If being against things like going to war, orchestrating military coups, setting up right wing dictatorships, trying to control the resources of the world for one's own benefit, and the countless other entries on the long list of crimes the United States is responsible for, makes me un-American, does that mean I'm supposed to attempt to emigrate elsewhere?
Am I then to find a country which respects human rights, attempts to end war and violence, and works toward an egalitarian society?
How can I do that, when "Americanism" has make a deliberate effort to destroy each and every one which sought to pursue those goals?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
The Dialogue on Race Has Failed Because Nearly Everyone is Too Busy Trying to Feel Good About Themselves
Freddie deBoer has a series of extremely important posts up, wherein he dissects the motivations driving social liberalism, as well as the effectiveness of tactics in battling systemic racism. I don't consider myself the greatest of experts on the topic, but I have spent the better part of my life living in the Southern U.S. in areas still de-facto racially segregated, often attempting to bridge the divide, or at least to broaden the horizons of the white conservatives and libertarians (many of whom are family members or acquaintances) living there. To some extent, I have hands-on experience in efforts to combat both institutionalized and individual examples of racism - something sorely lacking amongst the class of social liberals deBoer describes. I claim no great victories, but it has given me perspective I might not otherwise have if I had instead lived in predominantly white, upper-middle class areas my entire life.
The recent mess which prompted the posts in question all started because of an edgy tweet (yes, we have reached the point where tweets are the most serious of business) sent out by the fake news network the Onion. The tweet was meant to satirize funny-man Seth MacFarlane's terrible (sexist, racist, etc) performance at the terrible (celebrity and star worship claptrap) Oscars, but was perceived as "going too far" in its use of language and the name of a 9-year-old girl to make the intended point. The difference between the MacFarlane's act and the Onion tweet was substantial, which deBoer noted in a separate post:
Whether or not a joke 'works' relies on the audience both understanding it (a problem with the Onion tweet), and also believing its implications to be true. When you disagree with the statement a joke is making, it becomes unfunny, even offensive. As an example, I don't find most jokes referencing violence experienced in childhood very funny, because the implication is that corporeal punishment is okay because "I got hit as a kid, and look at me - I turned out just fine." In that case, I see no truth - only further reinforcement of a dangerous practice which tends to result in a disturbed society. However, if someone were to parody those jokes themselves, dressing up like Hitler to say that same tired old line "I got hit as a kid, and look at me - I turned out just fine!", well, then I could enjoy it. It would serve the same purpose as the Onion tweet: to shed light on how ridiculous a particular sentiment is - in this case corporeal punishment, and in the Onion's case the attitude toward women who become celebrities - by using an outlandish premise.
The recent mess which prompted the posts in question all started because of an edgy tweet (yes, we have reached the point where tweets are the most serious of business) sent out by the fake news network the Onion. The tweet was meant to satirize funny-man Seth MacFarlane's terrible (sexist, racist, etc) performance at the terrible (celebrity and star worship claptrap) Oscars, but was perceived as "going too far" in its use of language and the name of a 9-year-old girl to make the intended point. The difference between the MacFarlane's act and the Onion tweet was substantial, which deBoer noted in a separate post:
The Onion's Tweet was based on the fact that its premise was ridiculous and that nobody believes it. McFarlane's jokes were based on the idea that his premises-- that Jews run Hollywood, that women need to starve themselves to be attractive, that the violence against women in Django Unchained is similar to Chris Brown's violence against Rhianna, etc.-- are true, and that we know they are true but are too polite to agree with him publicly.
Whether or not a joke 'works' relies on the audience both understanding it (a problem with the Onion tweet), and also believing its implications to be true. When you disagree with the statement a joke is making, it becomes unfunny, even offensive. As an example, I don't find most jokes referencing violence experienced in childhood very funny, because the implication is that corporeal punishment is okay because "I got hit as a kid, and look at me - I turned out just fine." In that case, I see no truth - only further reinforcement of a dangerous practice which tends to result in a disturbed society. However, if someone were to parody those jokes themselves, dressing up like Hitler to say that same tired old line "I got hit as a kid, and look at me - I turned out just fine!", well, then I could enjoy it. It would serve the same purpose as the Onion tweet: to shed light on how ridiculous a particular sentiment is - in this case corporeal punishment, and in the Onion's case the attitude toward women who become celebrities - by using an outlandish premise.
Thoughtcrime - 05 Mar 2013
Two separate objects meant to fulfill the same purpose are patented, created, and introduced into the market where they compete against each other. How often do patents, copyright, and other restrictions supposedly meant to facilitate competition prevent each from using the best parts and design concepts of both?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 04 Mar 2013
When we say "sex sells", are we usually referring sexualized images of women or sexualized images of men? Why?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 03 Mar 2013
At what point can a state no longer be considered a neutral party in an armed conflict?
Is it when it sells weapons or supplies to one or more sides (especially those which could not be obtained otherwise)? What about specifically facilitating weapons and supply shipments through a third party?
Or what about openly backing one side by supporting their government with funding, gifting (only) them medical supplies and food, training their soldiers, offering tactical advice, and "doing other things"?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Is it when it sells weapons or supplies to one or more sides (especially those which could not be obtained otherwise)? What about specifically facilitating weapons and supply shipments through a third party?
Or what about openly backing one side by supporting their government with funding, gifting (only) them medical supplies and food, training their soldiers, offering tactical advice, and "doing other things"?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 02 Mar 2013
How would one go about determining the extent of the placebo effect when testing a drug meant to cure a life-threatening condition?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 01 Mar 2013
After Bradley Manning's leaks were revealed, rather than get all bent out of shape and appeal to vague notions of state secrets and national security, shouldn't the reaction have been to ask how much additional information is stored away in government archives which is of great interest to the public (and also harms no one)?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 28 Feb 2013
Was the Cold War a struggle between capitalists and an International Communist Conspiracy, or one between communists and an International Anti-communist Conspiracy?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 27 Feb 2013
In all likelihood there existed another human being who, born on the same day you were only to different circumstances, exhibited (at the very least) an equivalent genetic capacity for intellect and reasoning as you do, and yet rather than be given the chance to develop that ability, was consumed by hunger, disease, or some other all-too-preventable scourge.
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 26 Feb 2013
Is it possible to end the oppressive forces of racism and sexism without dismantling the class-based society we live in and replacing it with some form of egalitarianism?
If it is possible, is it even preferable? Or will doing so only further entrench class into our identity, ensuring that oppression in some form is here to stay?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
If it is possible, is it even preferable? Or will doing so only further entrench class into our identity, ensuring that oppression in some form is here to stay?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 25 Feb 2013
Let it never be said that work isn't enjoyable.
Work itself can be the most rewarding endeavor we aspire to. Work - when undertaken for a purpose, when that purpose is the very motivation driving us, and when we have a stake in the the final product - is an inherently joyous experience.
It is only when we are driven like slaves for countless hours, subordinate to others without any conceivable merit, in pursuit of vague goals which have little to no relation to human concern, and then pitted against each other, barred any access whatsoever to the fruits of our labor, and forced to worry endlessly about our survival that work becomes hell - and we become soulless, tormented husks of our former selves.
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Work itself can be the most rewarding endeavor we aspire to. Work - when undertaken for a purpose, when that purpose is the very motivation driving us, and when we have a stake in the the final product - is an inherently joyous experience.
It is only when we are driven like slaves for countless hours, subordinate to others without any conceivable merit, in pursuit of vague goals which have little to no relation to human concern, and then pitted against each other, barred any access whatsoever to the fruits of our labor, and forced to worry endlessly about our survival that work becomes hell - and we become soulless, tormented husks of our former selves.
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 24 Feb 2013
Where does the argument "if you make life harder on the rich, the economy will suffer" end?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 23 Feb 2013
If humanitarian intervention is a valid goal of foreign policy and should be practiced, what is the justification for applying it some times and not others? Why intervene in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, while ignoring genocide in places such as Rwanda, East Timor, and Myanmar?
And if any state can intervene in humanitarian crises, who will be allowed to intervene to save those withering away without food or shelter on the streets of Anglo-American cities? Could some benevolent entity have come to the rescue when the American government showed how little it cared for its people after Hurricane Katrina (and later, Sandy)?
Furthermore, if its intentions are as noble as claimed, will any nation ever be invaded to force better working conditions on its populace, and to save those dying in sweatshops or other overcrowded spaces?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
And if any state can intervene in humanitarian crises, who will be allowed to intervene to save those withering away without food or shelter on the streets of Anglo-American cities? Could some benevolent entity have come to the rescue when the American government showed how little it cared for its people after Hurricane Katrina (and later, Sandy)?
Furthermore, if its intentions are as noble as claimed, will any nation ever be invaded to force better working conditions on its populace, and to save those dying in sweatshops or other overcrowded spaces?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
The Political Function of "Serious Centrists"
There's a certain facade I always find myself coming back to when critiquing America and other members of the democracy-in-name-only club, its main purpose to make what is going on in the political sphere appear as if it is representative of what the general public wishes. That, after all, is the driving concept behind democracy. People aspire to have a government which, at the very least, represents them.
The facade is not without its flaws, though. Because the substance of what goes on between politicians involves more lies and deceit than anything, cracks regularly form in the outer layer. When the citizenry sees through these, crying out for reform, it then becomes the utmost concern of the ruling class to bottle up this political energy into something far less than revolutionary. That's where having a government with a limited number of powerful players comes in handy. With but a few monolithic parties (rather than many diverse ones), it becomes incredibly easy to reign in anything deemed too extreme, and thus ensure that business as usual is not interrupted.
By directing the masses' attention into battles so far removed from human relevance that they're not unlike worrying over the intentions of a single fly amidst a full scale infestation, these parties capture all but the most astute of political observers. Point and counterpoint continue unabated. Every argument seems so important, and it's difficult not to get caught up in the fury. To make things worse, there is the allure of influence attached - "If I lend my talents to one side or the other," one might muse, "perhaps I too can become an Important Person."
This stifling effect is especially obvious when watching debates in America between Democrats and Republicans. Because the two parties almost completely control the dialogue, the perspective needed to escape from these myopic trappings is never provided. Instead, the sides endlessly repeat talking points and try to one-up each other using the latest gossip from their favorite blogs.
And in those rare occasions when those watching see this charade for what it is? Well. Then, finally, the centrist's true purpose is revealed. The angry peons must be kept feeling that the system is working, and not to blame; that way any damage to the elites' way of life can be contained. So, it becomes incredibly convenient to have a class of people who will argue that the real problem in politics is that the ideologues on both sides refuse to work together and come to a sensible conclusion. This group tells observers that mass movements and revolutionary organizing are unnecessary. Just vote the right people into office - the McCains and the Liebermans, those who will bridge the divide - and all will be well.
The facade is not without its flaws, though. Because the substance of what goes on between politicians involves more lies and deceit than anything, cracks regularly form in the outer layer. When the citizenry sees through these, crying out for reform, it then becomes the utmost concern of the ruling class to bottle up this political energy into something far less than revolutionary. That's where having a government with a limited number of powerful players comes in handy. With but a few monolithic parties (rather than many diverse ones), it becomes incredibly easy to reign in anything deemed too extreme, and thus ensure that business as usual is not interrupted.
By directing the masses' attention into battles so far removed from human relevance that they're not unlike worrying over the intentions of a single fly amidst a full scale infestation, these parties capture all but the most astute of political observers. Point and counterpoint continue unabated. Every argument seems so important, and it's difficult not to get caught up in the fury. To make things worse, there is the allure of influence attached - "If I lend my talents to one side or the other," one might muse, "perhaps I too can become an Important Person."
This stifling effect is especially obvious when watching debates in America between Democrats and Republicans. Because the two parties almost completely control the dialogue, the perspective needed to escape from these myopic trappings is never provided. Instead, the sides endlessly repeat talking points and try to one-up each other using the latest gossip from their favorite blogs.
And in those rare occasions when those watching see this charade for what it is? Well. Then, finally, the centrist's true purpose is revealed. The angry peons must be kept feeling that the system is working, and not to blame; that way any damage to the elites' way of life can be contained. So, it becomes incredibly convenient to have a class of people who will argue that the real problem in politics is that the ideologues on both sides refuse to work together and come to a sensible conclusion. This group tells observers that mass movements and revolutionary organizing are unnecessary. Just vote the right people into office - the McCains and the Liebermans, those who will bridge the divide - and all will be well.
Thoughtcrime - 22 Feb 2013
There isn't a country on Earth which feels so secure in its own livelihood - so absolutely sure it has a never-ending abundance of resources - to where it decides to invade another for strictly humanitarian reasons. When countries do invade others, they do so for the same reason they have throughout history: self-interest. Appeals to human concerns are simply the easiest way in the modern age to sell war to the otherwise unwilling public.
So, while it seems incredibly unlikely such a military invasion would ever end positively for the people of the occupied country (and even more unlikely that any transition could be executed in a humane fashion), there is little point in debating the merits of so-called humanitarian intervention until it can be reasonably argued that it may soon be attempted.
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
So, while it seems incredibly unlikely such a military invasion would ever end positively for the people of the occupied country (and even more unlikely that any transition could be executed in a humane fashion), there is little point in debating the merits of so-called humanitarian intervention until it can be reasonably argued that it may soon be attempted.
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 21 Feb 2013
U.S. President Barack Obama says anyone killed by a drone strike can be considered a combatant as long as they're a "military-age male". By that, surely he must mean anyone who isn't a child soldier (below 15-years-old), as he's shown he has no problem purposefully killing those as young as 16.
However, he has also defied a ban - passed through Congress - on giving military aid to countries which regularly employ child soldiers. While his position there may be in some doubt, there's no question that going to such lengths to fund a military which contains child soldiers legitimizes the activity.
Continuing this trend, the CIA and American allies/proxies have regularly supplied weapons to Syrian rebels, which maintain child soldiers amongst their ranks. One rebel is quoted saying, "Children are the best soldiers I know. They obey every command. An adult asks questions and answers back. But the children, they question nothing."
Are child soldiers "military-age males"?
In another instance, U.S. military officials have raised the idea that many of the children in Afghanistan killed are used for terror-related activities and are not "innocent", maintaining they have to "[look out] for children with potential hostile intent." In this particular case, they were referring to those as young as 8.
Where does that put the definition of "military-age"? Is anyone old enough to potentially be able to use a weapon fair game?
(Having followed that train of thought to its logical end, it's important not to lose sight of the fact that none of this killing - be it children or adults - is necessary in the first place.)
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
However, he has also defied a ban - passed through Congress - on giving military aid to countries which regularly employ child soldiers. While his position there may be in some doubt, there's no question that going to such lengths to fund a military which contains child soldiers legitimizes the activity.
Continuing this trend, the CIA and American allies/proxies have regularly supplied weapons to Syrian rebels, which maintain child soldiers amongst their ranks. One rebel is quoted saying, "Children are the best soldiers I know. They obey every command. An adult asks questions and answers back. But the children, they question nothing."
Are child soldiers "military-age males"?
In another instance, U.S. military officials have raised the idea that many of the children in Afghanistan killed are used for terror-related activities and are not "innocent", maintaining they have to "[look out] for children with potential hostile intent." In this particular case, they were referring to those as young as 8.
Where does that put the definition of "military-age"? Is anyone old enough to potentially be able to use a weapon fair game?
(Having followed that train of thought to its logical end, it's important not to lose sight of the fact that none of this killing - be it children or adults - is necessary in the first place.)
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 20 Feb 2013
When it comes down to it, how different are economic sanctions from terrorism? Both have the same stated goal of political reform, with the means being definite harm to innocent civilian populations.
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 19 Feb 2013
If civilization as we know it were to suffer some cataclysmic event, with most everything left in ruin, what writings would likely be discovered amongst the rubble?
What would those who found these writings think of us?
Do we set our focus wide enough to where our thoughts stand the test of time, relevant to future generations, or are we instead so narrow and petty that those remaining humans would curse us for our lack of perspective?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
What would those who found these writings think of us?
Do we set our focus wide enough to where our thoughts stand the test of time, relevant to future generations, or are we instead so narrow and petty that those remaining humans would curse us for our lack of perspective?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
A Tool of War
The Man Who Killed Osama bin Laden... Is Screwed. appears in Esquire this month. It's a kind of hybrid 'America forgets about its veterans' / 'trouble returning to civilian life' piece, meant to appeal to patriotic sensibilities and Democratic politics alike. The anonymous Navy SEAL in question is not the one who sold out and wrote a book about it (which the writer of the article, Phil Bronstein, endlessly applauds him for), but apparently is the one who killed bin Laden.
Despite the fact I knew what I was getting myself into reading such a sob story, it still managed to make me physically ill (though certainly not for the reason intended). No doubt there is some sense of irony and sadness within any story that shows how the ruling class molds human beings into willing assassins who believe what they're doing is noble, and then laughs in their face when they're broken and no longer useful, but it would require a level of patriotism I do not have in order to be comfortable with the overall tone. We're meant to take up this man's cause, while ignoring that of those he has killed.
Still, it was an illuminating trip into the mind of a professional hitman - a tool of war coming to the stark realization that he was nothing more than a tool of war.
Team America
Perhaps I wouldn't have been as bothered by what I read if the rhetoric were not so cringe-inducing. But this too should have been expected, as only someone who accepts the entire war on terror dialogue could manage to get close enough to this guy (who wishes to remain anonymous on fear of his life) for long enough to even write a meaningful story.
Still, all the usual talking points are there. Washington D.C. is referred to as "the capital of the free world". The shooter is a "determined alpha male in the ultimate alpha crowd" and "an essential part of the team helping keep us safe since 9/11". Every Arab is either dead, the butt of a joke, potentially wearing a suicide vest, or all three (seriously).
Despite the fact I knew what I was getting myself into reading such a sob story, it still managed to make me physically ill (though certainly not for the reason intended). No doubt there is some sense of irony and sadness within any story that shows how the ruling class molds human beings into willing assassins who believe what they're doing is noble, and then laughs in their face when they're broken and no longer useful, but it would require a level of patriotism I do not have in order to be comfortable with the overall tone. We're meant to take up this man's cause, while ignoring that of those he has killed.
Still, it was an illuminating trip into the mind of a professional hitman - a tool of war coming to the stark realization that he was nothing more than a tool of war.
Team America
Perhaps I wouldn't have been as bothered by what I read if the rhetoric were not so cringe-inducing. But this too should have been expected, as only someone who accepts the entire war on terror dialogue could manage to get close enough to this guy (who wishes to remain anonymous on fear of his life) for long enough to even write a meaningful story.
Still, all the usual talking points are there. Washington D.C. is referred to as "the capital of the free world". The shooter is a "determined alpha male in the ultimate alpha crowd" and "an essential part of the team helping keep us safe since 9/11". Every Arab is either dead, the butt of a joke, potentially wearing a suicide vest, or all three (seriously).
Thoughtcrime - 18 Feb 2013
Before the dawn of civilization, when humans were mostly hunter-gatherers, and even more subject to the dangerous and destructive whims of nature, many surely died to accident and calamity. But how many starved? How many wasted away because they were barred from food which was right in front of them?
Why now, with all of our accumulated knowledge of agriculture, advanced methods of transportation and preservation, and near-immunity from localized flooding and drought, do we not have enough food? What excuse can we possibly give?
Is this really progress?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Why now, with all of our accumulated knowledge of agriculture, advanced methods of transportation and preservation, and near-immunity from localized flooding and drought, do we not have enough food? What excuse can we possibly give?
Is this really progress?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 17 Feb 2013
"Why?"
It tends to be when we stop asking this simple question that everything goes wrong. There's always an answer which is more convenient, better fits our worldview, or does not challenge who we are. The truth is not often intuitive and rarely reflects well on us, and thus is neglected.
For those who continue to ask "why?", the problem is found to almost always rest within the system and the structure of society, rather than on the individual (which isn't to say there are no 'good' and 'bad' people, just that each person is a result of an extremely complex set of influences, and that the solution to 'bad' people is not to simply denounce them).
Appeals to personal responsibility surely make us feel better about ourselves, but are most often simply a result of asking one too few questions. Rather than thinking "I am better than this pathetic criminal, who should be locked up.", ask "Why did this person feel the need to resort to crime in the first place?"
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
It tends to be when we stop asking this simple question that everything goes wrong. There's always an answer which is more convenient, better fits our worldview, or does not challenge who we are. The truth is not often intuitive and rarely reflects well on us, and thus is neglected.
For those who continue to ask "why?", the problem is found to almost always rest within the system and the structure of society, rather than on the individual (which isn't to say there are no 'good' and 'bad' people, just that each person is a result of an extremely complex set of influences, and that the solution to 'bad' people is not to simply denounce them).
Appeals to personal responsibility surely make us feel better about ourselves, but are most often simply a result of asking one too few questions. Rather than thinking "I am better than this pathetic criminal, who should be locked up.", ask "Why did this person feel the need to resort to crime in the first place?"
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 16 Feb 2013
Why is it that most of the objects we've managed to send outside the Earth's atmosphere - rather than being sent outward to search through the vast expanses of space - are pointed right back down at us?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 15 Feb 2013
If you're not angry at what is going on in the world, you're either not paying attention, or you have lost your ability to care.
If your leaders - who by virtue of their very jobs must pay attention to what is going on in the world - are not angry, what does that say about them?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
If your leaders - who by virtue of their very jobs must pay attention to what is going on in the world - are not angry, what does that say about them?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 14 Feb 2013
 |
| Earth - the pale blue dot |
Twenty-three years ago today, this picture of Earth - taken by the Voyager probe - was first glimpsed, after being transmitted back from a distance of nearly 6 billion kilometers.
Carl Sagan famously (and probably best) described the image in his book Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space:
From this distant vantage point, the Earth might not seem of any particular interest. But for us, it’s different. Consider again that dot. That’s here. That’s home. That’s us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every ‘superstar,’ every ‘supreme leader,’ every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there — on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
The vision of humankind leaving the vicinity of our planet, sailing amongst the stars, and exploring the remaining great unknown - all of this had to remain but a dream for Sagan. Are we resigned to the same fate, or will we learn to see the bigger picture, put aside our petty quarrels, and instead embrace the best aspects of humanity - our curiosity and desire for knowledge - to forge a better path ahead?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Maybe We Need To Use Harsher Words
At this particular time, on this particular blue and green sphere streaked with white wisps of condensation, there is a specific faction of people which is dominant, holding the ability to force their will on others in various ways.
Its assassins have the ability to strike anywhere and everywhere. Their reach is unlimited, their scope undefined. They exist both within the law and above it.
Technically, no other lifeform is safe - though some targets are prized more than others, and easier to pass off as legitimate. Covering the skies of poor nations full of human beings with dark skin tones, these most murderous of machines have no need to descend on their marks. From lofty heights, they launch chunks of fire and steel onto those unsuspecting souls below who, thinking their complex thoughts, are charred and torn to pieces. A ligament here, a piece of bone there. Witnesses quickly rush over and sift through the mess of flesh and metal in hopes of finding survivors, and then, wrought with complex emotions, are just as quickly destroyed. A hope here, a dream there.
The bloody, stretched, torn, and jagged pieces of complex biology, which moments ago made up a son, daughter, mother, father, or friend, are silently read their last rites:
* * *
Its assassins have the ability to strike anywhere and everywhere. Their reach is unlimited, their scope undefined. They exist both within the law and above it.
Technically, no other lifeform is safe - though some targets are prized more than others, and easier to pass off as legitimate. Covering the skies of poor nations full of human beings with dark skin tones, these most murderous of machines have no need to descend on their marks. From lofty heights, they launch chunks of fire and steel onto those unsuspecting souls below who, thinking their complex thoughts, are charred and torn to pieces. A ligament here, a piece of bone there. Witnesses quickly rush over and sift through the mess of flesh and metal in hopes of finding survivors, and then, wrought with complex emotions, are just as quickly destroyed. A hope here, a dream there.
The bloody, stretched, torn, and jagged pieces of complex biology, which moments ago made up a son, daughter, mother, father, or friend, are silently read their last rites:
Another human being, who lives on the other side of the planet in comfort you could not imagine, who probably has never personally witnessed the type of violence inflicted upon you, and who will surely not imagine having to collect each of your remaining body parts in order to find some way to properly bury you, has decided that you - or someone who happened to be nearby - needed to die.
The loving, caring individual who either ordered your death, or decided that it was necessary in order to secure the death of someone you were nearby, assures you that your nonexistence will contribute significantly to the preservation of peace and freedom the world around. Thank you for your understanding.*
* - Your understanding is not in any way necessary to satisfy the legality of this action.
* * *
Thoughtcrime - 13 Feb 2013
No state has the inherent right to exist. This should be an obvious statement, but somehow in today's world it is an extremely controversial one.
Putting the thought into perspective, it's difficult to claim that anything in this universe has the right to exist - at least in its current form. But if we want to start somewhere, maybe it's best to give people that right, and then work from there.
So, then, what can we make of a state which denies people have the right to exist? Certainly it must be pretty far down on the list, if not anathema to the entire process.
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Putting the thought into perspective, it's difficult to claim that anything in this universe has the right to exist - at least in its current form. But if we want to start somewhere, maybe it's best to give people that right, and then work from there.
So, then, what can we make of a state which denies people have the right to exist? Certainly it must be pretty far down on the list, if not anathema to the entire process.
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 12 Feb 2013
Where else in the world does "democracy" consist of a speech given by one right-wing politician, followed by a speech by an even-further-right-wing politician (because the first speech was deemed in advance not right-wing enough for some), followed by another speech by a yet-even-further-right-wing politician (delivered for similar reasons)?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 11 Feb 2013
There is a thought that if we questioned leaders' every action, no one would want to become leaders.
Putting aside for a moment the fact that never has there been a shortage of leaders to even prompt this hypothetical, what purpose does it serve other than to absolve those in power from blame and deflect criticism of their statements and policies?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Putting aside for a moment the fact that never has there been a shortage of leaders to even prompt this hypothetical, what purpose does it serve other than to absolve those in power from blame and deflect criticism of their statements and policies?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 10 Feb 2013
On a world which is 4.5 billion years old, in a universe which has lasted over 13 billion thus far, we humans live for - at most - a hundred or so years. And yet even so, we have the audacity to insist that we own those objects and ideas which happen to come into our possession during our short existence?
Even if you happen to be in possession of something for a hundred years, you will have only 'owned' it for .0000007% of the time that has so far elapsed. A mere trifle in the grand scheme of things.
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Even if you happen to be in possession of something for a hundred years, you will have only 'owned' it for .0000007% of the time that has so far elapsed. A mere trifle in the grand scheme of things.
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Political Theatre
In May of 2003, when a flight-suit-wearing George W. Bush stepped off a fighter plane and onto the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln to deliver his victory speech, "Mission Accomplished" banner perfectly positioned behind him, Hollywood and Washington were in absolute alignment. The War President looked like a war president - the 'good type', not the 'bad type' - and the people loved it.
Even liberal pundits swooned at his manliness, going out of their way to celebrate how great this made America look. Chris Matthews could hardly contain himself:
No doubt, it was a public relations masterpiece of the worst kind.
At the time, the official position of the Bush administration on the Iraq War was that major combat operations had ended, and that the rest would be up to "winning hearts and minds" - a phrase unironically borrowed from president Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam War rhetoric. Of course, any sentiments that "Mission Accomplished" meant the war was over were tragically misplaced, just as was the idea that one could ever win hearts and minds by bombing another country's infrastructure into rubble, its people into submission. But this, as usual, was just political theatre, meant to put a positive spin on what was clearly an aggressive war meant to fulfill strategic goals in a neocolonialist agenda.
Colin Powell had done the same thing a few months before, when he tried to sell the Iraq War on the world stage by holding up vials of anthrax and pointing to blurry pictures of structures captioned with scary titles. Most everyone at the UN saw through it. The Washington Post reported: "Irrefutable".
But just as the violence in Iraq was far from over, there were also no weapons of mass destruction to be found, and the U.S. government knew it from the start. The story history tells is wholly unflattering to the charades, photo-ops, and hysterical posturing which proceeded the war, and one would certainly get the idea that they were complete failures which should by now have fashionably gone out of style. Good then - for those masters of propaganda - that Americans seem to have trouble seeing past the makeup, bright lights, and flattering camera angles in order to take in the broader perspective.
Even liberal pundits swooned at his manliness, going out of their way to celebrate how great this made America look. Chris Matthews could hardly contain himself:
"We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like Clinton or even like Dukakis or Mondale, all those guys, McGovern. They want a guy who's president. Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It's simple. We're not like the Brits."
No doubt, it was a public relations masterpiece of the worst kind.
At the time, the official position of the Bush administration on the Iraq War was that major combat operations had ended, and that the rest would be up to "winning hearts and minds" - a phrase unironically borrowed from president Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam War rhetoric. Of course, any sentiments that "Mission Accomplished" meant the war was over were tragically misplaced, just as was the idea that one could ever win hearts and minds by bombing another country's infrastructure into rubble, its people into submission. But this, as usual, was just political theatre, meant to put a positive spin on what was clearly an aggressive war meant to fulfill strategic goals in a neocolonialist agenda.
Colin Powell had done the same thing a few months before, when he tried to sell the Iraq War on the world stage by holding up vials of anthrax and pointing to blurry pictures of structures captioned with scary titles. Most everyone at the UN saw through it. The Washington Post reported: "Irrefutable".
But just as the violence in Iraq was far from over, there were also no weapons of mass destruction to be found, and the U.S. government knew it from the start. The story history tells is wholly unflattering to the charades, photo-ops, and hysterical posturing which proceeded the war, and one would certainly get the idea that they were complete failures which should by now have fashionably gone out of style. Good then - for those masters of propaganda - that Americans seem to have trouble seeing past the makeup, bright lights, and flattering camera angles in order to take in the broader perspective.
Thoughtcrime - 09 Feb 2013
Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Saxby Chambliss, made this statement during the a hearing to question Obama's nominee for Director of the CIA, John Brennan: "The main benefit I saw in [the CIA's detention program] was the ability to hold and question individuals about whom there was significant intelligence that they were terrorists, but not necessarily evidence that could be used in a court of law."
Exactly how 'significant' is that intelligence if it cannot even be used in a court of law?
Is this the same intelligence used to execute persons via drone strikes and the like?
Are laws being made to fit the standard of evidence this intelligence provides (such as the Patriot Act, FISA, language inserted into the NDAAs, etc), rather than the previous standard courts had accepted?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Exactly how 'significant' is that intelligence if it cannot even be used in a court of law?
Is this the same intelligence used to execute persons via drone strikes and the like?
Are laws being made to fit the standard of evidence this intelligence provides (such as the Patriot Act, FISA, language inserted into the NDAAs, etc), rather than the previous standard courts had accepted?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 08 Feb 2013
Which is a more serious crime: being a traitor to one's country, or being a traitor to humanity (or life itself)?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 07 Feb 2013
Why is a business which breaks even considered a tragedy? If you take over a business and 'restore it to profitability' by breaking unions, cutting staff, and paying less for more work, are you really doing society a service?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 06 Feb 2013
In the 21st century, the 'courageous defenders of civilization' go to war watching video screens half the world away, guiding bombs from heights unseen; while the 'cowardly savages', willing to pay the ultimate price, use their own bodies as weapons.
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 05 Feb 2013
In some sense, it's helpful that the very nature of greed is "enough is never good enough". The incredibly wealthy end up working against themselves, pushing too hard in their quest for more and more. The backlash from austerity measures has woken millions up to a reality they would never had been aware of had they been kept in complacency with token social programs and the usual weapons of mass distraction.
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
On the Question of Free Speech - Part I
Given the difficulty inherent in the topic, I want to further clarify my position on free speech.
Personally, I am absolutely behind the idea in abstract. I support the creation of an open exchange of ideas, wherein every single idea is first heard, and then given the weight it deserves. I support, as John Stuart Mill once described, the consideration of every opinion - good or bad - before it is either discounted or rejected. By debating even the most vile concepts, we further our search for the truth. I make a continual effort to do this, and I feel it is essential (along with the skepticism required to filter through the seemingly-infinite number of ideas which pass our way) to our functioning as reasonable human beings.
But there's a related philosophical problem I have with the arguments you most often hear in favor of free speech. It seems to me that in modern society we have lost the idea what it means to 'have a voice'.
In my recent, non-exhaustive post on free speech, I mentioned that groups who focus on speech have lost the battle for an open discourse, and now focus primarily on protecting speakers from criminality. That is: rather than advocate for equal speech, they simply defend speakers from government restriction. This approach has led many to accept the idea that every possible restriction of speech is harmful, and in turn that corporations and other powerful private interests should be protected from governments cracking down on their ability to spend money to influence public opinion. It only seems like a stretch of logic because it is. It requires you to believe that any disruption of free 'speech' is going to lead to totalitarianism.
By accepting this reasoning a legitimate, we betray the most basic definition of speech - that of communication. Humans did not develop language to speak with the air, or the trees, or ourselves. Our thoughts alone would have sufficed for these purposes. No, we did so to communicate our thoughts, emotions, and ideas to other human beings - to be heard.
After all, what is the point of speaking if not to reach an audience?
Personally, I am absolutely behind the idea in abstract. I support the creation of an open exchange of ideas, wherein every single idea is first heard, and then given the weight it deserves. I support, as John Stuart Mill once described, the consideration of every opinion - good or bad - before it is either discounted or rejected. By debating even the most vile concepts, we further our search for the truth. I make a continual effort to do this, and I feel it is essential (along with the skepticism required to filter through the seemingly-infinite number of ideas which pass our way) to our functioning as reasonable human beings.
But there's a related philosophical problem I have with the arguments you most often hear in favor of free speech. It seems to me that in modern society we have lost the idea what it means to 'have a voice'.
In my recent, non-exhaustive post on free speech, I mentioned that groups who focus on speech have lost the battle for an open discourse, and now focus primarily on protecting speakers from criminality. That is: rather than advocate for equal speech, they simply defend speakers from government restriction. This approach has led many to accept the idea that every possible restriction of speech is harmful, and in turn that corporations and other powerful private interests should be protected from governments cracking down on their ability to spend money to influence public opinion. It only seems like a stretch of logic because it is. It requires you to believe that any disruption of free 'speech' is going to lead to totalitarianism.
By accepting this reasoning a legitimate, we betray the most basic definition of speech - that of communication. Humans did not develop language to speak with the air, or the trees, or ourselves. Our thoughts alone would have sufficed for these purposes. No, we did so to communicate our thoughts, emotions, and ideas to other human beings - to be heard.
After all, what is the point of speaking if not to reach an audience?
Thoughtcrime - 04 Feb 2013
What happens when a private company, such as Facebook, becomes so pervasive that its attempts to apply censorship to its users and utilize their personal information for its own gain affect enough people to where these issues become public concerns, which can no longer be legitimized under the guise of private freedom?
Has it already reached that point?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Has it already reached that point?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 03 Feb 2013
Today, someone spent more money on a single ticket to watch a sporting event for a few hours than almost every person alive on this planet makes selling the entirety of their labor for a whole year.
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 02 Feb 2013
If those who loudly criticize and downplay scientific knowledge understood the intricate physical details of how the media they operate through (radio, television, internet, etc) actually works, would they still remain steadfastly anti-science?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 01 Feb 2013
What if the U.S. media had campaigned for the Occupy movement the way they did for the Iraq War?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 31 Jan 2013
In a political sense, I no longer fear the obtuse, headstrong robber barons, who do as much to antagonize the lower classes - opening them up to organization and activism - as they do to oppress them. Given the tools available to activists today, the backlash against the brutal austerity policies these blood-sucking leeches apply is likely to be strong enough to at least put the fear of the people back in politicians' hearts.
What I do fear are the wolves in sheep's clothing - the smooth-talking, charismatic 'populists' who are just as sinister (if not more) as anyone, yet understand the mentality of those who want to change the world for the better, and can effectively bottle that energy up into token reform which placates the masses while preserving the status quo.
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
What I do fear are the wolves in sheep's clothing - the smooth-talking, charismatic 'populists' who are just as sinister (if not more) as anyone, yet understand the mentality of those who want to change the world for the better, and can effectively bottle that energy up into token reform which placates the masses while preserving the status quo.
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 30 Jan 2013
Regarding Nature vs Nurture:
If the correct position to take is closer to the argument for nature, and yet we as a society embrace nurture instead, we have at least done the best we can do, and know our limits.
But if, on the other hand, the correct position is closer to the nurture argument, and yet we embrace the idea that nature controls most of who humans are, we end up condemning people to death for faults society has imprinted upon them.
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
If the correct position to take is closer to the argument for nature, and yet we as a society embrace nurture instead, we have at least done the best we can do, and know our limits.
But if, on the other hand, the correct position is closer to the nurture argument, and yet we embrace the idea that nature controls most of who humans are, we end up condemning people to death for faults society has imprinted upon them.
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Is Free Speech Really Free Speech?
The Rancid Honeytrap (ohtarzie) has a great post today regarding free speech extremists who ignore factual reality in subservience to ideology.
In it, he mocks a letter to the editor written by Norman Siegel, "former executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union", and Saralee Evans, "a former acting justice of the New York State Supreme Court", who were upset that members of Congress spoke out against the treatment of torture in Zero Dark Thirty. The letter includes this laughable passage:
In it, he mocks a letter to the editor written by Norman Siegel, "former executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union", and Saralee Evans, "a former acting justice of the New York State Supreme Court", who were upset that members of Congress spoke out against the treatment of torture in Zero Dark Thirty. The letter includes this laughable passage:
We, as a country committed to open and robust freedom of expression, should have learned that the concept of an open marketplace of ideas means that we allow all viewpoints to be expressed in the belief that the good ideas defeat the bad ideas. We have learned that censoring ideas that some find offensive, inappropriate or wrong-minded is antithetical to democratic principles.
The better course would be to encourage all citizens to see “Zero Dark Thirty” and to encourage them to make their own decisions about the validity of the film, including the scenes involving torture.
Thoughtcrime - 29 Jan 2013
If every American had access to either a quality job or free higher education upon completing high school, how would the volunteer military fill ranks for their overseas adventures?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 28 Jan 2013
"The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation."
- George Orwell, 1984
What does it say about our society that we don't even need a Ministry of Love for so many to accept torture?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
War is (Still) Peace
Yesterday, Bob Woodward - American journalist of journalists - joined the chorus of the new paradigm, embracing the 'Obama the Nobel Peace Prize winner' image, and depicting the president and Defense Secretary nominee Chuck Hagel as "soul mate[s]" out to apply what you would think was a fundamentally antiwar policy.
Of course, it will be nothing like that at all, but the facts on the ground won't dissuade beltway journalists from calling it how they want to see it.
Woodward has long mastered this art, throwing in what seem like amazing revelations from behind the scenes, and little anecdotes that make you feel like you're getting a true inside story. But this is only a distraction, and comes off as completely self-serving when you see through the facade - or when he comes to a laughable conclusion like this one:
Yes, even though Obama has continued to prosecute Bush's wars, increased the suffering in Afghanistan through the "surge", bombed Libya to bits, and regularly kills people with drone strikes in at least six different countries, Woodward believes he has a "deeply rooted aversion to war". How is this possible? Well, Woodward seems to think that "war is sometimes necessary" - unironically quoting from Obama's Nobel Peace Prize speech - and thus it's enough that a president claims to be against it. This is a classic form of fetishization of 'the weight placed on powerful minds, who must partake in some form of evil, and not be torn apart in the process'. As usual, no peaceful option is ever considered - either you want to war and you war, or you don't want to war and you war.
And the usual, standard-fare apologetics that avoid the heart of the debate are everywhere:
Then there's this gem:
..which seems to be saying that a country needs to war every now and then, so that it can adequately threaten war to get what it wants, so that it doesn't have to go to war. Brilliant.
Throughout, Woodward uses the word "war" 20 times, but fails to mention drones, air strikes, assassination, special forces raids, or indeed any type of killing, slaughter, or destruction whatsoever. It's all about management, policy, and a sterile philosophy which serves only to justify the crimes committed within.
All in all, just another day in the campaign to obfuscate and redefine basic concepts to the point where 'reluctantly' justifying war becomes the utmost of moral positions one can take. In other words: Obama's America.
Of course, it will be nothing like that at all, but the facts on the ground won't dissuade beltway journalists from calling it how they want to see it.
Woodward has long mastered this art, throwing in what seem like amazing revelations from behind the scenes, and little anecdotes that make you feel like you're getting a true inside story. But this is only a distraction, and comes off as completely self-serving when you see through the facade - or when he comes to a laughable conclusion like this one:
When I interviewed President Obama in the summer of 2010 for my book “Obama’s Wars,” his deeply rooted aversion to war was evident.
Yes, even though Obama has continued to prosecute Bush's wars, increased the suffering in Afghanistan through the "surge", bombed Libya to bits, and regularly kills people with drone strikes in at least six different countries, Woodward believes he has a "deeply rooted aversion to war". How is this possible? Well, Woodward seems to think that "war is sometimes necessary" - unironically quoting from Obama's Nobel Peace Prize speech - and thus it's enough that a president claims to be against it. This is a classic form of fetishization of 'the weight placed on powerful minds, who must partake in some form of evil, and not be torn apart in the process'. As usual, no peaceful option is ever considered - either you want to war and you war, or you don't want to war and you war.
And the usual, standard-fare apologetics that avoid the heart of the debate are everywhere:
"..the Afghanistan war has been mismanaged and the Iraq war unnecessary."
"..quagmires like Afghanistan should be avoided."
"War is an option, but very much a last resort."
Then there's this gem:
"Avoiding war is tied directly to the credibility of the threat to go to war."
..which seems to be saying that a country needs to war every now and then, so that it can adequately threaten war to get what it wants, so that it doesn't have to go to war. Brilliant.
Throughout, Woodward uses the word "war" 20 times, but fails to mention drones, air strikes, assassination, special forces raids, or indeed any type of killing, slaughter, or destruction whatsoever. It's all about management, policy, and a sterile philosophy which serves only to justify the crimes committed within.
All in all, just another day in the campaign to obfuscate and redefine basic concepts to the point where 'reluctantly' justifying war becomes the utmost of moral positions one can take. In other words: Obama's America.
Thoughtcrime - 27 Jan 2013
If people can be tried for crimes against the state, why can't the state be tried for crimes against the people? Isn't the state the people?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Why Is Jon Stewart Peddling Drones?
On Friday, I wrote about the ongoing effort by American foreign policy elites to redefine war to the point where nearly any violent action abroad goes by some-other-name. The goal is to add air strikes, assassinations, and special forces raids to the list of 'normal' operations the U.S. government can undertake in other countries - to stand alongside 'diplomatic' threats and bullying, limitless spying, trade sanctions, black ops, and the like.
Because drone strikes fit into this category (in fact, they may be the prime example), and because the government cannot sweep them under the rug as they would like to thanks to popular outcry, there's now an intense campaign to alleviate concerns over their use, making them more palatable to the American public.
Last week, Jon Stewart had Missy Cummings, an ex-fighter pilot and current Associate Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics at MIT, on The Daily Show to discuss drones and their various applications. Cummings was, on the same night, featured in a NOVA documentary entitled Rise of the Drones, which was given as the rationale for having her on the show to indulge in a complete whitewash of the U.S. drone program. You may know the drill: drones are more precise than humans, they keep The Troops safe from harm, the government couldn't possibly sift through all that surveillance footage they take, etc.
Because drone strikes fit into this category (in fact, they may be the prime example), and because the government cannot sweep them under the rug as they would like to thanks to popular outcry, there's now an intense campaign to alleviate concerns over their use, making them more palatable to the American public.
Last week, Jon Stewart had Missy Cummings, an ex-fighter pilot and current Associate Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics at MIT, on The Daily Show to discuss drones and their various applications. Cummings was, on the same night, featured in a NOVA documentary entitled Rise of the Drones, which was given as the rationale for having her on the show to indulge in a complete whitewash of the U.S. drone program. You may know the drill: drones are more precise than humans, they keep The Troops safe from harm, the government couldn't possibly sift through all that surveillance footage they take, etc.
Thoughtcrime - 26 Jan 2013
If everything in our lives revolves around money - how we acquire it, how we decide to use it, how we can become more financially secure - why would it be any different for those in the political sphere, who drive policy and governance? Why pretend they first consider benevolence? Do they not live under the same economic order the rest of us?
Is is because they are well off? Have the rich shown anything other than being even more likely than the average person to seek to accumulate wealth?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Is is because they are well off? Have the rich shown anything other than being even more likely than the average person to seek to accumulate wealth?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 25 Jan 2013
If you support and enact the maximum of covert and strategic operations aimed at either bringing down or absolutely isolating every single country that trends toward socialism or communism, can you really later claim 'communism [as an ideology and movement] failed' when most of those countries fall apart? Is this not a self-fulfilling prophecy?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Perpetually Redefining War
Glen Ford at Black Agenda Report:
History may record Obama’s greatest crime against peace as changing the definition of war. According to his unique doctrine, the U.S. cannot be in a state of war, or even “hostilities” with another people or country, unless Americans are killed in the process. Thus, Obama refused to report to the U.S. Congress under the War Powers Act following eight months of bombardment of Libya, claiming no state of war had existed since no Americans had died. By this logic, the U.S. is empowered to bomb anyone, anywhere on the planet at will, without the constraints of national or international law, as long as care is taken to protect the lives of U.S. personnel.
Obama rhetorically abolishes war while promulgating a doctrine of general immunity from the rules of war. Armed with such a concept and vocabulary, he can proceed with the militarization of Africa policy, his “pivot” to contain the Chinese in the Pacific, the terror campaign in Syria, the virtual state of war against Iran, and update of his Kill List in perpetuity. What, then, is the president’s meaning when he tells hundreds of thousands on the National Mall that “enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war?” This, from a man who makes war on language, itself.
Lest we get the idea that this is just hype and exaggeration, it's important to take a look at the atmosphere in the wake of Obama's inaugural speech: one where 'neutral' observers applaud his speech in a faux-objective manner ("Oh, it was just so much better than his first inaugural speech - he was so presidential this time!"), Democrats are enraptured having heard exactly what they wanted to hear, and Republicans complain about how it didn't offer them the olive branch they were promised. Only a few commentators on the fringe are willing to point out that the majority of Obama's words stand in stark contrast to his actions. Everyone else simply accepts the new paradigm, fitting it to their agenda and running with it.
Thoughtcrime - 24 Jan 2013
Who are the uncivilized savages: those who hold women as mere subjects of their fathers and husbands, or those who condition them (as men are) to become compulsive liars in pursuit of political power, thieving investment bankers consumed by their own greed, and professional killers in service of an imperialist agenda?
Where is the third alternative?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Where is the third alternative?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 23 Jan 2013
Are newspapers ruining society, or are the stories in newspapers ruining
society? Are the stories in newspapers just a reflection of society? If so,
is society ruining society?
Is radio ruining society, or is what is on the radio ruining society? Is what is on the radio just a reflection of society? If so, is society ruining society?
Is television ruining society, or is what is on television ruining society? Is what is on television just a reflection of society? If so, is society ruining society?
Are video games ruining society, or is the content in video games ruining society? Is the content in video games a reflection of society? If so, is society ruining society?
Is the internet ruining society, or is what is on the internet ruining society? Is what is on the internet just a reflection of society? If so, is society ruining society?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Is radio ruining society, or is what is on the radio ruining society? Is what is on the radio just a reflection of society? If so, is society ruining society?
Is television ruining society, or is what is on television ruining society? Is what is on television just a reflection of society? If so, is society ruining society?
Are video games ruining society, or is the content in video games ruining society? Is the content in video games a reflection of society? If so, is society ruining society?
Is the internet ruining society, or is what is on the internet ruining society? Is what is on the internet just a reflection of society? If so, is society ruining society?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
The Emperor's Coronation
 |
| via Photo Phiend |
That's similar to what hits me when I see the usual displays of American political fanfare.
They're everywhere, if you're paying attention. A few weeks back, people were celebrating dead Richard Nixon's 100th birthday. Yes, that Richard Nixon. The most hated president in American history, long after his corpse had rotted into the ground (not burned in a trash bin, much to Hunter S. Thompson's dismay), still got one up on the rest of us. I could at least understand Ronald Reagan's centennial a couple years back - not that it was any more deserving, mind you, but that his legacy and cult following are at the very forefront of the mass delusion Americans call democracy. He was a star, and his flowing words and affable demeanor distracted the public from the fact he was every bit of a crook as the rest of them, if not more so.
Thoughtcrime - 22 Jan 2013
I am not worried we will consume until there is nothing left to consume, I am worried we will consume until there is nothing left of us.
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 21 Jan 2013
rosa sat so martin could walk. martin walked so barack could kill. #mlk
— ayiticheri (@djaspora) January 15, 2013
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Can We Talk About Obamacare Now?
Whole Foods' CEO John Mackey really isn't very good with definitions.
It all started a few years back when he attempted to label the Affordable Care Act, 'Obamacare', as socialism, even writing a Wall Street Journal op-ed that fittingly began with a completely incoherent Margaret Thatcher quote on the subject. Given that Whole Foods - as a 'healthy living' type grocery aimed at more conscious (read: well-off) consumers - tends to attract the same type of people who support Democratic policies, there was noticeable backlash over the issue. But that didn't seem to bother Mackey all that much, as he again discussed the healthcare bill on a recent NPR program, saying:
And, again, it sent many liberals into shock. Apparently having been convinced that a business which caters to their dietary sensibilities would by default support their political economic views as well, they were amazed to see that its CEO was, like most capitalists, a true believer.
It all started a few years back when he attempted to label the Affordable Care Act, 'Obamacare', as socialism, even writing a Wall Street Journal op-ed that fittingly began with a completely incoherent Margaret Thatcher quote on the subject. Given that Whole Foods - as a 'healthy living' type grocery aimed at more conscious (read: well-off) consumers - tends to attract the same type of people who support Democratic policies, there was noticeable backlash over the issue. But that didn't seem to bother Mackey all that much, as he again discussed the healthcare bill on a recent NPR program, saying:
"Technically speaking, it's more like fascism. Socialism is where the government owns the means of production. In fascism, the government doesn't own the means of production, but they do control it — and that's what's happening with our health care programs and these reforms."
And, again, it sent many liberals into shock. Apparently having been convinced that a business which caters to their dietary sensibilities would by default support their political economic views as well, they were amazed to see that its CEO was, like most capitalists, a true believer.
Thoughtcrime - 20 Jan 2013
The world could use more people who are so fed up with it - so convinced that what we call life today is but an exercise in compromising our morality, our sense of justice, our humanity - that they really can't stand living in the first place.
If you look around yourself and think "I want off this planet!", then you're exactly the type of person we need on it.
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
If you look around yourself and think "I want off this planet!", then you're exactly the type of person we need on it.
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 19 Jan 2013
As an FBI agent or informant, if you're going to go through the trouble of putting on a persona for months at a time, engaging disaffected persons you believe might become terrorists, and continually prodding them to see if they'll eventually be willing to commit some sort of violence, couldn't you just as easily go through the whole process as a moderating force instead, turning them away from that path instead of goading them toward it?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 18 Jan 2013
If the government of a particular state puts you on trial for "aiding the enemy", and a judge rules defense of your motive inadmissible, has that judge just declared that you were indeed "aiding the enemy"?
If not, and you can "aid the enemy" without meaning to do so, am I "aiding the enemy" by asking this question? Or am I just "aiding the aider of the enemy"?
Bonus: Who is the enemy?
If not, and you can "aid the enemy" without meaning to do so, am I "aiding the enemy" by asking this question? Or am I just "aiding the aider of the enemy"?
Bonus: Who is the enemy?
Opes Imperialis
This is the introduction / first part in a planned series, wherein I document some of the more egregious misuses of time, energy, and resources in society, always keeping in mind the intense injustices and suffering so often ignored in these discussions.
There is a diseased thought which has spread among us; a vile, backwards idea which stifles progress and destroys hope. It is the mentality of the so-called realist, who proclaims loudly to the world: "It can't be done."
But the 'realist' is a fraud.
I'm not talking about reversing gravity or breaking the speed of light here. But even if I were, just about any physicist out there would be open-minded enough to at least try. Why should we hold sociology - far from a hard science - to a different standard? Why do we let people tell us we can do no better, especially when all the evidence points to the fact we can?
As a society, we spend countless resources in areas which range from questionably worthwhile to certainly worthless. And despite their uncertain value, many of these are so ingrained in our daily lives that we consider them necessary evils. It's easy to fall into the realist's trap when you unwittingly accept the 'necessity' of the greater part of the insurance, advertising, and intelligence/surveillance industries (among others); the excesses spent on weapons of war (that is, resources used primarily to destroy other resources); and the many inefficiencies that we blind ourselves to when accepting the lie that bureaucracy is the only inhibitor of progress.
There is a diseased thought which has spread among us; a vile, backwards idea which stifles progress and destroys hope. It is the mentality of the so-called realist, who proclaims loudly to the world: "It can't be done."
But the 'realist' is a fraud.
I'm not talking about reversing gravity or breaking the speed of light here. But even if I were, just about any physicist out there would be open-minded enough to at least try. Why should we hold sociology - far from a hard science - to a different standard? Why do we let people tell us we can do no better, especially when all the evidence points to the fact we can?
As a society, we spend countless resources in areas which range from questionably worthwhile to certainly worthless. And despite their uncertain value, many of these are so ingrained in our daily lives that we consider them necessary evils. It's easy to fall into the realist's trap when you unwittingly accept the 'necessity' of the greater part of the insurance, advertising, and intelligence/surveillance industries (among others); the excesses spent on weapons of war (that is, resources used primarily to destroy other resources); and the many inefficiencies that we blind ourselves to when accepting the lie that bureaucracy is the only inhibitor of progress.
Thoughtcrime - 15 Jan 2013
If 'you' are a corporation which is required by law to focus on making money for its shareholders, and some individual or organization is - if only through the simple action of intellectual discourse - negatively impacting you in that effort, does it then follow that it is your duty to silence them by whatever means necessary?
MIT Supports OpenCourseWare, Condemns Aaron Swartz
But that never happened. The university at the head of the OCW movement, the one that first granted it serious relevancy, had other plans. It placed its emphasis instead on helping to sustain the unjust criminal charges against Swartz that eventually led to his suicide on Friday.
No one seems to know why it did this, but in doing so it has showcased what can only be described as a prime display of institutional cognitive dissonance.
If This is Justice, I Don't Think I Want Any
(If you don't know who Aaron Swartz is, Glenn Greenwald summarized his story earlier today. Personally, I find myself torn between his usual sober-yet-campaigning approach, and the anger that I feel when reading some of the other responses, which invoke a sterile grief, too eager to err on the side of caution. I side with my emotions here.)
I grieve for Aaron Swartz, as I grieve for all who have lost all hope in a world which consistently acts in opposition to our universal humanity.
I grieve, and I feel even more desperately called to action than usual.
But at the same time I have nothing but pity for those who feel the need, so steeped in the grubby brew of capitalist law that the meat boils off their bones, to condemn someone for the 'crime of stealing information' or 'holding information with intent to distribute', to suggest that some sort of justice could ever be served by prosecuting acts that do far more for the public good than they ever could against it. No appeal to convoluted logic or intellectual property rights can justify the warped discretion of those who utilize the law as a mace against the skulls of anyone who dares subvert power.
I grieve for Aaron Swartz, as I grieve for all who have lost all hope in a world which consistently acts in opposition to our universal humanity.
I grieve, and I feel even more desperately called to action than usual.
But at the same time I have nothing but pity for those who feel the need, so steeped in the grubby brew of capitalist law that the meat boils off their bones, to condemn someone for the 'crime of stealing information' or 'holding information with intent to distribute', to suggest that some sort of justice could ever be served by prosecuting acts that do far more for the public good than they ever could against it. No appeal to convoluted logic or intellectual property rights can justify the warped discretion of those who utilize the law as a mace against the skulls of anyone who dares subvert power.
What Do You Mean "Diversity"?
Yesterday, the New York Times' Annie Lowrey set the snares for the latest media trap, meant to distract well-meaning political observers from the real issues at hand.
Obama's new cabinet is likely to be less diverse than in his first term, she notes. And to be clear, by 'diverse' she means that of race and gender, not ideology. There is very little concern - unlike that expressed during the Bush administration - that the president isn't being challenged enough on his positions, or that his cabinet picks continue to reinforce dangerous authoritarian precedents. The message seems to be: if only there were more women and people of color implementing Obama's policies, everything would be okay.
This simple, easy-to-digest version of events is the perfect fodder for our increasingly superficial media, which is why it comes as no surprise to see them eagerly lapping it up. Nearly every major news outlet has run a story on it in the past 24 hours, and even clueless idiots on the far-right like Mike Huckabee are chiming in. To her credit, Lowrey's story does better than most, at least hinting at the fact a lack of diversity at the top only reflects deeper problems in society. But it only took a few hours for that idea to become lost in the sea of headlines.
In focusing on the more strict definition of "diversity", not only do the talking heads by and large miss the point, they also ignore the news media's own horrible track record on the same issue. But that much is to be expected from an profession whose definition of being self-critical is usually limited to posting corrections in a tiny box weeks after the fact.
Obama's new cabinet is likely to be less diverse than in his first term, she notes. And to be clear, by 'diverse' she means that of race and gender, not ideology. There is very little concern - unlike that expressed during the Bush administration - that the president isn't being challenged enough on his positions, or that his cabinet picks continue to reinforce dangerous authoritarian precedents. The message seems to be: if only there were more women and people of color implementing Obama's policies, everything would be okay.
This simple, easy-to-digest version of events is the perfect fodder for our increasingly superficial media, which is why it comes as no surprise to see them eagerly lapping it up. Nearly every major news outlet has run a story on it in the past 24 hours, and even clueless idiots on the far-right like Mike Huckabee are chiming in. To her credit, Lowrey's story does better than most, at least hinting at the fact a lack of diversity at the top only reflects deeper problems in society. But it only took a few hours for that idea to become lost in the sea of headlines.
In focusing on the more strict definition of "diversity", not only do the talking heads by and large miss the point, they also ignore the news media's own horrible track record on the same issue. But that much is to be expected from an profession whose definition of being self-critical is usually limited to posting corrections in a tiny box weeks after the fact.
The Latest in Four-Letter Fascism
Number of times Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) used the term "bad guys" during his arguments against #FISA Amendments yesterday: 8.
— Rasmus Xera (@RasmusXera) December 28, 2012
Number of times he mentioned civil liberties: 0.
— Rasmus Xera (@RasmusXera) December 28, 2012
In a series of New Year's gifts to the ghost of George Orwell - who every year at around this time haunts us with a resounding "I told you so." - President Obama last week signed into law both Congress' recent FISA extension and the 2013 NDAA. Thanks to the gigantic distraction known as the "fiscal cliff", which was mostly an argument over a couple percentage point differences in tax brackets (manufactured to conceal the fact that the leadership of both parties are intent on slashing benefits), the media almost completely ignored the greater controversy regarding civil liberties.
If (Only) Obama Were a Socialist
If Obama were a Socialist, maybe he'd make the most of his
power and appropriate
a better world for all
not sell out to the bankers for a momentary favor
or mandate things so cankerous as dictates of an Emperor
whose blatant lust for legacy
overrides the call
for a society less self-serving, respect for those deserving
some dignity
'tis of thee
only some of us recall
But if even he were conditioned in Hegelian tradition and
could synthesize his positions
in aid of Marx's cause
he could make no supposition on how he hasn't the ambition to
back the one-percenter coalitions
and pass all of their laws
If Obama were a Communist, maybe he'd stop bombing this
world in-to a bloody mist
and send away the drones
He'd take the tortured "terrorists", manacles on hands and wrists
release them from his iron fist
and leave well enough alone
And then he'd - all on top of this - shun the military-industrialist
embrace his inner pacifist
and throw us all a bone
But he's certainly no humanist, has no respect for habeas
and his business
consists
of a kill list
asses kissed
chance missed
Constitution 'twist
and that's just
the gist of it
If Obama were a Panther, maybe he'd have an answer
for the cancer on America
that carves away our soul
y'know we can't have equality with hierarchy to the T
just can't say "it's fine with me" - "a post-racial society"
as if emancipation, litigation
and (certainly not) desegregation
actually achieved the goal
no - a proper functionality was never a reality
when poverty's compulsory, oligarchy's running free
terribly destructively
and all we teach our children
is power and control
The facade of democracy covers corporatocracy
we've a monopoly of parties with money as their policy
and from everything that I can see, our participatory self-robbery
is running down the rickshaw
and shining up the gold
If (only) Obama were a Socialist, everything might not be amiss
it'd certainly be nice to exist
in a world where that were true
But since reality's a travesty, and he's as capitalist as can be
you're going to have to excuse me
while I find another view
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)