a larger problem due to the illiteracy.

Frybabe · « **Reply #130 on:** August 16, 2013, 08:18:54 AM »

http://shine.yahoo.com/work-money/iranian-politician-deemed-too-pretty-to-hold-office-181459345.html

Gee what a surprise.

JeanneP · « **Reply #131 on:** August 31, 2013, 04:39:05 PM »

In the north of England were many from India settled they are finding things going on the old way still. Some Hindu there but mostly Muslims. Many daughters harmed. Some dying for going against their ways. One burned and they did just because she was found with a British boy. Seems they have their own way of handling the guilty parties. Although at this time I believe in the area I am from that 4 Muslims
are being tried in British court for gang raping a English girl.

In my area here in U.S 5 from Mexico have now been caught for the same crime on a white girl. Will see how this turns out. 3 are illegal here.

BarbStAubrey · « **Reply #132 on:** August 31, 2013, 04:46:03 PM »

On the Mexican Nationals you will never know the true story because this is how the underground illegal community do pay back - they report someone who often is a father trying to claim custody of a child knowing the Mother cannot go to the police or the court - and if it gets abusive they simply report the guy as having committed usually a sex crime that is difficult to prove but assures after the trail, guilty or innocent he will be deported back to Mexico.

JeanneP · « **Reply #133 on:** August 31, 2013, 09:24:02 PM »

Now the are saying that 2 of Mexican men are already back in Mexico. It is for sure they did it as enough D and A. The girl is still in a hospital very bad condition.it is known now that she was drinking but have found something had been put in her drink.

marjifay · « **Reply #134 on:** September 01, 2013, 08:36:24 AM »

I am SO DISAPPOINTED with President Obama's wanting to attack Syria. I doubt the rebels who are fighting Assad are any better than Assad. Remember how we helped the Mujahideen fight the Russians in Afghanistan, only to have them turn on us?

Must we attempt to police the entire world? And in the process see our military men and women killed and see a tremendous amount of our tax money spent on war that could be better spent here in the U.S. And undoubtedly the majority of American people will applaud Obama's decision. Altho' there was a very big group that gathered in downtown Los Angeles yesterday to protest an attack on Syria.

Marj

jane · « **Reply #135 on:** September 01, 2013, 09:06:36 AM »

I'm glad it's going to Congress. I think it's past time they be on the record for where they stand. They're supposed to represent us. Let's see if they do.

Frybabe · « **Reply #136 on:** September 01, 2013, 09:30:13 AM »

I really feel bad for the people being injured and killed, but I too am a little leery of jumping in on what is essentially an internal affair. I was long of the opinion that there was a law or something that stated that the US is not to interject itself into the internal affairs of other countries. George told me no, it is not law but was a foreign policy. I say was, because that no longer seems to hold true.

In all fairness to Obama, I think the UK and France came out for a military strike before Obama said anything publicly. The UK has since backed off after a Parliamentary vote against it. Obama should not be circumventing Congress on this matter.

What bothers me most is the growing use of Executive Orders to circumvent having to go through Congress. Obama is not the only one to do this. I think its use has been growing over the last few presidencies. Obama's use of EO's has been highly visible, if not excessive. The balance between the three branches seems to be way out of whack and getting worse. Congress needs to get its act together and take back its responsibilities to its constituents and the country. I am also concerned that the Supreme Court may be becoming more and more politicized rather than voting on a strictly constitutional basis.

Jane, I was typing when you posted. I haven't checked the news yet this morning. Does your comment mean he is actually going to let Congress try and do its job?

jane · « **Reply #137 on:** September 01, 2013, 09:38:13 AM »

That's what I understand. It'll come before them Sept. 9 when they back from vacation.

Jane

Frybabe · « **Reply #138 on:** September 01, 2013, 10:17:14 AM »

Thanks, Jane. I checked quick and saw that Assad and his bunch are gloating bigtime calling it the beginning of the American retreat. I don't think so, just cautious.

marjifay · « **Reply #139 on:** September 01, 2013, 11:02:23 AM »

Frybabe wrote, " I am also concerned that the Supreme Court may be becoming more and more politicized rather than voting on a strictly constitutional basis."

I think the Supreme Court has always been political. They interpret the Constitution according to their political beliefs.

Marj

jane · « **Reply #140 on:** September 01, 2013, 11:20:11 AM »

Right...hence, the "litmus" test I keep hearing the Congress people use when confirmation hearings are underway to appoint someone. They want impartial and according to the Constitution...as long as that "impartial and fair and according to the Constitution" fits the beliefs of the Congressperson. AAACCKKK!!

marjifay · « **Reply #141 on:** September 01, 2013, 01:24:29 PM »

Absodefinitely, Jane!

Marj

marjifay · « **Reply #142 on:** September 01, 2013, 01:50:55 PM »

For anyone interested in politics, you might want to watch CSpan's BookTV. The in-depth interview today is with Ben Shapiro, a young conservative. It's on right now until Noon, Pacific Time, and will air again tonight at 9 pm Pacific Time. Smart, very interesting young man who entered college (UCLA) at age 16 and went on to Harvard Law School. Altho' I'm a liberal Democrat, I might try one or more of the five books he's written:

BRAINWASHED; HOW UNIVERSITIES INDOCTRINATE AMERICA'S YOUTH;

PROJECT PRESIDENT; BAD HAIR AND BOTOX; ON THE ROAD TO THE WHITE HOUSE;

PRIMETIME PROPOGANDA; THE TRUE HOLLYWOOD STORY OF HOW THE LEFT TOOK OVER YOUR TV (and a couple other books)

Marj

maryz · « **Reply #143 on:** September 01, 2013, 11:42:59 PM »

Exactly right, jane - Obama definitely needs to get Congress to agree on whatever winds up happening.

BarbStAubrey · « **Reply #144 on:** September 01, 2013, 11:58:16 PM »

Unfortunately I think Assad is right - Congress will dither and nothing will happen - Assad has us by the short hairs because the idea of his acting with impunity versus we getting dragged into yet another war in the Middle East where all we end up doing is fighting for what ever side we choose and they sit back and take the free gift that allows them to keep this 1000 year conflict alive which they have done a good job of baiting and blaming American - sheesh.

Frybabe · « **Reply #145 on:** September 02, 2013, 07:33:25 AM »

One of the things that Obama and Congress need to take into consideration is what Russia will do. As an ally of Syria, will they strike back? However stopping a country, any country, from using chemical warfare is extremely important. Allowing that tactic to continue will embolden those so inclined to follow suit with less fear of retaliation.

Although the President didn't formally call members of Congress back, I see that a number of them have headed back to DC. Good for them.

mogamom · « **Reply #146 on:** September 02, 2013, 10:54:48 AM »

I think Obama only decided to go to Congress when UK Paliament voted to not support their Prime Minister - I think he backe himself into a corner with rhetoric and needs a way out. At any rate, he has usurped the power of Congress so many times it is good to see him slowing down and going through the proper process. I do wish he'd do the same on the new Health Care Law that he has arbitrarily made many major changes to without Congress - clearly a violation of the Separation of Powers.

I have these concerns regarding Syria:

I hear the evidence that sarin gas was used from Kerry (and I have little trust in his veracity) but I have not seen the evidence that Assad used the gas; there are allegations that the 'rebels' (the term I keep seeing that includes a predominately Al Qaida group) have been using the gas as well.

These same leaders were against the Iraq war even though Saddam gassed his own people - why was that not a concern then? A group of Iraqi women begged Bush to help their country, a country in which they were so utterly abused.

The argument that terrorists will be emboldened by our inaction has often been used to justify our involvement, but the same people who want to launch 'a limited strike' on Syria (but are also asking for 'broad powers') never bought that argument.

Isn't attacking Assad the same as supporting Al Qaida 'rebels'? Which group is worse?

Didn't we learn anything from our involvement in Egypt? Morssi got in (barely) with the agreement that there would be another election after their constitution was agreed upon, then refused to step down. The military stepped in to make him leave - and we're on the side of the Muslim Brotherhood?

All in all I have great compassion, and anxiety, for the people caught between these power plays but I think our responses only show how utterly clueless we are in their on-going struggle of conflicting world-views and interests; it shows in our seeming schizophrenic approach to a foreign policy in the middle east. A struggle I'm not sure there is an answer to - or at least not one that we would want to support or that would in any way in our best interests to do so.

Frybabe · « **Reply #147 on:** September 02, 2013, 11:57:25 AM »

Mogamom, I think chemical/biological weapons were a concern in Iraq. It was a big reason Bush 2 went into Iraq as I recall. They ultimately didn't find much; the intell was apparently faulty. I agree that Kerry did not make his case. He did not give evidence for who used the chemicals, only that they were used. You are right. I also believe that Obama is backing away because the UK backed away. Weren't France and England the ones who brought up military intervention in the first place, before Obama said anything?

mogamom · « **Reply #148 on:** September 02, 2013, 01:05:27 PM »

Frybabe - yes, they were a concern in Iraq as all of our intellegence said they were there; but I never understood the angst when they weren't 'found' as Saddam had already used them on his own people and he certainly had plenty of time to get rid of them? It's not as though he hadn't already proven he could make them and would have no problem using them.

marjifay · « **Reply #149 on:** September 03, 2013, 12:58:24 PM »

Someone at another discussion group said Britain had sold Assad the chemicals used in the deadly gas. He didn't give his source, so I don't know if that is true.

Marj

BarbStAubrey · « **Reply #150 on:** September 03, 2013, 01:23:05 PM »

This whole thing is a mess... there is no good choice - WE only know that Assad is not a good leader from the rebels - he is probably a puppet to his ministers but then he did represent a stable force for all ethnicity trying to run a non-secular government - most of the rebels are Sunni which is what Iran is - now to make the rebels more scary recently they are being labeled al-gaeda - to now switch, as the latest news seems to be saying that Bush went into Iraq because of Saddam using gas on his people we know is not right - it was the Kurds not the Baathist that Saddam gassed and Saddam was a Baathist - the Baathist non-secular form of government originated in Syria and like Assad, he wanting a non-secular government - we may think one united nations but in the Middle East it is usually leaders representing one religious tribe over another -

Those in the Bush administration, probably Cheney was their leader, were looking for any excuse to get into Iraq now documented before 9/11 because they wanted to control the oil - all Arabs have a way of getting others to fight their war - always have among themselves and since Lawrance they have found a way to get the west to fight their wars for them.

Sure Pakistan has the bomb and the so called Arab Spring seem to have let a bunch of lose canons on the landscape as compared to Russia - Muslims make up a fifth of Russia's population and so they cannot afford to do anything but support Assad without a revolt in Russia.

I do think the world wide depression is bringing out the worst in everyone and until we get some gumption and start to rein in the wealthy, who are bigger now than any one nation, they will continue by virtue of the movement of wealth continue to drain the poor and middle class all over the world therefore, it will be a constant upheavel. Why Kerry wants to make an enemy out of Assad I do not know - his New England propriety of right and wrong is getting in the way. The world is grey and gas has been used at least since WWI.

At this point the last I heard it is not even a sure thing that it was Assad who ordered the use of gas - for power I would suspect some of the rebels killing their own to draw the world into their appearance of a desperate fight for justice that I think is nothing more than a power grab.

Frybabe · « **Reply #151 on:** September 03, 2013, 04:19:36 PM »

Mess is probably a bit mild. I heard reports today that Turkey caught rebels trying to cross the border into Syria with Sarin. I don't know how long ago that was. Russia is trying to get info from Turkey to bolster their case for Assad.

marjifay · « **Reply #152 on:** September 04, 2013, 07:34:55 AM »

I watched on CNN, I think was the channel, thousands of Syrians fleeing to Turkey. They are living in a park with no water or other facilities. I guess they get water from a river -- they didn't say. But very sad.

Marj

marjifay · « **Reply #153 on:** September 04, 2013, 07:36:38 AM »

Here are some of the sources the group gave me regarding Britain selling chemicals to Assad used in the deadly gas:

From the U.K. Independent:
(http://www.independ ent.co.uk/ news/uk/politics /revealed- government- let-british- company-export- nerve-gas- chemicals- to-syria- 8793642.html)

From the U.K. Guardian:
(http://www.theguard ian.com/commenti sfree/2013/ sep/02/chemical- export-syria- uk)

Marj

mogamom · « **Reply #154 on:** September 04, 2013, 11:54:32 AM »

"It is human nature that repeats itself, not history." (John Toland, The Rising Sun)
Love your quote, margifay! Couldn't be more true. And I guess we here are at last old enough to recognize it.

salan · « **Reply #155 on:** September 04, 2013, 06:29:44 PM »

I really hope and pray that we do not go to war. When will we ever learn?? We don't seem to solve any problems in the long run and we lose too many of our sons and grandsons. These countries have been warring with each other since the beginning of time and our intervention doesn't seem to make much of a difference except to further resentment toward Americans.
Sally

BarbStAubrey · « **Reply #156 on:** September 04, 2013, 06:44:49 PM »

rah rah agree with you 100%

marjifay · « **Reply #157 on:** September 05, 2013, 08:19:52 AM »

I see where Congress has approved using force against Syria. I'm disappointed, but not surprised.

I can't see the difference between being killed by poison gas, or by being bombed or shot. So why all of a sudden do we have to attack Syria for using gas when they'd killed a lot more people with guns. And when we attack Syria's chemical plant(s), and they go back to using guns, what will we do then? I don't believe it will be limited; one attack leads to another, on and on.

Marj

maryz · « **Reply #158 on:** September 05, 2013, 08:58:17 AM »

Chris Hayes had a great essay last night on his program on MSNBC about why he thought we should not intervene in Syria. Click here to listen or read a transcript.

marjifay · « **Reply #159 on:** September 05, 2013, 12:12:39 PM »

Thanks, MaryZ. That is an interesting explanation by Chris Hayes on why he does not believe we should attack Syria. Especially his reasoning that the only way there could be a negotiated settlement is if Assad and the rebels came to a standstill and neither believed they could win -- and that by our intervening, it keeps the rebels from wanting to negotiate because they would then believe they could win with outside help.

But I don't agree with Hayes that we should consider letting the refugees come to the U.S. to live (around 2 million of them?) I have an idea Sweden will be sorry they are doing that. I do think, though, we could use some of the $millions we would spend on missles/bombs to give supplies to the refugee camps.

Marj

News:

Author Topic: Political Processes - Can we talk? (Read 125906 times)