[
Wooz- I have to agree with CC on the whole Orwell thing. From what I recall, Orwell has been labeled a socialist. However, that he criticizes both communism and western capitalism, would also suggest that he's more realistically in the anarchist camp. I remember reading one paper that pointed out that the criticism Orwell makes in 1984 has much to do with his disillusionment of government as a means of repression, especially as the communists repressed most of the anarchists.
I'd say he was more a pessimist then anything, even a Demcoratic Socialoist pre-Third Way time. His "I see a boot standing on a face, forever" quote is pretty dark.
Folks, I think we need to calm down a bit about Orwell. I mean really, the guy is dead.
Nice links Wooz. I remember a student doing a paper on Orwell and making the argument that Orwell was more anarchist than socialist, but it was more a discussion on his writings, less a personal history.
But I had thought that anarchists often fell into "socialist" labels as well.
And CC- you note that I was qualified in my support for you, and no one ever said I can't be wrong, did they?
Full of crap. A life time of service in the Senate has turned every opinon of Kerry into something flexible, and he's the most firmly anti-exceptionalist canidate........ever. I don't want to think about what America would be like with him in President.
That's the republican line. Of course a few years as governor of Texas was a lot of experience for GB. The business of the Senate is compromise and negotiation to make legislation. If you haven't noticed many bills come as amalgamations of a variety of other legislation that get linked by compromise.
So, if Kerry seems to waffle, perhaps we need to look at the legislation a bit more and get a little reality about what the business of the Senate really is.
That said, if Bush is a non-flexible "war president" who looks after his business colleagues interests and who gets the voters because he knows he's good with God- I am not sure if that's such a good thing. The business of statecraft is often one of flexibility, not rigid ideological inflexibility to a neo-con position.
But hey, GB can dress up in a military uniform and be "the war president." Odd though that he's got no personal experience in war but is perfectly happy sending others to fight for him.
And the VP- Dick Cheney- aka the puppet master, aka the experienced insider who was supposed to guide the inexperience governor in the white house- who managed to launch a war yet make his former company very rich in the process. Wouldn't it kill ya if he gets a big bonus when he's time is up. (If God has a sense of humor he'll start tinkering with Cheney's Ticker).
I really, really hate consipiry theroies, and frankly, this just makes me to angry to answer.
So you are denial that Cheney pressured the intelligence agencies to support the war? Are you saying Cheney's appeal as VP was his experience? Are you saying that politicans don't leave office for cushy jobs in the private sector or as well paid consultants?
Welsh, we can't do anything about Saudi Arabia adn you know that. We can't invade, we can't give wepons, we can't do SHIT. Thus I honestly do not care.
The "if you can't beat them, join them" answer. Saudi Arabia is important because they sit on so much oil, but if a new government were to come to office would they still have to sell the oil? Are you saying that the world's most powerful country has no power over the Saudi's?
Really, the problem here is not that we don't have power, we do. The problem is that the Saudi's influence that power. And there lies the problem. The problem with the Bush family is that they have vested interests. We expect our leaders to be fiduciaries to the people of the US, not the interests that give them money.
(But of course Kerry married a rich woman and Edwards is a trial lawyer - real dangers there).
Edwards was so unpopular in North Carolina that he decided to run for president. That's a pretty big fucking liability.
Actually Edwards is sitting on a seat in Congress that no candidate has been able to hold for more than 6 years in a long time. Given the instability of the seat and the likely turnover he's looking for a new position.
It is not a question of being unpopular, but that North Carolina likes to vote for new Senators.
I don't think so. I think you have a bizzare look at large, American coroporations. These corporations mean jobs, mean money, mean American power. The ACLU means a guy can fuck a sheep in a nativity scene and get the Church sued for having the Nativity Scene.
CC- there is a line between making a good point and sounding foolish, and you are dancing way over that line.
And for the past 30 years worker salaries have gone down compared to cost of living increases. In terms of purchasing power, american have been slowly loosing salary. Why? Because cheap labor is good for business.
The ACLU is a very weak union because American is generally anti-union and I will agree that unions in the US have often caused more problems then they should. On the other hand, without unions individual workers would have no power vis-a-vis employers and more of us would be like the woman who work at Walmart and make only enough money to buy at Walmart. Unions have helped get worker's rights, improve salaries, and improve benefits for many workers. It is the power to organize collectively in a free market for labor that gives Unions their strength.
So you have missed the articles about the drivers Haliburton hires to take nothing nowhere? Are you suggesting corporations have not been skimming the books on the American people on this?
I agree that government and business should work together for the good of the economy, but there also have to be clear definitions of where the boundaries exist least things become corrupt. The problem with this administration is that the lines are to unclear and often crossed.
Mebbe because it's happeend in every American war?
Actually it hasn't. It has also been the business of presidents to commemorate the war dead, but this administration prefers to avoid that kind of thing. Bad press photos that open the questions.
"So.... what are we doing in Iraq? What did you tell us was the reason?'
"Hey, you know those WMDs.... Where are they?"
I don't think Moore protrayed our soldiers as Nazis. Some were pretty callous, but hey man remember Vietnam? I mean come on? Read Black Hawk Down and you see the same kind of shit. And he says it- You put people in immoral situations and they will begin to act immorally. Why does this come as a suprise.
Okay, like soldiers in Vietnam, which is bad.
I think most of the guys who went to Vietnam served honorably.
That said, denying that bad shit happened in Vietnam is nor only a case of selective memory, but it also means you are failing to heed the lessons of the past and are likely to repeat those mistakes.
And so we get a prison scandal.
He showed them acting without reason or morals- when in each situation there was a very likely reason (the mother screaming "He's Just a Collage Student" about a very likely terrorist, for instance).
Are you telling an army in which few people speak the language of the land they occupy doesn't make mistakes. How many innocent people did get killed or continue to get killed. I don't know because the government doesn't keep those numbers. Why? Too many questions maybe?
Do mistakes happen- yes. When you're getting shot at on a regular basis you don't take many risks.
The impression I got wasn't that he was blaming these guys. They are a bunch of late teenager or young adults abroad and in a dangerous place for the first time, and many are scared. Are they human and capable of doing things we might think immoral, of course. I have read no accounts of any war when the soldiers were always the "white knights" you seem to expect.
But yes, there were americans who were serving or will serve that were being moral. Or did you ignore those pictures too.
Yet Moore also shows the GI's who do give care, are conscientious, and are concerned. He also points out that so many of the guys going over there come from towns were there are few opportunities but joining the army. I remember the recruiters trying to get me when I was 17 ("not a problem son, we'll get your mom to sign for ya.) There are a lot of young guys here who are buying the recruiter pitch.
Under-privileged kids going off to fight for the US. Is this unusual? Did this not happen in Vietnam? Don't kids go to the Army so they can get money for college? Isn't that how they sell it?
I'm fairly priviliaged, and I'm going into some branch of the military. So did John Kerry who comes from just as wealthy backgrounds as Kerry, and alot more then Cheyney (actually Edwards comes from a more priviliaged background then Cheyney, oddly enough).
Yes, but you're an ideologue with a bias against Islam, so it's not great surprise there.
Do people the upper classes fight? Not as many. Middle class sends it's kids to fight as well. But mostly it's poor kids who go because there are fewer opportunities.
Corrupt unions- could it be that the reason why workers in this country have not seen significant cost of living increases, and that we now live in a society where most families have to have both parents working- could this have anything to do with the fact that labor is not organized or strong?
Hardly strong. Most americans don't belong to unions and the unions have a hard time getting members to vote the way they wish. So unions are not as organized or strong as they are elsewhere.
NAACP- let's see- they did fight the battle that seperate but equal is not equal. They did push the Voting Rights Act, and they do help keep Blacks politically engaged.
Or are you suggesting that Blacks don't deserve to be part of the political process because they are poor, subordinate, probably doing crack and are politically insignificant (aka the Republican position).
Yeah, cause in all those years at Kenwood, I just learned that those damned coloreds can'ts be learned!
That's totally full of shit. The Republican party has a MUCH longer history of the respect of the Civil Rights of African Americans, from Abraham Lincoln freeing the slaves, to the foundation of the party on Free-Soil votes, to Roosevelt telling reporters to shove it after having an African American over for dinner.
The Republican party used to have that reputation. But then in the 1960s when Johnson was making doing the Great Society thing and pushing for the enfranchisements of Blacks, the republican party so an opportunity with the Dixicrats who wanted more state's rights (which means more racial division).
Since the 1970s the Republicans have been making moves to the SOuth, selling state's rights and the dangers of big government (= social equality) but that they are the "party of christian values" (in a country where church and state are supposed to be seperate).
This is not the same party as Lincoln or even Teddy (Trust-Buster) Roosevelt.
Frankly, I think the NAACP is working against the African American community by enhancing the victumized complex which gets rid of personal responsibility. Not to mention how stupid the OMFG THESE COROPRATIONS BENEFITED FROM SLAVERY KILL!
To link US slavery with current US corporations is silly and I am surprised you are making that here.
That US corporations hire ridiculously cheap labor abroad is true. That's why manufacturing jobs have gone abroad- lower overhead costs.
As for the NAACP- yes they could improve. But considering their role in the enfranchisement of blacks, I would rather have them than not.
Ok back to special interests- The Sierra Club says don't drill for oil in Alaska because we can resolve that by improving standards on SUVs. Why are standards important- because SUVs generally don't have crumple zones, because they tend to roll over, because they are gas guzzlers that are used primarily for the same reasons as commerical cars, and because while owners may have a false sense of security, they make driving for non-SUV owners more hazardous. The answer- raise emission standards and fuel consumption and regulate SUVs more closely.
Of course that would work against the energy and auto-lobby- people who contribute to Bush. SO that gets shot down.
So, you're against indepepndance from foreign oil?
No I am against government being owned by independent oil companies, as well as the energy and oil lobbies.
Yes, Richard Clarke, the 9/11 commission?
9/11 commision that said Bush had nothing to do with the intellegence foul ups at the CIA.
The buck stops at the President's office, even if it's the VP who is putting pressure on Congress.
Actually following the first WTC bombing, Clinton raised funding for terrorism. This was cut by the republican controlled Congress. When Clarke remained after Bush came in, there was no general overview on terrorism, but there was interest for going to war with Iraq.
Millenium bombing sounds like it was done by a bunch of christian nuts who wanted to usher in the second-coming of Christ.
Why not? The CIA kept feeding him bad intellegence. Heck, Herr Clinton even said he would have gone to war in Iraq. You know, it's funny, I kind of liked him as president, but he's pretty smart now that he's out of office (though his book is crap).
I really can't believe you are white-washing the entire intelligence failure and giving all the blame to the CIA. YOu do know that the CIA is supposed to protect the office of the president, right?
Can't say really, because Bush stole the election because there was no recount in Florida.
Would Gore have botched it too. Maybe.
How much vacation time did Bush take his first year. I did recall it seemed quite a bit.
Despite how much Moore can throw anecdotal shit at you're face, you must realize that his "vacation time" was'nt entirely such. Heck, he meets almost all foriegn leaders there.
Between fishing and golf swings. Yes, it was his father's way of having personal relationships. Of course, working at the office would require that he would have to read, and Bush likes to watch TV or have things told to him.
Services? YOu mean McDonalds? Or Construction jobs- 20% going to illegal workers because they don't cost as much.
I love the smell of bullshit in the morning.
I would think so since you like to wallow in it.
Democrats try and try to make the stunning job growth seem meaningless, but you know what, I, and the vast majority of American's, don't care for that, particularly when it's almost all speculation.
Speculation? CC, sometimes I think you read the news that pads your limited way of thinking about things. While I can understand this makes you feel good, it's not very rational.
[
Unsafe for Americans to travel abroad?
In muslim countries especially, and Americans are not very popular elsewhere either.
You still have'nt touched the fact that the rise of Islamic Fundementalism made war in the mid east and subsequent disliking of the "imperialist" Americans inevitable, or that most of the post-9/11 sympathy was hog wash, even Le Monde's 9/12 article talked about how America deserved it.
which makes you wonder why so much Islamic fundamentalism now? Could it be that the fundamentalists are tired of bad regimes that the US has a history of supporting and see the US as the power behind these regimes?
That was called indirect imperialism. You control the land by controlling the government. Iran is a good case for this- as we supported the Shah. Ditto Iraq. Yet when indirect imperialism fails and you still require the strategic resources- then you invade and your imperialism becomes very direct.
You mean to tell me on 9/11 19 people crashed air planes into buildings caus they did'nt like the 2000 election? Or maybe the nasty parts of Islam where never known until 2000?
No, I have said elsewhere that the blame for that policy falls on the head of Osama Bin Laden, the current replacement for "where's waldo" whom this President can't seem to find.
Are we safer? No terrorists episodes are on the increase. So we seem to be losing the war against terrorism.
Love that bit with the guy who's name got inked out in the National Guard records.
I actually found that incriminatiing- he was talking about Bush skipping out on service
when he had evidence to the contrary.[/quote]
Well Bush skipped service because his COs can't remember him ever showing up. And considering his relationship with government, that would be noticeable. Or was it perhaps that he was elsewhere doing politics.
Of course if GB really wanted to serve his country he might have joined up and gone to Vietnam to fight- maybe then he would have deserved to be a war president.
: 