exploring life

remember 9/11?

Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:17:42 GMT

What did you think when you became aware of the atrocities of September 11? Mine was different from most. It was not different in that I was not angry or afraid. Those feelings had definitely come to me. It was what I was afraid of. I was afraid of the United States.

You see, I opposed the war in Afghanistan, from the beginning. Why? Because I don't value the innocent lives of those who died on that day any more than I do the lives of the innocent Afghans who died by our hand, or by hunger, or by disease. Now the Taliban is making a resurgence, and our military actions were for nothing. So many dead for nothing.

A handful of terrorists decided to inflict a day of fear and suffering on us, one that would leave a scar. They succeeded in doing that. But who wields the real power here? How many 9/11s have we inflicted on the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. I felt nothing but sorrow for the Americans killed on that day, but how should we feel for our victims? The victims of our greed, our ignorance, our patriotism. I knew the atrocities of 9/11 would be dwarfed by the atrocities that would come to follow. I was correct.

The mass murder continues. The blood is on our hands.

Solving the Crisis in the Middle East

Fri, 18 Aug 2006 03:18:47 GMT

Solution suggested in the film "Kingdom of Heaven": burn Jerusalem and all it's holy sites, to the ground. This may not be very popular at first, but in the long run it may be for the best.

Solution #2: Reclaim the Holy Land for Christians!!! It's rather strange that after some 1,900 years or so of persecuting jews, and the Christian world is all of a sudden willing to back the Jewish claim to the land. From the years 1101 to 1187, Jerusalem was a Christian state. Does this not give Christians as much a claim as the Jews who are reclaiming land they lived on 1,900 years ago.

Why not make it a three way war?

I bet this idea would get alot of support in the South and Midwest.

Tue, 01 Aug 2006 04:54:07 GMT

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1B5BA55E-BA81-44E1-968D-3AEE2749BAFB.htm

Turns out the 10 happiest countries on the planet tend to be overwhelmingly socialistic.

The latest Top Ten happy nations are:

1. Denmark
2. Switzerland
3. Austria
4. Iceland
5. Bahamas
6. Finland
7. Sweden
8. Bhutan
9. Brunei
10. Canada

food for thought...

These people are evil

Mon, 31 Jul 2006 06:15:02 GMT

Why is this happening to the world?

Apparently people thought that George W. Bush's astounding performance in his first term warranted him another 4 years of power. I mean, it's not like starting a major war in the Middle East, which was completely unnecessary, is a big deal or anything. Did you expect them to change?

The carnage in Iraq is getting worse.

Next, Israel decides to lay Lebannon to waste. As if war and carnage in Iraq was not enough, the US obstructed international calls for a ceasefire. Lebanon's infrastructure has been annihilated, and its citizens killed. Only when they massacre a building full of children, do they stop their attacks.

How many wars are these people willing to wage?

How much worse can the situation in the Middle East get?

Let's invade Russia...

Fri, 28 Jul 2006 04:53:12 GMT

While George Bush's decisions have managed to turn the Middle East into an orgy of death and violence, some people feel that he hasn't done enough.

Wed, 26 Jul 2006 04:26:12 GMT

You Are 31% American

America: You don't love it or want to leave it.
But you wouldn't mind giving it an extreme make over.
On the 4th of July, you'll fly a freak flag instead...
And give Uncle Sam a sucker punch!

How American Are You?

Anne Coulter and OJ Simpson,

Thu, 08 Jun 2006 05:08:42 GMT

Oh Anne Coulter, how out of your mind can you get before people start to notice? I've wondered this on many occaisons, but recently she's hit a new level. watch this: http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Today-Coulter-Wi.mov
"I've never seen anybody enjoying their husband's death so much."
That's a new level of insensitivity and vindictiveness that I find surprising, even for her.

Speaking of which...

OJ Simpson, the famed football player, and double murderer, has released a DVD in which he plays pranks on unsuspecting victims after which he yells out line "you just got juiced." I'm just wondering when the episode where he pounces upon two unsuspecting individuals and stabs them to death, victoriously announcing, "you just got juiced!!!" I'm sure he had such a line prepared after murdering Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman.

don't worry, entry on capitalism coming...

Who is Michael Novak?

Thu, 01 Jun 2006 21:04:11 GMT

Apparently this guy Micheal Novak, is a conservative of the American type, and a Catholic theologian. Which is strange, because these are two contradictory positions to hold. Catholics have long been held with some degree of suspicion in the US, as have other non-protestant religious groups because of a perceived division in loyalty. This is essentially correct, because any decent Catholic will clearly maintain their loyalty to the Church over that of the state when there arises a contradiction between the two. As it turns out, in certain situations, like the war on Iraq for example, a choice must be made between piety and patriotism. As Jesus taught, a servant cannot serve two masters. In the context in which he taught that he was talking about serving God, and serving greed. In this context we are talking about serving God and serving country.

To learn more about this man who holds such contradictory values, I looked up some writings to see what side he would land on when one of these events arose. I was not surprised to see this man decided to follow his red, white, and blue idol rather than the God of his Church. Upon reading his defense of the war in Iraq in February 2003, it became clear that he was willing to twist logic and reason to extraordinary degrees. Let's consider what he argued here http://www.nationalreview.com/novak/novak021003.asp.

First, despite having studied theology for years, he doesn't seem to be able to understand basic logic. That is, in pointing out that had failed Saddam Hussein prove that he does not have WMD in his country, he never noted that Saddam would have equal difficulty proving that he doesn't have any pink unicorns in his country either. As is obvious to anyone with even a basic understanding of logic, it is impossible to prove a negative. Of course that didn't stop the US from placing the standard of proof for Iraq to avoid invasion above what was actually attainable. Nor did it prevent the patriotic drones in the media from uncritically repeating this nonsense with an almost religious sense of righteousness.

Furthermore, Novak showed what appears to be a grave ignorance of the actual nature of terrorism in the world. He fallaciously lumps totally unrelated Islamic movements as one and the same problem. "During the next months, intelligence services learned that the terrorists had plans for further attacks upon famous targets in European capitals, including Paris, London, and the Vatican. Months later, attacks upon the Moscow Opera House, Christian churches in Pakistan, and a crowded disco in Indonesia indicated the worldwide reach of the threat." For what reason he brought these particular events up when discussing the war in Iraq is not entirely clear eitehr, since it's rather obvious that they had nothing to do with either each other, nor Iraq.

He attempts to rebut the fact that most of the commentators within the Church knew what is in fact obvious, that the US was motivated by geopolitical strategy rather than an actual regard for security. His rebuttal consists of pointing out that France, Russia, and China are motivated by geopolitical strategy, which obviously leads one to conclude that the US is not.

I could continue to discuss many other aspects of this one issue (like his invocation of 9/11 to justify the Iraq war), but for now I will leave it at this. Next, his justification of Capitalism.

The free market of nationalism

Sun, 28 May 2006 19:49:41 GMT

"Why don't you move to some other country?"
A typical question I've been asked whenever I have ranted about the many grievances I have against the country of my birth. I have often been taken back by what state of mind such people are in. What kind of world do they think we live in?

These people may not know it, but this attitude expresses a hatred for democracy that is unparalleled. Let's consider the Capitalist system for a moment. In this system, products are sold to consumers. If the consumer is not happy with the product or the producer selling it, he may choose to buy his goods from a competitor. And it's exactly the same with nationalism, right?

Wrong. I mean, you could make that kind of argument in a Monarchist system, where the country belongs to the king and not to the people. Thus, during the reign of Louis XVI, the suffering people of France were free to find some other country to live in if they didn't like what the king was doing. Most of the French people rejected that rather insulting choice, and choose instead to do away with the monarchist system all together.

If one thinks about it a bit more, you find how ridiculous this notion really is. If some given frenchman hates the state of his country as it is, his only choice is to uproot himself from his home, his friends, and his family and move to say Germany. Thus he is to become a German. But then again, that is not so. If a Frenchman moves to Germany, he is not a German, he is a Frenchman in Germany. He is also subject to all of the rules that govern German society, since as is implied, he has no right to change them. Thus he is given another choice, accept the rules of this new society he finds himself in, or find another one. And this can go on forever, since there is no guarantee that any acceptably decent societies even exist.

This all implies of course, that individuals do not have the right to change the societies in which they live. It is rather a free market system where others decide how society should be shaped, and the lowly citizen can choose to accept it or leave it. Who are these "others" who get the privilege of deciding how society should be shaped, and what gave them that right in the first place? In 18th Century France it was the Monarchy and the Aristocracy. In the 21st Century United States it is the Business class, and the government into which they have "invested" so much money.

The degree to which our free market fantasies are able to replace democracy in our national consciousness is truly astonishing. The degree to which the elite groups who shape American society are entrenched is less astonishing. They are the ones who say "love it or leave it" but who despise true democracy so much that we cannot be allowed to change it. What will happen if the will of the people decides to take an active role in the direction of the country and replace the passivity that allows such small elite groups to control our country and the outside world? What will happen if the people will for there to be a change? I fear the the elites lust for their power so much that they are willing to shed the blood of the innocent to hold onto it. Certainly they have shed blood in other countries in sacrifice to their golden calf, but would they be willing to shed it in their own?

Captitalism

Thu, 25 May 2006 20:45:30 GMT

Humanity is threatened by many different things. The one I think deserves the most attention at this time is Capitalism, particularly Corporate Capitalism. This will be in response to hebrewhammer777 who wrote a particularly enlightening article called "The Blessings of Capitalism".

First of all, the Capitalist system is not bounded by boarders. It is a vast industrial network that crosses vast expanses of land and across oceans. This isn't to say every country takes on the capitalist ideal, but every country is touched by capitalism in some way. Thus, to take one country and call its prosperity, or lack thereof, a result of the capitalist system is a bad methodology.

Thus when some immigrant says, "I want to live in a country where the poor people are fat" it is a rather poor statement about the "benefactors" of American capitalism. Looking past the fact that this is a rather vast generalization, there is some truth to it. That is Americans are rather unhealthy compared to other cultures, and that is due to capitalist culture. It is clear that at this time, starvation is not a concern for poor Americans, though obesity is. How did this come to be? The people who control the economy know that stability is necessary, and that wide spread starvation would be a threat to that stability. Thus the poor in America are able to buy food, just not food that is good for them. The highly processed food that they can afford (provided by corporations like McDonald's and others), is unhealthy and fattening. This is not because the poor are too wealthy and have too much food to eat, just that the food that they get is bad.

American corporations do not function just within the United States. That is, the products we consume are usually produced abroad, where wages are lower and labor practices much more inhumane. To look at American society is to only look at one side of the capitalist system. The effects of American Corporate Capitalist greed on these countries is far more destructive than it is here. While the poor are made fat in the United States, our policies sometimes cause the poor in other countries to go hungry or even starve. For example, in Honduras in the 1980s US corporations caused massive starvation. They took land that was used for subsistence agriculture and gave it to corporate ranchers who used it to produce food for export to American markets. Since that land was no longer providing food for the Honduran people, there was a noticeable increase in starvation, child malnutrition, and general misery. It also resulted in considerable profits being made. This is what happens when greed your source of motivation, a complete disregard for the consequences on one's actions. This was applauded by the Reagan Administration.

Part of the problem, it should be noted, is state interference on behalf of Capitalist institutions. To the orthodox capitalist of the old kind, this should be opposed as well, but as matter of practicality, the contemporary corporate capitalist encourages state intervention for their benefit. Thus when Nicaragua democratically elected a socialist government in the 1950s and threatened to redistribute land owned by the United Fruit Co. (based in Boston) to landless peasants, the CIA intervened on its behalf in 1954 by overthrowing the government. It should be noted that at this time Ernesto "Che" Guevara was in Nicaragua, and the events strengthened his disgust for US imperialism.

I find it hard to believe that even the most ardent supporter of Capitalism would not notice its flaws. Surely abuses happen, it would be foolish to think that basing an economic system on insatiable greed will not result in bad things happening. But what about all of the great benefits Capitalism.

Jason quotes Milton Friedman, "The rich in Ancient Greece would have benefitted little from modern plumbing: running servants replaced running water. Television and radio -- the patricians of Rome could enjoy the leading musicians and actors in their home, could have the leading artists as domestic retainers. Ready-to-wear clothing, supermarkets -- all these and many other modern developments would have added little to their life. They would have welcomed improvements in transportation and in medicine, but for the rest, the great achievements of Western capitalism have redounded primarily to the benefit of the ordinary person."

My response is, not a single thing he has mentioned has benefited anybody. They make our lives easier, but not better. Personally, I think I would be happier in a tribal, hunter-gatherer society, without the "benefits" of these luxuries. I am so conservative, I would prefer living in the types of societies that preceded the Greeks and Romans. I would argue that technological "advancements" do not really make our lives better, they just seem to make our lives easier, but in reality they do not do even that. Instead they just happen to shift the difficulties in our life to other aspects in our life. In other cases, technology can be utterly destructive to us, especially in the hands of greed driven corporate capitalists who do not know about or even care about the consequences of their actions. I am here refering to polution, which is destroying everything precious in the world for the sake of our insatiable hunger for luxury. (As it turns out, every biological system in the world is in decline.) Luxury is also a great evil that is destructive to the body by making it weak, and destructive to the soul by making it covetous. We would be better off to reject the excesses of luxury, and embrace the simplicity of moderation.

Finally as an example, he mentions microloans, which appear to have benefitted some of the poorest people in India (without worrying about how people got into such desperate poverty to begin with). First of all, there is no inherent contradiction in positive effects resulting from the actions of greedy individuals. Such things can happen. The question here is what happens next. Well, if the lender is an honest person, then the person who took out the loan will pay it off and will thus have benefitted from it. Or there is another possibility. If something disasterous happens, like the water buffalo the man bought gets sick and dies or something, then what will happen? Will the lender do the right thing and forgive this man's debt? Or will he confiscate what few possessions this man has in a foreclosure? The answer to the question reveals the rotten intentions behind the most beneficial actions undertaken by our capitalist culture.

Comments on greed and values by Confucius...

Wed, 24 May 2006 04:04:03 GMT

From The Analects (the book of Ancient Chinese Philosophy containing sayings of Confucius).

4:16 Confucius said, "The superior man understands righteousness; the inferior man understands profit."

7:16 Confucius said, "There has never been anyone who came with as little a present as dried meat (for tuition) that I have refused to teach something."

Apparently Confucius, like Socrates, thought it entirely inappropriate to teach for profit. He must've survived on the good will of others.

7:15 Confucius said, "With coarse rice to eat, with water to drink, and with a bent arm for a pillow, there is still joy. Wealth and honor obtained through unrighteousness are but floating clouds to me."

A rather redundant statement.

14:24 Confucius said, "The superior man understands higher things [moral principles]; The inferior man understands the lower things [profit]."

4:5 Confucius said, "Wealth and honor are what every man desires. But if they have been obtained in violation of moral principles, they must not be kept. Poverty and humbel station are what every man dislikes. But if they can only be avoided in violation of moral principles they must not be avoided. If a superior man departs from humanity, how can he fulfill that name? A superior mannever abandons humanity even for the lapse of a single meal. In times of difficulty and confusion, he acts according to it."

4:11 Confucius said, "The superior man thinks of virtue; the inferior man thinks of possessions. The superior man thinks of sanctions; the inferior man thinks of personal favors."

4:12 Confucius said, "If one's acts are motivated by profit, he will have many enemies."

I wonder what he would think of our current social-economic system, in which greed is the only virtue?

We'll look at some other philosophers later...

Drugs legalized in Mexico, Spanish speaking world goes socialist.

Sat, 06 May 2006 05:44:39 GMT

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-fg-legalize3may03,0,3127645.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Mexico has decided to interject some degree of sanity into its drug policies. How many years away are we until the US decides to admit that fighting the war on drugs is futile and ultimately pointless?

Also,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4979398.stm

Consider the countries with radical leftist, moderate leftist, communist, or socialist governments. Off the top of my head Cuba, Venezuela, Spain, Brazil, Bolivia, and Argentina. The problem is that most of these left wing approaches have brought great benefits to the peoples of these countries. So there could be more to come. If this trend continues, can we expect a clash with the United States?

It's hard to say since the United States is busy putting out fires it set in the Middle East. Seem's like the situation is getting out of control. Will the next president risk years of unending warfare, or will he abandon the cause that inspired them to go to war in the first place?

If they pull out of the Middle East, will they go into Latin America? Let's team up with Columbia and right wing paramilitaries, and we can get into WWIII. This time it's jungle warfare.

I hope they aren't that stupid. But then again, these people have done some very stupid things.

the corporate state...

Sun, 23 Apr 2006 18:17:15 GMT

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/23/business/russgas.php

Andrei Illarionov, a former economic adviser to Putin who has become an increasingly outspoken critic since being dismissed in December, called Russia's economy today a form of "corporate state," drawing analogies to Germany in the early 20th century and to Latin America in the latter half of the century.

"I use this expression, 'the corporation,'" he explained, referring to a coterie of highly placed officials who control big business through their government posts. Some have dual hats: Gazprom's chairman is Dmitri Medvedev, the former Kremlin chief of staff, the current first deputy prime minister and a man widely viewed as a possible successor to Putin.

"It means the corporation owns the state, but it doesn't mean the corporation is the state," Illarionov said. "There are state employees who perform their duties, trying to fulfill what they are supposed to do. At the same time, the state apparatus, being owned by the corporation, is being used in the interest of the corporation. Gazprom, in this case, is an important tool owned by the corporation."

Sun, 23 Apr 2006 16:18:07 GMT

"In a separate development yesterday, a spokesman for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice branded as ''utterly false" a lawyer's contention that the secretary of state leaked national defense information to a lobbyist charged with receiving and disclosing such information. The assertion was made as a federal judge granted a defense request to issue subpoenas for Rice in the trial of Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, former lobbyists with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee."

from http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/23/cia_officer_fired_over_media_leak_was_key_senior_analyst/

Nepal

Sat, 22 Apr 2006 05:37:50 GMT

"Pressure to end Nepal's monarchy began with the start of the Maoist insurgency in 1996. A decade later, the coordinated seven-party alliance and its cooperation with the Maoist movement have pushed the monarchy to the brink.
The Maoists say they are now committed to multiparty democracy, and the opposition coalition has concluded that the Maoist agenda is not incompatible with multiparty democracy."

http://washingtontimes.com/world/20060421-105512-5666r_page2.htm

This is an interesting development. Democratic Communism. What will happen next?

This is from the onion, "Coalition: Vast Majority Of Iraqis Still Alive"

Wed, 19 Apr 2006 00:05:26 GMT

From the onion...

BAGHDAD—As the Coalition Provisional Authority prepares to hand power over to an Iraqi-led interim government on June 30, CPA administrator L. Paul Bremer publicly touted the success of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

"As the Coalition's rule draws to a close, the numbers show that we have an awful lot to be proud of," Bremer said Tuesday. "As anyone who's taken a minute and actually looked at the figures can tell you, the vast majority of Iraqis are still alive—as many as 99 percent. While 10,000 or so Iraqi civilians have been killed, pretty much everyone is not dead."

According to U.S. Department of Defense statistics, of the approximately 24 million Iraqis who were not killed, nearly all are not in a military prison. Bremer said "a good number" of those Iraqis who are in jail have been charged with a crime, and most of them have enjoyed a prison stay free of guard-dog attacks, low-watt electrocutions, and sexual humiliation.

U.S. Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt explained the coalition's accomplishments in geographical terms.

"There are vast sections of the country where one can go outside unarmed during the daylight hours," Kimmitt said, speaking from a heavily guarded base outside of Baghdad. "Even in cities where fighting has occurred, many neighborhoods have not been torn apart by gunfire. And, throughout the country, more towns than I could name off the top of my head have never been touched by a bomb at all."

Kimmitt said the bulk of the nation's public buildings are still standing.

"Throughout the nation, four out of five mosques have not been obliterated," Kimmitt said. "That's way, way, way more than half. Also, 80 percent of the nation's treasures and artifacts have not been destroyed by artillery or stolen in the widespread looting. If we were in school, that'd be a B-minus."

Halliburton executive vice-president and CFO C. Christopher Gaut described the progress of his company's reconstruction efforts.

"Of the millions of civilian homes that are still standing, many have electricity for hours each day," Gaut said. "The loss of $200 million in profits resulting from oil-line sabotage pales in comparison to the millions of dollars that remaining lines are generating. And a good portion of southern Iraq currently has access to fuel. Once we get the lines in the north repaired, oil fields will be operating at more than two-thirds of their former capacity."

Gaut added: "Many of the hospitals have reopened, and a good number of the schools have started holding classes at regularly scheduled hours, too."

Charles Sawyer, a State Department official serving as a liaison between coalition forces and the Iraqi interim government, said that no Americans have been killed in Fallujah since the coalition ceded control of the region to an Iraqi brigade.

"Less than 10 contractors have been murdered, publicly mutilated, or had their remains hung from a bridge since the end of March," Sawyer said. "And nearly three quarters of the foreign-born contract workers taken hostage in the last six months have not been killed. Also, contrary to headlines that claim there are problems with Iraq's internal law enforcement, more than half of Iraqi police officers have not deserted."

U.S. Army Gen. John P. Abizaid gave a positive assessment of the status of U.S. troops in Iraq.

"Yesterday alone, 137,980 American troops were not killed," Abizaid said. "All in all, if we keep on like this, more than 90 percent of the brave men and women serving in Iraq will return home to see their families again."

Iraq's new prime minister, Iyad Allawi, agreed that the situation in his soon-to-be-independent nation is improving.

"Of the 25 members of the Iraqi Governing Council, 23 survived until the group was replaced last month," Allawi said. "Nine out of 10 times, death threats against those who cooperate with coalition efforts do not end in actual murders."

However, Allawi added that, despite the wishes of most of his countrymen, the vast majority of American troops deployed to Iraq are still there.

"restoring democracy" in Nepal

Fri, 14 Apr 2006 05:37:29 GMT

The people of Nepal, one of the few monarchies left in the world, have decided that they have had enough. In Nepal there has long been an ongoing struggle to hang onto power. They have been fighting a civil war with Maoist guerillas, and it appears that the rest of the people have joined them in their dissatisfaction with the Monarchy. Imagine pro-democracy rebels, and communist rebels being allied. Could this be a move towards democratic communism? I wonder how such a system would fare compared to it's totalitarian counterpart?

As the government struggles to do anything it can to hold onto power, it will frantically do anything it takes to destroy these troublemakers. Any government in such a situation is prone to step over the line. Hopefully the people will prevail.

The UN is ambiguous about its stance on what is happening in Nepal...
more later...

Problem #1 with America

Thu, 13 Apr 2006 04:17:50 GMT

Congress cannot act as an independent entity.

Why aren't there Republicans in Congress interested in investigating the Executive Branch?

Does anybody believe that George W. Bush has not done anything illegal?

I don't think anyone has any illusions about this if they take an honest look at the things this man is responsible for.

Why are they so obedient? Don't they realize they are making themselves tools of the executive branch?

conversation with Mason... worth recording

Fri, 07 Apr 2006 00:30:17 GMT

Socrates374: hey
Loremaster2001: hi
Socrates374: sup?
Loremaster2001: TGI-almost-F
Socrates374: well yeah
Socrates374: that's good I suppose
Socrates374: here's a question for you
Socrates374: do you think bush is impeachable?
Loremaster2001: No
Socrates374: really?
Socrates374: I'm actually surprised by that response from you
Loremaster2001: You're surprised that a Republican said Bush probably wasn't impeachable.
Loremaster2001: I see.
Socrates374: well, it's more the fact that that implies that you believe he has not actually broken the law while in office
Socrates374: which seems to me to be trying to avoid reality
Loremaster2001: Okay, you know what? I just got back from another rough day of school. Not really up to discussing how in touch with reality I am right now.
Socrates374: well, if you wish
Socrates374: I was just looking for a different point of view
Loremaster2001: My brain is fried from trying to tell a hundred children for seven hours that no, they can't go to the bathroom, I don't really care who hit who first, no, I don't have a spare pencil, don't touch that, leave her alone, and assorted variations on "Sit down and shut the fuck up." At the moment, I'm not exactly perspective guy.
Socrates374: uh huh
Loremaster2001: I'm just sitting back watching television and hoping my brain dribbles out before tomorrow
Socrates374: it's interesting, listening to you describe work is kinda like reading Marx
Socrates374: in a milder form
Loremaster2001: Yeah, I suppose. If Marx were a conservative American who believed in capitalism.
Socrates374: well, that part is less like him
Loremaster2001: Indeed
Socrates374: but to him work should be fulfilling, not pointless drudgery, which it often is and was even moreso in his time
Loremaster2001: I too believe work should be fulfilling. That's why I'm getting out of this line of work as soon as I can and finding a new one.
Socrates374: ah, you're halfway to being a marxist
Socrates374: what you gonna do after this stint?
Loremaster2001: No, I'm just selfish enough to care about my own happiness over what's best for some of these kids, self-aware enough to know that I would kill myself or someone else if I were to remain here for one more year, and talented and intelligent enough to be able to switch careers
Loremaster2001: I'm going back to grad school with plans to eventually teach university philosophy
Socrates374: well, you can only do so much
Socrates374: you can't change the fact that many kids don't want to be there
Socrates374: which is really the essential problem with our education system
Loremaster2001: I also can't change the fact that the parents are even more ignorant than most of their offspring, which is the essential problem in my district proper
Socrates374: that heeds back to when they didn't want to be in school
Loremaster2001: Very true
Loremaster2001: Everyone with talent leaves this town, and the dumb ones stay
Socrates374: here's the million dollar question
Socrates374: how could the system be changed so kids would want to be there?
Loremaster2001: Your million dollar question might have a trillion dollar answer
Socrates374: but if it has an answer, its worth finding
Loremaster2001: Actually, I think I know the answer, but the costs would be tremendous
Loremaster2001: Not necessarily in money
Loremaster2001: Mostly in pride
Loremaster2001: Which is why it would never happen
Socrates374: what's your answer
Loremaster2001: #1: Move away from the American school year and toward a quarter system: 9 weeks on, 4 weeks off, 52 weeks a year.
Socrates374: uh huh
Loremaster2001: #2: Increase teacher pay by at least $10,000 per state for an entry-level position, and make sure those salaries continue to rise, so it would be a viable work-force entry option for new college graduates
Socrates374: agreed
Loremaster2001: That way, you wouldn't even have to weed the bad teachers out. Schools might just hire newer ones, better ones.
Socrates374: ok
Loremaster2001: #3: Most importantly, give the children a say in the way each classroom is run. Assign them to teams; have the most skilled mentor the least skilled; award points and prizes that can be won on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis; and select a team of children to help the teacher in keeping order and control in the classroom.
Socrates374: sounds like a good idea
Socrates374: sure beats telling them to sit down and shut up
Loremaster2001: Sadly, my kids can't work together in teams very well. Every time I try to get them to do it, some of them just screw around.
Socrates374: imagine if they were interested in the subject matter
Loremaster2001: There I have no say. The state has tied my hands by dictating what I must teach until May.
Socrates374: I think that's a major issue
Loremaster2001: Yo tambien
Socrates374: you know, you are in a unique position to influence the way the US education system is approached
Socrates374: ie. access to congress
Loremaster2001: But I don't believe in federalizing education. I think that's a bad idea.
Loremaster2001: It would just accelerate the push for accountability in schools, which is already far enough to hamper the efforts of individual teachers.
Socrates374: you sound like a liberal
Loremaster2001: Liberals are in favor of federalizing education. Conservatives like to keep it a local matter. But it so happens that I agree with Democrats on some things...this is one of them.
Socrates374: liberals also want to fund it
Socrates374: conservatives want to cut everthing that doesn't kill people (ie the military
Socrates374: )
Loremaster2001: The military is one of the few legitimate functions of a government, as I see it
Socrates374: though, that's a biased way of putting
Socrates374: ours is too much though
Socrates374: it takes up more than everything else in the budget combined
Socrates374: and its far ahead of every other nation technologically
Socrates374: we can afford to stop the arms race with the soviets now
Loremaster2001: A diplomatic corps, a standing army to defend against external threats, a standing police force to defend against intenral threats, a legislative body to pass laws, and a court system to apply them. That's pretty much government as I see it
Socrates374: who will counter the tyrranical private sector
Socrates374: the corporate monstrosities that wield so much power
Socrates374: shouldn't the people have a say in them as well?
Loremaster2001: Umm...that would be the legislative body's job. Keep corporations and special interests of all kinds from threatening stability is their job.
Loremaster2001: And since the people elect the legislative body, they have a pretty powerful say
Socrates374: but the measures they take would be socialistic in nature, wouldn't they?
Loremaster2001: Not necessarily
Loremaster2001: There's a difference between a) efficient regulation of a free market to ensure healthy competition and b) state control over resources
Socrates374: the state is accountable (in a democracy), private tyrranies are not
Socrates374: especially if they gain control of the government through various methods
Loremaster2001: And it's the job of the people to make sure that doesn't happen
Socrates374: which won't happen if they don't know about it
Socrates374: since, the private sector owns the media
Loremaster2001: It always has
Loremaster2001: So?
Loremaster2001: In this day and age, the truth is easier to access than ever before
Socrates374: yet we find ourselves immersed in lies
Socrates374: I wonder how it came to this
Socrates374: have you seen V for Vendetta?
Loremaster2001: No
Socrates374: I recomend it

IRA informer shot dead

Tue, 04 Apr 2006 20:21:08 GMT

http://www.itv.com/news/britain_1925478.html

In the history of the Irish struggle for independence, the traditional punishment for becoming an informant to the British was death. Without this, the IRA would not have been able to function as a freedom fighting terrorist organization. As of late however, the tensions between the Catholic and Protestant communities has been present but considerably less violently hostile than in the past. Although the IRA has taken the more tactful public relations friendly position of ceasing terrorist activities for the peace process to move forward. Today however, it seems that certain individuals have not put behind them the traditional methods of resistance.

The interesting thing is that it is not entirely clear as to whether the IRA hierarchy had anything to do with authorizing the murder. There have been many cases in the past where individual low level IRA members have taken it upon themselves to organize and execute actions without approval from above. To my knowledge, such actions are never met with disapproval by the IRA Army Council. This has the potential to cause problems for the IRA because the acts of an individual nut within their organization can screw up negotiations with the Ulster or the British.

Denis Donaldson, a high ranking member of Sinn Fein, admitted less than a year ago to being an informer to MI5.
Today, he has met the same fate of so many IRA informers before him. This also brings many questions to mind. Is this justice? Is it terrorism? Is it both?

Many organizations from nations, to rebel guerrillas, to terrorist groups demand loyalty. To turn against the group is an act of treason, giving the organization the self-proclaimed right to punish the individual. What gives them this arbitrary right? Well, the reason for it is that if the members of a group start rebelling, the organization will no longer be able to exist. This act and others like it are an act of self-preservation. That does not necessarily make it just, but from the perspective of th perpetrators, it is necessary.

Why don't we listen to the left more often?

Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:39:14 GMT

Looking at the current mess that the United States (or at least a small neocon faction within it) has created in Iraq, I can't help think back to the time when we could have avoided this whole fiasco. I am of course refering to the massive world wide protests that were in overwhelming opposition to this war. These protests were often organized by radical leftist organizations, who were the only ones in a position to organize such massive resistance in such short notice. The fact that the radical left was responsible for organizing them was used by our right wing media corporations to discredit them. It is taken for granted that anything said by anyone on the left is automatically to be dismissed as crazy. The actual protests themselves however, represented a wide array of american society. Not only were radical leftists (including anarchists, socialists, and communists) opposed to the war, but so were most liberals, (surprisingly) some conservatives, libertarians, and plenty of people who were otherwise apolitical in their beliefs.

What were their reasons for opposing the war? Well, it was clear to most rational people with a healthy level of skepticism about statements given by self serving politicians that the evidence given by Bush about WMD and Iraq's Al Qaeda connections were not strong enough to jump head first militarily into one of the world's most volatile regions. How many American lives are we willing to sacrifice on such weak evidence?

Furthermore, there were people who thought that even if these allegations were true, that would not be enough to justify war. There are dozens of countries with WMD, many of whom are not friendly with the United States who Bush has never shown interest in attacking. In order for a war to be justified, it must be defensive, and the idea that Iraq would attack America is ludicrous. Saddam Hussein is a rational man, who knew at the time that to attack the United States would mean his country would be laid to waste and he would be killed or captured and tried for war crimes. Such an act would be suicidal. To suggest that he would have had Al Qaeda attack the United States for him is even more absurd. No competent dictator (which he clearly was) would arm an organization that was opposed to the existence of every Islamic state in the world except for Afghanistan.

There was also plenty of discussion about a war potentially destabilizing the region. This prediction came true, though it was not in the mind of the Administration. Why? It seems that they really didn't care. Since Iraq is now so unstable, it could go in any number of possible directions. It could fall apart all together, which would be a disaster. Or it could result in one tribal, religious, or ethnic group taking power and dominating all the others, in which case we end up with the same Iraq that existed under Saddam Hussein. So much for fighting for Iraqi freedom.

Why was this so obvious to the so called "radicals" who opposed the war, but not to the people in the highest levels of government? The answer seems obvious. The Administration collected every bit of intelligence, regardless of its quality, that would justify a war it was determined to wage. They did not care whether or not any of it turned out to be true, as long as they were able to gain a foothold in an oil rich corner of the world. The blood bath that followed was not important enough to consider before the war.

Well, as it turns out, those "crazy leftists" who opposed the war were dead right on almost every point. While the right wing lunatics who started this, and those who blindly follow them, were deadly wrong. Now that hundreds of thousands of people have been killed (depending upon who's counting), and many more lives have been destroyed in so many other ways, is it wise to keep going down the road Bush is leading us down? Can we trust this man and his inner circle? How much more death is he willing to deal out in order to save face, or protect his precious oil? The answers are not yet known, but I am sure that the factions on the left and those on the right will have very different opinions on the matter. The question is, who are we going to listen to this time?

Smash the State, and Dismantle the Corporate Power Structure

Sun, 26 Mar 2006 18:47:07 GMT

I've been reading a bit about the social-economic theories behind Anarchism, and I have come back with a very positive perception of this movement. Like Marxism, which stood in the limelight of the left for so many years, Anarchism makes an appeal towards the people. It is similar to Communism in that it is necessarily opposed to the existence of private property, and thus private power. Anarchy is necessarily socialistic in nature.

Unlike Marxists, and the later perversion manifested in Communism, the Anarchists are equally opposed to the existence of state authority over the lives of the individual. To Marx, the working classes needed to take over the state to ensure that the bourgeoisie would not drown the social revolution in blood. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Capitalists will go to great extremes to protect their property. The Anarchist concern here is equally legitimate however. That the state used to destroy capitalism will take power and become an oppressive, monolithic tyranny.

The Anarchist model is one of cooperation rather than coercion. All are equal, and all labor voluntarily rather than by threat of retribution and starvation. Such a model should strike many as being "utopian" and therefore impossible. This is not an unreasonable concern, but it should be approached in the most rational way possible. That is, look a historical precedent which suggests the possibility of such a functioning system. And surprisingly enough, such precedents to exist. During the Spanish revolution, Anarchist collectives sprung up across north eastern spain, and functioned with efficiency and equality. That is until it was crushed by the old bourgeois order, Stalinist agents, and the new fascist regime headed by Franco. If these forces of oppression are removed from the events, then we could have developed a free and equal society around which future societies can be modeled.

Mitigating the radicals

Wed, 22 Mar 2006 19:45:40 GMT

When a state is in a situation in which there is a radical rebellion, then it has only a couple choices. First, it can perpetuate the violence, hoping to crush the rebellion by violence. This is a rather popular approach, and usually the first reaction of any state, it is however rarely effective.

Second, it can try to make compromises with the organizations trying to attack it, thus addressing the grievances the group has. This is more often effective, but rarely implemented for a few reasons. For one thing, politicians tend to think this gives legitimacy to terrorist organizations. Thus the state reserves the right to use violence, while hypocritically condemning all those who immitate its actions through much cruder means. Another reason this is not often used is because it forces the state to make concessions to people who feel that these concessions are necessary and only attainable through violence. The terrorist forces, whoever they may be, are often right on this point. The oppressor state will usually not concede the rights of the people unless it is forced to. Trying to get a state to loosen its grip on power tends to be a bloody affair.

The outcomes vary accordingly. The state can succeed in violently repressing the people, which usually only quells the violence until terrorists (or revolutionaries depending on one's perspective) can reorganize themselves and rekindle their terrorist activities. Of course, the one way to prevent that from happening would be the successful completion of a genocide, which would end the terrorist threat permanently, through the use of large scale terror.

The state could also fail in its use of violent repression, and end up being destroyed itself. In my view this is the best outcome, if the state chooses this path. Since no state actually has any right to even exist, the dismantling of any state (especially one that fosters oppression) should be no cause for mourning.

Should the state choose to negotiate with the terrorist forces and address their grievances, the only result can be a more just peace or no change in the situation (if they cannot get anywhere).

But what about the radicals? Whenever some kind of terrorist insurgency flares up you find a range of views both within the revolutionary forces and the conservative state that range from moderate and reasonable, to radical and utterly insane. No side is exempt from this fact. These people will always oppose negotiations because their goals cannot be attained by compromise but only by the utter destruction of the opposing side. These radicals are always a minority which thrives on violence.

Usually when the negotiating process is entered, these radicals have very little to add, and their actions can only work to sabotage the negotiations. Thus, as the majority of people who are tired of violence and injustice support negotiations, the radicals become less and less powerful. Thus the very act of negotiating will always mitigate the voices of the radical factions.

Hence we conclude that in the case of the IRA in Ireland, the best course of action was to allow the IRA's political wing Sinn Fein into negotiations, thus mitigating the ultra-radical factions of the IRA (who could never be satisfied) to only feeble attempts at sabotaging the negotiations.

Likewise in the case of Israel, the best course of action would be to enter into negotiations with HAMAS, thus mitigating the small factions which think they can somehow destroy all of Israel (which they can't). Thus the mainstream factions involved in the conflict can come to an arraingement which will lead to the elimination of the radical factions on both sides as a political factor.

Mon, 20 Mar 2006 18:21:52 GMT

Conventional warfare, seems so outdated. The disparity in powers has made it so that the traditional methods of lining up battalions up in a battle field will only lead to a massive slaughter of one's forces. So instead, they let us onto their land and let us try to hold it. It turns out that holding the land is far more difficult.

There has been alot of violence in Iraq. There are different groups that benefit from and desire for various levels of violence in the country. There are those who consider it murder to blow up innocent people at a mosque, so they restrict themselves to planting IED's and trying to kill the American invaders. Then there are those who believe the more carnage the better. Certainly the Americans will become overwhelmed by all of the killing of American soldiers, and innocent civilians if necessary. This strategy has been made apparent by the bombing of the sacred Askariya Shi'a mosque in Samarra. It was perfectly predictable that this would send the Shi'a into a rage, which would inturn provoke a similar more defensive reaction from the Sunnis. This of course implies massive amounts of murder and carnage.

The United States is responsible for this. Whether or not we are aware of this is less important than the fact that they are aware of this throughout the world. What is the Administration to do? Let various Arab factions fight it out? Just stand there while they kill alot of each other, and a few of us as well. Or will the US intervene, and take sides. Thereby having us take part in the carnage, while taking on even greater casualties. George Bush sure got himself into a predicament. Let's not forget that He did get himself into this. But then again didn't he get all of us into this?

The tactics that are being used in Iraq have started showing themselves in Afghanistan. It seems like they have enough well trained bomb makers that they can afford to let some leave Iraq and take their skills elsewhere. Bush has created the world's largest terrorist training camp in Iraq. Is this supposed to be good for our national defense? Some would have you think so. Do people actually believe it? I hope not, but then again, they did elect him.

The question is, how do we fix this mess? By destroying the republican monolith that is responsible for all of the overwhelmingly destructive policy decisions.

Start a War in Iraq? What a Great Idea!!!

Wed, 01 Mar 2006 01:03:01 GMT

Remember when there was a huge debate about whether we should go to war in Iraq and there were huge protests by what people labeled as left wing wackos who for some reason this war was either unjust or just all around stupid? Boy aren't we glad we didn't listen to those crazy people and just stuck by the president instead.

Sure some people are starting to have doubts, which is natural but I'm sure these people can be won over. When I start having doubts about I just watch Fox News and I'm immediately comforted about George W. Bush's ability to wield immense amounts of power. Who else would you trust to run the country? It's a well known fact that George W. Bush unlike most Yale graduates who are the sons of presidents, this man has an intimate understanding of the common man.

I mean if you can't trust a guy like that, who can you trust?