2.18.2003
First, my 2 cents on Applekid's post, I would say that yes, you are justified in taking them back. You still own the cd's and player, even if they are no longer under your direct control. Explaining that to the cops would be hard, if they caught you, but it would be the case. You technically wouldn't be allowed to destroy the other guy's property in the process (however fun that may be..:)), but I would go and get the stuff. Possession is 9/10ths of the law, but I would take that 1/10 and run with it as far as I could...:)
and on to the rest...
Well, it is not so much in taking any one person seriously or not. Bush for instance. I don't think that he is a particularly good politician. I think that is one of his greatest strengths. He does not have either the intention or ability to hide his emotions, which is necessary for political office. By contrast, Clinton was the consummate politician. He could hide what he was feeling when he needed to (I-did-not-have-sexual-relations-with-that-woman) and was able to emote when necessary(there is no easy way to say that I have sinned). The problem with that is that you never really see who the person is, and a lot of things can sneak up and catch you by surprise (ie the whole lewinsky mess). With Bush, what you see is what you get. That can be both good and bad, but at least it is a known commodity.
As I said before, I don't believe that "terrorists are coming to get us", in that sense, but I do believe that they ARE going to attack again. I mentioned before that I think it will be in the form of suicide bombers and airliner rocketings, but that is merely my projection. Chemical weapons would also be a competing mode of delivery.
to address your questions-
why does every other country in the world see through it? -I don't think that this is completely the case... there is support for the effort in other countries besides England, France and Germany. Britain is officially on "our side", but I suspect that it may not be that way for long. I do have to say that I have gained a lot of respect for Tony Blair in this whole thing. He is a pretty unpopular guy at the moment, but he said this last week something to the effect of "I may not be popular, but that is the price of conviction". He said it more elequently than that, but that is the jist of it. But, alas, convicition can only stand so long in the face of certain political realities...
why does our gov censor/ban imported media? - I read an article yesterday about journalists being allowed onto the front lines for the first time since Viet Nam. In the first gulf war, journalists saw what they were told to see, and in Afghanistan that has been the case, too, somewhat. But for this conflict, journalists are being allowed to be "embedded" right alongside of troops. Their stories may not be released immediately to keep troops/operations safe, but they will be there to tell the story, at least of what they see. As for specifically imported media, I don't see how this is the case. The internet allows you to view any viewpoint you wish. Anyone can put up a website saying anything they want. Al-jazeera is a click away, if you can read the arabic. We can also get news from other "mainstream" international media outlets, such as the BBC. I realize they are about as objective as CNN, but they are not under any semblance of control by the US.
I read the article you linked to, and I had some thoughts as well. I guess the main disagreement that I had with the article was that it:
a) made no real references to outside information. It echoed the ideas of "Professor David Harvey, one of the world's most distinguished geographers", but never actually quoted or referenced anything he ever did. How do we know this is anything other than opinion, either on Harvey's part or on Monbiot's?
and b) gave several logically wrong statements, and some real stretches of imagination to acheive some obviously biased goals. For instance, Monbiot says:
"Why, when the most urgent threat arising from illegal weapons of mass destruction is the nuclear confrontation between India and Pakistan, is the US government ignoring it and concentrating on Iraq? Why, if it believes human rights are so important, is it funding the oppression of the Algerians, the Uzbeks, the Palestinians, the Turkish Kurds and the Colombians?"
First, the currently most urgent threat from nuclear weapons is not from Pakistan/India, it is from North Korea. I don't think the US is ignoring either case, but is pursuing other channels of influence. Everybody is so pissed about the US's take on Iraq, but they are just as pissed because we are pursuing a diplomatic solution with North Korea. Is there a way to win? Nobody is happy with any course of action. This, however, is the least of his errors.
What I find more glaring is the obvious red herring (it is a straw man as well, but straw men are subsets of red herirngs) in the second sentence. By stating that the US is "funding the oppression of" this whole list of people, he is taking for fact the US is actively contributing to these actions, which makes it much easier to dismantle any US action at all, humanitarian or not.
His conclusion of the over-accumulation of capital is also very suspect. He never fully explained why military spending is the only spending the public would support (it definitely is not), or why it necessarily followed that excess capital needed a place to go and that the most logical (!) place to go was war with Iraq.
This is just a little bit of the whole thing... There were illogical conclusions throughout the article. They are usually easy to spot by following the intense adjectives. Speculators RAIDED the economies, land was SNATCHED from PEASANT farmers, the US is funding OPRESSION, etc.
Extreme care must be taken when reading/listening to anything. Most articles written about current events are opinion, though most are not labeled that way. Critical thinking of what the authors are trying to say and, more importantly why they are trying to say it, will sift through a lot of misguided thinking.
anyhow, my point is not to poke logical holes in Monbiot...
In fact, I don't really know that anything I say actually has a "point"... I am just thinking.
So the short course on the whole thing is that I don't anyone too seriously.
I suppose I am no better than Monbiot... what I write is opinion. At least continually evolving opinion, but biased nonetheless.
I am tired.
and on to the rest...
Well, it is not so much in taking any one person seriously or not. Bush for instance. I don't think that he is a particularly good politician. I think that is one of his greatest strengths. He does not have either the intention or ability to hide his emotions, which is necessary for political office. By contrast, Clinton was the consummate politician. He could hide what he was feeling when he needed to (I-did-not-have-sexual-relations-with-that-woman) and was able to emote when necessary(there is no easy way to say that I have sinned). The problem with that is that you never really see who the person is, and a lot of things can sneak up and catch you by surprise (ie the whole lewinsky mess). With Bush, what you see is what you get. That can be both good and bad, but at least it is a known commodity.
As I said before, I don't believe that "terrorists are coming to get us", in that sense, but I do believe that they ARE going to attack again. I mentioned before that I think it will be in the form of suicide bombers and airliner rocketings, but that is merely my projection. Chemical weapons would also be a competing mode of delivery.
to address your questions-
why does every other country in the world see through it? -I don't think that this is completely the case... there is support for the effort in other countries besides England, France and Germany. Britain is officially on "our side", but I suspect that it may not be that way for long. I do have to say that I have gained a lot of respect for Tony Blair in this whole thing. He is a pretty unpopular guy at the moment, but he said this last week something to the effect of "I may not be popular, but that is the price of conviction". He said it more elequently than that, but that is the jist of it. But, alas, convicition can only stand so long in the face of certain political realities...
why does our gov censor/ban imported media? - I read an article yesterday about journalists being allowed onto the front lines for the first time since Viet Nam. In the first gulf war, journalists saw what they were told to see, and in Afghanistan that has been the case, too, somewhat. But for this conflict, journalists are being allowed to be "embedded" right alongside of troops. Their stories may not be released immediately to keep troops/operations safe, but they will be there to tell the story, at least of what they see. As for specifically imported media, I don't see how this is the case. The internet allows you to view any viewpoint you wish. Anyone can put up a website saying anything they want. Al-jazeera is a click away, if you can read the arabic. We can also get news from other "mainstream" international media outlets, such as the BBC. I realize they are about as objective as CNN, but they are not under any semblance of control by the US.
I read the article you linked to, and I had some thoughts as well. I guess the main disagreement that I had with the article was that it:
a) made no real references to outside information. It echoed the ideas of "Professor David Harvey, one of the world's most distinguished geographers", but never actually quoted or referenced anything he ever did. How do we know this is anything other than opinion, either on Harvey's part or on Monbiot's?
and b) gave several logically wrong statements, and some real stretches of imagination to acheive some obviously biased goals. For instance, Monbiot says:
"Why, when the most urgent threat arising from illegal weapons of mass destruction is the nuclear confrontation between India and Pakistan, is the US government ignoring it and concentrating on Iraq? Why, if it believes human rights are so important, is it funding the oppression of the Algerians, the Uzbeks, the Palestinians, the Turkish Kurds and the Colombians?"
First, the currently most urgent threat from nuclear weapons is not from Pakistan/India, it is from North Korea. I don't think the US is ignoring either case, but is pursuing other channels of influence. Everybody is so pissed about the US's take on Iraq, but they are just as pissed because we are pursuing a diplomatic solution with North Korea. Is there a way to win? Nobody is happy with any course of action. This, however, is the least of his errors.
What I find more glaring is the obvious red herring (it is a straw man as well, but straw men are subsets of red herirngs) in the second sentence. By stating that the US is "funding the oppression of" this whole list of people, he is taking for fact the US is actively contributing to these actions, which makes it much easier to dismantle any US action at all, humanitarian or not.
His conclusion of the over-accumulation of capital is also very suspect. He never fully explained why military spending is the only spending the public would support (it definitely is not), or why it necessarily followed that excess capital needed a place to go and that the most logical (!) place to go was war with Iraq.
This is just a little bit of the whole thing... There were illogical conclusions throughout the article. They are usually easy to spot by following the intense adjectives. Speculators RAIDED the economies, land was SNATCHED from PEASANT farmers, the US is funding OPRESSION, etc.
Extreme care must be taken when reading/listening to anything. Most articles written about current events are opinion, though most are not labeled that way. Critical thinking of what the authors are trying to say and, more importantly why they are trying to say it, will sift through a lot of misguided thinking.
anyhow, my point is not to poke logical holes in Monbiot...
In fact, I don't really know that anything I say actually has a "point"... I am just thinking.
So the short course on the whole thing is that I don't anyone too seriously.
I suppose I am no better than Monbiot... what I write is opinion. At least continually evolving opinion, but biased nonetheless.
I am tired.
< 21:38 >< /j >
