Conspiracy is wrapped around romanticism. But Occams Razor prevails, and I'm the type to absorb massive amounts of historical data, than to believe in some giant and completely implausible master plan, like the inside-jobbers.

I'm so sick to death of this conversation. There's a very good reason why almost every liberal blog around scrubs their comments of the troof-movement set. There's other outlets on the tubes that feed on these CT's, whether it's 9/11, Elvis, Jeebus or Bigfoot.

A buddy pointed out that this song is romanticizing things which are not necessarily good. "What the hell is so good about a woman having 14 kids? That's her spending her life barefoot and pregnant. Are they saying that's something worthy that we've abandoned?"

It is a good tune though; upvote.

>> ^Trancecoach:
^As a psychotherapist, I'm in communication with individuals who are using the Virtual Iraq software to treat Iraq veterans who are returning home with symptoms of PTSD. Soldiers' clinical exposure to the program has been limited, but so far, the results have been promising. In the future, I think it will be even better to have soldiers make use of the VR software BEFORE entering an actual battlefield, because so much of the disorder seems to emerge as a result of the shock that the novelty of such experiences bring about. And who knows, perhaps such exposure to a more realistic battlefield will deter potential soldiers from ever joining up in the first place.
But I know that this marketing tactic--which essentially fictionalizes and romanticizes the military--is BAD NEWS and can only hinder potential soldiers' free choice in the matter.

Well isn't that nice, doing our best to preemptively treat victims of PTSD rather than eliminating the events that cause it in the first place.

^As a psychotherapist, I'm in communication with individuals who are using the Virtual Iraq software to treat Iraq veterans who are returning home with symptoms of PTSD. Soldiers' clinical exposure to the program has been limited, but so far, the results have been promising. In the future, I think it will be even better to have soldiers make use of the VR software BEFORE entering an actual battlefield, because so much of the disorder seems to emerge as a result of the shock that the novelty of such experiences bring about. And who knows, perhaps such exposure to a more realistic battlefield will deter potential soldiers from ever joining up in the first place.

But I know that this marketing tactic--which essentially fictionalizes and romanticizes the military--is BAD NEWS and can only hinder potential soldiers' free choice in the matter.

>> ^rougy:
Funny how one of the most destructive eras of our recent history is also one of the most romantic.

That has actually been something that I've struggled with for quite some time. Growing up I romanticized that era like most others. I learned plane names and technical aspects, pilots names, airbases, dates, and statistics and all the while never really grasped what it was that I was really glorifying. That's not to say that finding an interest in the machines of war makes you a lover of war but there certainly is a grey area there. It's real easy, too easy in fact in this day and age to find some old footage, slap on some Glen Miller or Benny Goodman and then sit back and feel good about it all. Personally I try to learn more about the actual man inside the machine these days. What was their story and where are they now kinda thing. I still find a limitless interest and passion for the machine but it helps me keep things in perspective... for what it's worth.

Whenever you have a discussion with someone, you should ask yourself if you're in it to get your point understood, "win" or just rant. Generally speaking, I like to get my point understood. I feel I have done so in this discussion but you just want to rant. Rant away.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
you're saying my point isn't worth discussing, and yet you keep coming back to discuss it.

you say these "empirical trends are to be expected". Well, cool, we agree. Nations turn into empires (if they're lucky) and then try to dominate other countries unfairly, eventually causing their own destruction with their arrogance.

Which is exactly what America is doing.

In the context of millions of americans supporting this self destruction, voting for leaders that continue it, and denying that there is a problem, i think my point is relevant.

Seeing as america was founded with a very definite aim to avoid monarchy and empire, it is especially ironic (in the case of america) that she has formed basically a shared monarchy and an empire. Other countries at least admitted what they were doing (British EMPIRE the clue is in the title). America came along as the bright new hope, with a great constitution, but then over time reverted to the traditional "Leader is the decider and we need to preemptively attack other countries" system.

if you don't think it is relevant, silence might be a more appropriate response.

If you are "defending america" then i wonder... why?

And by the way, in case you are assuming this is some kind of transatlantic rivalry thing, i fucking hate Britain too.

In reply to this comment by smibbo:
Exactly; your point that America "developed" the bad characteristics they wanted to get away from is debatable in the context of time. Being as empires rise and fall and usually in similar ways, the "decline" of America may or may not have anything to do with its attitude. Being as its been over 200 years since its inception, any movement that reflects typical "empirical" trends is to be expected. Paint it "u terbul amerikkans" if it makes you feel all warm and squishy or perhaps you prefer snide and hopeless? Whatever. I was only saying that implying America has pagentry and "royalty" because its somehow tainted with nasty ickyness in its deep-rooted culture is kind of silly. America is over 200 years old, its bound to have similiarity with many older cultures. Big Fucking Deal. Why not discuss cultural problems that are a direct result of the people?

In reply to this comment by MINK:
"debatable" ?
you can go and debate the theory that empires rise and fall, in cycles spanning hundreds of years, with any historian you like, and see what they tell you.


In reply to this comment by smibbo:
eventually developed the bad characteristics of that which it replaced.

uh, more than 200 years later. Considering context of time, I think your point is a bit errant and very debatable.
what July 4th stands for is independance from the British. That's it. Any other meaning is personal. If you want to romanticize American independance just so you can bemoan its dilution... have fun.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
I never said "Americans" hate "The British".
I suggested the founding fathers hated the way the british ran the colonies and founded a nation of their own, that eventually developed the bad characteristics of that which it replaced.

Americans aren't big on subtlety? So now I have to adjust every post on the internet to take this into account?

Every country has "royalty" and propaganda parades... and yes it is shameful, especially in the context of 4th July and everything the young america was supposed to stand for.

Hope that clears things up for you.


In reply to this comment by smibbo:
1) We Americans do not hate the british. I don't think you know much American history.
2) What is this video supposed to "show"? If you've got something to say, spit it out. Most Americans aren't real big on subtlety.
3) Every country has its "royalty" regardless of their title. People like a bit of pagentry. Is that supposed to be shameful?

In fact, here's a hint: it's "discussions" like yours (AKA spiritual verbal abuse) which creates backlash. I've no interest in that. You make some interestin points I agree with and some points I'd be willing to discuss. "America Sucks Because the American People Suck" is not one of those points.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
you're saying my point isn't worth discussing, and yet you keep coming back to discuss it.

you say these "empirical trends are to be expected". Well, cool, we agree. Nations turn into empires (if they're lucky) and then try to dominate other countries unfairly, eventually causing their own destruction with their arrogance.

Which is exactly what America is doing.

In the context of millions of americans supporting this self destruction, voting for leaders that continue it, and denying that there is a problem, i think my point is relevant.

Seeing as america was founded with a very definite aim to avoid monarchy and empire, it is especially ironic (in the case of america) that she has formed basically a shared monarchy and an empire. Other countries at least admitted what they were doing (British EMPIRE the clue is in the title). America came along as the bright new hope, with a great constitution, but then over time reverted to the traditional "Leader is the decider and we need to preemptively attack other countries" system.

if you don't think it is relevant, silence might be a more appropriate response.

If you are "defending america" then i wonder... why?

And by the way, in case you are assuming this is some kind of transatlantic rivalry thing, i fucking hate Britain too.

In reply to this comment by smibbo:
Exactly; your point that America "developed" the bad characteristics they wanted to get away from is debatable in the context of time. Being as empires rise and fall and usually in similar ways, the "decline" of America may or may not have anything to do with its attitude. Being as its been over 200 years since its inception, any movement that reflects typical "empirical" trends is to be expected. Paint it "u terbul amerikkans" if it makes you feel all warm and squishy or perhaps you prefer snide and hopeless? Whatever. I was only saying that implying America has pagentry and "royalty" because its somehow tainted with nasty ickyness in its deep-rooted culture is kind of silly. America is over 200 years old, its bound to have similiarity with many older cultures. Big Fucking Deal. Why not discuss cultural problems that are a direct result of the people?

In reply to this comment by MINK:
"debatable" ?
you can go and debate the theory that empires rise and fall, in cycles spanning hundreds of years, with any historian you like, and see what they tell you.


In reply to this comment by smibbo:
eventually developed the bad characteristics of that which it replaced.

uh, more than 200 years later. Considering context of time, I think your point is a bit errant and very debatable.
what July 4th stands for is independance from the British. That's it. Any other meaning is personal. If you want to romanticize American independance just so you can bemoan its dilution... have fun.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
I never said "Americans" hate "The British".
I suggested the founding fathers hated the way the british ran the colonies and founded a nation of their own, that eventually developed the bad characteristics of that which it replaced.

Americans aren't big on subtlety? So now I have to adjust every post on the internet to take this into account?

Every country has "royalty" and propaganda parades... and yes it is shameful, especially in the context of 4th July and everything the young america was supposed to stand for.

Hope that clears things up for you.


In reply to this comment by smibbo:
1) We Americans do not hate the british. I don't think you know much American history.
2) What is this video supposed to "show"? If you've got something to say, spit it out. Most Americans aren't real big on subtlety.
3) Every country has its "royalty" regardless of their title. People like a bit of pagentry. Is that supposed to be shameful?

no, I said your point that America is in decline is not worth discussing in the context of overal perspective. We both agree. You want to skew the view so that the reason why America is in decline towards an empire is because of its people's attitude. Yet you agree that such movement is inevitable for any country. I don't care to sit around bashing America with someone who takes such great pleasure in pinning it all on the "arrogant americans". Being snide and contemptuous doesn't change or help. I'm an American. What? Because my country has serious problems (and I haven't met an American yet who isn't ready and willing to admit that and discuss it) I'm supposed to sit around beating my breast and hanging in my head in shame? What would that accomplish? Yes, millions are allowing this to happen, but millions also are perfectly aware of it and trying to do something about it. You could discuss how even though decline towards empirical attitudes has been shown to be historically inevitable, there is sstill a large faction of Americans trying to like hell to resist that decline, but you'd rather focus on the people who live in ignorance and fear. Its a matter of perspective and if I thought like you did about my own country, I'd probably give up entirely and become a hermit or another greedy "I got mine, jack" asshole.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
you're saying my point isn't worth discussing, and yet you keep coming back to discuss it.

you say these "empirical trends are to be expected". Well, cool, we agree. Nations turn into empires (if they're lucky) and then try to dominate other countries unfairly, eventually causing their own destruction with their arrogance.

Which is exactly what America is doing.

In the context of millions of americans supporting this self destruction, voting for leaders that continue it, and denying that there is a problem, i think my point is relevant.

Seeing as america was founded with a very definite aim to avoid monarchy and empire, it is especially ironic (in the case of america) that she has formed basically a shared monarchy and an empire. Other countries at least admitted what they were doing (British EMPIRE the clue is in the title). America came along as the bright new hope, with a great constitution, but then over time reverted to the traditional "Leader is the decider and we need to preemptively attack other countries" system.

if you don't think it is relevant, silence might be a more appropriate response.

If you are "defending america" then i wonder... why?

And by the way, in case you are assuming this is some kind of transatlantic rivalry thing, i fucking hate Britain too.

In reply to this comment by smibbo:
Exactly; your point that America "developed" the bad characteristics they wanted to get away from is debatable in the context of time. Being as empires rise and fall and usually in similar ways, the "decline" of America may or may not have anything to do with its attitude. Being as its been over 200 years since its inception, any movement that reflects typical "empirical" trends is to be expected. Paint it "u terbul amerikkans" if it makes you feel all warm and squishy or perhaps you prefer snide and hopeless? Whatever. I was only saying that implying America has pagentry and "royalty" because its somehow tainted with nasty ickyness in its deep-rooted culture is kind of silly. America is over 200 years old, its bound to have similiarity with many older cultures. Big Fucking Deal. Why not discuss cultural problems that are a direct result of the people?

In reply to this comment by MINK:
"debatable" ?
you can go and debate the theory that empires rise and fall, in cycles spanning hundreds of years, with any historian you like, and see what they tell you.


In reply to this comment by smibbo:
eventually developed the bad characteristics of that which it replaced.

uh, more than 200 years later. Considering context of time, I think your point is a bit errant and very debatable.
what July 4th stands for is independance from the British. That's it. Any other meaning is personal. If you want to romanticize American independance just so you can bemoan its dilution... have fun.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
I never said "Americans" hate "The British".
I suggested the founding fathers hated the way the british ran the colonies and founded a nation of their own, that eventually developed the bad characteristics of that which it replaced.

Americans aren't big on subtlety? So now I have to adjust every post on the internet to take this into account?

Every country has "royalty" and propaganda parades... and yes it is shameful, especially in the context of 4th July and everything the young america was supposed to stand for.

Hope that clears things up for you.


In reply to this comment by smibbo:
1) We Americans do not hate the british. I don't think you know much American history.
2) What is this video supposed to "show"? If you've got something to say, spit it out. Most Americans aren't real big on subtlety.
3) Every country has its "royalty" regardless of their title. People like a bit of pagentry. Is that supposed to be shameful?

Exactly; your point that America "developed" the bad characteristics they wanted to get away from is debatable in the context of time. Being as empires rise and fall and usually in similar ways, the "decline" of America may or may not have anything to do with its attitude. Being as its been over 200 years since its inception, any movement that reflects typical "empirical" trends is to be expected. Paint it "u terbul amerikkans" if it makes you feel all warm and squishy or perhaps you prefer snide and hopeless? Whatever. I was only saying that implying America has pagentry and "royalty" because its somehow tainted with nasty ickyness in its deep-rooted culture is kind of silly. America is over 200 years old, its bound to have similiarity with many older cultures. Big Fucking Deal. Why not discuss cultural problems that are a direct result of the people?

In reply to this comment by MINK:
"debatable" ?
you can go and debate the theory that empires rise and fall, in cycles spanning hundreds of years, with any historian you like, and see what they tell you.


In reply to this comment by smibbo:
eventually developed the bad characteristics of that which it replaced.

uh, more than 200 years later. Considering context of time, I think your point is a bit errant and very debatable.
what July 4th stands for is independance from the British. That's it. Any other meaning is personal. If you want to romanticize American independance just so you can bemoan its dilution... have fun.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
I never said "Americans" hate "The British".
I suggested the founding fathers hated the way the british ran the colonies and founded a nation of their own, that eventually developed the bad characteristics of that which it replaced.

Americans aren't big on subtlety? So now I have to adjust every post on the internet to take this into account?

Every country has "royalty" and propaganda parades... and yes it is shameful, especially in the context of 4th July and everything the young america was supposed to stand for.

Hope that clears things up for you.


In reply to this comment by smibbo:
1) We Americans do not hate the british. I don't think you know much American history.
2) What is this video supposed to "show"? If you've got something to say, spit it out. Most Americans aren't real big on subtlety.
3) Every country has its "royalty" regardless of their title. People like a bit of pagentry. Is that supposed to be shameful?

eventually developed the bad characteristics of that which it replaced.

uh, more than 200 years later. Considering context of time, I think your point is a bit errant and very debatable.
what July 4th stands for is independance from the British. That's it. Any other meaning is personal. If you want to romanticize American independance just so you can bemoan its dilution... have fun.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
I never said "Americans" hate "The British".
I suggested the founding fathers hated the way the british ran the colonies and founded a nation of their own, that eventually developed the bad characteristics of that which it replaced.

Americans aren't big on subtlety? So now I have to adjust every post on the internet to take this into account?

Every country has "royalty" and propaganda parades... and yes it is shameful, especially in the context of 4th July and everything the young america was supposed to stand for.

Hope that clears things up for you.


In reply to this comment by smibbo:
1) We Americans do not hate the british. I don't think you know much American history.
2) What is this video supposed to "show"? If you've got something to say, spit it out. Most Americans aren't real big on subtlety.
3) Every country has its "royalty" regardless of their title. People like a bit of pagentry. Is that supposed to be shameful?

whose the better king. The crazed warrior who neglects his princely duties and goes off chasing romanticized grandeur or the incapable brother who never really had it in him to do much administration, but was forced to look after the country for his reckless brother?

in the romanticized sense that i am an adventurer who believes in the ideal of freedom and resistance to external authority, then kossack i am. but in the sense that i am a force in the left/progressive/liberal/Democratic community, then no, no i am not.

oh yeah, and i'm not ukrainian.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Thanks. Are you a kossack?

In reply to this comment by E_Nygma:
hey man, just thought you might like to see this about your obama race video. It's immensely impressive. thanks for posting it as well.

I think there is a more benign explanation as to why people in war experience such transcendence and it doesn't require humans necessarily having a dark side. I think their experience has to do with how seductive and how addictive the chemistry of stress can be. Recently I was working on a deadline that kept me under an immense amount of stress over an extended period of time. Towards the end I found every experience so heightened that could it only be described as transcendent - everything - the good, the bad - fear, joy, the way the music sounded, the lows, the highs - the intensity of all experience was just pushed to the extreme. Now that the deadline is over I sometimes romanticize about that period even though I know how painful it was. I'm almost looking forward to the next year's deadline.

I imagine these soldiers are experiencing a lot more stress than I did and they are similarly romanticizing this time of stress because of the meaning it gave their lives. But the good news is that people can achieve the same level of transcendence by other, less darker means. I don't think war has to be an integral part of the human condition.

Currently reading Wikipedia, I brought only one book on my trip and I read it twice already. So Wiki is filling a large void, did you know that SS uniforms were designed by Hugo Boss? No wai!

As for the book, if you can call it that it's called "The Know It All Book" and basically covers topics on Science, Philosophy, History, Visual Arts, Music, Literature and Religion. A sort of refresher course, expanding horizons and completing education shindig (I totally got that off the back cover). But at least now I can say that late 19th century Romanticism is for douche bags with some certain authority.

Recently I also read Richard Herman's "Against All Enemies", this is about as airport trash as you can get, and the man is totally phoning in Tom Clancy, still a very good page turner though afterwards I felt like I simply wasted my time. I just noticed on Nexttag that he has some perverse pleasure in having the front cover of his books ripped in two, must be some stylistic thing, but god it annoyed me when I was reading the book. It's selling for less then a dollar now... its worth less then the paper its printed on.

Before leaving Kuwait I read Fear up Harsh - An Army Interrogator's Dark Journey Through Iraq which was a great first account of someone whose idealism for helping his nation win a war slowly wanes after witnessing pressure to produce 'results', using dubious techniques. It's a very human account, highly recommended reading for those trying to get an insight into how Army Intelligence operated in Iraq, both good and bad. The comments on Amazon.com are hilarious really -

"No matter how poignant, timely, or interesting Mr. Lagouranis's story may be, or how sincere and intelligent he comes across in an interview on television, we are at war, ladies and gentleman. Our soldiers' lives are risked every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. Efforts such as Mr. Lagouranis's, written in the safety and shelter of the United States, undermine theirs so far away, and play into directly the hands of our sophisticated enemies."

Which shows the person hardly read the book at all.

On my last trip here I read two books of Robert Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Tunnel In The Sky. Both excellent sci-fi books, especially the Moon Is A Harsh Mistress which reads like a manual for rebellion against an oppressive government, especially interesting if you read Starshi
p Troopers.

I also read P.D. James' Children of Men, which was adapted into the movie, and wasn't surprised that I liked the book far more then the film as it is beautifully written, far darker then the film and ends differently.

PS: If you are looking for some good Sci Fi to read, its always good to consult Hugo Award winners, here is a list on Amazon for pre-2000 winners, there is another for post-2000 as well.

PPS: I also highly recommend Life of Pi, one of the best books I read.

Now I will shut up.

Differences of opinion are good, but honestly, I have a much harder time dealing with people I otherwise like saying yes to this gratuitous, disgusting, nauseating, hurtful image than I do dealing with people who think the war in Iraq is rightious or who otherwise espouse political values I abhor: I see the reason for that. I see no reason at all for this. It isn't real. It isn't cautionary. It isn't in context. It's just pathetic.

So let me get this straight: It's much easier for you to deal with a guy like Dick Cheney who sold our nation a bill of goods so we could go to war in which over 5000 Americans and countless Iraqis have actually DIED because he believes the war is righteous, rather than a guy like me who happens to think that the gruesome portrayal of suicide might be realistic enough to persuade certain people to seek help or find help for others that they care about? There's not only no gray area for you, but I'm actually a worse human being because I don't see this clip in the same way that you do? I mean, solely because YOU find it gratuitous, offensive, and unrealistic and yet I don't, this somehow places me on a lower moral plane than the fucking war pigs in Washington because at least they think their cause is "righteous"? Wow, if Cheney ever has to face charges for war crimes he better pray to have you as a judge. All his attorney would have to say is, "Well your honor, at least he's not as bad as that guy who defended a suicide scene from a movie!"

No, you most certainly are NOT alone in experiencing a loss from suicide, but let's spare each other our sob stories because that's really besides the point. Could a scene like this possibly encourage someone to commit suicide? Certainly it's possible. But could a scene like this also dissuade others from taking their own lives? Certainly that's possible too, and unless you somehow have insight into the thinking of every suicidal person on the planet I doubt you'll convince me otherwise. And even more importantly, could people who have friends or loved ones who they know are depressed be moved enough to be more active in finding help for this depressed person after seeing this scene? That is a DEFINITE possibility too. Suicidal people react to the world in ways that aren't entirely predictable anyway, so we can't go making everything they see and hear safe just to protect them, unless you think that the parent of those kids who sued Ozzy Osbourne and Judas Priest because they blame them for their kids suicide have valid cases.

How realistic is this scene? Most persons don't walk this calmly into their own suicides, but as KOMMIE stated this woman already had other mental health issues to begin with so it's not outside the realm of possibilities. Not every suicide is a person standing on a ledge for hours while police, firemen, and family members all try to talk them down. There is a subset of persons just like her who remain calm and collected during the entire process. I know.

To restate, this scene is not at all romanticized or completely unrealistic, nor does it promote suicide, but that makes no difference to you because your opinion is the one that matters most, right? I'm just the devil, worse than Rumsfeld and Cheney because at least they think their cause is righteous while I must be some sick fuck who likes watching snuff scenes. The worst thing I said about this scene's detractors was that they don't like seeing things that make them uncomfortable, while you say that you have a harder time with me than with deluded war criminals.

Congratulations, oxdottir. You've pissed me off as bad as I used to get when I read political blogs on a regular basis and trolls would stop in to say that we liberals deserved to be waterboarded because we dared to question the President. "Differences of opinion are good", you say, but then you say I'm worse than a megalomaniacal war criminal because my opinion is different than yours. Just cut to the chase and say "Differences of opinion are good, but you're a sick piece of shit because you don't find this abhorrent just like me."

Thanks for letting me know where you stand.

PS: I have no problem with anyone else who's disagreed with me on this thread because no one besides oxdottir has implied I'm a sick bastard for defending this. Everyone on VideoSift can downvote this and I won't care, but I don't take remarks like oxdottir's lightly, obviously.