For those who have grown tired of, or simply never were interested to begin with in this discussion, I suggest you skip the following second response to Dave’s rejoinders and instead just take a gander at this amazing picture of a family of half-lion, half-human creatures. Funny how these unique specimens only seemed to appear between 1982 and 1989. And be sure to come back tomorrow, when I’ll have a very long-winded screed about Berkeley. But for now, there will be lots of quoting, lots of responding, and then maybe if there’s still time, some kung-fu fighting.
For those of you silly enough to still be here, enjoy this “pissing-contest,” as Dave called it. I suppose he thinks this is just some “whose is bigger” competition of ego-gratification, but I take this shit seriously (sometimes). However, it seems the strain has caused him to devolve into some rather painful attempts at humor. Never a pretty thing to watch. Small children, the elderly, and those with heart conditions should avert their gaze.
Gee Mister Mustard, you sure are a smart guy. I humbly submit to your obviously superior intellectual prowess.
NOT!
You know, when I started this whole exchange, I sorta wanted to keep it relatively free of inanity, since I didn’t want to seem disrespectful to Dave, when he had taken the time to reply at length to my post, and who seemed genuinely engaged.
But damn be-otch, I am at a loss as to what to do at this point. Gorgias, that first master of rhetoric, once said, “Always rejoin humor with seriousness, and seriousness with humor.” Good advice. He didn’t say anything, however, about responding to awkward stabs of humor that make who you’re arguing with look like he accidentally let his 12-year-old nephew get at the computer while he was taking a whiz. So, with the absence of any commonly recognized method as to how to proceed, I’ll have to wing this one.
Onward, forward, upward!
To begin with, all I did was recommend that you read one of Chomsky’s books. Specifically a book that discusses how the mainstream media is not much more than a tool for disseminating state/corporate (not liberal) propaganda rather than the impartial and objective dispenser of pure information that it often claims to be. My suggestion was offered in response to your observation about the obviously shitty state of the mainstream media.
Thanks for the recommendation.
Perhaps you didn’t notice that I said I already read that steaming pile of trash, Manufacturing Consent (no offense intended to steaming piles of trash everywhere)? And for the record, no Chomsky book can be said to “discuss” anything, but rather to “lie,” “mislead,” and “indoctrinate.” Manufacturing Consent fits in nicely with the whole Chomsky pantheon, because its thesis is the precondition upon which the rest of his bananer ideas rest. His main arguments about the world at large (America is a fascist country, Israel is a fascist country, the Khmer Rouge was an enlightened, progressive government, people in the US actively worked to bring Hitler to power in Germany, the US is deliberately perpetrating genocide in Afghanistan, etc, etc, etc) are so bold-facedly laughable and so immediately disprovable with even a cursory investigation, that he must first thoroughly discredit and slander any source of information (which, incidentally, happens to be just about every paper/magazine/book that wouldn’t be better put to use as toilet paper) that might reveal his theories to be the discombobulated ravings that they are.
I was making a point about how silly the most influential and respected media outlets are in their often rabid leftwing bent, and the way your initial response went was essentially this: “Hey man, I agree with you, mainstream media sucks. Read Chomsky and find out how!”
To quote Rachel Lucas, “Bitch, please.”
I said media was leftwing, you said it was fascist corporate propaganda, and cited Chomsky as evidence. Well, pardon me, but Chomsky is full of shit. If not all the time, then only in every single instance in which I have read and subsequently fact-checked his mendacious ass. The man simply can’t be trusted to tell you what color the sky is. He’ll look up and say, “Well it sky may look blue, but it appears that the sky’s true color has been changed as part of a deliberate attempt by the corporately-controlled US government to entice Americans to not look at all the horrible suffering their fascist policies of genocide have caused and instead trick them into to just staring at the pretty colors while the greedy CEOs are busy killing off another native indian tribe and overthrowing enlightened governments like the Khmer Rouge. This is so obvious, in fact, that any discussion otherwise is nonsense, and everyone knows it.”
You didn’t offer any evidence as to the veracity of Chomsky’s claims, just cited him with an air of “Chomsky said it, and so it must be.” I, on the other hand, at least presented some evidence which (I think) went a long ass way in showing that Chomsky is a thoroughly irreputable source of information. In other words, a liar deer fucking woman beastiality.
You went on to say that Chomsky is, ?routinel? guilty of exactly those things that he accuses the mainstream media of.? While there may be some truth to this statement, I would offer that there is a HUGE difference between Chomsky (a person with relatively limited influence) doing it and the mainstream media (outlets with a rather broad influence) doing it.
Davey, Davey, Davey….
You’re not reading what I wrote. You’re reading what you want to think I wrote. I said he is guilty of what he accuses mainstream media of (knowingly and deliberately deceiving for the furtherance of an ideology). You act as if I said, “Sure, they do it, but he does too!”
Nope, sorry. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong (I know repeating myself is irritating, but it seems the only way to get anything into that concrete noggin of yours).
Chomsky himself actually does not allow debate, for it is a common tactic for him to simply dismiss a contrary point of view as “a pack of lies” (referring to Cambodian genocide) or “deliberate nonsense” (referring to the claim that Al Qaeda hates us because we are a secular liberal democracy). Speaking of a critique by David Horowitz, he just called Horowitz a lying Stalinist and dropped it at that.
The media, however, does not shut out any kind of debate with anywhere near the precision and fervor that Chomsky does. My original claim was that the left wing bent of so many media outlets was so bad because it was just so damn shoddy, not because it was part of some vast nefarious conspiracy to stifle any voice that disagreed.
Not once did I say that Chomsky is God or that everything he says is the truth. Sure there are many out there who believe everything Chomsky says, but the same can be said for those on the right who consistently believe every word spoken by conservative pundits.
See, this is the moment when I ask you, “And what, pray tell, is your goddamn point?”
You may not think he’s God, but you obviously think he’s at least a worthwhile enough source to cite as evidence for the vast corporate conspiracy that is American media. I disagree on that point, and I showed you why. And what exactly does this have to do with people on the right who are easily led? I don’t know what you’re talking about. Do you??
Oy… so much more to go through. But I’m a giver, so…
Regarding the intent of the Bush Administration, you said:
“….they wish to bring about a situation where there does not exist any such entity that both has the power and the intention of threatening our security. This can be accomplished in more than one way sex with horses. One of them is…through force, ….But more often it is accomplished through diplomatic pressure and deterrence”
It seems to me that the current administration seems more passionately committed to the former rather than the latter.
If so, why hasn’t the crazy cowboy sent all them big ass tanks an’ planes an’ shit into Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, et al? It seems like diplomacy is the order of the day, there, no?
I would say that you are correct in your assertion that we are not out to get every lousy dictator in the world. But I believe our goals are limited even further to taking action in only those areas where our leaders claim we have some sort of vital strategic interest. In either case it makes us look like hypocrites to the rest of the world when we tolerate and even support brutality (e.g. just about anywhere in Latin America over the past 40-50 years) in one place and then look the other way when our leaders it doesn’t suit us.
I say “where our security was credibly threatened,” you say “vital strategic interest.” Sing it with me…
Security!
Interest!
Secuirty!
Interest!
Let’s just call the whole thing off!
We don’t seem to disagree on this point. What we may disagree on however, is whether we are justified in pursuing a “vital strategic interest.” You seem to think not. Well, “vital” meaning “necessary for life,” I think we are. I hope you’re not suggesting we ignore threats that would threaten our very existence?
As for all the lousy pieces of crap that we temporarily allied ourselves to at one time or another, let me simply restate what I already said: when life presents you with 2 shitty choices, you choose the slightly less shitty one. In the case of brutal authoritarians versus brutal communists, I’ll take the authoritarian any day. For one thing, at the very least he will keep his hands to himself and won’t try to export his rule to every neighboring country. Secondly, he may torture and kill those that oppose him, but he will not send the country into an abject chaos of starvation and genocide (ie, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, the Soviet Union… ummm, now that I think about it, just about every country to try on the communist hat). I’m not particularly happy when a murderous thug is put in charge of a country, but I’m even less happy when a genocidal cabal of crazies raised on a strict diet of Stalin and Mao take the reigns of government.
In addition, you failed to address my point that the very measures (most often military action) we take to eliminate threats only plant the seeds for future threats.
Holy flaming crap on a stick, did you even read my post, or did your helper monkey just summarize it for you? Fuck this writing new stuff, I’ll just quote directly what I wrote before:
The Mujahudeen: At the time, these people were rebels willing to fight against the Soviets because they had perpetrated an expansionist invasion of another country.
Now, some of those same people are trying to destroy us, when we didn’t invade their countries.
Notice the difference? We supported them in what was a justified cause. Just because they turn around and pursue a new, unjustified one later one does not cast any kind of moral or strategic pale onto our actions.
Is it all coming back now?
In other words, you can argue whether it was a justifiable strategic action to support them then (I’d argue it was), but you cannot conclude simply from the fact that they chose to turn around and attack us 10 years later that somehow this is our fault close up horse sex. By your logic, we would never, in any circumstance be able to have an ally whom we gave aid to, because maybe, just maybe, they might change their mind about it down the road.
Britain in WWII? “Can’t trust those damned limeys. Get those destroyers back, Roosevelt! Who knows whether they might use them on us tomorrow?!”
I don’t care how much food we dropped in Afghanistan, those people who lost loved ones because of misguided bombs and missiles or who were and continue to be humiliated at the hands of our military will grow up hating our guts.
Once again, your logic leads to the conclusion that we can never take any kind of offensive military action ever, because innocents will always die in the crossfire.
So, I might ask, where are all the millions of Japanese, French and German terrorists that were created the day we killed their loved ones with our guns and bombs? Is the media covering up the story? Guess Chomsky was right all along.
In response to my comment about allying ourselves with thugs, you said:
“You imply that there is something morally suspect with allying ourselves to less-than-savory entities and then breaking that alliance for some reason.”
You completely missed my point, which was to say that in every instance (Panama, Iraq, and Afghanistan) I mentioned, we enabled these people or groups to become “threats” (not so for Noriega, who was only removed because he threatened to blow Poppy Bush’s cover) because we used them for our own short-term strategic gain and then discarded them faster than a soiled prophylactic
First of all, you really should save and recycle your used prophylactics. By throwing them away you’ve become a part of the vast condom industry conspiracy that seeks to keep the rate of condom consumption on a constant incline so that they might further plunder the rubber fields of the poor oppressed… oh, you get the idea.
And again, I say “Bitch, please!”
We didn’t discard them. They turned on us when it no longer served their interest to be our friends.
You say we supported Saddam to counter the threat posed by Iran, but you failed to mention how the CIA-sponsored overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh and our subsequent support of the Shah contributed to the rise of militant Islam in Iran, but also how we helped arm the fanatical Iranians too. Hello? Can you say, ?blowback??
From what I know, our support of the Shah was capricious at best. Perhaps our fears of Mossadegh as an ultra-nationalist leader were overblown. So far, this seems to be the one point in your entire litany of “blowback” travesties that isn’t completely silly. Congrats.
That fact doesn’t invalidate interventitive action wholesale.
As for supplying Iranians with weapons, I’m assuming you’re referring to trading them weapons for hostages. This was not an alliance. It was a deal brokered with an enemy to get something we needed from them in return.
When we traded Soviet spies that we had captured in return for American operatives, is it “blowback” when those Russian spies are again used against us? Of course not. We knew they would be put back into operation by our enemy as soon as possible, but it was seen as equally, or more important, to get our own people back. Same deal with weapons and hostages.
You can argue that giving those weapons to Iran wasn’t worth the lives of those American hostages, and thus it was a poorly brokered deal, but you can’t describe this as blowback.
Dave then offers a quote to describe the “tyranny” of the marketplace, from “Jihad Vs. McWorld,”
McWorld?s advocates will argue that the market does ?serve? individuals by empowering them to them to ?choose? but the choice is always about which items to buy and consume, never about whether to buy and consume anything at all; or about the right to earn an income that makes consumption possible; or about how to regulate consumption so that it does not swallow up other larger public goods that cannot be advanced in the absence of democratic public institutions. In McWorld?s global market, empowerment lies in the choice of toppings on a baked potato: the rest is passive consumption. When profit becomes the sole criterion by which we measure every good, every activity, every attitude, every cultural product, there is soon nothing but profit. In the empire of the market, the money hooligans are princes and largesse is king.
This is essentially the “Walmart Vs. Small Businesses” argument.
Whenever Walmart moves into a new location, invariably there is a vocal segment of the population that protests vehemently, saying that their town doesn’t want WalMart there, because it will squeeze out all the local, friendly, personal mom-and-pop operations in the area. The obvious question to ask is, if the town really prefers these homey, personal, but much more expensive and less centralized businesses, then why do they still choose to get everything at WalMart?
And you always get answers like, “Well how can’t I? Everything is so cheap and it’s all in one place!” I guess that’s what you mean by the tyranny of the marketplace free farm sex.
The unavoidable fact in all this is that, if people truly valued the apparent personal and homey aspect of local business so much more than convenience and saving money, then they would continue to shop at the locals, and WalMart wouldn’t be able to push them out of business. It’s the tyranny of actually offering a better deal.
And likewise, the fact of the market itself does not force participation. Tell me exactly how a bedouin would not be able to choose to only engage in the market place when he felt like it, if at all, especially if his sentiments towards non-participation are shared by the majority of his society?
It goes right back to my claim in my previous post that there is a vocal and sometimes violent minority that cannot stand the marketplace, but the vast majority of the society is for it. We cannot stop the market from coming to a country when most of those people want it there. All we can do is defend ourselves against those who simply will not tolerate what their countrymen want, and will resort to violence against us because of that inability to deal with change.
“You seem to think that we’re shoving McDonalds and Pepsi down these people’s throats, whether they like it or not. That just isn’t true.”
OK, here I will admit that I overstepped things a little. There is no conscious attempt being made to force American pop culture on the rest of the world. It is closer to the truth to say that American pop culture (McWorld) is the unintended consequence of consumerism and unbridled ?savage? capitalism. It has a life of its own and respects no borders or other forms of national sovereignty. As globalization progresses, national boundaries are increasingly becoming irrelevant and it is our movies, our music, our commercials, books and televison shows that comprise what amount, on a global scale, to propaganda to support the Tyranny of Global Markets.
Again, what’s your point? We’re not pushing it on them, but it’s going there anyway because they can’t help but want it? You seem to suggest that this is somehow “the nature of the beast” that is “savage capitalism,” and thus it seems the only possible solution is a completely new system?
Paging Dr. Marx, Dr. Marx you have a telephone call at the front desk.
Yes, yes, I know. “Oooh, whoever doesn’t swallow capitalism whole is a dirty communist, huh?”
No, it’s just that it’s the logical conclusion of where you’re going. Anything short of the eradication of capitalism wholesale and the imposition of a totalitarian government will not stop capitalism’s spread. The network effect of capitalism is simply too strong. Either you join and adapt to it, or you get left behind (which should be fine if that’s what you’re interested in - let the bedouin stay a bedouin if he sees the modern market world and decides he wants no part of it). You say that this is an example of some particularly destructive form of capitalistic globalization, but it isn’t. It’s not a perversion of some possible ideal form of moderated capitalism that lets everybody be happy. It’s just reality.
The unhappy fact is that all capitalism is incompatible with many aspects of traditional societies, and this means a lot of people are going to get pissed off, sometimes violently. But we can’t stop that, because we ultimately couldn’t stop the spread of the market even if we wanted to (which we don’t, and which we shouldn’t). The best we can do is try to deal with the animosity generated in some of the more rigid sectors of those societies, sometimes with the carrot, and sometimes with the stick, as the situation may warrant.
In response to my comment about the alleged universality of American-ness, you said:
“If by “American” you mean someone who is allowed the maximum amount of freedom in deciding the course of their life, then yes, I do sincerely believe that the vast majority of the people in this world would take that chance, were it freely given to them.”
No, by ?American? I meant someone kept brain-dead and docile (like most of the people in this country) by an unresponsive government and a tyrannical market as manifested through crass consumerism and unbridled markets.
Oooooh. Nice elitist counter-cultural bohemian swipe there at all the simplistic, hamburger-gobbling, TV-entraced Deltas in this sad, pathetic country of ours.
Too bad your childish caricature was completely irrelevant to what we were talking about, eh? Otherwise it would’ve been a real good zinger.
I said the rest of the world wanted to be like what I defined as “American”. Simply substituting a silly poorly-thought-out diatribe in place of that doesn’t at all invalidate my claims about what the rest of the world wants.
I believe the level of democracy in this country and the adherence to those founding principles has expanded considerably in the last 200 years K9 erotica.
How can you say that? A legitimate democracy of the sort envisioned by the Founders rests firmly on the need for an informed and engaged citizenry. Today we have neither, as more people choose to watch the Super Bowl every year than vote every four years. We are a hollow shell of a democracy and our incessant chatter about exporting it to the rest of the world is a pathetic joke that would have brought tears to the Founder?s eyes.
I really feel sorry for you.
Update: Dave has responded lengthily in the comments section. Frankly, I have to admit I’m tried of this conversation, so I’ll let him have the last word.
Well I wouldn't be surprised if this Wednesday at Sproul there will be similar behavior, and I plan to be there. Maybewhen you apply your own internal calculus of death and suffering and conclude that it isn't something that you need
let you know when there's a mushroom cloud over New York, because that's the only "final proof" that seems to be able to
Containment and deterrence were responses to US weakness, you silly-headed dunderpate. It was obvious that using direct
fact that these people are thugs, bullies and liars.
way why we're doing all of this, and why, if they still choose to berate us about "root causes" and "birds coming home
lap dance.
According to the president, "we cannot wait for the final proof" that Saddam Hussein's government is planning an imminent
Well that's not really true. People on a different side of the debate than I are not necessarily jerks, just wrong.
In your face, Space Coyote!
Hey, didn't there used to be a city where this smoking crater is?
Heh. Didn't Nostradamus write something about "a bespeckled plague rising in the West..."?
Replace "powerful" with "crazy and armed with nukes" and you'd be right. Otherwise, your statement is nonsense.
I don't know about you people, but I'm already stocking up on extra food, water, and electrons.
I see. Did you talk to this "everyone" at your International Socialist Organization direct action planning seminar or
Well I'm far far far too petty a person to do that.
without regard to whether the loss is due to the growth of a heartless and all-absorbing commercialism,
that blatantly called for some rhetorical bitch-slapping.
alternative economy." I suppose that's better PR than saying they want to impose a grab bag full of sociialistic silliness
he is willing to act aggressively and recklessly and cannot be reasonably deterred and 2) is working to get and use nukes
, "I don't believe the American people support this war. Everyone I've talked to is against it!"
I guess not. The fact that the UN is anything but democratic since the vast majority of countries represented there do not
"The lethal combination is when you exploit both people and technology," Mr Mitnick told BBC News Online.
being the reaction described above.
but they make up for any lack of actual existence with pure unadulterated enthusiasm.
Quite the contrary, Bush's aggressive rhetoric, disregard for international law, and his lack of any vision other than war
that I hadn't thought of it first!
Yes, well I suppose you're suggesting that we would be well-served to wait for this "final proof," then? Very well. I'll
However, several of the exchanges I have had have definately been with those you might describe as "challeneged" in
I'll get a chance to ask why they've been glorifying images of Hamas murderers on their flyers.
By tossing out any reasonable standards of evidence as a prerequisite for military action, the White House puts us in a state
curiosity that trumps any sort of legal resriction placed on him, but it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that he's
So seeing as how we've got massive approval from the House of Representatives and similar support in the senate is likely,
threaten the United States, he said we must "assume the worst." Essentially, the White House is proposing that the
President Bush says he wants to avoid "a future of fear." It's an admirable goal, but one hardly served by this new doctrine.
I finally went and did it.
Hey, didn't there used to be a city where this smoking crater is?
cutting-edge performance art group impersonating real anti-war folks, as the whole ordeal seemed to approach parody. No,
that boiled up to the surface when I read things like this.
attack against the United States. Even though President Bush acknowledged in his speech that Iraq does not currently
side of the political spectrum... what are they called?
Well I'm far far far too petty a person to do that.
they're done, hang them on his wall next to the framed heads of Iraqi dissidents and say to himself, "Well, I can check
who like to chant slogans and can't come up with any better rhyme than something that has to do with the number "four" and "war."
it is shoved, in all its detailed horror, right into my face.
I don't know about you people, but I'm already stocking up on extra food, water, and electrons.
only be revealed as more useless than it already seems), there is right now a coalition prepared to go into Iraq with the
hunting dairy cows with a high-powered rifle and scope."
really just put Saddam in a better situation than he was before because the presence of inspectors invites complacency and
and make them wish that congress had instead passed a resolution authorizing military force against people
of a lack of imagination or basic humanity; the fact that it's difficult for me to feel deeply for people suffering unless
nothing may stand in our way!
so that he will be better equipped to fulfill point 1). Show me another nation that's like that today.
I see. Did you talk to this "everyone" at your International Socialist Organization direct action planning seminar or
But I am thankful that at least for now, I've been able to summon that deep-seated, personal wrath so appropriate to an
"What I found personally to be true was that it's easier to manipulate people rather than technology," he said.
I tried to present my ideas in an honest and truthful way, and not be seriously offensive, even when he acted in ways
about equal probability.
he is willing to act aggressively and recklessly and cannot be reasonably deterred and 2) is working to get and use nukes
Wheeler Hall last spring.
Now at this point, most people would just say, "let it go, and move on."
No nation deserves to exist if it permits itself to lose the stern and virile virtues; and this
I tried to present my ideas in an honest and truthful way, and not be seriously offensive, even when he acted in ways
It may be a sad illustration of my lack to find sympathy within myself without reading descriptions or seeing pictures,
It is time for a new day to dawn in the Blogosphere, my gnome brothers. A glorious day. A day when no longer will we
Don't you people ever get tired of just pulling shit out of your asses?
Wheeler Hall last spring.
I guess not. The fact that the UN is anything but democratic since the vast majority of countries represented there do not
Now could someone please tell me what concrete purpose that woman's behavior, and that of her great chanting unwashed bretheren,
Heaven forfend them not being on board with us!
War, by three fellows that hail from Global Exchange. You know who I'm talking about. The folks that want to "build an
Sorry folks, but slippery slope arguments don't hold water by themselves. We're going after Saddam because he 1) has shown
some of their cohorts are actually being held accountable by the university for their disruptive, illegal actions at
During the last half of the 20th century, this principle was expanded internationally through the United Nations. The U.N.
we despise no less the coward and the voluptuary. No man is worth calling a man who will not fight
Containment and deterrence were responses to US weakness, you silly-headed dunderpate. It was obvious that using direct
but I hope to do that soon. I also hope to win the Nobel Prize in Kickboxing, and judge each of those things to be of
both at home and abroad, can go heartily fuck themselves, or jump off a cliff, or shoot themselves in the head. I don't
owned," she pontificated, in that snotty "52% of my clothes are made of hemp which therefore makes me morally superior
An insightful, well-written and quite simply excellent column somehow found its way in the SF Chronicle's website today.
you could see stink lines of self-satisfaction coming off her so that he could simply get to his job. She of course started
Do you mean the Muslim world that celebrated 9/11, saying the US deserved it all along? Or perhaps you mean the Muslim world
I urge anyone in the bay area who has the time on the 16th to come as well and lend credence with your example to the
way why we're doing all of this, and why, if they still choose to berate us about "root causes" and "birds coming home
going to be monitored so closely that I'd be surprised if he were able to put in a phony name at a porn site and not have
occurred, smashing the window of their hotel room.
Peace is generally good in itself, but it is never the highest good unless it comes as the handmaid
However, several of the exchanges I have had have definately been with those you might describe as "challeneged" in
Well, being the abject conformist that I am, I would like to welcome all new and oldcomers to my new blog, which will
one of the most fad-driven enterprises imaginable. It produces a new catechism each decade, which everyone dutifully recites.
in words so much more exacting than even those who actually live in that time would be able to produce?
"The death of that man is a religious duty, but his case should not be tied to the Christian community," Shabestari,
attack against the United States. Even though President Bush acknowledged in his speech that Iraq does not currently
In fact, the idea of pre- emptive attack depends on fear. It presupposes insecurity and assumes we will always be threatened.
In your face, Space Coyote!
she can last 6 hours). I make this declaration keeping in mind that this does not imply a judgement on the Idiotarian
Bush also spoke of an "international coalition" that would disarm Hussein. Bush knows the American public is loathe to
and the decisions to do so would based on (as in this case) measured calculations of the relative benefits and costs,
attack against the United States. Even though President Bush acknowledged in his speech that Iraq does not currently
lying in order to gain information that gave him access to restricted systems.
But anyway, right there you've got yourself eight nations total in the coalition, hailing from North America, both western
who has been deprived of food for at least 6 hours - sounds like an unusually cruel thing to do, I know, but I'm sure
Saddam will use these nukes when he gets them, whether that use takes the form of vaporizing a city or merely being hung
hacky-sack?"
that boiled up to the surface when I read things like this.
off a bunch of secretaries and other office workers who probably agree with them on the war anyway will further their
For that reason and others, I didn't actually start reading the news coverage until this morning.
trying to get an education
Hey, didn't there used to be a city where this smoking crater is?
Heh. Didn't Nostradamus write something about "a bespeckled plague rising in the West..."?
that boiled up to the surface when I read things like this.
...but there's no shame in being a follower when those you're following make such damn good points.
I've been blogging since July 2005, and in that time, I've had a few inter-blog arguments with the folks on the other
the All Men Are Rapists self defense workshop? Surely that must be a representative sample of the country!
jerkwad I encounter, an order for them to be beheaded with extreme prejudice until the the point at which they are dead
to prolonged indulgence in luxury and soft, effortless ease, or to the deification of a warped and twisted sentimentality.
Shiite Muslim clerics in Lebanon and Iran have reacted with rage at the Rev. Jerry Falwell for calling Islam's prophet
...but there's no shame in being a follower when those you're following make such damn good points.
If and when you find one, that means that I'll be perfectly willing to advocate an attack against them as well.
I see. Did you talk to this "everyone" at your International Socialist Organization direct action planning seminar or
But I am thankful that at least for now, I've been able to summon that deep-seated, personal wrath so appropriate to an
to prolonged indulgence in luxury and soft, effortless ease, or to the deification of a warped and twisted sentimentality.
we could go and stop the Soviets and all their expansionist hijinks, but then we'd like, have to go all the way over to
to make the first world poor and make sure the third world stays that way.
nothing may stand in our way!
only be revealed as more useless than it already seems), there is right now a coalition prepared to go into Iraq with the
Now at this point, most people would just say, "let it go, and move on."
really just put Saddam in a better situation than he was before because the presence of inspectors invites complacency and
to penetrate.
of a lack of imagination or basic humanity; the fact that it's difficult for me to feel deeply for people suffering unless
to make the first world poor and make sure the third world stays that way.
of the mass moron movement.
the way. Apparently that wasn't enough for the however, because they then started pulling at her legs to keep her from
have democratically elected rulers I'm sure doesn't throw any flies into your ointment.
No nation deserves to exist if it permits itself to lose the stern and virile virtues; and this
You try to make it seem as if the Joint Chiefs were lying around on a Sunday afternoon and said to themselves, "Yeah sure,
War, by three fellows that hail from Global Exchange. You know who I'm talking about. The folks that want to "build an
care. Just don't let me hear anything about how this bombing that specifically targeted Australian civilians was somehow
only be revealed as more useless than it already seems), there is right now a coalition prepared to go into Iraq with the
I'm going to be checking the weather channel for reports of snowflakes in Hell, but meanwhile you should go read it now.
And exactly how do you go from no "final proof" to there being no evidence of impending aggression? The very fact that
military action to counter the Soviet threat was not possible, because of their equal capacity to destroy us through
It may be a sad illustration of my lack to find sympathy within myself without reading descriptions or seeing pictures,
Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard at 09:37 AM | Comments (0)
After 3000 of your countrymen die in a couple hours, anything less than that is wont to be downplayed in significance
I mean come on, when you're arguing with someone who's just going to call you a Nazi when you spend 2,000 words making
making a point of reading in depth about any such future atrocity to ensure that I don't allow myself to be instantly "over it."
news editors of Cannel 7 to allow, as the segment ended right there.
that continues to characterize the US as the Great Satan and preach jihad against all things Western? Oh I know, the Muslim
The fact that this is being published in the Chronicle is no small feat. Even more reason for you to go read it.
to roost," those sniveling, carping appeasers,
to all of you warmongering neanderthals" tone of voice. She then struck a pose of righteous exasperation when she asked
anger that is so justifiable -no, demanded- by these despicable acts, but if that must be the case, then from on, I'll be
we despise no less the coward and the voluptuary. No man is worth calling a man who will not fight
being the reaction described above.
one of the most fad-driven enterprises imaginable. It produces a new catechism each decade, which everyone dutifully recites.
slope proposition, claiming that because we go after Saddam, we'll suddenly be all aggro-ed up to obliterate any country
the Feds know about it.
During the last half of the 20th century, this principle was expanded internationally through the United Nations. The U.N.
Yes, well I suppose you're suggesting that we would be well-served to wait for this "final proof," then? Very well. I'll
However, several of the exchanges I have had have definately been with those you might describe as "challeneged" in
be replacing the old site that was hosted on that evil of evils, that bane of banes, that something-really-awful of
of constant uncertainty and increased insecurity where almost anything could lead to war.
Quite the contrary, Bush's aggressive rhetoric, disregard for international law, and his lack of any vision other than war
a representative of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was quoted as saying.
threaten the United States, he said we must "assume the worst." Essentially, the White House is proposing that the
Whereas the Cold War doctrine of deterrence and containment rested on strength, the new idea of pre-emption insists on U.S.
that extended anger and sadness bring, or maybe even from just the fact that my threshold of human suffering sufficient
Finally, long after the fad has grown tiresome, everyone's attention turns to another scrap of dogma for the next decade.
go it alone. What he failed to do was tell us who the members of his war coalition are. Why? Because there is no coalition.
a representative of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was quoted as saying.
So seeing as how we've got massive approval from the House of Representatives and similar support in the senate is likely,
lying in order to gain information that gave him access to restricted systems.
I suppose you mean that it's not "multilateralist" unless France says so?
If a good education is meant to produce independent thinkers, I've seen precious little evidence it does. Education is
Really, how often is someone able to so perfectly crystallize the dilemmas that will exist a century in the future
curiosity that trumps any sort of legal resriction placed on him, but it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that he's
Another Australian tourist, 18-year-old Rachel Hughes, said she and her boyfriend had just arrived in Kuta when the blast
lying in order to gain information that gave him access to restricted systems.
In fact, the idea of pre- emptive attack depends on fear. It presupposes insecurity and assumes we will always be threatened.
Well I wouldn't be surprised if this Wednesday at Sproul there will be similar behavior, and I plan to be there. Maybe
By tossing out any reasonable standards of evidence as a prerequisite for military action, the White House puts us in a state
cutting-edge performance art group impersonating real anti-war folks, as the whole ordeal seemed to approach parody. No,
democratically decided laws - - not the capriciousness of individual rulers -- should govern human affairs.
According to the president, "we cannot wait for the final proof" that Saddam Hussein's government is planning an imminent
President Bush says he wants to avoid "a future of fear." It's an admirable goal, but one hardly served by this new doctrine.
hunting dairy cows with a high-powered rifle and scope."
the efforts to find these people and eradicate them, to ferret them out from their cowardly hiding places and vaporize
The article also points to this site, which maintains a running clock of how long it will be until Mitnick can start
Replace "powerful" with "crazy and armed with nukes" and you'd be right. Otherwise, your statement is nonsense.
Kevin Mitnick will be able to use a computer again in approximately 3 months.
"A bunch of people died from terrorism over the weekend? Sure, that's awful, but we all knew this was going to happen
To quote a boozed up, cynical and misanthropic individual whom I greatly admire: "Making fun of these people is like
support (in the small, mostly insignificant ways that are possible for one such as myself)
I strongly suspect TR had access to some sort of time machine and traveled into the furture about a hundred years.
Russia and shit. Besides, it's just the Russians. Why don't we just contain them or something? Hey, who's up for some
But it's not really fair to denigrate someone's ideas just because they themselves come from an organization riddled with
so that he will be better equipped to fulfill point 1). Show me another nation that's like that today.
, "I don't believe the American people support this war. Everyone I've talked to is against it!"
I guess not. The fact that the UN is anything but democratic since the vast majority of countries represented there do not
Saddam is so hot to get his grubby hands on nukes is enough evidence of aggression. What's he going to do with them once
You try to make it seem as if the Joint Chiefs were lying around on a Sunday afternoon and said to themselves, "Yeah sure,
about equal probability.
Watching Channel 7 news today (the Simpsons were in a commercial), they reported on a wad of dingbats who blocked access
when you apply your own internal calculus of death and suffering and conclude that it isn't something that you need
I'm going to be checking the weather channel for reports of snowflakes in Hell, but meanwhile you should go read it now.
No nation deserves to exist if it permits itself to lose the stern and virile virtues; and this
to penetrate.
the world to stomach the imperial scent of our newly enunciated military doctrine that proposes pre- emption of any powerful
Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard at 09:37 AM | Comments (0)
of the mass moron movement.
I see. Did you talk to this "everyone" at your International Socialist Organization direct action planning seminar or
anger that is so justifiable -no, demanded- by these despicable acts, but if that must be the case, then from on, I'll be
No nation deserves to exist if it permits itself to lose the stern and virile virtues; and this
nuclear weapons. Containment was born out of a realization that we were effectively restrained by our lack of strategic
about equal probability.
Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard at 09:37 AM | Comments (0)
when you apply your own internal calculus of death and suffering and conclude that it isn't something that you need
a careful, precise argument, what point is there in engaging them verbally anymore?
And at most, UN weapons inspectors have delayed conflict by a few years, not averted it. In actualyity, I think they have
Those people are especially useful when they have access to the core computer systems that hackers would otherwise struggle
being the reaction described above.
Why are you still here?!
care. Just don't let me hear anything about how this bombing that specifically targeted Australian civilians was somehow
I see. Did you talk to this "everyone" at your International Socialist Organization direct action planning seminar or
anger that is so justifiable -no, demanded- by these despicable acts, but if that must be the case, then from on, I'll be
Saddam is so hot to get his grubby hands on nukes is enough evidence of aggression. What's he going to do with them once
nuclear weapons. Containment was born out of a realization that we were effectively restrained by our lack of strategic
fact that these people are thugs, bullies and liars.
that has the temerity to look at us cock-eyed.
to all of you warmongering neanderthals" tone of voice. She then struck a pose of righteous exasperation when she asked
weapons inspections in Iraq represent a good example of how the rule of law has been used, and can be used again, to avert
satisfy you. I'd be much more amendable to the idea however if you were willing to be a personal eye-witness to this
Containment and deterrence were responses to US weakness, you silly-headed dunderpate. It was obvious that using direct
I urge anyone in the bay area who has the time on the 16th to come as well and lend credence with your example to the
Please. I can't swing around a dead Saddam on a rope without hitting this argument these days. At bottom, it's a slippery
without end is causing traditional friends of the United States to
Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard at 12:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
sloth, or as an instrument to further the ends of despotism or anarchy.
the not-being-a-jerk department.
I was already in a state of "moving on" and being "over it" before I even heard about the Bali attacks, with the result
Why are you still here?!
in words so much more exacting than even those who actually live in that time would be able to produce?
why she thought there weren't more stories about protests going on in the news, "Well, because the media is corporately
looks like a green light, no?
you could see stink lines of self-satisfaction coming off her so that he could simply get to his job. She of course started
Hesiod over at Counterspin Central is one such fellow. Not only with myself, but in his conversations with Den Beste,
be replacing the old site that was hosted on that evil of evils, that bane of banes, that something-really-awful of
slope proposition, claiming that because we go after Saddam, we'll suddenly be all aggro-ed up to obliterate any country
without end is causing traditional friends of the United States to
that I hadn't thought of it first!
of righteousness; and it becomes a very evil thing if it serves merely as a mask for cowardice and
chanting in his face and moved in front of him every time he tried to get around her.
that extended anger and sadness bring, or maybe even from just the fact that my threshold of human suffering sufficient
one of the most fad-driven enterprises imaginable. It produces a new catechism each decade, which everyone dutifully recites.
in words so much more exacting than even those who actually live in that time would be able to produce?
One middle-aged woman who looked like she hadn't combed her hair since Jerry Garcia died had this to say, when asked
coming off them. It was really a terrible sight," she said. "You could just hear people crying up in the Bounty foyer -
you could see stink lines of self-satisfaction coming off her so that he could simply get to his job. She of course started
the not-being-a-jerk department.
be replacing the old site that was hosted on that evil of evils, that bane of banes, that something-really-awful of
But for now if you all don't mind, I'd just like to stew in my rage for a while, and remind myself in a truly visceral
go it alone. What he failed to do was tell us who the members of his war coalition are. Why? Because there is no coalition.
Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard at 12:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
United States invade a distant country without any evidence of impending aggression.
In fact, the idea of pre- emptive attack depends on fear. It presupposes insecurity and assumes we will always be threatened.
that extended anger and sadness bring, or maybe even from just the fact that my threshold of human suffering sufficient
she can last 6 hours). I make this declaration keeping in mind that this does not imply a judgement on the Idiotarian
lap dance.
Falwell was a "mercenary and must be killed," the Farsi-language daily Abrar reported Saturday.
United States invade a distant country without any evidence of impending aggression.
Well that's not really true. People on a different side of the debate than I are not necessarily jerks, just wrong.
hunting dairy cows with a high-powered rifle and scope."
the teacher trying to impress both of them.
Either that, or I now have to admit the existence of clairvoyance.
Falwell was a "mercenary and must be killed," the Farsi-language daily Abrar reported Saturday.
Another Australian tourist, 18-year-old Rachel Hughes, said she and her boyfriend had just arrived in Kuta when the blast
off a bunch of secretaries and other office workers who probably agree with them on the war anyway will further their
But anyway, right there you've got yourself eight nations total in the coalition, hailing from North America, both western
act such as this. In a few days or weeks, I'm sure it will subside to a colder, more focused resolution to continue to
The article also points to this site, which maintains a running clock of how long it will be until Mitnick can start
the world to stomach the imperial scent of our newly enunciated military doctrine that proposes pre- emption of any powerful
You mean everyone in America aren't like San Franciscans?
to really concern yourself with, except in a somewhat general, theoretical way.
Wheeler Hall last spring.
And at most, UN weapons inspectors have delayed conflict by a few years, not averted it. In actualyity, I think they have
serves? As far as I can tell, all they did was take some people who were probably overwhelmingly against the war anyway,
we could go and stop the Soviets and all their expansionist hijinks, but then we'd like, have to go all the way over to
to make the first world poor and make sure the third world stays that way.
he is willing to act aggressively and recklessly and cannot be reasonably deterred and 2) is working to get and use nukes
only be revealed as more useless than it already seems), there is right now a coalition prepared to go into Iraq with the
A taste, just a taste...
we despise no less the coward and the voluptuary. No man is worth calling a man who will not fight
use grown-up scissors), but nevertheless, even though he really didn't deserve it,
about equal probability.
be harried by idiots who have full compliments of heads and genitals! With the ranks of my imaginary gnomes rallied,
Don't you people ever get tired of just pulling shit out of your asses?
a careful, precise argument, what point is there in engaging them verbally anymore?
have democratically elected rulers I'm sure doesn't throw any flies into your ointment.
"What I found personally to be true was that it's easier to manipulate people rather than technology," he said.
That is, until this morning. Now I'm glad to say that I've gotten over getting over it, and am thoroughly pissed again.
about equal probability.
Sorry folks, but slippery slope arguments don't hold water by themselves. We're going after Saddam because he 1) has shown
and the UC Divestment folks will be holding a rally for what looks like the primary purpose of protesting the fact that
Now at this point, most people would just say, "let it go, and move on."
we despise no less the coward and the voluptuary. No man is worth calling a man who will not fight
nuclear weapons. Containment was born out of a realization that we were effectively restrained by our lack of strategic
fact that these people are thugs, bullies and liars.
Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard at 09:37 AM | Comments (0)
join the majority of the world's nations in distancing themselves from Washington in a fashion not seen since the Vietnam War.
An insightful, well-written and quite simply excellent column somehow found its way in the SF Chronicle's website today.
And exactly how do you go from no "final proof" to there being no evidence of impending aggression? The very fact that
You must be triple jointed to be able to twist words like that.
fact that these people are thugs, bullies and liars.
way why we're doing all of this, and why, if they still choose to berate us about "root causes" and "birds coming home
In theory, I was of course angry, but I had a vaguely detatched sense about the whole thing. A large part of that of
that I hadn't thought of it first!
weapons inspections in Iraq represent a good example of how the rule of law has been used, and can be used again, to avert
Well I wouldn't be surprised if this Wednesday at Sproul there will be similar behavior, and I plan to be there. Maybe
By tossing out any reasonable standards of evidence as a prerequisite for military action, the White House puts us in a state
last update : 10-9-2010
