[bart]

Those of you outside the US -- do you have personalities like Jack and Specop_007 ?? Or are they unique to the good ole' USA?

I've got to admit I laughed out loud at:

See? It's a win-win deal.

In the case of Venezuala, we need to rescue the Venezualan people from communism and return peace and prosperity to the region.

As for Canada, one cannot minimize the risk of permitting the French to maintain a beachhead in North America. Mark my words, if we permit them to insinuate themselves in the area, American children will be forced to say Oui' and Merci. No civilized people can permit such a horror.

Black humor worthy of Ambrose Bierce. You WERE kidding... weren't you Jack?

The thing to remember about Jack and Specop_007 is that they win if you lose your temper. It's like big brother wiggling his fingers in your face.

[Jack]

Those of you outside the US -- do you have personalities like Jack and Specop_007 ?? Or are they unique to the good ole' USA?

I've got to admit I laughed out loud at:

See? It's a win-win deal.

In the case of Venezuala, we need to rescue the Venezualan people from communism and return peace and prosperity to the region.

As for Canada, one cannot minimize the risk of permitting the French to maintain a beachhead in North America. Mark my words, if we permit them to insinuate themselves in the area, American children will be forced to say Oui' and Merci. No civilized people can permit such a horror.

Black humor worthy of Ambrose Bierce. You WERE kidding... weren't you Jack?

The thing to remember about Jack and Specop_007 is that they win if you lose your temper. It's like big brother wiggling his fingers in your face.

Yes, I was kidding - partly; while also illustrating a serious point. The problem here is that lots of people like to say some rather unkind things about the U.S., while forgetting all the good the U.S. has done in the world.

It is a behavior remarkably like French-bashing; France has, historically, been a friend to the U.S., the Statue of Liberty being a case in point. Clearly, I was being silly when I expressed horror at the idea of a child speaking French; equally clearly, those Americans who decided to call french fries something else were being absurd.

That being said, I think that - on reflection - most will recognize that the U.S. has been remarkably forbearant in a great many cases.

Thus, we come to the more serious point. It is not my desire to make others lose their temper. Rather, I would like them to see in my parody a hint that their own views may also be in error.

[Cool Hand Linc]

Jack, to Jack and all others I say,

Here Here

So many are so critical. Sadly Jack most don't seem to be able to see and understand what you just said. I am living proof it is easier to jump on the band wagon (Having to sides) and ride a long.

[Cool Hand Linc]

[quote="MissingLink"]Jack, to Jack and all others I say,

Here Here

[size=12] So many are so critical. Sadly Jack most don't seem to be able to see and understand what you just said.

[Jack]

In the case of Venezuala, we need to rescue the Venezualan people from communism...

Are you saying that capitalism trumps democracy?

No matter the form of government there, the people did choose it -- twice. First by vote, then when overthrown by a US-tacitly-backed military junta, by massive protest that eventually restored the duly elected government. (The Bush admin had major egg on its face for not condemning the junta.)

Jack, you champion of individual responsibility, you're saying the people are always right, unless they disagree with you? Why you old dog -- you could qualify as a Kerry supporter with that attitude!

I love it when people define "freedom" as "the freedom to agree with me."

I like your definition - Freedom is the freedom to agree with me. Now, if only I could convince everyone else!

On a more serious note - the reason the coup in Venezuela failed was a classic failure of will. Notice that Hugo Chavez was in the hands of the Junta, and was ultimately released. In the old days, he would not have remained alive; thus, a nexus point of resistance would have been removed. One can have kindness and mercy, or one can have an empire; I think one cannot accomplish both. Ultimately, the U.S. must choose. Given the present trends, I believe that empire is the optimum choice. Your views are, I'm sure, the opposite.

And yes, capitalism does trump democracy, I think. I'm not sure I like saying that...but take a look at China. They seem to be following a path toward building a capitalist paradise - the diametric opposite of the workers' paradise that is supposed to be communism's goal. At the same time, the government keeps tight control and shows little inclination to institute democratic reforms of any sort. Give them 10 years and we may see a Chinese empire that will put any little American attempt to shame. I do not believe that China will be as sensitive to the world's criticisms as is the U.S.

I'm not at all sure that even the U.S. electorate is particularly interested in democracy. Given a choice between prosperity and democracy, I have a strong suspicion that prosperity would come out first. The electorate tends to be unware of issues, as well as uneducated regarding fundamental issues of the candidates. Local elections sometimes have voter turnouts on the order of five percent. U.S. consumers purchase goods made by Chinese prison labor, all under the mantra of "lower prices to consumers."

If the foregoing is true, one cannot, it seems to me, be optimistic about any great movement toward voluntary simplicity and lower impact lifestyles. So (here's were I poke Trespam! ) the realistic view is that we may as well keep the party going as long as we can by elbowing everyone out of the way and getting to the punch bowl first.

Not a very bright vision of the future, is it?

[Guest]

Regards WMD, democracy and freedom in Iraq I would suggest Necessary Illusions by Noam Chomsky. Although this text chronicles Latin America and El Salvador in great detail. The exact same concepts and methods have been used and are applicable in the current Gulf War. Enjoy. /salute


Of all the articles and books of Chomsky that I have read, Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies is without doubt the most exhaustively researched (and footnoted), the most logically structured, and the most convincing. Chomsky reminds us that the majority of the populace rely on the various media institutions for their information about political affairs; both domestic and foreign. One can only hold an opinion on a topic if one knows about the topic. So take, for example, the popular myth of the 'persistent Soviet vetoe' at the UN during the cold war. Why do people believe the USSR was constantly vetoeing any and every Security Council Resolution? Simple! When they did, it generated front page condemnation. When the US or the UK exercised their right of veteo: silence. As Chomsky notes, during the years of 1970 and 1989 the former Soviet Union veteod 8 resolutions. The US veteod some 56. This is what Chomsky refers to as Thought Control. Unless the public examine the factual record of the UN themselves, they will never come by this information, (at least not in the mainstream press). So although Chomsky's title may appear somewhat paradoxical, or oxymoronic, a moments reflection on such facts shows it to be, in fact, extremenly pragmatic and truthful. The question is, have you the honesty and sheer guts to question yourself and challenge the information which has contributed to your beliefs? The crux of Chomsky's argument is that propaganda is to a democracy what violence is to a dictatorship. Chomsky points out that, in fact, propaganda is, contrary to popular postulations, more important and vital to a democratic society because people still have some rights. That is, since people can talk, the powers that be must ensure that only the correct words come out of the peoples' mouths. In a dictatorship it does not really matter too much what people think; for whatever they may think, they have to do what they are told, by pain of death. In countries such as the US (and the UK) other, more subtle, methods are required. People often critisise Chomsky for the sources of his information (the copious footnotes). No such critique can be levelled at this work. Chomsky's sources are declassified internal planning documents, naval proceedings documents, and the very institutions he examines, New York Times, Washington Post etc. If there was one Chomsky book I would suggest you to read, this would be it.

[Guest]

If there was one Chomsky book I would suggest you to read, this would be it.

Would you have an ISBN for this book?

[khebab]

Of all the articles and books of Chomsky that I have read, Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies is without doubt the most exhaustively researched (and footnoted), the most logically structured, and the most convincing. Chomsky reminds us that the majority of the populace rely on the various media institutions for their information about political affairs; both domestic and foreign....

Excellent point! so the media are controlling us more by what they are not saying rather than by what they are actually saying! ex: civilian casualties in Iraq!

The news media are acting more like a filter between the raw facts and the consensual and/or official perception of the world.

[Cool Hand Linc]

It does seem rather important to look beyond any information given. News media or any other source, I look to confirm as much as possible what I am being told.