oldschool CxC

Monday, August 29, 2005

Erik wrote: "This campaign to end the Age of Tyrants is one of the more liberal uses of the military in recent history, which is why it's interesting to see lefties contort themselves to find ways to oppose it without outright siding with the jihadists."

Wow. This viewpoint is really impressive. The idea that Bush will be the hero that ends the 'age of tyrants' sounds like jingoism to me. (Or Bushit, as the phrase goes.) It's like arguing that Reaganomics crushed the Russians (and ignoring the damage his outrageous deficit spending did to the economy -- although people paid that $$ back w/taxes under Clinton).

So, if Bush hates Tyrants, why is he gaily strolling around, holding the Saudi royalty's hands? Is it b/c of their incredible human rights records?

Why is the USA in Iraq? B/c of oil, bottom line. (To me, Bush is an impresive President b/c he can do all these amazing things WHILE ON VACATION. But then again, seems to me like he's been on vacation his whole life. ) American hawks were happy to have a chance to go in there and take another chunk of the Mid East under American control.

My favorite part of YOUR argument is saying that this is a 'liberal use of the military. I think you are using the word liberal incorrectly. Perhaps it'd be better to say, 'free and easy' use of military power. While I admit I'm not a 'liberal' (I'm a radical, in no way a moderate), using overpowering force against a country that has not taken any hostile action, declaring offensive war that is ruled illegal by 90% of the world, that violates the Geneva convention, and was pre-arranged by a conspiracy of American wealthy power conglomerates -- does not seem to me so 'liberal'.

Re: jihad -- maybe I should realize that a 'jihad' is so much worse than a 'crusade', but for some reason the rationale for that escapes me. Probably b/c much of my ancestors were killed by right-wing Christian religious zealots who's goals were spiritual/racial purity as well. Crusade, Jihad -- what's the damned difference? They're all horrible inhumane acts and should not be practiced in a time when people have enough education to know that violence is a last resort, not a first option.
I also believe the 'jihad' movement would have had less power if American foreign policy wasn't so aggressive/invasive (particularly re: Iraq/Iran), or if the USA had not given billions of dollars in money & arms to the Middle East.

Bush & Co want an enemy so they can take American public $$$ and put it into private hands via 'Defence spending' (aka military $). When the right wingers can get a war to happen, they profit on the privatization of tax $ (by taking a profit cut), by destroying millions of dollars of military hardware and replacing it at a profit. Along with lining their vaults with your tax money, they can institute repressive measures (Patriot Act, support of Minute Men, airport security, national ID cards, profiling, etc) by saying it helps security or the military efforts. Did you ever read '1984'? That world is almost our world!

What amazes me is that you not only defend these tactics, but what I see as criminal acts, you see as positive acts. Next thing you know, you'll be arguing to me that the 'trickle down' theory is great, that NAFTA is humane, or that non-violent criminals should get maximum jail sentences. What next?

Friday, August 26, 2005

okay, so my computer is getting old and it can't see my cd/dvd drives anymore. I think it needs to be retired.

I want to put together a computer from scratch-- any ideas for parts?

let me know.

Monday, August 22, 2005

Good news! Ari & Corinna are engaged!
Sweet.
and $ or art?

Tuesday, August 09, 2005

Response to Erik's comment. What to say to nationalism is difficult b/c it's not rational per se, but I gave it a shot.

re: Erik's attacks at Noam Chomsky & Howard Zinn
-- I wanted to address here as well as in my comment :
One of the most interesting & relevant US history books I ever read was by Howard Zinn. I've heard his speeches. He's a hero in our generation. I don't see a need to defend Noam Chomsky either, who is of a similar stature but perhaps even more significant a public figure.

Bush is the one that needs defending, not inspirational speakers on the Left!

I think a better discussion would be -- Why defend a hypocritical internationally disrespected idiot representing greed and 'double think', and why attack 2 people who are well-informed, educated, and respected international thinkers on social issues?

Frankly, you probably don't really care and are just happy wasting my time by making ludicrous posts. But on the off-chance that these are your heart-felt sentiments, I'm willing to try and shine a light on a shocking lack of perspective.

Monday, August 08, 2005

joke google search results: try the did you mean clickthrough.

Thursday, August 04, 2005

My first favorite George Bush video. ENJOY!

My audio art frees your mind while you experience it.
Consider it a DEPROGRAMMING experience!

Here's a couple quick links:
Carlin's Bullshit Lullaby
Dark Chomsky

I was surprised that mixing speeches and homebrew techno is so powerful.
But then again, stereotonal pulses can brainwash and confuse, so why not?

Feel free to share my stuff if you know anyone that might get a kick out of it.

As to if Bush will survive thru 2008? I HOPE NOT! and so do these folks!

And do you all know there's another antiwar protest Sept 24th? Well, this includes a March on Washington. They're expecting perhaps 1 million people in attendance!

I'm surprised at how non-political & cynical people are here. For me, I feel like there were major positive social outcomes from the Equal Rights Movements of the 60's, and while there is a MASSIVE pull backwards into an antiquated pseudo-religiosity based society modeled after Evangelical Christianity, there is a similar strong pull forwards towards truly progressive thinking --> ie, social justice, equal rights, racial cohabitation, property redistribution, and destabilizing oppressive 'market systems' (which aren't really in-force in any country unless they're 3rd world impoverished, ie looking at US food production, oil subsidies, corporate subsidies, and heavy import tariffs. If markets did 'rule', I think one quick adjustment we'd see would be a larger supply of cheaper 'organic foods' on the shelves and a mass consumer shift to non-GM foods -- or prices more equivalent b/c of all the govt subsidies to farmers.)

So, lastly, I'm waiting for someone on this blog to start shooting down Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn.
Anyone going to take THAT bait?

Oops, did I open a powder keg on 8/3 at midnight? HA HA HA