>> ^thepinky:Nevertheless, civil disobeyers occassionally clogged the machine despite the war being overseas.

The protests of the Iraq war, before it even began, where the largest most wide spread anti-war protests in world history. The day the war broke out many citys, including San Francisco, where I was living at the time, were shut down by protesters "clogging the machine". The war machine did not skip a beat.

If your premise is that it might work if we can do better than MK Gandhi and MLK combined, then I submit that we have, and it didn't even register, because the game has changed.

The power structures of the united states have restructured in the last fifty years, in no small part to counteract the threat of domestic CD. This restructuring has been massive, and pervasive, and it has, in effect inoculated the country from the effects of these sorts of actions.

Certainly committing massive fraud in the name of CD, such as in the story mentioned above, is still an option, but one which will simply require a rule change to dispense with.

When the people taking to the street has no power, when the prisons are run for profit, constitutional rights are dispensed with when traffic is interrupted, and being able to drive to work swiftly is more important to 98% of the population than the right to assemble, then you have been forced, by those in power to choose a new tactic, or to flail around uselessly.

CD is not a goal, CD is a tactic, even MK Gandhi agreed that in some extreme cases an armed revolution is justified when CD would be ineffective.

I agree with and have lived the ideal, I understand the argument, but the means do not justify the end.

I think I understand some of the reasoning behind the problems these rich people have with talking about their wealth and the growing social-economic gaps in society.

It is probably easy for them to change the lives of a couple of people, but the more lives are involved the more complicated the "proper" solution becomes up to the scope where judgment of what is the right thing to do in any given circumstance becomes very blurry.

World history is after all full of examples of misjudgment with the intention of general good.
Some of them might prefer their self-groomed naivete to facing the responsibilities put on their shoulders by their wealth and anybody who argues otherwise should probably ask himself if he is helping making the world a better place to the best of his abilities or not.

Then, there's of course the regular dickheads ... /*end rant- interesting documentary

Tackling and force feeding prisoners!

Yes indeed Brandon, the people have the right to know that Americans are some of the most honourable combatants in world history.

...this period in world history was later named the big bang

It is highly improbable that this imperialist war of 1914–16 will be transformed into a national war, because the class that represents progress is the proletariat, which, objectively, is striving to transform this war into civil war against the bourgeoisie; and also because the strength of both coalitions is almost equally balanced, while international finance capital has everywhere created a reactionary bourgeoisie. Nevertheless, it cannot be said that such a transformation is impossible: if the European proletariat were to remain impotent for another twenty years; if the present war were to end in victories similar to those achieved by Napoleon, in the subjugation of a number of virile national states; if imperialism outside of Europe (primarily American and Japanese) were to remain in power for another twenty years without a transition to socialism, say, as a result of a Japanese-American war, then a great national war in Europe would be possible. This means that Europe would be thrown back for several decades. This is improbable. But it is not impossible, for to picture world history as advancing smoothly and steadily without sometimes taking gigantic strides backward is undialectical, unscientific and theoretically wrong.

Further, national wars waged by colonial, and semi-colonial countries are not only possible but inevitable in the epoch of imperialism. The colonies and semi-colonies (China, Turkey, Persia) have a population of nearly one billion, i.e., more than half the population of the earth. In these countries the movements for national liberation are either very strong already or are growing and maturing. Every war is a continuation of politics by other means. The national liberation politics of the colonies will inevitably be continued by national wars of the colonies against imperialism. Such wars may lead to an imperialist war between the present “Great” imperialist Powers or they may not; that depends on many circumstances.

For example: England and France were engaged in a seven years war for colonies, i.e., they waged an imperialist war (which is as possible on the basis of slavery, or of primitive capitalism, as on the basis of highly developed modern capitalism). France was defeated and lost part of her colonies. Several years later the North American States started a war for national liberation against England alone. Out of enmity towards England, i.e., in conformity with their own imperialist interests, France and Spain, which still held parts of what are now the United States, concluded friendly treaties with the states that had risen against England. The French forces together with the American defeated the English. Here we have a war for national liberation in which imperialist rivalry is a contributory element of no great importance, which is the opposite of what we have in the war of 1914–16 (in which the national element in the Austro-Serbian war is of no great importance compared with the all determining imperialist rivalry). This shows how absurd it would be to employ the term imperialism in a stereotyped fashion by deducing from it that national wars are “impossible.” A war for national liberation waged, for example, by an alliance of Persia, India and China against certain imperialist Powers is quite possible and probable, for it follows logically from the national liberation movements now going on in those countries. Whether such a war will be transformed into an imperialist war among the present imperialist Powers will depend on a great many concrete circumstances, and it would be ridiculous to guarantee that these circumstances will arise.

Thirdly, national wars must not be regarded as impossible in the epoch of imperialism even in Europe. The “epoch of imperialism” made the present war an imperialist war; it inevitably engenders (until the advent of socialism) new imperialist war; it transformed the policies of the present Great Powers into thoroughly imperialist policies. But this “epoch” by no means precludes the possibility of national wars, waged, for example, by small (let us assume, annexed or nationally oppressed) states against the imperialist Powers, any more than it precludes the possibility of big national movements in Eastern Europe. With regard to Austria, for example, Junius shows sound judgment in taking into account not only the “economic,” but also the peculiar political situation, in noting Austria’s “inherent lack of vitality” and admitting that “the Hapsburg monarchy is not a political organisation of a bourgeois state, but only a loosely knit syndicate of several cliques of social parasites,” that “historically, the liquidation of Austria-Hungary is merely the continuation of the disintegration of Turkey and at the same time a demand of the historical process of development.” The situation is no better in certain Balkan states and in Russia. And in the event of the “Great Powers” becoming extremely exhausted in the present war, or in the event of a victorious revolution in Russia, national wars, even victorious ones, are quite possible. On the one hand, intervention by the imperialist powers is not possible under all circumstances. On the other hand, when people argue haphazardly that a war waged by a small state against a giant state is hopeless, we must say that a hopeless war is war nevertheless, and, moreover, certain events within the “giant” states—for example, the beginning of a revolution—may transform a “hopeless” war into a very “hopeful” one.

The fact that the postulate that “there can be no more national wars” is obviously fallacious in theory is not the only reason why we have dealt with this fallacy at length. It would be a very deplorable thing, of course, if the “Lefts” began to be careless in their treatment of Marxian theory, considering that the Third International can be established only on the basis of Marxism, unvulgarised Marxism. But this fallacy is also very harmful in a practical political sense; it gives rise to the stupid propaganda for “disarmament,” as if no other war but reactionary wars are possible; it is the cause of the still more stupid and downright reactionary indifference towards national movements. Such indifference becomes chauvinism when members of “Great” European nations, i.e., nations which oppress a mass of small and colonial peoples, declare with a learned air that “there can be no more national wars!” National wars against the imperialist Powers are not only possible and probable, they are inevitable, they are progressive and revolutionary, although, of course, what is needed for their success is either the combined efforts of an enormous number of the inhabitants of the oppressed countries (hundreds of millions in the example we have taken of India and China), or a particularly favourable combination of circumstances in the international situation (for example, when the intervention of the imperialist Powers is paralysed by exhaustion, by war, by their mutual antagonisms, etc.), or a simultaneous uprising of the proletariat of one of the Great Powers against the bourgeoisie (this latter case stands first in order from the standpoint of what is desirable and advantageous for the victory of the proletariat).

We must state, however, that it would be unfair to accuse Junius of being indifferent to national movements. When enumerating the sins of the Social-Democratic Parliamentary group, he does at least mention their silence in the matter of the execution of a native leader in the Cameroons for “treason” (evidently for an attempt at insurrection in connection with the war); and in another place he emphasises (for the special benefit of Messrs. Legien, Lensch and similar scoundrels who call themselves “Social-Democrats”) that colonial nations are also nations. He declares very definitely: “Socialism recognises for every people the right to independence and freedom, the right to be masters of their own destiny.... International socialism recognises the right of free, independent, equal nations, but only socialism can create such nations, only socialism can establish the right of nations to self-determination. This slogan of socialism,” justly observes the author, “like all its other slogans, serves, not to justify the existing order of things, but as a guide post, as a stimulus to the revolutionary, reconstructive, active policy of the proletariat.” (p. 77-78) Consequently, it would be a profound mistake to suppose that all the Left German Social-Democrats have stooped to the narrow-mindedness and distortion of Marxism advocated by certain Dutch and Polish Social-Democrats, who repudiate self-determination of nations even under socialism. However, we shall deal with the special Dutch and Polish sources of this mistake elsewhere.

Another fallacious argument advanced by Junius is in connection with the question of defence of the fatherland. This is a cardinal political question during an imperialist war. Junius has strengthened us in our conviction that our Party has indicated the only correct approach to this question: the proletariat is opposed to defence of the fatherland in this imperialist war because of its predatory, slave-owning, reactionary character, because it is possible and necessary to oppose to it (and to strive to convert it into) civil war for socialism. Junius, however, while brilliantly exposing the imperialist character of the present war as distinct from a national war, falls into the very strange error of trying to drag a national programme into the present non-national war. It sounds almost incredible, but it is true.

The official Social-Democrats, both of the Legien and of the Kautsky shade, in their servility to the bourgeoisie, who have been making the most noise about foreign “invasion” in order to deceive the masses of the people as to the imperialist character of the war, have been particularly assiduous in repeating this “invasion” argument. Kautsky, who now assures naive and credulous people (incidentally, through the mouth of “Spectator,” a member of the Russian Organization Committee) that he joined the opposition at the end of 1914, continues to use this “argument”! To refute it, Junius quotes extremely instructive examples from history, which prove that “invasion and class struggle are not contradictory in bourgeois history, as the official legend has it, but that one is the means and the expression of the other.” For example, the Bourbons in France invoked foreign invaders against the Jacobins; the bourgeoisie in 1871 invoked foreign invaders against the Commune. In his Civil War in France, Marx wrote:

“The highest heroic effort of which old society is still capable is national war; and this is now proved to be a mere governmental humbug, intended to defer the struggle of the classes, and to be thrown aside as soon as that class struggle bursts out in civil war.”[7]

>> ^CaptainPlanet420:
Hey he made his bed when he chose a name the same as one of the worst butchers in world history. But Hussein boy's butchery will be the freedoms and many other things that made this country great.


You know there are millions of people named Hussein, who were born long before Saddam?

By your logic John McCain should change his name because it's the same as John Wilkes Booth.

Hey he made his bed when he chose a name the same as one of the worst butchers in world history. But Hussein boy's butchery will be the freedoms and many other things that made this country great.

Well I said that because you said something about "ask the Kurds, Kuwait, etc..." I assumed you didn't know where he was from. No, I didn't know that, but as far as world history goes, I kinda suck.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
You do realize that Kuwait would actually be a province of Iraq under Saddam had no one intervened?

In reply to this comment by LittleRed:
You do realize Farhad is from Kuwait, right?

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
>> ^Farhad2000:
ROFLMAO.
The Khomeini's would obviously support an action to remove Saddam Hussein who attacked Iran in the 80s resulting in the Iran-Iraq war that killed nearly a million. They also hate America. Your point is so ridiculous.


Actually, Hossein Khomeini is a big fan of America and considers his own grandfather a "F@#%!#& queer". He's even gone so far as to hope that America would remove the regime in Iran next. He and most of the other youth in Iran blame the Iran-Iraq war dead largely on his grandfather's attempts to fight it with human waves.

If you think Iran is unique in the region for wanting Saddam removed maybe ask the Kurds, Kuwait, Jordan, Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Israel if they would rather return to the days of Saddam's rule.

I don't know what your trip is Stali.. the battle of Stalingrad being valiantly fought and won by Russia is taught in World History courses throughout America. Get off your Westerners are oblivious to world events horse.

2008 will be hailed as a great year in western world history; the year nut stank, funk, and dick dough were abolished forever by Alexyss and octagon(?) soap. 2008 indeed. Evocative of glorious years past. Years replete with liberating thought and progress: Luther's Reformation (1517), Hobbes Leviathan (1651), the French Revolution (1789), Darwin's Origin of Species (1859), and the collapse of communism (1989), to name a few.

With the exception of FOX, news organizations are skewed towards ratings, profit and ad revenue. They appease the status quo and try to avoid controversial things that will piss off advertisers. Most advertisers are corporations who, by in large support the Republican Party's corporatist economic policies. So in this way, they are on the right.

Media is fairly indifferent when it comes to social issues that don't have any financial impact. On these issues they usually side with the more popular liberal positions, so on these issues they are on the left. Media is concerned about the bottom line and does not have a general partisan agenda (with the notable exception of FOX, which is the largest propaganda operation in world history - headed by uber conservative partisans Murdoch and Ailes).

The concept 'Fair and Balanced' is a FOX canard designed to boost their more culturally unpopular positions, (like denying global warming and intelligent design). In other words, if you have a stupid argument to begin with, then it is a much easier to complain about bias than to actually address the issue at hand. There is a report somewhere that shows about 1% of climate scientists denying global warming, but on television, that 1% becomes 50%, giving the false illusion of a genuine scientific disagreement on the issue.

It would be nice if both party's could get together long enough to replace our media with something better. I actually think having more partisan news options would be a good thing. Not FOX style bash-the-other-guy-over-the-head partisanship, but something more akin to NPR partisanship, where they are clearly coming from a particular point of view (liberal in the case of NPR) but they are respectful and open minded to all sides, but still left of center. Friendly partisanship would be great for politics as well. It would allow for more ideas, opinions, solutions, etc.

Oh wow, that ended up being a novel.....

(updated July 4 2008)

After some thinking I created this (2b further tweaked) categorization based on joedirt's post. Most channels could fall into one (sub)category yet some were more vague in their description or channel name, which creates categorization problems which need to be attended. Here we go:

----
Time
----

80s: dag, active
future: jwray, active
vintage: swampgirl, active

---------
Geography
---------

asia: Lucky760, active
british: Zifnab, active
canada: Calvados, active
downunder: maatc, active

-----------
Educational
-----------

(general)
philosophy: bluecliff, MIA
science: rembar, active

(spirituality)
religion: jimnms, active
--> islam: Gwaan, MIA
cult: therealblankman, active

(natural world)
nature: Arvana, active
engineering: oxdottir, active
geek: gorgonheap, active
military: darksun, MIA
spacy: lunkwill, active

(social world)
history: rickegee, MIA
humanitarian: bl968, MIA
politics: Open
--> election 08: joedirt, active
--> war on terror: raven, MIA
--> world affairs: histnerd, active

---------------------
Identities/lifestyles
---------------------

catsanddogs: youdiejoe, active
drugs: rottenseed, active
geek: gorgonheap, active
kids: James Roe, active
sexuality: persephone, active
--> femme: intangiblemeg, MIA
--> gay: Open
travel: silvercord, ?


----------------------
Arts and Entertainment
----------------------

art: plastiquemonkey, active
animation: thesnipe, active
--> woo hoo: Krupo, active
bravo (italian): Deano, MIA
cinema: pigeon, ?
cooking: djsunkid, active
music: Open
--> hiphop: benjee, MIA
--> jazz/blues/soul: choggie, active
--> rocknroll: MLX, ?
--> livemusic: deathcow, active
shortfilms: Sarzy, active
sports: michie, MIA
videogames: Oatmeal, active

(a&e genres)
actionpack: wildmanbill, MIA
comedy: Open
--> stand up: winkler1, active
--> parody: dotdude, active
drugs: rottenseed, active
grindhouse: dw117, active
horror show: pyrex, MIA
mystery: grspec, MIA
scifi: Firefly, active
spacy: lunkwill, active
wild west show: Open

------
Format
------

1sttube: Grimm, active
books: kronosposeidon, active
bravo (italian): Deano, MIA
commercial: Looris, MIA
documentaries: Fedquip, active
howto: maudlin, MIA
latenight: eric3579, active
meme: MarineGunrock, active
shortfilms: Sarzy, active
viral: Open

-----------------
Opinions/Emotions
-----------------

cute: Open
dark: dystopianfututretoday, active
eia (stupid): karaidl, MIA
fear: blankfist, active
happy: Issykitty, active
lies: Fjnbk, active
obscure (underground): Farhad2000, active
terrible: sometimes, active
wtf: Spiff, ?


Mentioned twice:
-bravo (italian): Deano, MIA
-drugs: rottenseed, active
-geek: gorgonheap, active
-spacy: lunkwill, active

Your points are fair and valid, I was only poking fun at you for the little passive aggressive "p.s." at the end which was essentially saying "you people probably beat your wives because you don't agree with conservative viewpoints".

No, that wasn't my intent or message. Sarcasm noted BTW.

As far as the last bits I left below this comment, replace the word Liberal with Conservative and you have pretty much the same argument.

I can't agree with that assessment because conservatism factors in something liberalism doesn't: facts. For example, it's been fairly well proven that every time the minimum wage is raised, prices go up and businesses hire fewer workers and still fewer inexperienced workers, such as teens entering the job market. But the genius of liberalism is people are emotional animals. What graph or chart is as colorful or loud as one "activist" screaming about hungry children, even if it has nothing to do with the issue at hand? So, the minimum wage goes up, prices go up, and once again, the media can blame higher prices and unemployment on...well...whatever's handy at the moment.

Republicans have failed to properly emotionalize their arguments, and even if they did, they'll always have a harder battle to fight, because there are no solutions, only trade-offs. Liberals don't believe that because they're selling what they believe to be permanent solutions.

Look, I was raised in a Republican household and I am still a registered Republican despite having moved left of center over the past 4 or 5 years. I've learned that someones morals and viewpoints are subjective and vary wildly based on where and how they were raised and by whom. Some peoples emotions and thought processes run differently and they see things differently. Sometimes they evolve over time when they engage in free-thought and tune out what everyone else says or thinks for a while. That's fine.

We are entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts. You're young yet and will have to find your own answers, of course. Being raised in a Republican household might very well have been a handicap, because the family unit is communistic by nature and now you're out there, seeking knowledge for yourself as you make your way through life. Conservatism and other -isms are being cross-examined by you, put through your tests and yes, through the filters of your experience.

Personally, the acts of the Bush administration have left me in utter disbelief and ashamed of what the Republican party has become, but of course a great many Americans disagree and feel the bogeyman is real and we have to assert our might lest our stature in the world degrade any more than it already has. Giving up is for sissies even if staying the course leads to economic and social ruin.

I'm not a fan of Bush myself, and could probably match your laundry list of what's wrong with him. It's all ebb and flow, and there are going to be low points, for the party and the nation. Research what America was like during Jimmy Carter's presidency.

If the R's want to survive, they'll find a way to get back to what matters. Or they'll die out. It may take people like you leaving for greener pastures for them to wake up. Hell, maybe you won't come back. I believe that things balance out, eventually. The Soviet Union, as bad is it was, fell because it was beneath human dignity to live like that. Hopefully China will also lose the Red.

Oh well, what I have ultimately learned is that after a certain age, opinions are pretty firmly cemented not withstanding a severe paradigm shift (like what if irrefutable proof came out that 9/11 was orchestrated a la Crassus and Spartacus or the Reichstag Fire in order to further a political goal; how then would you feel about this country and government? Just a hypothetical of course).

If it could be proven 9-11 was an inside job, my first reaction would be to find out how the conspirators managed to keep the silence and complicity of thousands of people, many of them government workers that can't even deliver the mail (a line from Maher). The problem with conspiracy theories is that when there's no evidence, the theorists say, "That just proves how good the conspirators really are."

For the sake of fun, let's say it was a conspiracy. If so, it backfired in several ways. If Bush was seeking to become a tyrant, his perceived inability to protect New York was not an asset. People like me, already pissed-off at the size and power of pre-9-11 government didn't suddenly relax now that there was going to be more bureaucracy to protect us.

Second, if Bush was seeking the tyrannical power that the left claims he has now, he failed to go far enough. There was no mass censorship or government seizure of media and Homeland Security did not suddenly have thousands of stormtroopers at its disposal. The message was, "Live your life like always, in spite of the attacks."

Lastly, Bush united an opposition that, if they agreed upon nothing else, could blame Bush for everything. He was still in trouble with leftists before the attacks due to the 'stolen' election, and he couldn't placate the left fast enough spending OUR money.

That having been said, going into a place where a majority of folks disagree with you politically and essentially poking the lions is generally a wasteful gesture. Nobody is going to suddenly think Olbermann is wrong and O'Reilly has it all right, or that Obama is the anti-christ and McCain will save this country from the failed policies of the Bush administration.

True on all counts. Thus my new policy. There's enough going on at VS not to bother with it anymore.

Ultimately, history is the best educator and can truly open ones eyes to the way the world works because in all honesty not much has changed in the last 2000 years as far as how men control other men and how power asserts itself. I highly recommend delving into the history of the Roman Empire, particularly the way Crassus used the gladiator revolt and paved the way for the Triumverate and God-Emperors of Rome, and the way the Nazis used the Reichstag Fire, a staged act of 'terrorism', to increase their power and further their agendas. There are many precedents throughout history for governments creating enemies or events in order to tighten their grip on a population, solidify power, engage in wars, and strip away freedoms.

The American form of government is unique in world history and remains one-of-a-kind today. The 3 branches make it extremely difficult for any one individual or group to consolidate too much power, too quickly. It "survived" Bush and if Obama gets in, democracy will hobble his efforts at trying to change things overnight.

The creation of an "Other" for government to consolidate power is a given throughout history. However, when there are not imagined barbarians at the gate, there are real ones.

Our opinions differ on the war. I happen to think history will show taking out Saddam was the right thing to do, but no, I can't "prove" it any more than scientitians now can prove with climate models that global warming is man-made.

I get the subtext of your message.

We all like to believe that the people who disagree with us are unread, inexperienced, missing obvious truths, buying into lies, etc. It's simply not so. There exist people on every side of the issues that are intelligent, well-read, etc. But being human, we will be biased toward one side: ours.

It all goes back to Patrick Moynihan's timeless saying: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.

Ancora Imparo.

"I've spent so much time with spiritual advisors, so much money on crystals and weird drugs. To think Cthulhu had been living in Hollywood Hills this whole time. He's saved my career."
--W. Axl Rose











In reply to this comment by uhohzombies:
Your points are fair and valid, I was only poking fun at you for the little passive aggressive "p.s." at the end which was essentially saying "you people probably beat your wives because you don't agree with conservative viewpoints".

As far as the last bits I left below this comment, replace the word Liberal with Conservative and you have pretty much the same argument. Look, I was raised in a Republican household and I am still a registered Republican despite having moved left of center over the past 4 or 5 years. I've learned that someones morals and viewpoints are subjective and vary wildly based on where and how they were raised and by whom. Some peoples emotions and thought processes run differently and they see things differently. Sometimes they evolve over time when they engage in free-thought and tune out what everyone else says or thinks for a while. That's fine. Personally, the acts of the Bush administration have left me in utter disbelief and ashamed of what the Republican party has become, but of course a great many Americans disagree and feel the bogeyman is real and we have to assert our might lest our stature in the world degrade any more than it already has. Giving up is for sissies even if staying the course leads to economic and social ruin.

Oh well, what I have ultimately learned is that after a certain age, opinions are pretty firmly cemented not withstanding a severe paradigm shift (like what if irrefutable proof came out that 9/11 was orchestrated a la Crassus and Spartacus or the Reichstag Fire in order to further a political goal; how then would you feel about this country and government? Just a hypothetical of course). Most political arguments are just that... heated arguments which lead to nothing. True debate is almost nonexistent because usually one person or both are just completely incapable of objectively examining someone else's viewpoints. That having been said, going into a place where a majority of folks disagree with you politically and essentially poking the lions is generally a wasteful gesture. Nobody is going to suddenly think Olbermann is wrong and O'Reilly has it all right, or that Obama is the anti-christ and McCain will save this country from the failed policies of the Bush administration.

Ultimately, history is the best educator and can truly open ones eyes to the way the world works because in all honesty not much has changed in the last 2000 years as far as how men control other men and how power asserts itself. I highly recommend delving into the history of the Roman Empire, particularly the way Crassus used the gladiator revolt and paved the way for the Triumverate and God-Emperors of Rome, and the way the Nazis used the Reichstag Fire, a staged act of 'terrorism', to increase their power and further their agendas. There are many precedents throughout history for governments creating enemies or events in order to tighten their grip on a population, solidify power, engage in wars, and strip away freedoms.

In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:

I'm thinking about the psychological makeup of the submitter. Let's go inside their head: they've just posted yet another lopsided fake newsman like Colbert or Maher or the despicable Keef Overbite, bashing Bush or criticizing the war in unproductive fashion. The same 5-10 kudos arrive and everyone's in agreement.


Liberals take their worldview very, very seriously, to the point there are no other valid points of view. So, I says to myself, I says, even if you're trying to "educate" among the fun-poking, none of these people signed up to hear from you. And so I says to myself, "Self, you're right."

And that's where we are today. I don't expect anyone after these few comments to even bother. Another month and no one will know I was there. There's enough music and tech and stuff not to bother with election '08 and beyond.

I'm still around and my views remain the same. But just as I wouldn't walk around Target or the (hated) Wal-mart telling strangers what I think of Bush or Colbert, now it has its place. That's all.

PV is a case study for anyone interested in the dynamics of this post-qm has the correct vibe here-though to chose sides with regards to party affiliation at this stage in the game, is more diversion-take a class in world history, past 200 years, and get a grippage....Politics is what happens when a parrot swallows a wristwatch-

Russia is not and never was the threat they said it was.

So what, the Cuban missile crisis was all a charade? Soviet and American leaders got together beforehand and were like: "Hey, let's pretend to have a little standoff - you know, kind of get the crowd going a bit." I suppose all their missiles were filled with sawdust and cow parts. World history is pretty much WWE.

I'm curious, when did this start? Was it right after WWII that they had the meeting and worked out the script? Or was WWII part of it too? If so, I have to say that was a good move. Nobody wants to question the made-up history if half the people they know inexplicably died.

a means of taking control of media operations

This is such an insult to the billions of people in countries where the government actually does control media operations. Media here is controlled by money, and money is controlled by attention. This produces certain kinds of flaws in media coverage (like a tendency to support wars that involve hometown boys dying), but it doesn't make the media a government puppet.

Talking to people with views like yours, I quite often get told that I just can't handle the truth or something. I'd say it's just the opposite. To me, the real, scary, hard-to-accept truth is that there isn't a deeper level of reality or motivation to world events.

Despite how scary it seems, the world is shaped by people like Bush - people who got where they are by accidents of fate, and people who are not particularly more qualified than the average restaurant manager. These people don't plan to have a fake rivalry with Russia to subjugate the populace, they think "Oh yeah Russia, you can't mess with us - we'll build twice as many bombs".

They're motivated by fear and doubt and ego - just like the rest of us. Ascribing to them completely different, secret motives (as well as near absolute, behind-the-curtains power) means you'll never understand world history, and that you sacrifice what little influence you could have on your nation's future.

I've mentioned this before, but it seems like in the States now a lot of young people with good ideals are opting out of the political process entirely - because they kind of disbelieve in the whole system. As a consequence, you continue to get the same kind of leaders.

Come back to reality. You're needed!