2.27.2003
Clear Channel owns the world. I thought it was amusing... in Fairbanks, the station that plays Art Bell's show proudly declares itself part of "Clear Channel Radio" before putting Art on... Like trying to acheive the largest contrast between good and bad possible. It is going to be interesting to watch the demise of the music industry. I think the final nails have been pounded in already... it is just a matter of time now. I think that it will always function as kind of a background noise, vying for legitimacy, but nearly everyone who is anyone has found other outlets for their material. (read: MP3)
This was something I was going to ask about, that I have heard claimed many times, but have never heard a satisfactory answer (to my mind, anyway), of how anybody will profit from a war (Iraq, N. Korea or elsewhere). I read an estimate that war in Iraq would cost 85 Billion. War is the destruction and expediture of a lot of things. On both sides. I guess that I don't really see anything good in the way of profit coming from this. The only thing I can think of that would cause profit would be an increase in military spending which would profit those who do contract work for the military (by this I mean that military spending can be done peacefully, without destruction). And this is valid. I am one person of millions who derives their living from military spending. I built roads for the Army and the Air Force last summer, and things go well during peacetime, but money starts to dry up in the event of war in that fewer contracts are let because of the focus on a battle.
I think that military spending is one of the most efficient wealth redistributors available. it is far more effective than welfare for redistributing wealth because it goes to people who actually produce something. National infrastructure is grown, technology is created, new and important things are learned and discovered. Much of what we have in the way of technology is the result of space and defense spending. Nearly all of it, to be exact. I realize I am biased in this sense (all engineers are), and I don't endorse the idea that we should be a military state (we are not... a true miliary state in the political sense is N. Korea and its ilk), but the differences in economies and quality of life in areas that have a large military influence (ie, Fairbanks) and ones that don't (ie Brainerd) are striking. Brainerd is the absolute end of the freaking planet. The armpit of the heartland. I feel unclean for having contact with it. Fairbanks is different. I suppose I am biased here as well, but as I said before, objectivity is impossible.
oh well...
good night...
jeff
This was something I was going to ask about, that I have heard claimed many times, but have never heard a satisfactory answer (to my mind, anyway), of how anybody will profit from a war (Iraq, N. Korea or elsewhere). I read an estimate that war in Iraq would cost 85 Billion. War is the destruction and expediture of a lot of things. On both sides. I guess that I don't really see anything good in the way of profit coming from this. The only thing I can think of that would cause profit would be an increase in military spending which would profit those who do contract work for the military (by this I mean that military spending can be done peacefully, without destruction). And this is valid. I am one person of millions who derives their living from military spending. I built roads for the Army and the Air Force last summer, and things go well during peacetime, but money starts to dry up in the event of war in that fewer contracts are let because of the focus on a battle.
I think that military spending is one of the most efficient wealth redistributors available. it is far more effective than welfare for redistributing wealth because it goes to people who actually produce something. National infrastructure is grown, technology is created, new and important things are learned and discovered. Much of what we have in the way of technology is the result of space and defense spending. Nearly all of it, to be exact. I realize I am biased in this sense (all engineers are), and I don't endorse the idea that we should be a military state (we are not... a true miliary state in the political sense is N. Korea and its ilk), but the differences in economies and quality of life in areas that have a large military influence (ie, Fairbanks) and ones that don't (ie Brainerd) are striking. Brainerd is the absolute end of the freaking planet. The armpit of the heartland. I feel unclean for having contact with it. Fairbanks is different. I suppose I am biased here as well, but as I said before, objectivity is impossible.
oh well...
good night...
jeff
I've noticed that Cumbersome by 7m3 seems to be a little up tempo but that may just be in my mind. "Man Alive" ... the music/radio industry has been so fucking warped in past years... its so disturbing that as a people we're satisfied with RADIO EDITs of artist works.
to me thats like sawing off a 1/4 of a Monet just cause it won't fit in your hall closet or something.
yeh jeff... job market sucks right now.
but don't worry... as soon as we start murdering iraqi civilians and the BILLIONS start pouring into the pockets of the ruling class, they're feel 'comfortable' enough in the economy to hire back a few of the folks they laid off.
:)
to me thats like sawing off a 1/4 of a Monet just cause it won't fit in your hall closet or something.
yeh jeff... job market sucks right now.
but don't worry... as soon as we start murdering iraqi civilians and the BILLIONS start pouring into the pockets of the ruling class, they're feel 'comfortable' enough in the economy to hire back a few of the folks they laid off.
:)
Has anyone noticed that some songs on the radio seem to be played faster than their corresponding CD tracks? Maybe it is just me... I was listening to Happiest Days of Our Lives/Another Brick in the Wall II on the radio, and it seemed to be a little faster than the album track, which I have listened to 3 or 4 hundred thousand times. It wasn't a whole lot faster, but slightly noticable. It would make sense, if they can put the same number of songs in a shorter period of time, they can sell more advertising. an extra 30 second slot an hour would make a big difference and wouldn't be that hard to do.
I suppose it is easier to do with longer songs, because they are more expensive to play...
oh well. Anyone else notice this?
I suppose it is easier to do with longer songs, because they are more expensive to play...
oh well. Anyone else notice this?
2.25.2003
what is your job for? I sent in my first post-graduation full-time job resume. It is for an engineering position with MN power in Crosby. We'll see. Job market sux right about now. I know several recent grads who have not been able to find work. Maybe grad school?
i think celine dion owes me $20.
this is a very good article... my sentiments exactly... to use the phrase... and while you're at it... file for your reparations :)
this is a very good article... my sentiments exactly... to use the phrase... and while you're at it... file for your reparations :)
brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
thats all i have to say.
well. not really....
today i listened to alot of talk radio... to and from the cities... i had an interveiw at AT&T...
it was strange... i'm not accustomed to office buildings... i was sort of intimidated.
Anyways... i hope i get the job.
yes corporate america... steal me away from the pizza gig.
ain't life grand?
thats all i have to say.
well. not really....
today i listened to alot of talk radio... to and from the cities... i had an interveiw at AT&T...
it was strange... i'm not accustomed to office buildings... i was sort of intimidated.
Anyways... i hope i get the job.
yes corporate america... steal me away from the pizza gig.
ain't life grand?
2.23.2003
my aunt sent me this link a couple days ago. it's from the onion so you've probably seen it.
http://www.theonion.com/onion3903/un_orders_wonka.html
it made me smile
my pipes are rejecting the water i am sending them so i must spend the day at grandma's
http://www.theonion.com/onion3903/un_orders_wonka.html
it made me smile
my pipes are rejecting the water i am sending them so i must spend the day at grandma's
thats funny adam... i saw that same video today at media play... the end was a barrage of quick clips spanning the 'Cash' legacy. really weird to hear trent from that old face. anyways.
in local news: the BDD poll on the supercenter about to move into town. as of this posting, those opposing lead by about 200 votes
jeff jeff jeff.
teenage kids walk around spouting slogans they hear from their parents "french pussies"... "they'd be speaking German if it weren't for us"....
i admire france...one of the only countries that dares to say "war isn't the best option"...
but because of the DISGUSTING levels of nationalism that we're expiriencing in these, yes i'll say it again, "POST 9/11 TIMES", france is getting the 'shaft' from us right now. Foxnews calls france/germany the "axis of weasel"... many mainstream media outlets have made it clear EXACTLY how they what they want the american people's opinion of france to be. with the "they owe us for protecting them" rhetoric ...
as if because the USA fought the nazi's, france isn't allowed to have a say in world affairs. And its not even that big of a deal IMO... but some super-patriot brainwashed idiots have taken it too far. (see Freedom Fries)...
i think it just shows the immaturity/blind devotion of the average american.
as for me, i'll continue to try and awaken the masses from this matrix of deception.
in local news: the BDD poll on the supercenter about to move into town. as of this posting, those opposing lead by about 200 votes
jeff jeff jeff.
teenage kids walk around spouting slogans they hear from their parents "french pussies"... "they'd be speaking German if it weren't for us"....
i admire france...one of the only countries that dares to say "war isn't the best option"...
but because of the DISGUSTING levels of nationalism that we're expiriencing in these, yes i'll say it again, "POST 9/11 TIMES", france is getting the 'shaft' from us right now. Foxnews calls france/germany the "axis of weasel"... many mainstream media outlets have made it clear EXACTLY how they what they want the american people's opinion of france to be. with the "they owe us for protecting them" rhetoric ...
as if because the USA fought the nazi's, france isn't allowed to have a say in world affairs. And its not even that big of a deal IMO... but some super-patriot brainwashed idiots have taken it too far. (see Freedom Fries)...
i think it just shows the immaturity/blind devotion of the average american.
as for me, i'll continue to try and awaken the masses from this matrix of deception.
2.22.2003
with a sidestep from the worlds problems..
i turned on vh1 this morning and the video playing was jonny cash covering "hurt" by nin and it seemed pretty cool
i turned on vh1 this morning and the video playing was jonny cash covering "hurt" by nin and it seemed pretty cool
2.21.2003
well... part two.
I was going to mention last night that I read a very interesting article. It was in Time, and was an interview with Jacques Chirac. I was very impressed and gained a lot of respect for the man. I didn't realize that he had lived and worked in the US for many years. I guess he spent 16 years in St. Louis as a forklift operator for Anheuser-Busch. He came off as very intelligent, and was very adamant about not being anti-american (as I believe many French are). He had some good points about why he thought war in Iraq was premature, but I got the impression that the rift between him and Bush was not that great. Surprisingly small, in fact. He said that the best thing would be for Saddam to just disappear, and he agreed with Bush that exile would be an acceptable way to avoid a war. He seemed to be a little too rooted in going by the dictates of the UN, but in all it was a very intriguing look at the man. I realize that anything can be faked by the interviewee or misrepresented by the interviewer for a two page thing in Time, but I was impressed by the article.
I wonder how much of the international diplomacy thing is merely an act. Do they scream and fight for the cameras and then head to a bar, play darts all evening and watch the football game? It seems like they get all mad at each other, but think highly of each other when not on a stage. It is hard to tell.
I was going to mention last night that I read a very interesting article. It was in Time, and was an interview with Jacques Chirac. I was very impressed and gained a lot of respect for the man. I didn't realize that he had lived and worked in the US for many years. I guess he spent 16 years in St. Louis as a forklift operator for Anheuser-Busch. He came off as very intelligent, and was very adamant about not being anti-american (as I believe many French are). He had some good points about why he thought war in Iraq was premature, but I got the impression that the rift between him and Bush was not that great. Surprisingly small, in fact. He said that the best thing would be for Saddam to just disappear, and he agreed with Bush that exile would be an acceptable way to avoid a war. He seemed to be a little too rooted in going by the dictates of the UN, but in all it was a very intriguing look at the man. I realize that anything can be faked by the interviewee or misrepresented by the interviewer for a two page thing in Time, but I was impressed by the article.
I wonder how much of the international diplomacy thing is merely an act. Do they scream and fight for the cameras and then head to a bar, play darts all evening and watch the football game? It seems like they get all mad at each other, but think highly of each other when not on a stage. It is hard to tell.
2.20.2003
well... the issue of censorship is a touchy one... I looked at the link, and read the list of the most commonly banned books in the 90's. I was surprised how many books that I have personlly read have been banned in some form or another. I do have to say, however, the #1 book was Impressions, which was a reading curriculum for 5th and 6th graders at my elementary school in Fairbanks, was truly SCREWED UP. Kids had no business reading it, and it was of very questionable taste for adults. It was only there for one year (my 5th grade year) and then it was taken out and replaced when something like 30-40 percent of the school district disappeared because all the parents pulled their kids out of public school and did homeschool (which was much more common there than here). There was a huge public outcry. Huge enough to cause financial problems for the school district. Believe me, that particular book deserved to be banned. There were sections on Occult spells, Transcendental Meditation, as well as some very twisted stories... One I particularly remember was titled "more" where all the kids were sitting in this auditorium and there was some kind of meeting and everyone was in a frenzy... the group became more and more frenzied over something (I can't remember exactly what) and finally they were killing people here and there throughout the auditorium. It said that "someone began to roll heads down the aisle and everyone cried 'more, more, MORE!'". This is first hand experience, because I remember all the fuss and I wanted to see for myself what the deal was. I stole a book from school and brought it home and read the stuff that we didn't read in class (proponents picked the tamer stories so that kids wouldn't run home and tell mommy what they learned in school that day). Trust me, it was messed up. That was the real exception to the list, though.
But most of the rest are just an example of political correctness gone horribly wrong. Books like "Huck Finn" and "To Kill a Mockingbird" were banned because of the racial overtones in them. I just counted down the list and of the 50, I have read 11. Have heard of about 5-6 more. The surprising one was "A wrinkle in Time" because that was one of my favorite stories as a kid. Basically, there are a couple of groups that have been responsible for banning books, and surprisingly, they have been on opposite sides of the political spectrum. There are the puritan mommies who don't want to pollute baby's mind with things they don't understand themselves (ban "A Wrinkle in Time because they just didn't get it) or expose them to emotionally stressful stuff (Ban "bridge to Terebithia" because it dealt with death and dying). The other side is the racially sensitive (anybody, no matter what race, can be this way) crowd that doesn't want to expose young constituents to the word "nigger".
Anyhow, I agree with a lot of what you said... Some select few books should be taken out of the hands of little kids if it is stuff that is OBVIOUSLY not good for them (such as Impressions, Playboy and Bon Jovi records), but once a person is of age, they should be encouraged to read some of these on the list. "Catcher", "Mockingbird", "Wrinkle in Time", etc.
And you are correct about the average John Doe. I think that some of this comes from an informational overload that we as americans experience. Every day we are hit by literally thousands of messages and viewpoints demanding our attention, and I think we have reached a saturation point, which is we don't really care about anything anymore. Or at least we only really care about a small number of things. It finally comes down to choosing things to care about. To each of us, the things we care about are important, because we care about them or they wouldn't be important. It becomes very circular. And there is no way to care about everything, at all times equally. People like that are observed to be caring about nothing at all, because their care is spread so thinly that you can't detect it.
So, I don't know what the solution is... To each of us everybody else is sheeple.
I don't know if there is a way around that...
I have to go... I will write more later tonight...
But most of the rest are just an example of political correctness gone horribly wrong. Books like "Huck Finn" and "To Kill a Mockingbird" were banned because of the racial overtones in them. I just counted down the list and of the 50, I have read 11. Have heard of about 5-6 more. The surprising one was "A wrinkle in Time" because that was one of my favorite stories as a kid. Basically, there are a couple of groups that have been responsible for banning books, and surprisingly, they have been on opposite sides of the political spectrum. There are the puritan mommies who don't want to pollute baby's mind with things they don't understand themselves (ban "A Wrinkle in Time because they just didn't get it) or expose them to emotionally stressful stuff (Ban "bridge to Terebithia" because it dealt with death and dying). The other side is the racially sensitive (anybody, no matter what race, can be this way) crowd that doesn't want to expose young constituents to the word "nigger".
Anyhow, I agree with a lot of what you said... Some select few books should be taken out of the hands of little kids if it is stuff that is OBVIOUSLY not good for them (such as Impressions, Playboy and Bon Jovi records), but once a person is of age, they should be encouraged to read some of these on the list. "Catcher", "Mockingbird", "Wrinkle in Time", etc.
And you are correct about the average John Doe. I think that some of this comes from an informational overload that we as americans experience. Every day we are hit by literally thousands of messages and viewpoints demanding our attention, and I think we have reached a saturation point, which is we don't really care about anything anymore. Or at least we only really care about a small number of things. It finally comes down to choosing things to care about. To each of us, the things we care about are important, because we care about them or they wouldn't be important. It becomes very circular. And there is no way to care about everything, at all times equally. People like that are observed to be caring about nothing at all, because their care is spread so thinly that you can't detect it.
So, I don't know what the solution is... To each of us everybody else is sheeple.
I don't know if there is a way around that...
I have to go... I will write more later tonight...
yes jeff, i know I have access to all sorts of media sources. what i'm talking about is the censorship in our schools and libraries. Books are banned all the time. Of course if censorship didn't exist, then we wouldn't need organizations like thie NCAC. But more than that. Lets look at the average american for a second. He probably takes most of what the network news/usa today tells him as truth... he forms his political/world opinions so they don't conflict too much with his neighbor/famliy. Especially in post 9/11 times, where dissent is veiwed as unpatriotic. If John Doe has internet access, its used for surfing WWF fanpages or porn... and emailing 3mb bitmap pics of his 6th child to relatives on aol.
Reguardless of the stance you take on the war issue, there are just way too many unanswered questions.
And just ASKING the questions... just the act of DOUBTING... is a sin.
Its out of control.
We live in a dictatorship
And i look around me and i'm outnumbered by the sheeple.
The body bags have been ordered.
GOD BLESS AMERICA
Reguardless of the stance you take on the war issue, there are just way too many unanswered questions.
And just ASKING the questions... just the act of DOUBTING... is a sin.
Its out of control.
We live in a dictatorship
And i look around me and i'm outnumbered by the sheeple.
The body bags have been ordered.
GOD BLESS AMERICA
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.
here's a question for everyone who wishes to answer.
if someone were to steal cd's and a cd player from your car, and you see those in another car in the same parking lot on a subsequent day, would you have the right to take them back, to steal from the thief?
if someone were to steal cd's and a cd player from your car, and you see those in another car in the same parking lot on a subsequent day, would you have the right to take them back, to steal from the thief?
jeff... i'm really surprised that you can take Bush seriously when he says "terr-ah-ists are coming to get us"...
the ruling class is lying to us.
why does every other country in the world see through it?
why does our gov censor/ban imported media?
its fairly simple... just look at the motivation.
if you uncover the motive... you'll find that the rest of the puzzle will unravel.
blood is a renewable resource; oil is not.
the ruling class is lying to us.
why does every other country in the world see through it?
why does our gov censor/ban imported media?
its fairly simple... just look at the motivation.
if you uncover the motive... you'll find that the rest of the puzzle will unravel.
blood is a renewable resource; oil is not.
and more... this is strange thing to read
Oh... something to clarify...
I reread my post and realized part of it was poorly supported...
In short, the reason why I stand by my statement of losing people in a war or a terrorist attack is because a terrorist attack will nearly certainly happen again if the problem is left unchecked. I think sitting idly by would be a mistake in this case.
The consipiracy thing was because you implied that terrorist attacks were caused or at least welcomed by the administration. I would disagree with that position as well, for reasons outlined in paragraph 2.
nothing else big, though...
any thoughts?
I reread my post and realized part of it was poorly supported...
In short, the reason why I stand by my statement of losing people in a war or a terrorist attack is because a terrorist attack will nearly certainly happen again if the problem is left unchecked. I think sitting idly by would be a mistake in this case.
The consipiracy thing was because you implied that terrorist attacks were caused or at least welcomed by the administration. I would disagree with that position as well, for reasons outlined in paragraph 2.
nothing else big, though...
any thoughts?
2.17.2003
"hitchhiker's guide" is a good book, I have heard, but I have yet to read it. I should pick it up. I liked the president quote... Kind of a similar thought is the guy who won a medal for humility and then got it taken away because he wore it. :)
I also heard an interesting thought somewhere, that the political world is backwards. Politicians have the power to blow up the world and kill us all at the push of a button. It should be reversed. All of their constituents should have a button that blows up their politician. Then things would go better...:)
Anyhow, on to more discussion.
I stand by my statement of losing citizens in a war and in a terrorist attack. There is a bent in conspiracy theory circles to blame everything bad that happens in the world on whatever power structure is in place at the moment. Josh Morgan et al. was great for this. It just depends on your outlook. Ruby Ridge was the evil government killing its own law abiding citizens. JFK has been shot by everyone from the mob to the commies to space aliens. 9-11 has been talked of as a Zionist plot to push the US into war against the Arabs or as a political move to bolster support for the administration. I don't buy most or nearly all of it. 9-11 was simply too big to keep under wraps as a conspiracy. There is simply no way that it can be contained. I think that the administration may or may not be using it to their advantage, but that is to be expected to pass legislation they think is right. What, are they going to use it to their DISadvantage?
I was thinking about media coverage as well... I think that the media can be described as a limiting form of an equation. Large scale phenomena exist and are largely covered correctly by the media. By this I mean that Iraq actually exists as a country, it is winter right now in the northern hemisphere, and summer in the south, and a list of other blatantly obvious and externally verifiable facts. But small scale phenomena are largely up for interpretation. You can get 10 journalists in the same situation and there will be 10 different takes on what happened. Some of this is unavoidable, but some is orchestrated. The smaller the scale, the more the media can distort it. It just depends on the scale. Sort of a Heisenberg Principle for current events.
The phrases of "violence begets violence" and "killing for peace is like fucking for virginity", while appearing on the surface to be true, do not necessarily hold up in practice.
I cite historical examples for this. I mentioned before wars against the British, Germans and Japanese turned old enemies into new friends because of the treatment after the war. Internally the US held together after the Civil War because of all the efforts of Reconstruction, pardoning officers and soldiers, etc. Like I said before, I think that the power vacuum left behind a military action breeds violence. Or at least repression. The Taliban were an example of this.
Also, for the other side, peaceful actions do not necessarily breed peace. Indeed, peaceful actions are usually taken advantage of. During the Clinton era, peace attempts were made in good faith with a long list of people that have since backfired. Peace in Israel fell apart. The North Korean Agreed Framework fell apart. We did not act in cases where we should have, such as a 1994 coup against Hussein that would have changed power in Iraq without large-scale US troop involvement. I think that the scale of things needs to be taken into account, as well. If you fight with your next door neighbor, they will fight back. But there is a nonlinearity when you start to look internationally. I am still working out the dynamics of WHY things work as they do, so I can't really give a coherent answer yet on that, but I just see that historically they do work like that. I think that because of this, nation building is a very good and achievable endeavour.
The thing I don't understand is the idea that the 9-11 attack was just an isolated incident. There have been a string of incidents stretching back to the 70's and before. Lebanon, the 1993 Trade Center bombing, the Kenyan Embassy bombing, the USS Cole attack... none of them really sank in and made us realize who we are dealing with, until 9-11. I believe, and not just because the government says so, that there will be more. I particularly think of suicide bombings and shooting down airliners on takeoff and landing as being the next big threats. I could be wrong, but it just surprises me that there haven't been more attempts at those. We are fighting an enemy that really does hate us. I don't think we as Westerners realize the depth of the hatred that we are hated with. We are indifferent about this, to our detriment.
Anyhow, that is my piece for the moment. I have to get going... I am getting my graduate school application ready to go and I need to work on that. Graduating is a scary proposition. So is grad school for that matter. Remote Sensing Geophysics? Electrical and Computer Engineering? Sweeping the floor at McDonalds?
What to do?
I also heard an interesting thought somewhere, that the political world is backwards. Politicians have the power to blow up the world and kill us all at the push of a button. It should be reversed. All of their constituents should have a button that blows up their politician. Then things would go better...:)
Anyhow, on to more discussion.
I stand by my statement of losing citizens in a war and in a terrorist attack. There is a bent in conspiracy theory circles to blame everything bad that happens in the world on whatever power structure is in place at the moment. Josh Morgan et al. was great for this. It just depends on your outlook. Ruby Ridge was the evil government killing its own law abiding citizens. JFK has been shot by everyone from the mob to the commies to space aliens. 9-11 has been talked of as a Zionist plot to push the US into war against the Arabs or as a political move to bolster support for the administration. I don't buy most or nearly all of it. 9-11 was simply too big to keep under wraps as a conspiracy. There is simply no way that it can be contained. I think that the administration may or may not be using it to their advantage, but that is to be expected to pass legislation they think is right. What, are they going to use it to their DISadvantage?
I was thinking about media coverage as well... I think that the media can be described as a limiting form of an equation. Large scale phenomena exist and are largely covered correctly by the media. By this I mean that Iraq actually exists as a country, it is winter right now in the northern hemisphere, and summer in the south, and a list of other blatantly obvious and externally verifiable facts. But small scale phenomena are largely up for interpretation. You can get 10 journalists in the same situation and there will be 10 different takes on what happened. Some of this is unavoidable, but some is orchestrated. The smaller the scale, the more the media can distort it. It just depends on the scale. Sort of a Heisenberg Principle for current events.
The phrases of "violence begets violence" and "killing for peace is like fucking for virginity", while appearing on the surface to be true, do not necessarily hold up in practice.
I cite historical examples for this. I mentioned before wars against the British, Germans and Japanese turned old enemies into new friends because of the treatment after the war. Internally the US held together after the Civil War because of all the efforts of Reconstruction, pardoning officers and soldiers, etc. Like I said before, I think that the power vacuum left behind a military action breeds violence. Or at least repression. The Taliban were an example of this.
Also, for the other side, peaceful actions do not necessarily breed peace. Indeed, peaceful actions are usually taken advantage of. During the Clinton era, peace attempts were made in good faith with a long list of people that have since backfired. Peace in Israel fell apart. The North Korean Agreed Framework fell apart. We did not act in cases where we should have, such as a 1994 coup against Hussein that would have changed power in Iraq without large-scale US troop involvement. I think that the scale of things needs to be taken into account, as well. If you fight with your next door neighbor, they will fight back. But there is a nonlinearity when you start to look internationally. I am still working out the dynamics of WHY things work as they do, so I can't really give a coherent answer yet on that, but I just see that historically they do work like that. I think that because of this, nation building is a very good and achievable endeavour.
The thing I don't understand is the idea that the 9-11 attack was just an isolated incident. There have been a string of incidents stretching back to the 70's and before. Lebanon, the 1993 Trade Center bombing, the Kenyan Embassy bombing, the USS Cole attack... none of them really sank in and made us realize who we are dealing with, until 9-11. I believe, and not just because the government says so, that there will be more. I particularly think of suicide bombings and shooting down airliners on takeoff and landing as being the next big threats. I could be wrong, but it just surprises me that there haven't been more attempts at those. We are fighting an enemy that really does hate us. I don't think we as Westerners realize the depth of the hatred that we are hated with. We are indifferent about this, to our detriment.
Anyhow, that is my piece for the moment. I have to get going... I am getting my graduate school application ready to go and I need to work on that. Graduating is a scary proposition. So is grad school for that matter. Remote Sensing Geophysics? Electrical and Computer Engineering? Sweeping the floor at McDonalds?
What to do?
douglas adams spent about 2 pages in his novel on the concept that anyone who could be elected is, usually, the worst person that could be elected. the logic was kind of funky, but it made a hell of a lot of sense :)
actually, the hitchhiker's guide series is full of random tidbits of funky logic, but the funny thing is that most of it made more sense than anything I've read before...
actually, the hitchhiker's guide series is full of random tidbits of funky logic, but the funny thing is that most of it made more sense than anything I've read before...
>We will lose citizens in a war on Iraq. Just like we would lose citizens in a terrorist attack.
jeff... i can't believe you're fooled by this 'terror of the month' propaganda.
terrorist attacks are the best thing that could have happend for bush. it makes his job easier... it arouses an almost necessary 'patriotism'...
"you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists"... fuck
for sake of argument, lets say the world is just like the mainstream media would have us believe. that the evil saddam indeed has the means to harm americans somehow.
lets just apply some basic karmatic (new word :) thinking to the situation.
violence begets violence.
we cannot qwell potential terrorists with ammunition. it will simply just NOT happen.
"killing for peace is like fucking for virginity"
I just think its funny that we can condemn another country for having a tiny fraction of the weaponry that we harbor... its arrogant.
Please examine this PDF.
But what you say? Saddam is an EVIL man? he gassed his own people?
No.
He gassed the Kurds... and at the time the US was supporting his actions.
The news convieniently gives half-truth.
He starves them?
Yes people are starving... largely because of US trade sanctions...
This country is freaking cause he's making deals with the russians. (for arms AND oil)
mmmmm time for some quotes
"All over the place, from the popular culture to the propaganda system,
there is constant pressure to make people feel that they are helpless,
that the only role they can have is to ratify decisions and to consume."
(Noam Chomsky)
Democracy: Three wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper.
If the aborigine drafted an I.Q. test, all of Western civilization would presumably flunk it.(Stanley Garn)
Harmony seldom makes a headline.(Silas Bent)
A free society is one where it is safe to be unpopular.(Adlai Stevenson)
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely
rearranging their prejudices.(William James)
Alliance, n.:
In international politics, the union of two thieves who have
their hands so deeply inserted in each other's pocket that
they cannot separately plunder a third.
(Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary")
'Anyone who is capable of being elected president,
should on no account be allowed to do the job'
(the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible
will make violent revolution inevitable.
(John F. Kennedy)
Men don't change. The only thing new in the world is the history you don't know.
[President Harry S. Truman (1884-1972)]
If we could shrink the earth's population to a village of precisely 100 people,
with all the existing human ratios remaining the same, it would look something like the following:
57 Asians
21 Europeans
14 Americans, both north and south
08 Africans
52 would be female
48 would be male
70 would be non-white
30 would be white
70 would be non-Christian
30 would be Christian
89 would be heterosexual
11 would be homosexual
6 people would possess 59% of the entire world's wealth and all 6 would be from the United States.
80 would live in substandard housing
70 would be unable to read
50 would suffer from malnutrition
1 would be near death; 1 would be near birth
1 (yes, only 1) would have a college education
1 would own a computer
When one considers our world from such a compressed perspective, the need for acceptance,
understanding and education becomes glaringly apparent.
If you woke up this morning with more health than illness...you are more blessed than the million who will not survive this week.
If you have never experienced the danger of battle, the loneliness of imprisonment, the agony of torture, or the pangs of starvation...you are ahead of 500 million people in the world.
If you can attend a church meeting without fear of harassment, arrest, torture, or death...you are more blessed than three billion people in the world.
If you have food in the refrigerator, clothes on your back, a roof overhead and a place to sleep...you are richer than 75% of this world.
If you have money in the bank, in your wallet, and spare change in a dish someplace ... you are among the top 8% of the world's wealthy.
If your parents are still alive and still married ... you are very rare, even in the United States and Canada.
If you can read this message, you are more blessed than over two billion people in the world that cannot read at all.
jeff... i can't believe you're fooled by this 'terror of the month' propaganda.
terrorist attacks are the best thing that could have happend for bush. it makes his job easier... it arouses an almost necessary 'patriotism'...
"you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists"... fuck
for sake of argument, lets say the world is just like the mainstream media would have us believe. that the evil saddam indeed has the means to harm americans somehow.
lets just apply some basic karmatic (new word :) thinking to the situation.
violence begets violence.
we cannot qwell potential terrorists with ammunition. it will simply just NOT happen.
"killing for peace is like fucking for virginity"
I just think its funny that we can condemn another country for having a tiny fraction of the weaponry that we harbor... its arrogant.
Please examine this PDF.
But what you say? Saddam is an EVIL man? he gassed his own people?
No.
He gassed the Kurds... and at the time the US was supporting his actions.
The news convieniently gives half-truth.
He starves them?
Yes people are starving... largely because of US trade sanctions...
This country is freaking cause he's making deals with the russians. (for arms AND oil)
mmmmm time for some quotes
"All over the place, from the popular culture to the propaganda system,
there is constant pressure to make people feel that they are helpless,
that the only role they can have is to ratify decisions and to consume."
(Noam Chomsky)
Democracy: Three wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper.
If the aborigine drafted an I.Q. test, all of Western civilization would presumably flunk it.(Stanley Garn)
Harmony seldom makes a headline.(Silas Bent)
A free society is one where it is safe to be unpopular.(Adlai Stevenson)
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely
rearranging their prejudices.(William James)
Alliance, n.:
In international politics, the union of two thieves who have
their hands so deeply inserted in each other's pocket that
they cannot separately plunder a third.
(Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary")
'Anyone who is capable of being elected president,
should on no account be allowed to do the job'
(the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible
will make violent revolution inevitable.
(John F. Kennedy)
Men don't change. The only thing new in the world is the history you don't know.
[President Harry S. Truman (1884-1972)]
If we could shrink the earth's population to a village of precisely 100 people,
with all the existing human ratios remaining the same, it would look something like the following:
57 Asians
21 Europeans
14 Americans, both north and south
08 Africans
52 would be female
48 would be male
70 would be non-white
30 would be white
70 would be non-Christian
30 would be Christian
89 would be heterosexual
11 would be homosexual
6 people would possess 59% of the entire world's wealth and all 6 would be from the United States.
80 would live in substandard housing
70 would be unable to read
50 would suffer from malnutrition
1 would be near death; 1 would be near birth
1 (yes, only 1) would have a college education
1 would own a computer
When one considers our world from such a compressed perspective, the need for acceptance,
understanding and education becomes glaringly apparent.
If you woke up this morning with more health than illness...you are more blessed than the million who will not survive this week.
If you have never experienced the danger of battle, the loneliness of imprisonment, the agony of torture, or the pangs of starvation...you are ahead of 500 million people in the world.
If you can attend a church meeting without fear of harassment, arrest, torture, or death...you are more blessed than three billion people in the world.
If you have food in the refrigerator, clothes on your back, a roof overhead and a place to sleep...you are richer than 75% of this world.
If you have money in the bank, in your wallet, and spare change in a dish someplace ... you are among the top 8% of the world's wealthy.
If your parents are still alive and still married ... you are very rare, even in the United States and Canada.
If you can read this message, you are more blessed than over two billion people in the world that cannot read at all.
2.16.2003
GOOD! GOOD!- I thought by the short pause in posts that everyone got tired and left, but it was everyone just drawing a breath. I really enjoyed Chad's post. I agree with much of what you wrote. I have said many of the same things myself (we don't know anything outside of CNN, maybe pull out of outside countries, media twists the facts, etc).
I agree also, that the war on terror is a misnomer. There is no way to win, but I think that there are many actions we should take, and are taking some of them. I don't really know what would be a better term... War On The People Who Attacked Us or War On The Hopelessly Misled or something like that, maybe, but that doesn't fit well in a sound bite. I think that we have sat on the sidelines for many many years while other countries have suffered under terrorist attacks, but it took a large scale attack on us to wake us up, much like the wake-up out of Isolationism right before WWII. There are many similarities to WWII (ie surprise attack, not wanting to be involved in the affairs outside our country, long term and deadly (for all sides) response, attempts at appeasement of the enemy, etc). The long term, post-action problems also remain as before. Reconstruction, the terrorist equivalent of denazification, nation building, to list a few.
So, that brings us to correct action. Or correct inaction, perhaps.
I somewhat disagree with the idea that any US action inherently breeds terrorism. I think that the power vacuum left behind a military action breeds terrorism. We made long term friends, and became allies with many of our old enemies. The British (War of 1812), Japanese (WWII), Germany (WWII) are just few... The latter two are particularly surprising because of the violence, intensity and duration of the conflict (we NUKED Japan and they still became our friends). I think that the reason we became friends with our old enemies is because we are the first civilization in history to actually rebuild our enemies after defeating them. I think that is an important lesson to remember, and I think that it has been remembered for Afghanistan, and plans are in the works for a post-Saddam Iraq, should the situation arise (I am having a hard time seeing how it wont). I can see no reason why we can't become friends with a democratic Iraq, like we are with Turkey.
The conflict of interest point is an interesting one to bring up, in light of international response to the US. I was watching some fill-in-the-blank news program (which, as we all know, is of questionable truth) and they were addressing the topic of France's rejection of the US's ideas. France has a politically sizeable Arab (or Islamic-the terms are somewhat interchangeable) population-one of the largest in Europe, and the power structure in France knows very little about it. They are somewhat afraid of it, I was told. France also has larger economic ties with Iraq than any other nation in the world. Most of the business Iraq has done in the last 25 years has been with France. The projection of the talking heads was that France would kick and scream about any change in the region, but would jump on the bandwagon at the politically expedient last minute to join the coalition in the (fairly likely) event of military action, to protect its financial interests. It will be a good indicator of the quality of the talking heads to see if this happens or not.
Germany is also an interesting one... Gerhard Schroeder was elected (by an exceedingly slim majority) on the premise that he would keep German troops out of a war. During his campaign he snubbed the US and continued to do so after his election. From what I understand, there is a growing German resentment to him and his ideas. His party lost in a very big way in their equivalent of midterm elections, even (or especially) in his home state of Hesse, which had helped propel him to office. The general German polulation still thinks of the US as Germany's best international friend (I believe the numbers were something like 75%-78% or something like that). I think that Germany will most likely still resist a US-led war, but I think that Gerhard Schroeder will probably be sidelined after his term. It will be something to watch, definitely.
As for action, that is a hazier issue. I was talking about it with some friends from my department here and it kind of boiled down to a couple of things...
Iraq certainly has chemical and biological weapons. This much we know. They may or may not have nuclear weapons, but I am leaning toward them having them. I have no direct facts outside of government action. I highly doubt that we would put all this effort into a troop buildup if we (or, more correctly, the powers that be) did not have a very good idea of what was there. There are many people who are calling on the US to disclose more of its intelligence, but the US is holding back, understandably. The US wants to discredit the inspectors. They want to prove that Saddam has been leading the UN around by a leash for the last 12-15 years. Which I believe he has.
So the existence of these weapons put us in a situation of "kill us now or kill us later". We will lose citizens in a war on Iraq. Just like we would lose citizens in a terrorist attack. The Cold War idea of containment and Mutual Assured Destruction does not work here, because the nuclear/chemical/biological cat is already out of the bag and each particular terrorists destruction is not assured, because we have nowhere to directly point our guns. And this is very much an us-or-them war, because it has been declared that way by them (Saddam, Osama). So we can take our losses now or take them later. I guess I would prefer to take them now, while we can in some way control and prevent them, instead of just waiting and wondering when it will come.
So we sit and wait. I think that education on the issue is impossible, because there are no real facts. Who do you believe? Corporate Media? The politically motivated web sites that tout "news" with no sources? Politicians? Me? Things are not looking good here...:)
The only real disagreement I had with what you wrote was fairly minor. You wrote "I warn you now... the next enemy is free-thinkers". I disagree. I think that the next enemy is Christians. But I have personal reasons for thinking that, I suppose. It is fairly natural to think of whatever group you associate yourself with as the underdog. It seems that Christians have become the last safe group to hate. We are looked at as being narrow-minded and politcally incorrect for the things we think, and I think that is only going to intensify in the future. But it will be something, like all of these others, to watch and think about.
The only other thing I disagreed with was the general perception of Muslims. I have several Muslim friends here at school (One from Bangladesh and my teacher, who believe it or not is from Iraq) and a Hindu friend (also from Bangladesh), and I asked them if they had noticed anything or had any trouble since 9/11 and they said that from the general public, nothing had changed. They were just as accepted as before, but they knew the government was watching very closely. They thought that their phones had been monitored (I don't know how you would know, but this is what they said) and they had been interviewed a couple of times. They said the INS rules were changing, as well, which put them in some difficult positions. I think that Americans can see the difference between Islam, Arabs and terrorism, even though they sometimes share the same face.
Anyhow, good discussion!
Keep it up. Does anybody disagree with what I said? Agree? Did I make any logical or informational blunders? What do you think?
I agree also, that the war on terror is a misnomer. There is no way to win, but I think that there are many actions we should take, and are taking some of them. I don't really know what would be a better term... War On The People Who Attacked Us or War On The Hopelessly Misled or something like that, maybe, but that doesn't fit well in a sound bite. I think that we have sat on the sidelines for many many years while other countries have suffered under terrorist attacks, but it took a large scale attack on us to wake us up, much like the wake-up out of Isolationism right before WWII. There are many similarities to WWII (ie surprise attack, not wanting to be involved in the affairs outside our country, long term and deadly (for all sides) response, attempts at appeasement of the enemy, etc). The long term, post-action problems also remain as before. Reconstruction, the terrorist equivalent of denazification, nation building, to list a few.
So, that brings us to correct action. Or correct inaction, perhaps.
I somewhat disagree with the idea that any US action inherently breeds terrorism. I think that the power vacuum left behind a military action breeds terrorism. We made long term friends, and became allies with many of our old enemies. The British (War of 1812), Japanese (WWII), Germany (WWII) are just few... The latter two are particularly surprising because of the violence, intensity and duration of the conflict (we NUKED Japan and they still became our friends). I think that the reason we became friends with our old enemies is because we are the first civilization in history to actually rebuild our enemies after defeating them. I think that is an important lesson to remember, and I think that it has been remembered for Afghanistan, and plans are in the works for a post-Saddam Iraq, should the situation arise (I am having a hard time seeing how it wont). I can see no reason why we can't become friends with a democratic Iraq, like we are with Turkey.
The conflict of interest point is an interesting one to bring up, in light of international response to the US. I was watching some fill-in-the-blank news program (which, as we all know, is of questionable truth) and they were addressing the topic of France's rejection of the US's ideas. France has a politically sizeable Arab (or Islamic-the terms are somewhat interchangeable) population-one of the largest in Europe, and the power structure in France knows very little about it. They are somewhat afraid of it, I was told. France also has larger economic ties with Iraq than any other nation in the world. Most of the business Iraq has done in the last 25 years has been with France. The projection of the talking heads was that France would kick and scream about any change in the region, but would jump on the bandwagon at the politically expedient last minute to join the coalition in the (fairly likely) event of military action, to protect its financial interests. It will be a good indicator of the quality of the talking heads to see if this happens or not.
Germany is also an interesting one... Gerhard Schroeder was elected (by an exceedingly slim majority) on the premise that he would keep German troops out of a war. During his campaign he snubbed the US and continued to do so after his election. From what I understand, there is a growing German resentment to him and his ideas. His party lost in a very big way in their equivalent of midterm elections, even (or especially) in his home state of Hesse, which had helped propel him to office. The general German polulation still thinks of the US as Germany's best international friend (I believe the numbers were something like 75%-78% or something like that). I think that Germany will most likely still resist a US-led war, but I think that Gerhard Schroeder will probably be sidelined after his term. It will be something to watch, definitely.
As for action, that is a hazier issue. I was talking about it with some friends from my department here and it kind of boiled down to a couple of things...
Iraq certainly has chemical and biological weapons. This much we know. They may or may not have nuclear weapons, but I am leaning toward them having them. I have no direct facts outside of government action. I highly doubt that we would put all this effort into a troop buildup if we (or, more correctly, the powers that be) did not have a very good idea of what was there. There are many people who are calling on the US to disclose more of its intelligence, but the US is holding back, understandably. The US wants to discredit the inspectors. They want to prove that Saddam has been leading the UN around by a leash for the last 12-15 years. Which I believe he has.
So the existence of these weapons put us in a situation of "kill us now or kill us later". We will lose citizens in a war on Iraq. Just like we would lose citizens in a terrorist attack. The Cold War idea of containment and Mutual Assured Destruction does not work here, because the nuclear/chemical/biological cat is already out of the bag and each particular terrorists destruction is not assured, because we have nowhere to directly point our guns. And this is very much an us-or-them war, because it has been declared that way by them (Saddam, Osama). So we can take our losses now or take them later. I guess I would prefer to take them now, while we can in some way control and prevent them, instead of just waiting and wondering when it will come.
So we sit and wait. I think that education on the issue is impossible, because there are no real facts. Who do you believe? Corporate Media? The politically motivated web sites that tout "news" with no sources? Politicians? Me? Things are not looking good here...:)
The only real disagreement I had with what you wrote was fairly minor. You wrote "I warn you now... the next enemy is free-thinkers". I disagree. I think that the next enemy is Christians. But I have personal reasons for thinking that, I suppose. It is fairly natural to think of whatever group you associate yourself with as the underdog. It seems that Christians have become the last safe group to hate. We are looked at as being narrow-minded and politcally incorrect for the things we think, and I think that is only going to intensify in the future. But it will be something, like all of these others, to watch and think about.
The only other thing I disagreed with was the general perception of Muslims. I have several Muslim friends here at school (One from Bangladesh and my teacher, who believe it or not is from Iraq) and a Hindu friend (also from Bangladesh), and I asked them if they had noticed anything or had any trouble since 9/11 and they said that from the general public, nothing had changed. They were just as accepted as before, but they knew the government was watching very closely. They thought that their phones had been monitored (I don't know how you would know, but this is what they said) and they had been interviewed a couple of times. They said the INS rules were changing, as well, which put them in some difficult positions. I think that Americans can see the difference between Islam, Arabs and terrorism, even though they sometimes share the same face.
Anyhow, good discussion!
Keep it up. Does anybody disagree with what I said? Agree? Did I make any logical or informational blunders? What do you think?
here's the thing. I don't even know where to start. First of all my veiws on the world differ so much from my leaders and most of my fellow citizens, that its hard to explain myself without coming across as a loonie.
I believe every human being knows the difference between right and wrong. There is some sort of trigger in all of us that is activated when we witness something truly horrendous. Jeff you ask for facts, but no one i know has any real facts. i have plenty of rumors. I have a general distrust for the rulers of this nation. you know the people i'm talking about. the select group of people that own and operate the government/media. in my opinion we have never lived in a democracy. we've ALWAYS been just a sugar coated aristocracy. looking back through history, (SEE Peoples History of the United States, Howard Zinn), its obvious to me that our imperialism has hardly been contested for many generations.
im·pe·ri·al·ism
2 : the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas;
its not a stretch to me to also conclude that the rulers that have control will not hesitate to lie, manipulate, and kill to stay in their position.
We have troops alreay 'invested' overseas... so they say war is inevitable. It would look foolish and wimpy to pull back now i suppose. You better not risk jeopardizing re-election, even if it is the right thing to do. Even if hundreds of thousands of your citizens are demonstrating in the cold. Even if millions around the WORLD are speaking out against you. It was the biggest demonstration EVER held in Britain.
Besides the politics of war though, the things that scares me the most is information control. i hate being treated like a 12 year old by network (corporate) news. its like mind control. We live in Orwellian times. The most lethal killing machines on the planet are referred to as "peacekeeping forces".
I turn on FoxNews and theres some guy talking about how 'we HAVE to go to war'... all the while theres a little floating avatar next to his head that says Common Sense. Just today I saw the stories about the UN twisted. On friday (2.14.03) the UN security council met. Blix said Iraq was coming around. The UN EXPLICTELY instructed the US not to act militarily without UN approval. The foreign minister of france said some controversial 'anti-US' words. The gallery erupted in applause. Bush, Powell speak.... silence.
That alone should say something.
So FOXnews today. They have dubbed Russia and France "the axis of weasel". They also said the french guys words were considered by many to be "offensive and pretentious"... they showed a quick clip of the UN clapping but made sure to note that it was just the "gallery" that was supporting the french speaker... not the world delagates.
Fox touts the "fair and balanced" phrase everywhere they go, but its obvious to me that they're just an outlet for the powers that be. There was periodic protest coverage today, but every 30 seconds they had to remind everyone about that poll they took that said 69% support war. They even had someone from the IAC (Iraq Action Coalition) on to speak about the reasons for marching. Of course the lady for the IAC was on the street where she should be. The fair and balanced conservative counterpart lady was nice and warm in the studio. The conservative lady spoke first, AND last. Her mic was noticeably louder than the IAC spokesperson. She alleged that since the IAC doesn't highlight Saddams wrongdoings, they are probably FUNDED by him. Because the IAC spokesperson is pro-Palistine she called her anti-semetic. This conservative lady would not stop calling the protesters 'pathetic' and 'unemployed' etc... The IAC lady simply said "I think a war will only increase terrorism"... while the conservative lady did nothing but personally attack and name call. it was a extremely unprofessional.
The WAR ON TERROR itself is a bogus term. You can't have a war on terror. Its even more absurd than the laughable war on drugs. How do you win a war on terror? I quote david cross:
"its like having a war on jealousy... at no point in time EVER are we going to go, 'phew! got em all everybody loves us again'... all we're doing is making more terrorists... everyday we make new terrorists around the world"
Sadly, terrorism is becoming associated with Islam... actually i'd bet that most Americans would associate any arabic people as a threat. We're just becoming conditioned that way. I warn you now... the next enemy is free-thinkers.
You have to examine the motives. Our country is REALLY not that dangerous of a place. When the general population is fearful, they will give up their rights, and support the largest and most powerful military in the world. If we're so peaceful, and FREE... why do we need the most WOD?
George Carlin summed it up best... he said that the middle class pays all of the taxes and does all of the work. The upper class (ruling class) pays very little tax and does very little work. The lower class is just there to scare the fuck out of the middle class. Keep them showing up to those 'jobs'.
Socialist overtones... yes... but so be it.
I'm so tired of the rhetoric "they can't stand our freedom"... of course we're the most righteous country... god bless the USA etc.
but with the money that we spend on defense we could feed and cloth the world many times over... theres something wrong.
War makes money though.
Through war we gain economic 'legs up'... we call it 'free trade'... (chuckle). Not to mention the government contracted companies that profit in the billions from wars. Lockhead Martin is the largest defense contractor in the world. You didn't hear it from me that the Bush family have a few shares.
To me thats called a "CONFLICT OF INTEREST"
Like in court... if your lawyer/judge/juror realizes that he or she has a conflict of interest (example: the judge is your cousin)
... they are forbidden to be involved with the 'justice' process.
I move that we impeach Dubya.
He has demonstrated an obvious conflict of interest.
What are we doing wrong? almost everything
What should we do?
pull out of every country. even the ones that request our assistance... bring Americans back home. EDUCATE the ignorant masses. REALIZE that maybe, just maybe... the world doesn't appriciate the American brand lifestyle. Admit that we really don't know whats best for other countries. We have enough problems to work out here first. FUCK.
I believe every human being knows the difference between right and wrong. There is some sort of trigger in all of us that is activated when we witness something truly horrendous. Jeff you ask for facts, but no one i know has any real facts. i have plenty of rumors. I have a general distrust for the rulers of this nation. you know the people i'm talking about. the select group of people that own and operate the government/media. in my opinion we have never lived in a democracy. we've ALWAYS been just a sugar coated aristocracy. looking back through history, (SEE Peoples History of the United States, Howard Zinn), its obvious to me that our imperialism has hardly been contested for many generations.
im·pe·ri·al·ism
2 : the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas;
its not a stretch to me to also conclude that the rulers that have control will not hesitate to lie, manipulate, and kill to stay in their position.
We have troops alreay 'invested' overseas... so they say war is inevitable. It would look foolish and wimpy to pull back now i suppose. You better not risk jeopardizing re-election, even if it is the right thing to do. Even if hundreds of thousands of your citizens are demonstrating in the cold. Even if millions around the WORLD are speaking out against you. It was the biggest demonstration EVER held in Britain.
Besides the politics of war though, the things that scares me the most is information control. i hate being treated like a 12 year old by network (corporate) news. its like mind control. We live in Orwellian times. The most lethal killing machines on the planet are referred to as "peacekeeping forces".
I turn on FoxNews and theres some guy talking about how 'we HAVE to go to war'... all the while theres a little floating avatar next to his head that says Common Sense. Just today I saw the stories about the UN twisted. On friday (2.14.03) the UN security council met. Blix said Iraq was coming around. The UN EXPLICTELY instructed the US not to act militarily without UN approval. The foreign minister of france said some controversial 'anti-US' words. The gallery erupted in applause. Bush, Powell speak.... silence.
That alone should say something.
So FOXnews today. They have dubbed Russia and France "the axis of weasel". They also said the french guys words were considered by many to be "offensive and pretentious"... they showed a quick clip of the UN clapping but made sure to note that it was just the "gallery" that was supporting the french speaker... not the world delagates.
Fox touts the "fair and balanced" phrase everywhere they go, but its obvious to me that they're just an outlet for the powers that be. There was periodic protest coverage today, but every 30 seconds they had to remind everyone about that poll they took that said 69% support war. They even had someone from the IAC (Iraq Action Coalition) on to speak about the reasons for marching. Of course the lady for the IAC was on the street where she should be. The fair and balanced conservative counterpart lady was nice and warm in the studio. The conservative lady spoke first, AND last. Her mic was noticeably louder than the IAC spokesperson. She alleged that since the IAC doesn't highlight Saddams wrongdoings, they are probably FUNDED by him. Because the IAC spokesperson is pro-Palistine she called her anti-semetic. This conservative lady would not stop calling the protesters 'pathetic' and 'unemployed' etc... The IAC lady simply said "I think a war will only increase terrorism"... while the conservative lady did nothing but personally attack and name call. it was a extremely unprofessional.
The WAR ON TERROR itself is a bogus term. You can't have a war on terror. Its even more absurd than the laughable war on drugs. How do you win a war on terror? I quote david cross:
"its like having a war on jealousy... at no point in time EVER are we going to go, 'phew! got em all everybody loves us again'... all we're doing is making more terrorists... everyday we make new terrorists around the world"
Sadly, terrorism is becoming associated with Islam... actually i'd bet that most Americans would associate any arabic people as a threat. We're just becoming conditioned that way. I warn you now... the next enemy is free-thinkers.
You have to examine the motives. Our country is REALLY not that dangerous of a place. When the general population is fearful, they will give up their rights, and support the largest and most powerful military in the world. If we're so peaceful, and FREE... why do we need the most WOD?
George Carlin summed it up best... he said that the middle class pays all of the taxes and does all of the work. The upper class (ruling class) pays very little tax and does very little work. The lower class is just there to scare the fuck out of the middle class. Keep them showing up to those 'jobs'.
Socialist overtones... yes... but so be it.
I'm so tired of the rhetoric "they can't stand our freedom"... of course we're the most righteous country... god bless the USA etc.
but with the money that we spend on defense we could feed and cloth the world many times over... theres something wrong.
War makes money though.
Through war we gain economic 'legs up'... we call it 'free trade'... (chuckle). Not to mention the government contracted companies that profit in the billions from wars. Lockhead Martin is the largest defense contractor in the world. You didn't hear it from me that the Bush family have a few shares.
To me thats called a "CONFLICT OF INTEREST"
Like in court... if your lawyer/judge/juror realizes that he or she has a conflict of interest (example: the judge is your cousin)
... they are forbidden to be involved with the 'justice' process.
I move that we impeach Dubya.
He has demonstrated an obvious conflict of interest.
What are we doing wrong? almost everything
What should we do?
pull out of every country. even the ones that request our assistance... bring Americans back home. EDUCATE the ignorant masses. REALIZE that maybe, just maybe... the world doesn't appriciate the American brand lifestyle. Admit that we really don't know whats best for other countries. We have enough problems to work out here first. FUCK.
2.15.2003
2.12.2003
There has been a lot of talk recently, both here and in the other circles I run in, of the pending war in Iraq, and also the current state of world affairs. I am just curious about what everybody here thinks. I mean seriously thinks, as in neurochemical processes inside their skulls- not linked websites they agree with or others formulated opinions they subscribe to. Cite informational sources if you wish, but I would like to see personal views, backed up with examples and data.
If you do not like war with Iraq, fine. Why?
If you want go to war with Iraq, fine. Why?
If you don't like what is happening in the world, the way things are being run, describe a coherent domestic and/or foreign policy.
What are we doing wrong?
What are we doing right?
Just free-form discussion about stuff. Mostly out of curiosity...
discussion is fun..:)
The discussion may start with war, but it will most likely go other places as well... any topic is game.
If you do not like war with Iraq, fine. Why?
If you want go to war with Iraq, fine. Why?
If you don't like what is happening in the world, the way things are being run, describe a coherent domestic and/or foreign policy.
What are we doing wrong?
What are we doing right?
Just free-form discussion about stuff. Mostly out of curiosity...
discussion is fun..:)
The discussion may start with war, but it will most likely go other places as well... any topic is game.
lets go president shopping.
jesus christ. this fucking world.
my sentiments exactly
well, its not like we can do anything about it... but i thought i'd let everyone in on the continual degredation of our civil rights. The police state marches onward!
jesus christ. this fucking world.
my sentiments exactly
well, its not like we can do anything about it... but i thought i'd let everyone in on the continual degredation of our civil rights. The police state marches onward!
2.10.2003
I should do this for an undergraduate research project. This is an important and expanding field...:)
Oh! how the mighty have fallen...:)
What did you do for your aptitude test? Are you getting a job at AT&T? What would you be doing?
The alex jones page was hilarious...:) I think josh morgan is making battle plans for his yard again...:)
I loved the "masters of terror" flashing graphics...
heehee
here I sit, whiling away my day. I have like 4 hours until my next class... wait wait wait.
I have class til 9 tonight. two night classes basically from 4 to 9 with a 10 min break between them.
the life of a college student
"the CIA put a chip in my brain! THE CIA PUT A CHIP IN MY BRAIN!!!" - Dirty Work
The alex jones page was hilarious...:) I think josh morgan is making battle plans for his yard again...:)
I loved the "masters of terror" flashing graphics...
heehee
here I sit, whiling away my day. I have like 4 hours until my next class... wait wait wait.
I have class til 9 tonight. two night classes basically from 4 to 9 with a 10 min break between them.
the life of a college student
"the CIA put a chip in my brain! THE CIA PUT A CHIP IN MY BRAIN!!!" - Dirty Work
2.09.2003
My mom is doing better... she is still having trouble with her breathing... but she is still smoking... probably going to go into the hospital/nursing home soon.
Yesterday I went to the cities and passed an apptitude test for AT&T. I tried to got to the david cross BLOODMONEY show at first ave... but they were sold out very quickly.
alex jones says BEWARE ALL SHEEPLE : DRACONIAN LEGISLATION IS ON THE WAY
Yesterday I went to the cities and passed an apptitude test for AT&T. I tried to got to the david cross BLOODMONEY show at first ave... but they were sold out very quickly.
alex jones says BEWARE ALL SHEEPLE : DRACONIAN LEGISLATION IS ON THE WAY
2.06.2003
dont die chad :(
2.05.2003
That is scary... How is your mom feeling? I didn't know she was sick. Oxygen can be a very dangerous chemical, as I am learning in my chemistry class. It is a good thing you were there...
today i almost died.
My mom somehow has concluded that its ok to smoke while hooked up to oxygen. In addition she nods off all the time. So this morning I woke to a smoke detector and my mom on the floor surrounded by flame. There were no serious casualties... just a skinned knee, and some charred poly-somethings. It could have been much worse i guess... (kaboom)
My mom somehow has concluded that its ok to smoke while hooked up to oxygen. In addition she nods off all the time. So this morning I woke to a smoke detector and my mom on the floor surrounded by flame. There were no serious casualties... just a skinned knee, and some charred poly-somethings. It could have been much worse i guess... (kaboom)
i am a follower of david cross for many reasons.
My America is one of them.
i really hope i get to see him at first ave this saturday...
My America is one of them.
i really hope i get to see him at first ave this saturday...
2.03.2003
Hello... It wouldn't surprise me if the RIAA was behind the dalnet attacks. At least in some way. They are an amazingly conflicted group of people. I was reading Wired magazine (it is in the library here at school, and I was bored) and they had an article about MP3 sharing and how it is (supposedly) killing the music industry. One of the specific examples was Sony. Sony is basically divided into two companies, Sony hardware and Sony Entertainment. Sony hardware tries to make hardware that people can use and want, such as the walkman, transistor radio, etc. MP3 players are all the rage now, and the hardware portion of Sony wants in on it. But Sony Entertainment is in the RIAA and is trying to frustrate efforts of companies like Sony to make such hardware, mostly by generating lawsuits until they can't see straight. They had a whole list of contradictory things that were done, where Sony was basically taking legal action against itself. For example, it introduced a copy protection scheme for CD's that made many of the CD's produced by Sony unplayable in the VAIO laptop. Go figure. The jist of the article is that the music industry is on its knees, and it only has a couple of years until it will not function at all, at least not the way it has been (some say it is already too late). Which is something I greatly look forward to. There needs to be a change of business there. Everybody is sick of the homogenization the industry has foisted upon us. At least I am...
have fun at the movie, chad. I will be joining you in your quest for a job in the not-too-distant future. Grad school is looking more appealing every day, despite the fact that I AM SICK OF SCHOOL.
l8r
have fun at the movie, chad. I will be joining you in your quest for a job in the not-too-distant future. Grad school is looking more appealing every day, despite the fact that I AM SICK OF SCHOOL.
l8r
well, i wish you luck in getting a job...
and the magic 8-ball has words of wisdom concerning e-mail programs too:
"outlook not so good"
:)
and the magic 8-ball has words of wisdom concerning e-mail programs too:
"outlook not so good"
:)
It's good to know you're still alive... and that you have a roof, not to mention access to the 21st century. Some of us may have been worried.
As far as employment is concerned, the all-knowing Magic Eight Ball says: Outlook good.
So you never know...
As far as employment is concerned, the all-knowing Magic Eight Ball says: Outlook good.
So you never know...
2.02.2003
Well... i no longer have broadband.
I'm moving into my mom's house.
There are no jobs in this fake economy :(
just thought i'd let everyone know that i'm still alive. i'm going to go watch a movie with anna now.
"the man who wasn't there"
mmmmmm
I'm moving into my mom's house.
There are no jobs in this fake economy :(
just thought i'd let everyone know that i'm still alive. i'm going to go watch a movie with anna now.
"the man who wasn't there"
mmmmmm
