Not that you would know it from mainstream media coverage, but George W. Bush and John Kerry aren't the only candidates for president in the November election.…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Election 2004 Debate 2: Natalie Davis and Mike Kole - Comments Page 2
Article comments
26 - Zeke Krahlin
In May of 2001 Ms. Davis debated with me about my idea for gays to disrupt church services where homopobic preaching occurs, as a non-violent but effective form of civil disobedience. Yet she insisted that such a form of dissent is indeed an act of violence. I quote:
"...disrupting a worship service IS violent."
This is from the Gaynet mailing list, which was also posted to Usenet. Specs:
From: Ezekiel J. Krahlin
Subject: [GN] Targeting Sacred Spaces
Newsgroup: bit.listserv.gaynet
Date: 2001-05-06 04:24:38 PST
To read the full discussion--which reveals Natalie's penchant for spinelessness re. gay activism--just go to that thread (which I started). The Google link is thus:
http://tinyurl.com/6pkgv
But I have a web site link to that thread, if the lengthy one above doesn't work: go to my personal Usenet database for 2001:
http://www.gay-bible.org/usenet/2001.htm
Then search for "Re: Targeting Sacred Spaces". That's the link; click on it. Please notice that the five threads below that one, also deal with that subject, including Ms. Davis's refusal to decline calling (non-violent) civil disobedience "violent" should it occur on any church-owned property.
In the entire thread, and in later threads, Natalie has dogged me with defining my ideas for aggressive forms of activism as "violent"...none of which really proposed any such notion. My idea of gays stopping services in a churches is certainly not violent in any way. Yet she would choose to define that as violent, yet not define invasion of gay hangouts by homophobes who aggressively terrorize us as violent.
Her simplistic notion is that any "sacred" space that is intentionally invaded by angry activists is a form of violence. Whereas similar invasion of "secular" space is not. She fails to separate religion from the state, and thus grants superiority of the former over the latter.
I believe Natalie is gay or bisexual identified, and attends one of the most popular gay churches, the MCC (Metropolitan Community Church). While very much pro-gay, this church remains in most any other way, very conservative. And in this stodgy old-time conservativeness, tends to actually stifle any ideas gays may have of any form of civil dissent they consider more aggressive than, say, selling pink-iced cupcakes to help fund a Gay-Day trip to Orlando.
[Edited to replace long link]
27 - Zeke Krahlin
Furthermore (after reviewing those threads), Natalie claims Mathatma Gandhi would agree with her. Quote:
"That's what the father of nonviolence, Mohandas K. Gandhi, would say....Gandhi would disagree because of the spiritual violence you would be committing unto the church members."
See for yourselves; it's in the thread I just gave the link to in my first post.
Her hubris doesn't stop there, for later in that same thread, her claim in knowing Gandhi's grandson is used to bolster her twisted point of view. Quote:
"And I know; I've discussed this with Gandhi's grandson, Arun, who studied nonviolence at his grandfather's knee."
If Davis's sophistry passes for a fair representation of her party, the Greens, then I'm afraid I won't be switching from the Dems any time soon.
But the saddest aspect of Natalie's stance is that she sides with the Relgious Right, who'd also define as "violent" any (non-violent) disruption of church services...yet would not define as "violent" any disruption of gay hangouts, even when gays are terrorized by these zealots, and bashed to a bloody pulp, or even murdered. For in their smug position as God-fearing lovers of truth, they do not define gay-bashing as violent, since their God approves of such actions. A God who defines the act of affection between and among homosexuals, as violent, even more violent than the rape and murder of a woman.
28 - Mac Diva
I really don't think this attack on Natalie is on topic, Zeke. Furthermore, you seem to be denying her the right to diversity -- she is both gay and Christian. If you want to explain why you think disrupting worship services to bring attention to discrimination against gays is a good idea, you can post your own blog entry. Note that I am not taking sides on that issue, I just don't think this is the place to assail Natalie in regard to it.
29 - Al Barger
Zeke, not to put too fine a point on it, but you're a big jerk. Disrupting church worship services is basically an ugly brown shirt tactic, and certainly a violation of their rights.
Guess what, oh arbiter of morality: other people have a right to freely associate and worship and express themselves. Who do you think that you are to deny their free assembly, free speech, and free exercise of religion?
Now, I've been around and around with Miss Natalie here at Blogcritics. I've strongly questioned the legitimacy of some of her expressed beliefs. We've got issues.
Nonetheless, I would never in life consider showing up to disrupt her church services, or political rally. The one main thing you have a right to demand of people is that they just leave you alone. Is that too much to ask?
Instead, you think your petty little gay agenda is the most important thing in the universe. You're mad because you're not 100% getting your way politically, so screw everybody else's rights.
Are you mad because priests aren't molesting enough young boys to suit you these days, or what? What is it that is so damned important that you think trumps the Bill of Rights, and people's right to worship their God?
30 - Hal Pawluk
TODAY'S TIP FOR POSTERS:
When you post a long, long, long URL like the one above, it will, as you can see, screw up the display.
To get around that, go to
http://tinyurl.com/
where you can convert it to a "tiny URL" as I did:
http://tinyurl.com/6pkgv
Is that great, or what?
31 - Natalie Davis
Hey Zeke, long time no see. :)
32 - bhw
Al, the Bill of Rights says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," not that US citizens cannot not protest during a religious service. That said, I agree that people should basically be left alone at their places of worship.
Also, here's a tip: homosexuality and pedophilia are not the same thing. Repeat after me: homosexuality and pedophilia are not the same thing.
Now, Zeke, I'm not sure what your point is. Are you expecting people to get upset that Natalie doesn't think people should interrupt religious services to protest what's being taught there? Or that she has spoken with Ghandi's grandson and dares to interpret Ghandi's words?
Wow. You're right. She's just AWFUL.
33 - boomcrashbaby
Zeke, I visitetd your site and while I don't agree with your ideology, I get the impression that it might come from the pain of loss. I don't know.
I support civil disobedience when the cause is just and history has shown us that some of the major advancements in civil rights for minorities have come after civil disobedience. My own personal ideology is that I believe that other methods of awareness have come about that are as effective as civil disobedience, if not moreso, like the internet.
Back in the 60's when Stonewall happened, society was different. The vietnam war was on, people were going through 'peace, love, man', etc. The culture was just different.
There's still a lot of misinformation, violence and discrimination going on, but with the advancements we have made too, people able to come out at a younger age safely (for the most part), gay/straight alliances in schools, gay organizations in corporations or law enforcement for example, etc.
I would favor protesting over disruption, personally. I think in this day and age and culture, it would reach more people.
34 - bhw
Okay, Mike, back to capitalism.
As I said yesterday, I don't think capitalism is inherently good willed. That's because the profit motive trumps all other motives. It's just the nature the beast.
One example is the fact that the US needed to institute labor laws to protect its citizens -- particularly the children and the uneducated -- from being literally abused by its employers. Unfortunately, major US corporations have been moving their factories overseas for quite some time so that they can do the same things they used to do here: they employ people with no such governmental protections. They're willing to put profit over whether or not it's right to use child labor or to pay someone less than $1/day for 12 hours of work in a dank sweatshop.
Your UL example is a good example of self-policing. It would be nice if all industries did the same thing, but they don't. That's why we have the CPSC: if companies didn't make unsafe products, then the agency would not have any business to conduct.
As for the FDA, I think we need it, but I'm willing to admit that I don't know enough to say if the regulations are too strict. I have worked at a major pharmaceutical company, within the manufacturing process, and I'm inclined to think that the regulations aren't too restrictive. I'd need more than my own personal experience, though, to make a firm statement about that.
And as for companies' contempt for consumers [such alliteration!], I see it all the time. Recent example: My credit card company sent me a new card a few weeks ago, with a note saying I needed to call the toll-free number on the card to activate it. My existing card wasn't set to expire for another year, so I wasn't sure why they sent me a new one, but they did.
So I called the number and activated the card. Then the rep. started trying to sell me some fantabulous new balance transfer deal and a few other "special offers." So the real reason the company sent me the new card was to get me to call them so they could try to sell me something I did not want.
They didn't call me, but they got me to call them -- very clever! And fucking annoying and condescending as hell, particularly since I NEVER carry a balance on the card, so transferring another card's balance -- which I also don't have -- wouldn't be a meaningful exercise for me, no matter how low the interest rate. How is that being good willed or showing the respect for the customer?
The credit card industry is just one example of an entire industry that treats its customers like morons. That's not a good characteristic of capitalism, if you ask me. And the reason that attitude exists is because the card companies care [again with the alliteration] about profit above all else, so they are willing to trick their customers into calling for one reason and then trying to sell them something else while they're on the line.
So, I don't share your unconditional love for capitalism. Although I do think that some individual companies are just fine and dandy, I don't trust capitalism, based on history, to run itself in a good willed fashion.
35 - bhw
Maybe I *do* deserve to be treated like a moron:
One example is the fact that the US needed to institute labor laws to protect its citizens -- particularly the children and the uneducated -- from being literally abused by its employers.
Make that their employers.
I'm not going to reread the rest, because I'm sure I'll find more errors.
36 - conti
Laicist-cooperative-economist manifesto:
THE TREE SOCIETYS AND THE FOUR ECONOMIES
show society, information society and knowledge society.
monetary economy, citizenship economy, (non-monetary) smart-gift-blog economy, capitalistic economy
IT'S IMPOSSIBLE A WAR OF KNOWLEDGE!
THE IDEAS PROPERTY ISN'T THE ORIGIN.
37 - Mike Kole
Capitalism is my favored system not because I believe it is flawless, and I likewise do not believe that capitalists are without sin. They are human and humans screw up. What I do believe is that capitalism is the *best* system, despite the flaws.
Tell me what the better alternative is to capitalism. We've had the experiments in capitalism's opposites, in Soviet Russia, in Nazi Germany, in Cuba. Pretty rotten results, don't you think?
Churchill had a wonderful quote about the difference between capitalism and socialism, that went a little like this: The curse of capitalism is the unequal sharing of prosperity. The blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery. The choice is a no-brainer.
What most people really want, if they are honest enough to admit it, is that they want the benefits of capitalism- the products and the services- and they want them to be produced without cost to themselves, while enriching those who didn't produce them.
Take the example of a factory owner, or even a city who is an employer. Using round numbers, consider that the employer has is $10,000/hr. They have 1,000 employees making @$10/hr. That's not a living wage, goes the complaint, and the proposal is to raise the pay to $20/hr. Well, the budget is still $10,000/hr for employees. As the employer, what do you do? If you meet the employee demands and keep all 1,000 workers, you now need $20,000/hr. Where should this money come from? The money tree? No, it has to be made up either in higher prices to the consumer on goods, or if a municipality, on taxes to the citizens. If the market is too tight to survive a significant price increase, or the political climate too negative to survive a tax increase, the employer has to reject the employee demands in order to keep the same number of employees.
The only way to meet the demand and to keep the budget the same is to cut the number of workers.
No matter what, the private or municipal employer is decried as evil, because in that situation under such demands, there are only three choices available, and all of them are bad.
And yes, if the employer is an individual or company, they do have one additional choice that allows them to avoid the headache altogether, which is to move out of the country to find labor that is thrilled to pieces to work for the princely sum of $1/hr.
If you see any other options available, you let me know.
As markets mature, they tighten up, and the profit margins become slimmer and slimmer. Every variable becomes more crucial. Every technology has experienced this phenomenon of boom to drag, from steel, to railroads, to automobiles, to communications, etc. The great boom in technology has already turned into a drag. The cycle is shorter than ever. What the United States has allowed, via capitalism, is the opportunity for new technologies to emerge in ways they couldn't in other countries. Railroads weren't invented here. They were allowed to grow here. Ditto steel and cars. What this country needs to do is learn from the mistakes of Britain (where textiles and steel could have and should have continued to be the world powers had their government not had such stifling protectionism), and allow markets to chase profits. Those companies were not free to chase profits in their own countries, so the industries in very large part moved to the United States.
On the surface, it does look like that is what is going on, with factories moving to the third world. The difference is that today's companies tend to diversify. Management stays here if not taxed into going to the Caymans, and develops other businesses here, if they aren't taxed to China.
At the end of the day, I want the United States to be the world's manager instead of the world's manufacturer. I want a workforce that uses its brain instead of its back and hands and gets $50/hr. Less manufacturing will mean a cleaner environment here, for one thing. It also will require a highly educated work force instead of the mindset that is so common that says, 'higher learning is unnecessary, after all I can use my hands in repetitive process in the place of a machine and expect $40/hr.'
To be anti-capitalist is really to look backwards and to try to cling to yesteryear's technology. It conjures places like Scranton, Wilkes-Barre, Allentown, Cleveland, Youngstown, Akron, and Gary.
38 - boomcrashbaby
Take the example of a factory owner, or even a city who is an employer.....No matter what, the private or municipal employer is decried as evil, because in that situation under such demands, there are only three choices available, and all of them are bad.....If you see any other options available, you let me know.
Most businesses, the size of factories that have the salary to pay 10,000 an hour, would be turning in a lot of money. I know a person who owns a law firm comprised of 20 people, most paralegals who aren't paid much, and the owner still has a 4 million dollar house. Factory owners who employ 1,000 probably see a lot of money go through their doors to, I imagine their salary is pretty high. When you get into corporations that employ 10's of thousands, you are talking about a small board of people who can pull in 30 million or several times that a year, while 99% of the employees are at too low a wage. Plus the board members get into stock options, bonus's, perks, etc.
I have a 4th idea of where the mere 10,000 more asked for can come from. :-)
39 - Mac Diva
Just a quick note to remind people that churches, though quasi-public in function, are ultimately private property. That makes protesting at them much more risky than making the same protest elsewhere. I also think it true that one loses points with the public by disrupting a religious service. Many people who have not articulated Natalie's 'sacred places' position apparently share it.
40 - bhw
What I do believe is that capitalism is the *best* system, despite the flaws.
I agree with you. And those flaws are why we need regulation. I don't want regulation that stifles innovation, but I do want it to protect consumers, the environment, etc.
Tell me what the better alternative is to capitalism.
You're assuming that because I don't agree with you that "good willed capitalism" is redundant that I think there is a better alternative.
I favor well-regulated capitalism.
And yes, if the employer is an individual or company, they do have one additional choice that allows them to avoid the headache altogether, which is to move out of the country to find labor that is thrilled to pieces to work for the princely sum of $1/hr.
My biggest gripe isn't that the companies move, it's that they move and accept working conditions for those people that are illegal in developed countries. Do you really support the sweatshop mentality for Nike, which I'm sure is *just barely* squeaking by on its meager profits?
The example you give, Mike, is of the company/employer that is faced with a no-win situation. For every one of those, there is an employer like Nike that moves its manufacturing plants to increase its already existing profits and not because it will otherwise go out of business. In the process, the company accepts the fruits of child labor and other abuses of the workforce. Again, what is good willed about that practice?
One of the problems we have today is with Wall St. and the insistance on continued short-term increases in profits. The only ways companies can continue to make the kind of progress Wall St. demands are to cut employees, cut costs, or increase sales or productivity. In a down economy, guess which two are the easiest to achieve? So I guess the capitalists in this case are being good willed: toward their shareholders and no one else. It would be nice if the consumer was put first, but it's the shareholder that's king of the hill.
To be anti-capitalist is really to look backwards and to try to cling to yesteryear's technology. It conjures places like Scranton, Wilkes-Barre, Allentown, Cleveland, Youngstown, Akron, and Gary.
Again, because I disagree with you about the inherent good will in capitalism, you label me as anti-capitalist and backward-looking? Why such a black-and-white world?
My husband earns his living in the high-tech industry. I have weaved in and out of it myself over the past 12 years or so. Why do you think I long for the good old days of manufacturing industry abuses, because I don't think manufacturers should move overseas and abuse the employees over there?
I've lived in Scranton and Allentown, coincidentally. Alas, Billy Joel gave Allentown a false reputation. It was really Bethlehem [pronounced "Bethlum" out there] he was singing about [Bethlehem Steel], but I guess Allentown sounded better lyrically or something. Scranton was a coal mining town. I'm quite pleased that we don't rely on coal for energy these days, but the problem with Scranton now is that the people living there have maintained the "mine mentality," as the locals call it. They let their employers treat them like children because they think that what they have is as good as it gets. They're just grateful to have a job. This mentality is left over from the coal mining days, when the mine owners literally owned their employees. They owned the employees' homes, they paid them in scrip money, etc. Those old manufacturers were NOT in any way good willed toward their employees.
So, I don't know why you'd assume that this is the type of working environment that I like.
Less manufacturing will mean a cleaner environment here, for one thing.
Indeed, especially since the current administration is undoing our environmental protection to let that good willed capitalism run wild!
It also will require a highly educated work force instead of the mindset that is so common that says, 'higher learning is unnecessary, after all I can use my hands in repetitive process in the place of a machine and expect $40/hr.'
Is that what people really say? Or are some people just more interested in working with their hands? Or better suited to it? I had an uncle who was a mechanic and machinist. The guy could fix and fashion almost anything. He was exceptionally smart and well suited for his job. In fact, he loved it. He would not have been well suited for a management job or other white collar job. We will always have a diversity of skills in this country [and in any country], and we shouldn't
be dirisive of the people who don't go to college but still want to earn a decent living for their families. I think that offering lots of different opportunities in this country is far better than shoveling everyone into one large superset of employment options.
41 - Jeff Smith
"MIchael Badnarik, its presidential candidate, is also opposed to abortion being available legally."
That's not accurate, although it's true there has been a little movement in Michael B.'s position since the nomination. And, his pre-nomination stance was perhaps a little technical for some to grasp.
If anyone saw the recent 4-way debate at Cornell, they heard Michael state an absolutely pro-choice position, even explicity saying that abortion is an individual rights issue, not a "states' rights" issue.
I don't have the link handy, but go to the League of Women Voters' candidate guide for a similarly-unequivocal pro-choice stance on the issue.
Michael has _always_ presented the view that the federal government has no authority to legislate on the abortion issue, although he used to also say he was "personally pro-life."
His earlier position, as exemplified by his original Project Vote-Smart response -- that has since been changed -- could've inferred a personal hope that states would make abortion illegal.
As stated above, his public statements (at least those known to me) no longer admit that interpretation.
One facet of his thought, that has remained constant throughout, is that he believes it isn't currently possible to determine at exactly what point the unborn child takes possession of its own body. (Note, this is the property rights/self-ownership issue, separate from the question of when life begins.)
Given that uncertainty, Michael used to say he chose to "err on the side of caution" in his view of abortion.
As a volunteer representative of the campaign, I realize negative inferences could be drawn from a candidate's change of position. In all honesty, I'm not close enough to Michael to know what is behind the shift -- whether it represents an honest maturation of his position, or just a response to pressure from the LP establishment.
I'm just relaying that there has been some movement on the abortion issue, although Michael never campaigned on the position that he, as a federal candidate, would do anything to outlaw abortion.
I just stumbled across the above debate and comments while searching out Badnarik media hits, and hadn't intended to post. However, I thought Michael's position on abortion was worth some clarification.
Jeff Smith
Indiana Coordinator
Badnarik for President
P.S. Although I didn't read each and every bit of the above exchange, I think Mike Kole did a nice job with our side of things, and I enjoyed hearing Natalie's views as well.
42 - Mac Diva
I personally posted a link to a page in which Badnarik said he opposed abortion soon after his nomination. Since then, the Libertarian Party has removed many of Badnarik's more embarassing effusions from the Internet. If Badnarik is now claiming to favor abortion rights, it is a flip flop.
On the 'bright' side, Smith is not denying Badnarik' violent fantasies about blowing up the buildings housing people and/or agencies he opposes.