BBC Blog Network

User Profile

dianaatkin

Listed below are comments made by dianaatkin between Friday, 10th July 2009 and Saturday, 24th October 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Does Obama blame Britain? 6:12pm on 24 Oct 2009 It's a tragedy the Blair government toadied along with the Bush regime & invaded Iraq. However, post 911 it was Bush's 'you're either with us or against us' that was the subtext. Under such a sub-text you can bet, your bottom dollar, strong-arm tactics ensued.

The 'special relationship' still existed; GB had not paid off to the US the WWII debt. Now, might we suppose there's even more of a subtext to Blair joining forces with Bush? There's, to my mind, always been a feeling of blood money involved. The question is, what was the real deal? To suppose that countries up and join forces for no thing is asinine. There's always an incentive and I doubt whether we'll ever know what was actually placed on the table. This was the illegal invasion of Iraq not Afghanistan. So now apparently we're all champing at the bit for US leadership in Afghanistan? When they should have concentrated on this in the first place? I well understand US hesitancy now... Because they're several years behind the ballgame now in Afghanistan. If Bush had focused on this what would be the effects now?
Wake-up call for world peace 6:06pm on 09 Oct 2009 Here's the problem. While Obama has amost worthwhile vision, there is the republican cabalist/think tank/militarist/industrial complex dark side of the US to contend with. It is extremely powerful and will never surrender itself to the the world unless and until global power shifts and there comes a new 'balance'.

When Ike Eisenhower gave his thank you & good night speech warning about militarism and the industrial complex let's suppose for a moment, this was actually a green light code for a go ahead to create all mentioned in this speech. The mind-set then in the 50s would have had it no other way. It springs to mind the dislike between Eisenhower and JJK. Eisenhower referred to JFK as 'little boy blue' with all its idealistic and impractical connotations, and JFK referred to Eisenhower in more graphic terms referring to his aged nether regions. The Eisenhower speech is on the internet for all to read - and it has transpired.

Now, has anything changed? We have a similar situation. Obama playing an idealistic round table player with the constant threat of diehard neo-con republicans utilising religious & nationalistic avenues to maintain this ever-powerful thread that continues to run throughout the US. It's to a certain extent in the gene pool of US history when immigrants landed, the hardiest staked their claims and wanted no local or foreign interference. I sincerely hope that Obama shall accomplish good and within a mere 2 terms but the ugly beast may rise again.
Space, youth and hope 6:57pm on 29 Jul 2009 6. At 1:25pm on 24 Jul 2009, David_Cunard wrote: (See post)

---
Thanks for that David. I did try and say the same thing but got blasted by the Beeb team a while back and had to apologise by email to them.

It's not that Justin isn't a nice guy etc it's just that as you say, some real reporting from all of the US wouldn't have been amiss. A bit from Washington DC etc didn't cut the mustard. Wish you well Justin you're camera friendly.
Too European? 5:47pm on 29 Jul 2009 498. At 11:58pm on 28 Jul 2009, Hesiodos wrote:
Diana 434, Excellent thesis.

---
Thanks. One additional point; who's to say the ancient writers or channellers (I say this because Adam & Eve is a potent prophecy and the sword still hangs over us) didn't have a sense of humour! At the point that Eve led by example in offering equality to Adam by sharing her knowledge of the tree of life (could this be a clue to ancients respecting that perhaps woman was the first of the species?) and of good and evil, it was, crucially, a test to Adam. He failed miserably and accepted the 'fruit' instantly without remembering a direct order from God. Pity really, but God works in mysterious ways. Now that God's case for not allowing Adam near the tree has been proven (we're still at war et al) perhaps Earth's vibration may begin to balance out in favour of the feminine approach to global affairs. You never know it may happen!
Too European? 7:50pm on 28 Jul 2009 433. At 5:50pm on 28 Jul 2009, shawnbb wrote:
dianaatkin whined: "I should imagine those weird polygamy sects with huge privately owned land camps in the US are, er, 'brutally vivacious' (love the outfits) - where else but America. Americans can learn things from Europeans, they just don't want to. If they do 'learn things' it gets monkeyed around with US style and turned into an inferior version. In all the time I lived in the US I could never find a true Italian Bolognese sauce in Italian restaurants."
________________________

Oh, grow up Diana. You are only exposing your own inferiority complex vis-a-vis America. I have never had a true, decent burrito in Europe. Does that mean all of Europe is a cultural wasteland? Apparently so.

A great deal of the world's cultural, scientific, medical and artistic achievements over the past couple hundreds of years has come from America. You're welcome, by the way. Thanks for reminding me why I prefer living in America.

---

Hardly a 'whine', merely a comment. I beg to differ, I was not exposing my inferiority complex at all. Quite the reverse in fact. And, it is more than equal to your superiority complex.
Too European? 5:59pm on 28 Jul 2009 364. At 05:32am on 28 Jul 2009, maria-ashot wrote:

..."Reverence for the Bible does not require that all parts of Holy Scripture are given equal weight. For Christians, the New Testament is obviously more relevant than the Old Testament. It is also a great deal closer to us in time.

Most believers of whatever tradition are fully capable of discerning between the elements of Holy Writ that are inextricably bound to the time, climate and society where certain events take place, and the MORAL TEACHINGS, precepts, or theological truths that are revealed within the contextual framework."

I disagree that believers are fully capable of discerning between the elements of Holy Writ etc. because it has to date been a male dominated world which has included the male perception and teaching of the Bible which has influenced the perpetual growth of humankind.

For instance let's take the story of Adam & Even. For eons it was received wisdom that Eve was the first sinner. This effected domination of women and the elevation of man's perception of himself as entitled to do so.

However, if one looks closely at the King James version of the story, nowhere does it say that God spoke to both Adam AND Eve regarding not taking from the tree of knowledge and of good and evil. Such knowledge is a good thing is it not. It does, in fact, make one wise and well able to run things in a better informed fashion than if one were ignorant.

God told Adam definitely not to go near the tree. Eve came along in the story after this. Adam in his ignorance which has permeated men's thinking assumed he created Eve from one of his ribs. So, why has everyone assumed the serpent was a bad creature? Could God not have had more knowledge about Adam than Adam did? Could not the serpent have been sent by God for Eve and that in God's eyes Eve would have been the better choice for Mother Earth running the show? Eve demonstrated something that men have failed to do down through the ages. She offered Adam equality by sharing the fruit with him. Historically I perceive this as her mistake but the gesture was there. God comes along and says, "Eve what have you done?" God knew better. And indeed we've been in a certain hell on earth 'ever since'. Think deeply how if this story had played out correctly in its interpretation how perhaps women could have played an equal part in running the world show. But oh no, men were unable to read the text with a legal brain and instead shunted their own sin onto Eve. I don't think Adam has ever really apologised to the world or God. His 'knowledge' has perpetuated most definitely a knowledge, and particularly of good and evil yet it has never conquered evil. Adam & Eve was probably the first women's lib story that has been surpressed by men.

Personally I think Eve was the first entity joined in a single cell with Adam. When he impregnated her she cut him loose and became the real future of the world, with, in fact a more superior body - it sustains life, Adam's only gives to the process and you only needed a few go's at it to start the whole she-bang... I mean, it's only recently that Eve being the first sinner has exited public consciousness but its manifestation has not.
Too European? 5:30pm on 28 Jul 2009 "...Americans can learn things from Europeans but the essence of America - even if it involves weird notions of Biblical denial of women's rights - is somehow more brutally vivacious than the jaded options over the Atlantic..."

I should imagine those weird polygamy sects with huge privately owned land camps in the US are, er, 'brutally vivacious' (love the outfits) - where else but America. Americans can learn things from Europeans, they just don't want to. If they do 'learn things' it gets monkeyed around with US style and turned into an inferior version.

In all the time I lived in the US I could never find a true Italian Bolognese sauce in Italian restaurants. It was just too tomato-ey for words. No wonder Dorothy had a nightmare in Kansas and went off on the yellow brick road to find a wizard to fix everything...
Why America deserves three cheers 9:18pm on 19 Jul 2009 "...though I think he and almost all other commentators on America fail to make the really difficult link between the God-awful screw-ups (Iraq etc) and the staggering ability of the place to revivify and refresh and keep pulling the world in the right(ish) direction.

The whole point of America is that you CAN fail. Really badly. And America itself does, regularly. But the failure - the harshness and the unfairness and the ugliness of much of American life - is what drives the place ever forward..."

And why is that? Because they won the nuclear arms race, came out of WWII with pounds sterling converted into the US$ dollar standard for the world, they bankrupted the UK and got all the gold from South Africa. Prior to WWII they had substantial investments in Germany (Farben etc), were making a killing on WWI war reparations while Churchill paid his to the US, the US then transferred the operational payment structure of war reparations to Switzerland headed by a US citizen. This continued during WWII. So in effect the 'screw-ups' have been the moralising attituded of the US definition of democracy and how it has been played out by them globally since WWII. US bases circle the globe. US companies and foreign ownership is everywhere. The UK only last year paid off their WWII debt - can you conceive how humungous it was? And why? I can only presume that Churchill went down on bended knee when Japan decided to act in the Pacific to force the US into WWII.

If anyone's interested read Webster's dictionary of American History c.70s. It's one invasion after another since the war of independence - they even landed on Russian soil in the 1800s!

The ability to 'revivify' (revive) has not necessarily pulled the world in the 'right-ish' direction unless you count GW Bush who was extremely hard-right. One super-power in the world doesn't do it for me. It must now be about global balances & checks. And the buck doesn't stop at the desk of the Oval Office but with the entire world.
'Obama is a Quaker' 7:41pm on 11 Jul 2009 389. At 02:23am on 11 Jul 2009, Hesiodos wrote:
Dians,

"Just for the record, the reverend was postulating that 911 was a result of the US's 'past' 'sinning' actions, but in a churchified setting it does no good and just whips people up. It was a political comment in a religious sphere which put simply is magnified in the war between (italics) terror"
I hear what you're saying, but I have listened/watched a number of Rev Wright's sermons, and I don't feel a church is an inappropriate venue for 'sermonising' or ethical/philosophical questioning.

If you haven't experienced a "Black" Church, that is an omission to be rectified.

Respect, and Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Peace
Hesiodos

Hi Hesiodos, I hear what you're saying as well, and in fact, why not ask philosophical questions such as Rev. Wright did. He was exceptionally brave and brutally honest to do it. The only problem is that it was a directive and eek!could it have been a valid one at that? But with a political statement it needs to become a forum for question & answer and education. My guess is that the Reverend does educate himself politically, and spiritually felt the point was well worth making.

I'm sure experiencing a 'black' church would be so very interesting, the bit I'd be excited about would be the gospel singing & choir - you just can't beat it unless you equal it with hymns like Jerusalem. or Handel's Messiah. (I'm British) I just don't like being preached to as I'm against indoctrination and prefer people to be taught to think laterally and for themselves.
Diana
'Obama is a Quaker' 5:44pm on 10 Jul 2009 371. At 2:16pm on 10 Jul 2009, AmericanGrizzly wrote:
"I didn't say that Obama doesn't believe in God." dianaatkin
Thank you for taking the time to clarify. diana
You didn't even have to attack me, LOL! My belief is just be honest. Don't sell out just to get elected. Now to shop for a church, because your Rev is a racist, just what took Obama so long? To detach himself from a church that obviously had this type of person is what bothers me?? I would like to see Obama's pc answer on that one. Because if he was white, he wouldn't have been elected. Double standard there.

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

As I said, large groups operating at low levels because of the people that lead them could refer to the rantings and ravings of the pastor that was featured in all the hoo-haa during Obama's election campaign. Just for the record, the reverend was postulating that 911 was a result of the US's 'past' 'sinning' actions, but in a churchified setting it does no good and just whips people up. It was a political comment in a religious sphere which put simply is magnified in the war between (italics) terror. Al Qaeda et al use religion for their terrorist causes and the 'white west' has an inherent subconscious Christian conquering imperialist gene pool.

If you're bothered that Obama detached himself from your above-mentioned church, what bothers me is that such an intelligent man was in it in the first place. It clearly was a predominantly black church, but so what, it's the tone of uneducated preaching that is so dangerous (again low level leading to low level groups). Politicians must divorce themselves entirely from one faith (which would stop huge fundraising from self-important religious groups to get their candidate in) and merely defend the right to worship. Quite frankly if I were God I'd ask the question: do they worship Me or their fellow men they've raised into deities with their own written words? To worship only God is a much more difficult thing - you value the art of elemental creation, natural elemental intelligence, you see how small yet connected you are to it and you serve life & humanity on Earth as best you can. The 10 commandments & do unto others are a simple easy way to do this.
Peace & love to you.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

dianaatkin