Thoughtcrime - 30 Apr 2013

How often do people say "don't be so political" when they agree with what you're saying?



Previous Thoughtcrime                                                                                      Next Thoughtcrime

Thoughtcrime - 29 Apr 2013

At some point it seems that the CIA decided it was too troublesome being a criminal enterprise financed by the state, and so, as a remedy, turned to paying for its most unsavory activities with cleaner money - that taken from drug trafficking and the like.


Previous Thoughtcrime                                                                                      Next Thoughtcrime 


Thoughtcrime - 28 Apr 2013

Enemies will continue to exist as long as there is an incentive for people in positions of power to create them.



Previous Thoughtcrime                                                                                      Next Thoughtcrime

Thoughtcrime - 27 Apr 2013

Given the willingness to lie to go to war, and the sheer military power backing those lies, who could the United States not have attacked after September 11, 2001?



Previous Thoughtcrime                                                                                      Next Thoughtcrime

Thoughtcrime - 26 Apr 2013

The most troublesome part of any reactionary dismissal of 'within reason' conspiracy theories (those that are political or regarding events pertaining strictly to humanity) is the insinuation that certain groups of people would not be willing to go to such lengths to deceive others for their own gain.

A proper reading of history reveals thousands of such instances, happening at occurrences so regular that any lack of conspiracy involved in a particular event must be considered an outlier.  And yet, knowing only what they were told at the time, the better part of every generation thought their leaders above it.



Previous Thoughtcrime                                                                                      Next Thoughtcrime

Thoughtcrime - 25 Apr 2013

How exactly can you be for enlarging the middle class while against the redistribution of wealth?



Previous Thoughtcrime                                                                                      Next Thoughtcrime

Thoughtcrime - 24 Apr 2013

So you mean to tell me that "follow the money" is a valid tactic to decipher criminal motivation in police/detective work, but somehow becomes void in the sphere of politics and foreign policy, where everyone is miraculously concerned about the well-being of others?



Previous Thoughtcrime                                                                                      Next Thoughtcrime

Thoughtcrime - 23 Apr 2013

If we can agree that inequality is a serious problem which must be dealt with in order to forge a better society, should our primary focus not be combating the greatest of inequalities - that where some are given a chance to live (not always with the same level of opportunity, but a chance nonetheless), while others are killed in cold blood?


Previous Thoughtcrime                                                                                      Next Thoughtcrime

Thoughtcrime - 22 Apr 2013

Why is it when a business provides a service that is cheaper for itself to maintain, yet more costly for the public to access, it is seen as a positive development?  Should it not cause more outrage when the costs of doing business are shifted onto the consumer, who in reality has little to no recourse?



Previous Thoughtcrime                                                                                      Next Thoughtcrime

Thoughtcrime - 21 Apr 2013

Group A presents evidence showing the United States and its entire political system as anathema to the interests of the greater part of humanity, and comes to the conclusion that, because it is beyond repair, steps must be taken outside of the system in order to enact meaningful change.

Meanwhile, group B offers similar (or even the same) evidence, and amazingly comes to the opposite conclusion - that we can still work within the system, and everything could be salvaged if only we were to vote the right people into office.

Now, who exactly are the radicals, the crazies - those who espouse opinions that no reasonable person could ever accept?



Previous Thoughtcrime                                                                                      Next Thoughtcrime

Thoughtcrime - 20 Apr 2013

If we recognize a competitive spirit as part of the greater part of human nature, should we not divert that spirit into healthy endeavors, rather than ones that harm both the better part of humanity and the planet itself?



Previous Thoughtcrime                                                                                      Next Thoughtcrime

Thoughtcrime - 19 Apr 2013

Is the corporate world - in either theory or reality - in favor of social programs and general equality?

In theory, they're completely against both.   Social programs are seen as encroaching on their moneymaking ability, as sectors of the economy not open for exploitation.  Equality, on the other hand, completely voids the entire hierarchical structure of capitalism, where the 'good' (ideas, people, etc) rise to the top, and the 'bad' suffer and die out.

In reality, the situation is a bit more complex.  The activism of the 1960s and onward has punctured the corporate world, not only filling some of its ranks with more sympathetic members of the human race, but also keeping public relations managers on guard against anything which might spark public outcry.  The end result is one where a few well-meaning individuals on the inside offer token gestures in the way of reform, at the same time the company itself heavily lobbies against any such programs in Washington.

That is, it's similar to most of the products they force down our throats - at face value, a boon to humanity, but in actuality a gigantic waste of resources, only made to line the pockets of the already incredibly wealthy.



Previous Thoughtcrime                                                                                      Next Thoughtcrime

Thoughtcrime - 18 Apr 2013

Disinformation is becoming so easy to generate, weapons increasingly deadly and easy to procure, and centers of power so centralized and removed from the rest of the world, that humans are now fast approaching a time where any society based on self-interest will not simply exploit and dehumanize - as has been the case for the bulk of human history - but destroy itself altogether.



Previous Thoughtcrime                                                                                      Next Thoughtcrime

Thoughtcrime - 17 Apr 2013

In today's interconnected world, where news stories break within seconds, all it takes is an initial falsified report about an event - conveniently fitting someone's closed-minded worldview - for that report to be embraced as truth for years to come. 

Similarly, you can place a specific country and terrorist group together in a few sentences, and convince millions they are one and the same.

All this in today's interconnected world, where the truth is often just a few simple keystrokes away.



Previous Thoughtcrime                                                                                      Next Thoughtcrime

Thoughtcrime - 16 Apr 2013

I'm not sure who is crazier:  those who immediately after an event has occurred already have pieced together an elaborate and detailed theory alleging a conspiracy, or those who condemn the first bunch by acting as if no such conspiracy could ever take place - especially not one involving our benevolent government!



Previous Thoughtcrime                                                                                      Next Thoughtcrime

Thoughtcrime - 15 Apr 2013

While the majority of the right wing in America may be irrational, ignorant of simple truths, and at times completely insane, when it comes down to it they have very real grievances.  They are overtaxed (again, the majority are not in the top tax brackets), civil liberties are being reduced by the day, and government bureaucracy is a serious concern.

Unfortunately, due to the fact that professional right wing forces have both much simpler solutions, and far more reach due to their wealth and power, these people are deceived into supporting policies which only harm them in the long run.


Previous Thoughtcrime                                                                                      Next Thoughtcrime 

Thoughtcrime - 14 Apr 2013

What exactly is "America"?  Is it a static concept, based on a constitution alongside centuries old texts written by framers, wholly removed from the usual definitions of country, state, nation, and empire?  Or is it more representative of what Americans are like themselves, ever-changing as time goes on?

The answer to this question has serious implications for those who adhere to our civic religion, championing the ideals of liberty and justice, while at the same time attempting to quiet dissent.

If America is an ideal in and of itself, and not a product of the people who live in it today, then how seriously can we take appeals to democracy and freedom?

On the other hand, if we the people are supposed to enjoy some amount of say in what America is, shouldn't criticism be considered an essential task of every new generation, rather than an affront to all that is good and patriotic?



Previous Thoughtcrime                                                                                      Next Thoughtcrime 

Thoughtcrime - 13 Apr 2013

Studying military history might seem like an awful task, but the discipline is not without real use.  It's incredibly important to understand not only the sheer amount of time, energy, and resources spent on perfecting methods to kill other human beings, but the deceit used to justify that violence and convince ordinary people to follow along with ferverous glee.



Previous Thoughtcrime                                                                                      Next Thoughtcrime 

Thoughtcrime - 12 Apr 2013

Do we really want the military controlling technological advancement?  Are they not the last group anyone should trust with the latest advances in robotics, brain imaging and the like?  Have they not proven time and time again that they will, in their attempt to perfect the art of killing, test out any manner of weaponry which might lead to their advantage, even if it means wanton destruction and  indiscriminate slaughter?



Previous Thoughtcrime                                                                                      Next Thoughtcrime 

Thoughtcrime - 11 Apr 2013

There is a kind of sliding scale of how one will react to the level of information they have about the world:

At one end, there simply isn't enough information to bypass the control mechanisms leaders have set in place, and the result is something akin to 'ignorance is bliss'. 

Moving toward the middle, knowledge has accumulated to the point where one cannot help but be angry at the state of things, and so ventures into the world of activism and volunteer work. 

And near the far end, things become especially dangerous.  Hit by the realization that there is just so much wrong that it might not be possible to affect any sort of real change, the mood trends toward defeatism and apathy, followed by a willful effort to start at the other end all over again.  Of course, that can never happen.



Previous Thoughtcrime                                                                                      Next Thoughtcrime 

Thoughtcrime - 10 Apr 2013

The debate inside establishment foreign policy circles (those which drive policy) is not "should America seek to dominate the world?" , but "at what cost...?".



Previous Thoughtcrime                                                                                      Next Thoughtcrime 

Thoughtcrime - 09 Apr 2013

Because it is much easier for the mind to disown support for murderous policy (especially given the many coercions within society) than it is for it to disown the design and implementation of murderous policy, leaders often have an even more firm belief in the innate goodness of their country and its actions than that found amongst the jingoistic, reactionary masses.

So, when they follow through with said policy, inevitably kill innocents, and are later forced to admit to their crimes, the response is always that it was a mistake.  They claim their intent was noble, pure - they just wanted to help people.  They say this not just for the sake of the angry populace, but also for their own.  For sanity's sake, they need to believe it just as much as they need others to.



Previous Thoughtcrime                                                                                      Next Thoughtcrime


Thoughtcrime - 08 Apr 2013

I don't wish for anyone to die.

But death is, as they say, inevitable.  When someone who was responsible for real, tangible suffering dies, we should not commit the further crime of bullying those affected into submission, playing off of a feigned respect for the deceased.  Instead, we should join them in making sure the legacies of these misguided, heartless, or otherwise damaged human beings are framed in the correct light - not whitewashed - and their crimes laid out for all to see.

It's never "too soon" to tell the truth.  If anything, it is too late for those who thought that perhaps they could see justice prevail in their lifetimes.



Previous Thoughtcrime                                                                                      Next Thoughtcrime

Thoughtcrime - 07 Apr 2013

There are, as is to be expected with any group, competing arguments amongst the ruling class regarding how best to keep control of a given populace:

One group says racism, sexism, homophobia, religious strife, etc have been great ways of keeping control and distracting people from real issues, and thus everything should be done to maintain their existence.

The other group says the times are changing, and inevitably those divisions will disappear.  They believe it's best to get ahead of the game and ensure that the correct level of superficial diversity is maintained - that is, make sure that women, people of color, and minorities are visible, but supporting the same institutions white men were before them.



Previous Thoughtcrime                                                                                      Next Thoughtcrime

Thoughtcrime - 06 Apr 2013

NATO is, by very definition, a right-wing organization.



Previous Thoughtcrime                                                                                      Next Thoughtcrime

Thoughtcrime - 05 Apr 2013

Markets unquestionably work at a small community level.  They self-regulate and are efficient.

But just the same, they unquestionably fail at any scale larger than that.  The physical and emotional distance between humans creates an atmosphere wherein the benefit of society at large is rarely, if ever, taken into account.  Currency only furthers that distance by obscuring the social good that is provided when humans share their successes (i.e.: trade) with each other.



Previous Thoughtcrime                                                                                      Next Thoughtcrime

Thoughtcrime - 04 Apr 2013

What is the purpose of a community, or a society?  Is it to come together to better provide for the needs and happiness of all members, or is it more akin to an arena or a fighting pit where we battle each other to determine who is fit to live and carry on, and who is not?

If it is the latter, on whose terms do we fight?  On what merits do we decide who is worthy and who is not?



Previous Thoughtcrime                                                                                      Next Thoughtcrime

The Troubled Minds of Pro-War Do-Gooders

The ultra-establishment foreign policy journal, Foreign Affairs, recently had a very informative interview with retired U.S. General Stanley McChrystal (Yes, typing those words made me cringe).  What's most interesting about McChrystal is that he doesn't seem to hold back from saying things which showcase the military's intense level of cognitive dissonance.  So, for example, he can readily admit something most pundits tend to gloss over - that the Iraq War was largely responsible for the growth of al Qaeda:

"In the post-9/11 environment -- particularly the post-March 2003 environment in Iraq -- the breadth of al Qaeda and associated movements exploded."

This was a predictable occurrence, given the reasons 9/11 was carried out in the first place.  Osama bin Laden and others had long been angry at the U.S. for meddling in the Middle East, building bases on holy ground, and backing regimes which repressed Arabs and Muslims.  The American response of attacking Afghanistan and Iraq, killing untold numbers of Arabs and Muslims, could only have had the effect of fostering even more anti-American sentiment, and subsequently support for those who resist U.S. hegemony.  Worse yet was the rebuilding of bases in Saudi Arabia, and the continuing support for Israeli apartheid and indiscriminate bombing of Gaza[PDF].

Even if the average American doesn't think much of these actions, the sentiment in the Middle East is much different.  Our media may hide most of the grisly images of war, but the 'fledgling' journalists in amongst the Arab world are not always as afraid to document reality when it is unsatisfying to the eye, or inconvenient to those in power.  Mind you, these are things you cannot easily conceal from the families of the victims, either.  Every death affects dozens of other lives, especially in societies which contain large close-knit family groups.  Americans supposedly understood this effect when over fifty-thousand soldiers were killed in Vietnam, with hundreds of thousands more injured and suffering from permanent psychological damage - nearly every family affected in some way.  But even those numbers pale in comparison to what happened to the Vietnamese then, and what has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan more recently.

McChrystal and other U.S. military and political leaders read this 'culture clash' a bit differently, though:

"The thing that hurt us more than anything else in the war in Iraq was Abu Ghraib. When the pictures came out in the spring of 2004, many Americans felt our government was being honest -- that we had a problem with a platoon operating in the prison mistreating prisoners. The Iraqi people viewed it very differently. Many of them felt it was proof positive that the Americans were doing exactly what Saddam Hussein had done -- that it was proof [that] everything they thought bad about the Americans was true." 

So what we thought of as an exception, they thought of as the rule?
"That's right. They thought that was the broader reality. And there were hundreds of foreign fighters that came in [to Iraq] because they were responding to Abu Ghraib."

Ah, those silly Iraqis.  Don't they know the abuses at Abu Ghraib were committed by just a few bad apples, and aren't at all representative of the great enlightenment America was bringing to their backward, civilization?  Similar things couldn't have happened on McChrystal's own watch, could they?

Thoughtcrime - 03 Apr 2013

You're willing to pay more to ensure the animals you eat were not kept in inhumane conditions, tortured, or abused in any other way.  Will you do the same for the workers who make or facilitate the products you buy?



Previous Thoughtcrime                                                                                      Next Thoughtcrime

Thoughtcrime - 02 Apr 2013

Do leaders now choose not to use nuclear arms during conflicts* because they don't believe in the wonton destruction of human life, or because they know they would never survive the resulting political fallout?

*- ..with non-nuclear states.  The reason they're not used against other nuclear powers is obvious.



Previous Thoughtcrime                                                                                      Next Thoughtcrime 

Thoughtcrime - 01 Apr 2013

I will not say negative things about my beloved country or its people, to which I owe my freedom.
I will not say negative things about my beloved country or its people, to which I owe my freedom.
I will not say negative things about my beloved country or its people, to which I owe my freedom.
I will not say negative things about my beloved country or its people, to which I owe my freedom.
I will not say negative things about my beloved country or its people, to which I owe my freedom.
I will not say negative things about my beloved country or its people, to which I owe my freedom.
I will not say negative things about my beloved country or its people, to which I owe my freedom.
I will not say negative things about my beloved country or its people, to which I owe my freedom.
I will not say negative things about my beloved country or its people, to which I owe my freedom.
I will not say negative things about my beloved country or its people, to which I owe my freedom.



Previous Thoughtcrime                                                                                      Next Thoughtcrime