There are NO winners. (well except Haliburton of course) Everybody loses. I feel sorry for them all, the soldiers dead, wounded (including post traumatic stress disorder) the parents and families of the soldiers, and even more so, the afghanis and the iraqis, innocent or otherwise.
So, why feel sorry for the soldier or have any sympathy at all for them.
These men and women believe in what they do, they are thinking humans. They made the choice and the outcome is a result of their actions. So, why should someone who thought of peace and made the choice of opposing the conflict show sympathy. This is not logical and shows an overly emotional (and weak) response. Often this weak response is expected and received by the public in the Bush camp as something to be ignored.
Look, look carefully around you and see to what degree I am right.
And I don’t understand the people who think that by getting rid of Bush that the problem of war will be solved. These folks not only do not know the history of the U.S., both early nor the recent past, but the cannot even seem to comprehend what it happenning in front of them now in the present.
Think for a moment, the U.S. is building huge embassy in Iraq. It has been projected to cost a billion dollars (on the embassy campus.) Many articles have been posted on the ’net on this topic and yet those on the "left", the anti-Bush folks, continue to be ignorane and live in fantasyland. Think: Will the next and future administrations not exploit the resources of the embassy complex? Thus, calling for the and end to Bush’s mechanations will not achieve peace and tranquality. The effort put into this will (and has been) a wasted effort.
As a second item, look at the "opposing" team, the Democrats. Are majority of they not in approval of what Bush does, through the buget granted. Did they not willingly approve the start of the wars in Iraq and Afganistan? Does the Dems leadership not use similar words as the administration to justify the continuation of the killing? And are not the potential Democratic presidential canidates speaking of a continuation of the wars? ... I could go on... But note how the bulk of the nation is wants the bloodletting... The stack is completely against the handful of posters here and on some other sites. Even this is countered effectively by other pro-Bush, pro-adiminstration, pro-war sites.
Endlessly repeating the anti-war slogans will have zero effect. The war will, the killing will continue for the foreseeable future.
I have some sympathy (not too much - but some) for the poor jerks who signed on for ideological reasons, Mom, apple pie, etc., etc. These people were duped. But it probably took a lifetime of uncritical acceptance of nationalistic propaganda for them to have gotten there. On the other hand, I have zero sympathy for the psychpathic losers who joined because they wanted the opportunity to kill people and break things, and not have to run the risk of being put in jail. What I’m tired of hearing from some people on the left is their incessant mantra of saying to soldiers, "Thank you for your service," even though they oppose the war. That is just sheer hypocrisy. We should also leave room to bestow our respect on those ideologically motivated soldiers who come back and oppose the war because they have finally awakened from their deep sleep. As for the returning psycopaths, just give these killers a wide berth on the street, since I don’t think they are ever capable of reform and are bound to continue behaving in anti-social ways back in the "real world."
To 4 45
Your arguments are thoughtful and well presented. Clearly you have given a lot of thought to the subject. And it is hard to find fault with most of it.
But if 60+% (and it’s will be over 70% come November)of Americans in the polls think that the war is now a bad idea and that we should leave as soon as possible (and there is little on the horizon that could change their minds, barring another false flag operation and media feeding frenzy, but even that may not go over next time) then perhaps getting rid of Bush and Cheney would be a major step toward getting us out. Other countries in the "coalition of the foolish" voted for leaders who said they would bring the troops home and then did (spain, italy and some others I don’t recall now) With enough pressure, it is quite possible that the dems will put up an antiwar candidate in 2008. If so, they would win given a fair and free election (which is clearly no longer guaranteed.) The winds of change are blowing through the country. The people don’t want the war, it’s the fatcats of both political persuasions that do. The Dems are no saints, or saviors. I am sorely disappointed at the democrats, because they are not representing their base when they support the war. But at least their base is antiwar, so there is a possibility, even the liklihood that the leadership can be convinced to change course.
So the question is, can the will of the people overcome the tyranny and corruption of the government? I’m thinking that the people, the slumbering giant, are awakening more each day and that the momentum will bring this thing to an end in a reasonably short time as eventually happened in Vietnam. Even if that doesn’t happen, I don’t think a democratic leadership would blatantly wiretap the entire population, or condone torture, or extraordinary rendition,etc. Yeah it’s a big fucking mess, but we have to believe that we can work our way out of it. Time will tell, eh?
Thanks for the compliment. I agree with most of what you say but I disagree strongly with your stated thinking on/of the polls.
I do not believe any poll as being true (note I am not saying "honest").
Polls are intrinscally weak and deviant. There are far too many variables in designing and conducting the poll itself to render any actual facts. For example, the dataset is finite on several levels, the participants can be (actively or passively) pre-selected by various means, the questions can be worded with varying complexities, and so on. Yielding a result that simply cannot be true; more then likely it will yield a result that re-enforces some viewpoint that the poll sponser wants.
Throughout this, it is impossible to get a selection of people in a short time to understand any question — each will absorb and express based on their (limited) abilities and experiences on the issue of Iraq or Afganistan or anything beyond the simple items of what they learned in kindergarten.
To think otherwise, we are projecting. We think that the polled understood the topic, have followed it closely as some of us have or that they have thought critically on the issues or we think (incorrectly) that the polled have considered the same information that were perused by us.
All of these assumptioins are incorrect on our part. We have to be much more critical all of the time. Especially, when the reults seem to favor our stance; because this is when we are most likely to fail.
But most dissturbing should be when viewing any poll, is that, the members of the public who were polled are ignoramuses. Remeber another poll which told a majority of the American public not being able to find Iraq on the world map? How is it that we who are blogging here reconcile this? We can’t. And more often then not, we tend to project, that is we tend to think that others are aware of the issued to the degree we are, when this is simply not the case. In such cases, the recorded responses to a poll are meaningless, even if the poll accurately tallied the results.
Most people are aware of B. Speers’ or Paris Hilton’s shoe size and their favorite brand of undergarments. This is the kind of non-thought reality is in the subconscience of the American public.
The public are not used to thinking. Check for yourself; how many people find thinking painful.
So, I do not believe that 60% of Americans want the war to finish, etc., etc.
Again, you raise very good points. I myself have been called a handful of times by polling agencies, and your right, often the questions are reductionist and worded in such a way, that neither response (if yes or no, or none of the above if its mulitple choice) accurately reflect my views. I’ve always wondered how 1,000 or 5,000 people could accuratley reflect the views of 100 million voters. And the statisticians are convinced that they can, and I don’t really understand the statistics so I am willing to withhold my opinion about that one way or the other. Exit polls are supposed to be the most accurate of all, used to determine election fraud in foreign countries (except in a few places around the U.S. in 2004, where I’ve read the statistical probability of Bush reversing the exit polls in Ohio was on the order of 1 in 250 million.) But I digress.
But I encourage you to do your own poll. When I ask people if staying the course in Iraq is a good idea, I get way more than 60% saying no. I feel I know a reasonably diverse group of people although perhaps more well educated overall than the mean. So I have to go out on the street to ask strangers, and what I get more than yes or no, is fear of strangers, and people not wanting to answer the question. Still those that do respond are overwhelmingly antiwar. But I live in a "blue state" so you have to take that into account as well.
I myself would not fare well in naming Paikistan, Afghanistan Iraq, Iran on a blank map, so knowing where these places are precisely, does not preclude knowing about the issues. As far as Ignoramuses go, you kind find out who they are quite easily. There the ones who get their opinions from FOX News. I think other viewers and readers are trying to figure out whats going, although they are not being well served in general by the mainstream media as a whole.
I want to go back to something I said before. The winds of change are blowing through the country. A year ago, not even the liberals were calling for Bush’s Impeachment. Less than 6 months ago, it began to surface as "the I word" Now the clammer is overwhelming, but common wisdom is that it is not feasible in the current congress.
sorry had a computer glich before I finished. as I was saying, less than 6 months ago, the term impeachment began to surface as "the I word" Now the clammer is overwhelming, but common wisdom is that it is not feasible in the current congress, but a stupid political strategy for the democrats who have the GOP on the run. But 5 months from now, the cacophony for impeachment could very well be way beyond what you can imagine (i am imagining it right now.) There is a metaphysical aspect to all this. The more you think the change is possible, then probable, the more likely it is to come about. So if you are going to be one of the ones who thinks "we are stuck, we are fucked" then that increases that probability. So get on board, or write me off as looney tunes, the choice is yours.
You seem to be the handful of thoughful people here or elsewhere.
I come from and work in a small rural town and attend church in the same. And I am aware of almost all of the people of my town are for the killing of Arabs and Muslims. There is an aggressioin in the talk that is not easy to quantify in a small post. This is especially expressive after church functions. But, now, I am digressing.
So, here is the first divergence in our efforts, my dataset is limited and different than yours. You may come from a more cosmopolitan environment where the thinking is more "liberal" (to use an old mislabelled cliche), but where I am the thinking is much different.
But that is not to say that I don’t believe what you are seeing, that the people’s numbers in rejection of war is raising.
Questions may be asked: Is this due to some new found moral grounds or are people more aware of the number of Iraqis killed for no reason or is it that it has dragged on beyond some threshold that they cannot tolerate.
In any event, as far as the Iraqi war is concerned I expect it to continue for the next 50 or more years, no matter what polls says. There is a distinct hatered in the leadership for the heritage of Iraq and its peoples (outside of the oil, that is), and this alone is enough to keep the conflict rolling.
Because the envolope has been extended by this administration (and much dollar resources spent,) the future administrations will find it easier to flow in this and future conflicts.
Oh, BTW, don’t read too much into my attending church, there are some things that I must do inorder to keep peace with the folks I work and socialize with.
"The more you think the change is possible, then probable, the more likely it is to come about. So if you are going to be one of the ones who thinks "we are stuck, we are fucked" then that increases that probability. So get on board, or write me off as looney tunes, the choice is yours." - (88 58)
This calculus of wishful thinking is silly, no offense intended, however. You think "yes," but I think "no" so we cancel out each other and, therefore, nothing changes. That kind of "metaphysical" thinking went out with the old Hegelian Idealist school. You completely ignore ACTION, which is how change is actually effected. Do you think that all the American colonists had to do to break away from Great Britain was for all of them (or, at least a majority of them) to "think" that this would be a desirable result and, presto, the British would have gone home? Come on. If you really want to effect change, you have to work for it. No pain, no gain - and there’s always the possibility of failing in the attempt.
As far as Americans go, the majority of them are so distracted by whatever that the thought of making any attempt to effect real change doesn’t even enter their benighted heads. Therefore, the first order of business for them is to realize that they "think" like subjects, not citizens and what passes for the "political process" in this country, such as it exists at all, is nothing more than a popularity contest where personalities substitute for programs. We like to look down our noses at the third world, but the lowliest peasant worker in any one of those countries is probably more politically astute than ten American professors of political science. Enough said - I have to go and watch "American Idol."
We were hijacked by this president and this PNAC agenda for global domination. Clinton was no saint but he was a pretty damn good administrator (and eloquent to boot) I liked having a budget surplus of a few hundred billion a year, and having people argue over how to spend all those trillions of extra dough that would come rolling in over the coming decades. I thought that serious money was starting to flow not just to greedy capitalists, but to everyday creative people who would fill up their own cups till they overflowed and then begin to lift up those less fortunate and our future was bright. It was inspiring. And then after the supreme court voted 5-4 for Bush, we were suddenly on a different track with plans to attack Iraq long before 911. Cheney spoke of the coming recession and lo, there it was. AND THEN THE MOTHERFUCKERS BOMBED THEIR OWN PEOPLE, blamed the muslims, and fired up the military-industrial complex to full throttle. And now we are here and it happened so fast, went so wrong so fast, and it all sprang from an idea, a thought called "the new pearl harbor" that’s where the action came from, or it all came from an idea in the head of Sandra Day fucking O’Connor, who could have had a different idea, voted a different way and those PNAC bastards would be beating off in the dustbin of failed ideas. Well we can get of this track too, and though i don’t know the specifics, I do know that it will be through what you call wishful thinking, followed by the action that flows from that which makes a brighter future possible, then probable. You imagine a war in Iraq of 50 years, I imagine a new president in less than 50 weeks. You imagine a population of zombies mindlessly enslaved to junk culture, I imagine a populace growing ever more aware, ever more concerned and ever more ready to ACT in the spirit of true liberty and justice. That RFK quote posted last Sunday was right on!
"It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance."
Ideas spring from necessity, born of real concrete conditions. So long as there is food in their bellies and crap on their tellies, the majority of the American population will remain blissfully asleep. And, don’t wave the Democrats in my face. Clinton wasn’t above firing a few cruise missiles when the spirit moved him. And, let’s not forget the dotcom bubble that brought so much paper wealth to the country and then quickly evaporated like so much froth on a head of warm beer, leaving many with little or nothing to show for their faith in the system than a whole lot of broken dreams. But, don’t take my word for it. Ask Slick Willie’s new found good buddy, George H.W. Bush.
Forum posts
23 May 2006, 02:04
The signed in and become mercenarious. I don’t feel sorry for them! 1.8 million Afghanis and 1.1 million Iraqis have been murdered by them.
23 May 2006, 04:45
get ready to start spiting when they show up at the airport AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA
23 May 2006, 12:02
There are NO winners. (well except Haliburton of course) Everybody loses. I feel sorry for them all, the soldiers dead, wounded (including post traumatic stress disorder) the parents and families of the soldiers, and even more so, the afghanis and the iraqis, innocent or otherwise.
I know if I was Jesse Macbeth,( video interview - "Former Army Ranger and Iraq War Veteran, Tell it like it is"
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13140.htm) that I’d be in hell for the rest of my life.
Time to get out. Peace, love and end the Bush Administration.
23 May 2006, 17:46
So, why feel sorry for the soldier or have any sympathy at all for them.
These men and women believe in what they do, they are thinking humans. They made the choice and the outcome is a result of their actions. So, why should someone who thought of peace and made the choice of opposing the conflict show sympathy. This is not logical and shows an overly emotional (and weak) response. Often this weak response is expected and received by the public in the Bush camp as something to be ignored.
Look, look carefully around you and see to what degree I am right.
And I don’t understand the people who think that by getting rid of Bush that the problem of war will be solved. These folks not only do not know the history of the U.S., both early nor the recent past, but the cannot even seem to comprehend what it happenning in front of them now in the present.
Think for a moment, the U.S. is building huge embassy in Iraq. It has been projected to cost a billion dollars (on the embassy campus.) Many articles have been posted on the ’net on this topic and yet those on the "left", the anti-Bush folks, continue to be ignorane and live in fantasyland. Think: Will the next and future administrations not exploit the resources of the embassy complex? Thus, calling for the and end to Bush’s mechanations will not achieve peace and tranquality. The effort put into this will (and has been) a wasted effort.
As a second item, look at the "opposing" team, the Democrats. Are majority of they not in approval of what Bush does, through the buget granted. Did they not willingly approve the start of the wars in Iraq and Afganistan? Does the Dems leadership not use similar words as the administration to justify the continuation of the killing? And are not the potential Democratic presidential canidates speaking of a continuation of the wars? ... I could go on... But note how the bulk of the nation is wants the bloodletting... The stack is completely against the handful of posters here and on some other sites. Even this is countered effectively by other pro-Bush, pro-adiminstration, pro-war sites.
Endlessly repeating the anti-war slogans will have zero effect. The war will, the killing will continue for the foreseeable future.
23 May 2006, 21:00
I have some sympathy (not too much - but some) for the poor jerks who signed on for ideological reasons, Mom, apple pie, etc., etc. These people were duped. But it probably took a lifetime of uncritical acceptance of nationalistic propaganda for them to have gotten there. On the other hand, I have zero sympathy for the psychpathic losers who joined because they wanted the opportunity to kill people and break things, and not have to run the risk of being put in jail. What I’m tired of hearing from some people on the left is their incessant mantra of saying to soldiers, "Thank you for your service," even though they oppose the war. That is just sheer hypocrisy. We should also leave room to bestow our respect on those ideologically motivated soldiers who come back and oppose the war because they have finally awakened from their deep sleep. As for the returning psycopaths, just give these killers a wide berth on the street, since I don’t think they are ever capable of reform and are bound to continue behaving in anti-social ways back in the "real world."
23 May 2006, 22:42
To 4 45
Your arguments are thoughtful and well presented. Clearly you have given a lot of thought to the subject. And it is hard to find fault with most of it.
But if 60+% (and it’s will be over 70% come November)of Americans in the polls think that the war is now a bad idea and that we should leave as soon as possible (and there is little on the horizon that could change their minds, barring another false flag operation and media feeding frenzy, but even that may not go over next time) then perhaps getting rid of Bush and Cheney would be a major step toward getting us out. Other countries in the "coalition of the foolish" voted for leaders who said they would bring the troops home and then did (spain, italy and some others I don’t recall now) With enough pressure, it is quite possible that the dems will put up an antiwar candidate in 2008. If so, they would win given a fair and free election (which is clearly no longer guaranteed.) The winds of change are blowing through the country. The people don’t want the war, it’s the fatcats of both political persuasions that do. The Dems are no saints, or saviors. I am sorely disappointed at the democrats, because they are not representing their base when they support the war. But at least their base is antiwar, so there is a possibility, even the liklihood that the leadership can be convinced to change course.
So the question is, can the will of the people overcome the tyranny and corruption of the government? I’m thinking that the people, the slumbering giant, are awakening more each day and that the momentum will bring this thing to an end in a reasonably short time as eventually happened in Vietnam. Even if that doesn’t happen, I don’t think a democratic leadership would blatantly wiretap the entire population, or condone torture, or extraordinary rendition,etc. Yeah it’s a big fucking mess, but we have to believe that we can work our way out of it. Time will tell, eh?
24 May 2006, 02:19
TO: 88/58
Thanks for the compliment. I agree with most of what you say but I disagree strongly with your stated thinking on/of the polls.
I do not believe any poll as being true (note I am not saying "honest").
Polls are intrinscally weak and deviant. There are far too many variables in designing and conducting the poll itself to render any actual facts. For example, the dataset is finite on several levels, the participants can be (actively or passively) pre-selected by various means, the questions can be worded with varying complexities, and so on. Yielding a result that simply cannot be true; more then likely it will yield a result that re-enforces some viewpoint that the poll sponser wants.
Throughout this, it is impossible to get a selection of people in a short time to understand any question — each will absorb and express based on their (limited) abilities and experiences on the issue of Iraq or Afganistan or anything beyond the simple items of what they learned in kindergarten.
To think otherwise, we are projecting. We think that the polled understood the topic, have followed it closely as some of us have or that they have thought critically on the issues or we think (incorrectly) that the polled have considered the same information that were perused by us.
All of these assumptioins are incorrect on our part. We have to be much more critical all of the time. Especially, when the reults seem to favor our stance; because this is when we are most likely to fail.
But most dissturbing should be when viewing any poll, is that, the members of the public who were polled are ignoramuses. Remeber another poll which told a majority of the American public not being able to find Iraq on the world map? How is it that we who are blogging here reconcile this? We can’t. And more often then not, we tend to project, that is we tend to think that others are aware of the issued to the degree we are, when this is simply not the case. In such cases, the recorded responses to a poll are meaningless, even if the poll accurately tallied the results.
Most people are aware of B. Speers’ or Paris Hilton’s shoe size and their favorite brand of undergarments. This is the kind of non-thought reality is in the subconscience of the American public.
The public are not used to thinking. Check for yourself; how many people find thinking painful.
So, I do not believe that 60% of Americans want the war to finish, etc., etc.
24 May 2006, 10:15
Again, you raise very good points. I myself have been called a handful of times by polling agencies, and your right, often the questions are reductionist and worded in such a way, that neither response (if yes or no, or none of the above if its mulitple choice) accurately reflect my views. I’ve always wondered how 1,000 or 5,000 people could accuratley reflect the views of 100 million voters. And the statisticians are convinced that they can, and I don’t really understand the statistics so I am willing to withhold my opinion about that one way or the other. Exit polls are supposed to be the most accurate of all, used to determine election fraud in foreign countries (except in a few places around the U.S. in 2004, where I’ve read the statistical probability of Bush reversing the exit polls in Ohio was on the order of 1 in 250 million.) But I digress.
But I encourage you to do your own poll. When I ask people if staying the course in Iraq is a good idea, I get way more than 60% saying no. I feel I know a reasonably diverse group of people although perhaps more well educated overall than the mean. So I have to go out on the street to ask strangers, and what I get more than yes or no, is fear of strangers, and people not wanting to answer the question. Still those that do respond are overwhelmingly antiwar. But I live in a "blue state" so you have to take that into account as well.
I myself would not fare well in naming Paikistan, Afghanistan Iraq, Iran on a blank map, so knowing where these places are precisely, does not preclude knowing about the issues. As far as Ignoramuses go, you kind find out who they are quite easily. There the ones who get their opinions from FOX News. I think other viewers and readers are trying to figure out whats going, although they are not being well served in general by the mainstream media as a whole.
I want to go back to something I said before. The winds of change are blowing through the country. A year ago, not even the liberals were calling for Bush’s Impeachment. Less than 6 months ago, it began to surface as "the I word" Now the clammer is overwhelming, but common wisdom is that it is not feasible in the current congress.
24 May 2006, 10:39
sorry had a computer glich before I finished. as I was saying, less than 6 months ago, the term impeachment began to surface as "the I word" Now the clammer is overwhelming, but common wisdom is that it is not feasible in the current congress, but a stupid political strategy for the democrats who have the GOP on the run. But 5 months from now, the cacophony for impeachment could very well be way beyond what you can imagine (i am imagining it right now.) There is a metaphysical aspect to all this. The more you think the change is possible, then probable, the more likely it is to come about. So if you are going to be one of the ones who thinks "we are stuck, we are fucked" then that increases that probability. So get on board, or write me off as looney tunes, the choice is yours.
24 May 2006, 20:23
TO 88/58
You seem to be the handful of thoughful people here or elsewhere.
I come from and work in a small rural town and attend church in the same. And I am aware of almost all of the people of my town are for the killing of Arabs and Muslims. There is an aggressioin in the talk that is not easy to quantify in a small post. This is especially expressive after church functions. But, now, I am digressing.
So, here is the first divergence in our efforts, my dataset is limited and different than yours. You may come from a more cosmopolitan environment where the thinking is more "liberal" (to use an old mislabelled cliche), but where I am the thinking is much different.
But that is not to say that I don’t believe what you are seeing, that the people’s numbers in rejection of war is raising.
Questions may be asked: Is this due to some new found moral grounds or are people more aware of the number of Iraqis killed for no reason or is it that it has dragged on beyond some threshold that they cannot tolerate.
In any event, as far as the Iraqi war is concerned I expect it to continue for the next 50 or more years, no matter what polls says. There is a distinct hatered in the leadership for the heritage of Iraq and its peoples (outside of the oil, that is), and this alone is enough to keep the conflict rolling.
Because the envolope has been extended by this administration (and much dollar resources spent,) the future administrations will find it easier to flow in this and future conflicts.
Oh, BTW, don’t read too much into my attending church, there are some things that I must do inorder to keep peace with the folks I work and socialize with.
24 May 2006, 22:10
"The more you think the change is possible, then probable, the more likely it is to come about. So if you are going to be one of the ones who thinks "we are stuck, we are fucked" then that increases that probability. So get on board, or write me off as looney tunes, the choice is yours." - (88 58)
This calculus of wishful thinking is silly, no offense intended, however. You think "yes," but I think "no" so we cancel out each other and, therefore, nothing changes. That kind of "metaphysical" thinking went out with the old Hegelian Idealist school. You completely ignore ACTION, which is how change is actually effected. Do you think that all the American colonists had to do to break away from Great Britain was for all of them (or, at least a majority of them) to "think" that this would be a desirable result and, presto, the British would have gone home? Come on. If you really want to effect change, you have to work for it. No pain, no gain - and there’s always the possibility of failing in the attempt.
As far as Americans go, the majority of them are so distracted by whatever that the thought of making any attempt to effect real change doesn’t even enter their benighted heads. Therefore, the first order of business for them is to realize that they "think" like subjects, not citizens and what passes for the "political process" in this country, such as it exists at all, is nothing more than a popularity contest where personalities substitute for programs. We like to look down our noses at the third world, but the lowliest peasant worker in any one of those countries is probably more politically astute than ten American professors of political science. Enough said - I have to go and watch "American Idol."
25 May 2006, 00:50
We were hijacked by this president and this PNAC agenda for global domination. Clinton was no saint but he was a pretty damn good administrator (and eloquent to boot) I liked having a budget surplus of a few hundred billion a year, and having people argue over how to spend all those trillions of extra dough that would come rolling in over the coming decades. I thought that serious money was starting to flow not just to greedy capitalists, but to everyday creative people who would fill up their own cups till they overflowed and then begin to lift up those less fortunate and our future was bright. It was inspiring. And then after the supreme court voted 5-4 for Bush, we were suddenly on a different track with plans to attack Iraq long before 911. Cheney spoke of the coming recession and lo, there it was. AND THEN THE MOTHERFUCKERS BOMBED THEIR OWN PEOPLE, blamed the muslims, and fired up the military-industrial complex to full throttle. And now we are here and it happened so fast, went so wrong so fast, and it all sprang from an idea, a thought called "the new pearl harbor" that’s where the action came from, or it all came from an idea in the head of Sandra Day fucking O’Connor, who could have had a different idea, voted a different way and those PNAC bastards would be beating off in the dustbin of failed ideas. Well we can get of this track too, and though i don’t know the specifics, I do know that it will be through what you call wishful thinking, followed by the action that flows from that which makes a brighter future possible, then probable. You imagine a war in Iraq of 50 years, I imagine a new president in less than 50 weeks. You imagine a population of zombies mindlessly enslaved to junk culture, I imagine a populace growing ever more aware, ever more concerned and ever more ready to ACT in the spirit of true liberty and justice. That RFK quote posted last Sunday was right on!
"It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance."
25 May 2006, 01:24
Ideas spring from necessity, born of real concrete conditions. So long as there is food in their bellies and crap on their tellies, the majority of the American population will remain blissfully asleep. And, don’t wave the Democrats in my face. Clinton wasn’t above firing a few cruise missiles when the spirit moved him. And, let’s not forget the dotcom bubble that brought so much paper wealth to the country and then quickly evaporated like so much froth on a head of warm beer, leaving many with little or nothing to show for their faith in the system than a whole lot of broken dreams. But, don’t take my word for it. Ask Slick Willie’s new found good buddy, George H.W. Bush.
25 May 2006, 08:50
I guess that puts you in the "we’re stuck, we’re fucked" camp then.
25 May 2006, 12:06
With Democrats and Republicans alternating at the helm, you have got that right!