Blogging from SOA Watch down here in Fort Benning, GA, home of the School of The Americas aka School of The Assassins now officially propaganda renamed, WHISC. Those unfamiliar with SOA Watch, take a look. Specifically, check out the schedule of events for this weekend to get a feel for what actually goes on down here every year. Skies are clear, the temp is nice. Couldn't' have hoped for anything more in regards to mid-November environmental conditions. Haven't seen or heard an official count but I've personally laid eyes on about 10,000 people. Last year it was 18,000.
Details and experiences forthcoming.
Friday, November 18, 2005
NY Times Suggests Science Close To Ending Fear Of War
Scientists working with mice have found that by removing a single gene they can turn normally cautious animals into daring ones, mice that are more willing to explore unknown territory and less intimidated by sights and sounds that they have learned can be dangerous.The story onthis, found in today's NYTimes, gives a quick outline of the process by which the discovery was made and suggests some situations and applications where humans application might prove beneficial. Things such as ridding people of bad memories from disasters to disabling anxiety in social settings.
I love science and new discoveries but the realities of the market society we have built dictate that scientific discoveries(publicly subsidized science in this and many cases) be subject to the same private market forces as all else which inexorably leads to the biggest and longest running protector and advocate of the capitalist free market force...war.
NY Times author Benedict Carey indicates his awareness but not antipathy to this idea explaining to readers that this new scientific discovery "may well prove applicable to humans" by "disabling anxiety in social settings" such as, Carey posits, "the horror of combat".
Boosters will say this is pessimistic. My response? When you all have some time pick up a history book and take a look at what's been done with any number of scientific or engineering discoveries lauded as having great potential for the betterment of life.
Start with something like the airplane.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
MoveOn.org Gets Weird
I just got an email from MoveOn.org asking me to send a face picture of myself to Washington DC. MoveOn people, silly for some time now, have officially descended into wacko land.
And this is the same organization that wouldn't oppose the Iraq Invasion because they weren't sure a majority of their membership held that position.
Facial pictures to the Congress??
MoveOn says this will make the Congress 'Face America'...
You can't make this stuff up.
Turn Off Your TV....For Good.....Right NOW!
Destroy your television.
After watching the tale of 'looting' in New Orleans.
After watching the FBI find Mohammed Atta's passport atop a pile of rubble at Ground Zero in Manhattan,
After being educated about the imminent threat of Iraq and its WMDs,
After seeing watching decade after decade of reformist presidential candidates ridiculed out of contention,
you should know that your television is worthless.
No.
To say that it's worthless would imply that while it provides no good service, it does no harm. And above all, we KNOW that shit ain't true. Even though, I know there are maaaaany out there that continue to watch it and be informed by it. Hehe.
For you that have unplugged it, punched out the power button, thrown away the remote or whatever means have been employed to stop the brain drain, you still have the internet to garner occasional updates about the psyops being transmitted via the idiot box.
Recently Tucker Carlson, formerly of Crossfire, now with MSNBC, recently brought on Professor Stephen Jones to talk about 9/11. Again, if you know anything about how the teevee works, you are prepared for what is certain to be a propaganda party. I could go on and on about how they do this (and since this is a blog, I'll probably do just that on tomorrow) but for now, just read the transcript. Hopefully needless to say, pay close attention to what happens when the Professor gets around to talking about the crux of his 9/11 hypothesis which centers on the collapse of WTC building #7.
In my opinion, this is bad propaganda, because this time what is being done in the interview, is a little too obvious. More on this later. So funny.
After watching the tale of 'looting' in New Orleans.
After watching the FBI find Mohammed Atta's passport atop a pile of rubble at Ground Zero in Manhattan,
After being educated about the imminent threat of Iraq and its WMDs,
After seeing watching decade after decade of reformist presidential candidates ridiculed out of contention,
you should know that your television is worthless.
No.
To say that it's worthless would imply that while it provides no good service, it does no harm. And above all, we KNOW that shit ain't true. Even though, I know there are maaaaany out there that continue to watch it and be informed by it. Hehe.
For you that have unplugged it, punched out the power button, thrown away the remote or whatever means have been employed to stop the brain drain, you still have the internet to garner occasional updates about the psyops being transmitted via the idiot box.
Recently Tucker Carlson, formerly of Crossfire, now with MSNBC, recently brought on Professor Stephen Jones to talk about 9/11. Again, if you know anything about how the teevee works, you are prepared for what is certain to be a propaganda party. I could go on and on about how they do this (and since this is a blog, I'll probably do just that on tomorrow) but for now, just read the transcript. Hopefully needless to say, pay close attention to what happens when the Professor gets around to talking about the crux of his 9/11 hypothesis which centers on the collapse of WTC building #7.
In my opinion, this is bad propaganda, because this time what is being done in the interview, is a little too obvious. More on this later. So funny.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Supporting The Troops
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.
--Martin Luther King Jr.
Back in 2002 when we were burning Afghanistan, although the war fever was burning most brightly across the brow of America, even then, there were dissenters from what was sure to be the killing of innocent people branded as terrorists or as harboring terrorists. This, of course, doesn’t even bring into play the inevitable dismemberment, maiming and murder of civilian men, women and children having little if any part in regional, and certainly none in international, affairs. The United States government at the behest of the corporate controlled Bush administration and the US Congress marched forward to war with little dissent to be found among the ranks of Washington politicians. The claim was that Osama Bin Laden (OBL) was being harbored by the Afghan government, a charge that to this day has not been substantiated and thus one can only assume was a lie. Global opinion, with 3 exceptions (US, Israel, India), was opposed to the bombing campaign and subsequent invasion.
Dissenters in the US were told that despite what one thought about the ‘politics’, once the war began we all had to get in line and support the troops. This was the first instance of Support The Troops rhetoric since the announcement of the Bush administration’s global War On Terror. From the beginning, there was skepticism as to the speciousness of the phrase.
What does it mean?
As a citizen of Atlanta, what can I do to assist or support a man or woman in the Dasht-i-Margi desert in Afghanistan? The question demands no reply. The obvious answer is nothing. During WW2, American troops saved the United States, Europe, heck the world, from fascism and the fate of a prison planet. The troops fought the American Revolution and made possible this great egalitarian land of opportunity.
Agree or disagree with the history, the legacy of American troops has to it a intangible emotive component. In the face of struggling to find any tangible way in which I can actually support the troops, this intangible emotive component is all that remains. And some argued that this indeed was the point all along.
‘Support the troops’ meant wave the flag.
‘Support the troops’ meant stop protesting.
‘Support the troops’ meant support the policy.
This propaganda campaign was wildly successful, leaving peace proponents outside in the cold begging for crumbs
Sprouting up throughout the American Left were various rationales; the troops didn’t aaaask to go to Iraq or the troops were duped like we were or the troops must follow orders. But the ones that asked to go have now come back. And we all know nobody (but the hopelessly naïve) was duped. And no, soldiers don’t have to, and in fact according to Article 92 of the UCMJ are legally bound not to, follow orders contradicting what is known to be a standing lawful order.
This is very clear.
Within the last 9 months there has been movement within the peace ranks to co-opt the 'support the troops' mantra but with an addendum--'bring them home now'. With reservations, I have participated in this (I'm not sure if it is ever wise in an information/thought war, to use material or ideas created and branded by the opposition) push. But who exactly are we supporting? Who are the troops? The war has been going on for 3 years now. Assuming the unlikely, assuming all troops were duped, how many of them, now that the facts show clearly that the pro-war arguments weren’t true, have now re-enlisted or joined up to participated in obvious torture and killing of civilians, war crimes.
Do I still have to support the troops? Lacking morality all along, I have serious doubts as to whether or not the troops could escape legal punishment as Article 92 of the UCMJ demands the troops not participate in illegal military activities.
This prolly won't go over well among the anti-war ranks, but as a taxpayer funding these crimes, as a citizen of the United States, as a veteran of the US Armed Forces, to remain silent amidst these crimes is to die a slow death myself.
--Martin Luther King Jr.
Back in 2002 when we were burning Afghanistan, although the war fever was burning most brightly across the brow of America, even then, there were dissenters from what was sure to be the killing of innocent people branded as terrorists or as harboring terrorists. This, of course, doesn’t even bring into play the inevitable dismemberment, maiming and murder of civilian men, women and children having little if any part in regional, and certainly none in international, affairs. The United States government at the behest of the corporate controlled Bush administration and the US Congress marched forward to war with little dissent to be found among the ranks of Washington politicians. The claim was that Osama Bin Laden (OBL) was being harbored by the Afghan government, a charge that to this day has not been substantiated and thus one can only assume was a lie. Global opinion, with 3 exceptions (US, Israel, India), was opposed to the bombing campaign and subsequent invasion.
Dissenters in the US were told that despite what one thought about the ‘politics’, once the war began we all had to get in line and support the troops. This was the first instance of Support The Troops rhetoric since the announcement of the Bush administration’s global War On Terror. From the beginning, there was skepticism as to the speciousness of the phrase.
What does it mean?
As a citizen of Atlanta, what can I do to assist or support a man or woman in the Dasht-i-Margi desert in Afghanistan? The question demands no reply. The obvious answer is nothing. During WW2, American troops saved the United States, Europe, heck the world, from fascism and the fate of a prison planet. The troops fought the American Revolution and made possible this great egalitarian land of opportunity.
Agree or disagree with the history, the legacy of American troops has to it a intangible emotive component. In the face of struggling to find any tangible way in which I can actually support the troops, this intangible emotive component is all that remains. And some argued that this indeed was the point all along.
‘Support the troops’ meant wave the flag.
‘Support the troops’ meant stop protesting.
‘Support the troops’ meant support the policy.
This propaganda campaign was wildly successful, leaving peace proponents outside in the cold begging for crumbs
I support the troops...but not the war
Sprouting up throughout the American Left were various rationales; the troops didn’t aaaask to go to Iraq or the troops were duped like we were or the troops must follow orders. But the ones that asked to go have now come back. And we all know nobody (but the hopelessly naïve) was duped. And no, soldiers don’t have to, and in fact according to Article 92 of the UCMJ are legally bound not to, follow orders contradicting what is known to be a standing lawful order.
This is very clear.
Within the last 9 months there has been movement within the peace ranks to co-opt the 'support the troops' mantra but with an addendum--'bring them home now'. With reservations, I have participated in this (I'm not sure if it is ever wise in an information/thought war, to use material or ideas created and branded by the opposition) push. But who exactly are we supporting? Who are the troops? The war has been going on for 3 years now. Assuming the unlikely, assuming all troops were duped, how many of them, now that the facts show clearly that the pro-war arguments weren’t true, have now re-enlisted or joined up to participated in obvious torture and killing of civilians, war crimes.
Do I still have to support the troops? Lacking morality all along, I have serious doubts as to whether or not the troops could escape legal punishment as Article 92 of the UCMJ demands the troops not participate in illegal military activities.
This prolly won't go over well among the anti-war ranks, but as a taxpayer funding these crimes, as a citizen of the United States, as a veteran of the US Armed Forces, to remain silent amidst these crimes is to die a slow death myself.