Kathy Krajco’s Attempt at Censorship

19 December, 2005

A while ago, in response to this post by Kathy Krajco, I left a comment on her blog asking her a few questions because, while she was appealing to the reader’s sense of the blatantly obvious in an attempt to demonise George Galloway, she seemed oblivious to one or two axioms herself. I was also somewhat irritated by her infantile reliance on seeing the world divided between good guys and bad guys.

Unfortunately my comment was deleted within about 24 hours after posting it so I cannot recall my exact wording but what I asked was roughly this.

“Are those who illegally invade another people’s country not terrorists? Are those who defend themselves against the subsequent occupation not the good guys and are the occupiers not the bad guys?”

Ms Krajco’s little attempt at censorship indicates to me that she had difficulty in answering my questions. However I am grateful to her because it was this incident which got me thinking that I should perhaps start blogging beyond issues strictly related to Really Learn Spanish.

Advertisements

18 Responses to “Kathy Krajco’s Attempt at Censorship”

  1. Steve Says:

    Yo estaría felíz de leer sus piensamientos acerca de otros topicos si de vez en cuando usted nos daría unos pensamientos acerca de “Really Learn Spanish.” ¡Felíz año nuevo¡


  2. Many thanks for your intelligent comments on the NewsTelgraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?view=BLOGDETAIL&grid=P30&blog=yourview&xml=/news/2006/01/13/blview13.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/01/13/ixportaltop.html).

    Anyone who has ever met Goerge Galloway, who is friend of mine, will tell you that he is a caring, compassionate, intelligent man. The attack on George is being planed and coordinated by “New Labour” and their friends in the media.

    The reason for the attack is to draw attention away from the attack or war with Iran which is only weeks away wether by Israel or the USA. They want to weeken the antiwar movement and a key spokesperson while they can.

    New Labour are also about to cut the benefits of the poor and disabled as well as privatise our education system – no wonder they want to focus on George Galloway and not their disasteruos policies.

    Nice site – keep your excellent work going.

    Neil Williams


  3. […] I participated with these words in the Telegraph’s debate on George Galloway. Neil Williams very kindly commented here and contributed to the debate himself. […]

  4. Susan Says:

    Waiting for more podcasts – just returned from Costa Rica on a two-week immersion quest to clean my stinkin’ Spanish. It still stinks, but the experience was good. Looking forward to more of your ‘casts.

  5. Russ Says:

    I think I know which countries you are referring to, but just so I don’t make any erroneous assumptions, would you mind telling me what country you are referring to that illegally invaded another country, and what country is defending “itself” against the “subsequent occupation?”

    Of course. In the context of Ms Krajco’s post, I refer to the USA as the illegally invading country and Iraq as the occupied country. [Johan]

  6. Russ Says:

    I see. Upon what do you base the assertion that the USA *illegally* invaded Iraq.

    Also, you do realize that it wasn’t just the US that resumed hostilities against Iraq, don’t you?

    Invading someone else’s country, except in self defence, is in my book about as illegal as you can get. And, yes, those other countries who joined the USA in its venture are equally guilty. [Johan]

  7. Russ Says:

    “Invading someone else’s country, except in self defence, is in my book about as illegal as you can get.”

    I see. So this is just your personal opinion, and not based on any facts of national or international law.

    It seems to me that, by that definition of “illegal invasion,” D-Day and the events that followed would constitute an illegal invasion by many of the nations that participated.


  8. Hey Johan
    From your name and the name of your blog I gather you are an ‘Azanian’
    You might be interested to read some of the posts of a fellow Azanian.
    Contact me on my email.

  9. Charles Rainey Says:

    If someone cannot see the clear distinction between the invasion at Normandy in WWII and the unjustified invasion of Iraq they obviously lack an understanding of both history and current events. I object strongly to what my country did in Iraq but I am not a pacifist who objects to all wars. Germany had clearly displayed its aggressive intentions in Poland and France and it possessed both the financial and technical facilities to invade much of the rest of the world. If there was ever a justified invasion D-Day was certainly it. None of these conditions apply to Iraq. Years of sanctions had broken its back and left it in no financial or technical position to invade anyone. My country (the US) tried to justify its aggression under what has come to be called the “Bush Doctrine”. This absurd idea posits that mere suspicion is enough to justify aggression. If such an idea was applied to judicial systems image a world in which individuals could be thrown in jail because the state suspects that they were merely thinking of a crime. This is what happened in Iraq. History is not going to be kind to this misadventure.

  10. Joe Esser Says:

    Hey Russ:

    Kofi Annan (UN Secretary-General) Said the attack on Iraq was unlawful:

    A U.S. Attack on Iraq Unlawful, Warn Mideast Experts

    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0814-01.htm

  11. John Wadsworth Says:

    Oh, for a moment I thought you were talking about the invasion of the United States by Mexico! But now I see, indeed, that you are claiming the invasion of Iraq by the United States was illegal, and that the war’s illegality makes U.S. military personnel “terrorists” and the Iraqi insurgents “good guys.”

    I must respectfully disagree. Simply calling the war illegal doesn’t make it so. If there was a single, sufficient and lawful reason to go to war, then that reason defeats any argument as to the war’s illegality, even if such reasons were never articulated as the grounds for war. And, in fact, such a reason does exist.

    In case you all forgot (and it DOES appear that the entire world did forget), the first Gulf War of 1991 ended in an “Armistice.” An armistice is only an agreement to cease hostilities for political purposes, often to permit belligerent parties to come to terms for a peace treaty. It is not permanent, and it is **not** a peace treaty. No general peace treaty was ever concluded between Iraq and its opponents in the wake of the 1991 war. Moreover, the “armistice” between Iraq and the “allies” imposed a number of conditions upon the government of Iraq, including: a weapons inspection regimen, weapons limitations and accountability, and a “no-fly zone” to protect civilian populations from air attacks (but in which allied aircraft might patrol).

    It is all to obvious to anyone except the deaf, dumb and blind that Iraq not only failed to comply with the terms of the armistice, but that its violations were flagrant. Iraqi radar and missile facilities targeted allied aircraft in the no-fly zone. The Iraqi government openly and routinely refused inspectors access to suspected weapons facilities to search them. The Iraqi government consistently failed its **duty** to account for stockpiles of WMDs that we knew had once existed, even though compliance only required Iraq to submit some plausible proof that such weapons had been destroyed. Also, the Iraqi government did, in fact, attempt to produce missiles that could travel further than the limit permitted by the agreement. Hans Blix, himself, demonstrated as much during the U.N. hearings, when the U.S. sought to get the U.N. to go after Iraq. These armistice violations occurred routinely over the space of twelve (12) years before the U.S. decided to go to war.

    In case you may not have heard, the violation of an armistice is, itself, a sufficient and **legal** ground to resume hostilities. It is up to the non-offending party to determine whether the breaches suffice to resume hostilities. In this case, no one could reasonably conclude that twelve years of continuous and openly hostile, not to mention petulant, violations of the armistice terms were enough to conclude the armistice was broken.

    This may not be a popular reason to go to war, and it might not have been a “sexy” enough reason to stir the public to support the war – at least as far as the Americans were concerned. But what it does demonstrate is that the war was NOT illegal, with regard to international law. [BTW – Kofi doesn’t know what he is talking about half the time. After all, HE was the one who nixed the Belgian peace-keeping forces desire to intervene in Rwanda. He must have thought it would have been illegal too.]

    Having said all this, I must nevertheless admit my belief that the war was foolish and never should have been started. Anyone familiar with the history of Iraq in the 20th Century would have known that it was a miserably violent place, and that massive sectarian violence would occur once Saddam’s repressive forces were neutralized – just like what had happened in Yugoslavia. Thus, it was entirely foreseeable (and foreseen) that a “regime change” would result in a power vacuum that neither the United States, nor its allies, nor the warring factions in Iraq, could fill.

  12. Steve Says:

    “I was also somewhat irritated by her infantile reliance on seeing the world divided between good guys and bad guys.”

    Infantile is the perfect word to describe Kathy Krajco.

    What she wants from her blog is for people to agree with everything she says and massage her ego with compliments. That is the true purpose of her blog; to provide her with narcissistic supply as she would put it.

    Every time I posted a reply to her nationalistic right- wing rants disagreeing with her, she deleted my comments.

    When I posted on her blog to say that I hadn’t said anything offensive that warranted my posts being deleted, and that I considered censoring my posts because I disagreed with her to be cowardly, she posted one line out of my post taking it out of context, and then proceeded to call me a narcissist and tried to make fun of me with her sycophants, while deleting my reply defending myself.

    It seems Ms Krajco designates anyone who disagrees with her, or her “America is a beacon of freedom and an example to the world” fantasy, a malignant narcissist in her mind.

    Behind her moralistic preaching facade, she is a real piece of work.

  13. Alison Says:

    Way to go, guys. I came across Kathy (America is the World so we have no-one to envy!?) Krajco a few days ago. Having trawled through her blog archives I’ve been horrified by her attitudes to Europe, those poor people who were abandoned in New Orleans, any one who expresses any opinion against American “foreign policy” aka bomb anyone we don’t like the look or sound of and so on ad nauseum. I wondered why none of the comments posted said anything negative about her opinions and rants and did suspect that she just censored anything negative out. I’m waiting for her next mad rant and am going to respond and see what’ll happen – though I think I already know.

    Does this all mean that we’re “collective narcissists”? If so, then here’s to the collective!

    Cheers, Alison

    BTW – the invasive of Iraq was undoubtedly illegal and I for one don’t accept any moral authority from a nation which tortures prisoners and holds them indefinately without trial or access to lawyers.

  14. Kammy Says:

    As an American expat, not steeped in the American media’s “worldview” (as it is undoubtedly controlled by corporate interestes who really don’t want American to see what’s going on out there, and knows that many Americans don’t want to know that things are far far worse than they were in years past for those living in America) I sympathize with with your sentiments about how terribly wrong the war in Iraq has been. There is evidence accessible on the internet and several documentaries that show what has happened under GW Bush’s administration (as well as Clinton’s and Bush Sr.) and I am so saddened by what I know.

    But I beg for you to understand that not all Americans are like this Kathy K. And those who deny what’s going on and tune their ear against any criticism are the source of one of the largest problem we are having in the United States, division and utter denial that there is a problem, and worse yet… we could in fact be the cause.

    Americans are a divided people. Divided by ideology, political beliefs, social views, religion. Please pray for, meditate toward, or contact your American friends and ask for change. I have hope that the enmired political process will bring about the change we need. If not, I will happily live outside the United States until we have leadership worthy of the office.

    Please don’t assume we are all bad because we allowed our political process to be hijacked by power mongers. Most American’s don’t know what happened in Ohio or Florida (proven rigged elections), but many are opening our eyes.

  15. Lunch Admin. Says:

    I also had several similar censoring issues with Kathy Krajco. I took her black-n-white thinking to task, but she would not have any dissent.

  16. Kate Says:

    I am tickled pink that Kathy Krajco deleted liberal left posts. I may be finding out about it somewhat tardily, but — I’m lovin’ it.

  17. Peggy Says:

    Wow, this sounds like the same sense of entitlement that leads to absurdities like the so-called “Fairness Doctrine”. Take the time to develop your own soapbox–be it anything from a tiny personal blog to a hugely successful syndicated radio show–and then the people who disagree with you feel like they’re enititled to a free ride on your success.

    Why was it wrong for Kathy, or any blogger, to delete someone else’s comments from her blog?

    If an author writes a book, is he obligated to put negative reviews on the book jacket? Must he allow the preface to be written by his competitors and detractors? Of course not. Moderating the comments on your own blog is is no more unreasonable than controlling the contents of your own printed publications.

    Disagree with some other blogger’s opinions? Fine. You’ve got your own blog–which is just as it should be–so it’s not as if anyone has been robbed of his own voice just because Kathy (or any other blogger) didn’t allow him speak his piece on her turf.

  18. Questions Says:

    I would have thought a blogger was “inviting” comments in their “comment” section, and that too, not merely sycophantic praise? I had similar issues – when I posted some polite and reasoned responses, complete with links to data to back up my arguments, they were not just deleted, but she then added her own rude and over the top remarks as well. But no one could see what comment she was responding to! Her basic thesis was that America is the greatest, so is therefore always right. Anyone who argues with that is an envious bully.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: