Plastic comments

It wouldn’t be the first time that the CIA has arranged for fake weapons shipments to be ‘intercepted’ by the US. The announcement of the interception follows, everyone swallows the story, no one believes the denials, and the US has political leverage that makes its ally look better and it’s ally’s enemy look untrustworthy. All without overt involvement. By the time the CIA admits that it was, in fact, behind the shipment, usually at least a decade later, it’s far too late to matter.

[…]

Modded down to irrelevant already. This isn’t conspriracy theory stuff. This is the level of skepticism that’s required in order to process news today. The fact is that the CIA was and might still be the largest media force in the world. The fact is that the public record, either through released documents, Congressional hearings, etc., shows that the CIA has faked events dozens of times in the past, whether in the Middle East, South or Central America, or Southeast Asia. If you think there is no chance that the CIA is involved again, then you aren’t being objective.

I’m glad I searched for the book title before pounding out pretty much the same comment as above. I just wanted to add that in The Light of Other Days, it’s not a technology that stores the information, and it’s not human-made technology that records it. Privacy is gone because technology was discovered that can open a wormhole anywhere and anywhen (in the past), through which it is possible to capture radiation, and thus, light and (through some manipulation) sound. The universe itself serves as recorder and database in this case, so since the universe is reality, you at least didn’t have to address the data falsification issues.

Come to think of it though, once you have such a database, one that seems infallible, it becomes easier to claim that a certain video is from a wormhole feed and base its veracity on that of the wormhole cam’s.

Just because the sentences are run-on and punctuation and spelling could be better doesn’t mean it’s incoherent.

Try reading it again:

“Is it not true that many of the products that americans buy (even for petty materialistic purposes) cause a direct, and negative effect on these third world countries that lash out at us? Are the problems in Iraq also influenced by America? We get oil from parts of the world everyday that are in a state of complete and utter poverty/turmoil, yet none of our personal profits went to helping these countries become a place where such freedom is enjoyed as America. Would that not be a good business move?”

This is relatively straight-forward; not very eloquent, but a good, basic description of the problem.

Certainly not incoherent.

Is this meta-meta modding?

[…]

Naming a whole bunch of democracies with which the U.S. has close relations and/or treaties says absolutely nothing about their preferred government. It says more about the limits of their power to influence some countries. If the country is already relatively well-established, the price of overthrow and dictator-installation far outweighs the potential benefits.

However, you should read more about immediate post world-war history in several of the countries you’ve mentioned. In particular, Italy and Greece (though you didn’t mention that one) were heavily influenced by the U.S. with bought elections in order to ensure more right-leaning (and fascist) governments.

Amen.

I too find it interesting to read that most comments are willing to accept the Bush Administration’s rationale; letting them lay the ground rules. As you already said: Saddam in known to have chemical weapons. He hasn’t used them since he left his alliance with the US. After ten years of sanctions, he can only be weaker than he was immediately after the last Gulf War, when he was allowed to remain in power.

Simply because weapons were found doesn’t make me any more willing to accept that war is the only answer. #44's comment (and others) almost sound relieved that they no longer have to think about it and can now just flow along on the inevitable tide of war, freed of of all moral obligations. Attacking Iraq is wrong. Just because Bush said that he would only attack Iraq if weapons were found (a lie, of course, they’re going no matter what) doesn’t mean that he’s “right” now to go to war. That’s his logic (if it can be called that): not mine.

By the way, let this story simmer for a bit; perhaps it too will disappear, like those Al Qaida fugitives loose in the States.

First of all, the fact that you got ‘concrete’ solutions out of that speech is nothing short of remarkable. I do agree that it would be difficult to offer solutions in an hour on the more than a dozen issues Bush raised.

It’s a perfectly legitimate question to ask how much was Bush lying…or rather, how much was he just saying stuff to try to boost his ratings. AIDS in Africa, hydrogen cars, the environment, reducing prison population…not exactly issues he’s ever raised before except to note how they will never happen.

Why should we believe him now?

And when the hell did environmental, alternate fuel or foreign aid legislation become difficult to pass because of Democrats?

That’s actually interesting about the French and Russian contracts for oil with Iraq. However, why should they be afraid of their oil contracts in the case of regime change? The new regime would be just as bound to the contracts incurred by the old one, no? It happens all the time in third world nations – their crushing debts aren’t absolved because they get a new leader or government.

So why are the Russians and French worried? Because if the US orchestrates the regime change, you can bet your ass the new regime won’t honor the old regime’s contracts and all of the oil will start to flow cheaply to the US instead.

I believe that’s quite a legitimate concern on the part of the Russians and the French. So, yes, they are self-interested, but you’re not quite explicit enough about why they’re afraid.

They’re afraid the US will cheat them out of their contracts once the dust settles.

I found a reference in a NY Times article (registration required):

On Target and Off in 2002 (page 3) by Colin McGinn, professor of philosophy, Rutgers University (NY Times)

“My favorite polling result of the 2000 election was a Time magazine survey that revealed that 19 percent of Americans believe that they have incomes in the top 1 percent, and a further 20 percent believe they will someday. A large majority of us regard ourselves as pretty far above average.”

Be observant on what Bush is offering here. Just because he’s backing off on his insanely strict no-abortion policy doesn’t mean he’s being reasonable now. The administration is still not supporting abortion, and isn’t really even tolerating it. You see how elated he’s managed to make some people on Capitol hill feel?

“It certainly is a welcome change from their position on family planning funds.”

He hasn’t done anything but instill a draconian policy for two years, then release it just a touch to almost the same level it was before he showed up, and then in only certain countries in which he’s trying to curry favor, and all of a sudden he’s a compromising hero. You’ve still got less than you started with.

Just because he stopped kicking you in the ass doesn’t mean you should thank him for punching you in the face.

“the fact that Saddam, by some counts, is blamed for a million deaths”

The war is expected to cause between 500,000 and 1,000,000 deaths. That’s as if you broke your leg and the doctor cuts it off to fix it. Removing Saddam is good. The solution is bad.

“…freeing oppressed peoples from violent tyrants”

The problem is that people are starting to believe this. It is good to remove Saddam. He’s a monster. People want to believe so badly that Iraq will magically have a democracy after he is gone that they forget the track record of the ‘liberators’.

Brutal dictators supported? Dozens.
Democracies installed? Zero.
Countries liberated by the US that were better off afterwards? Zero.

If there were a doctor in town who’d killed every patient he’d every treated, would you be excited to see him by your bedside?

“By whom?”

It comes from the UN.

I like the use of etc. after France and Germany. It implies that there are more countries on that list. And if you reply, please don’t list Grenada and Kuwait or other similar shining examples of US intervention, like the last post. Afghanistan also doesn’t go on that list because if you were still following actual events there, you’d have to know that they aren’t liberated….and there are no mechanisms in place to get liberated either…and the US isn’t putting anything into helping them liberate either. (Bush administration budget for Afghanistan? $0.)

I’m not even saying they should. I’m pointing out that the US has a horrible track record on actually liberating countries. Even the countries liberated from fascism in WWII were carefully controlled to create the right forms of government (certainly not the socialist ones they tended toward in a hasty retreat from fascism). Controlling which governments a country gets to have is not a liberation or an installation of democracy.

Did you even read your own post? You plead with the collected, illogical posters on Plastic to consider other arguments, then imply you’d like to see me killed in the last sentence. Only to rescue it with an inane J/K. Bravo.

Do you have any idea of the US role in the examples you’ve cited? The US was a huge supporter of Indonesia’s invasion of East Timor, indeed providing most of the weaponry for it, while the Cuban Missile Crisis was almost entirely a US creation. The inneffectiveness of peace deals in the Middle East could be directly related to the US’ overwhelming support for Israel (to the tune of $3 Billion per year, give or take).

If you check the voting record of the UN, I think you’ll find that the ineffectiveness of the UN is largely due to the US’ power within as a member of the security council. Many issues which you would expect an upstanding, moral country to support have a single ‘no’ vote from the US blocking them (though often Israel is the sole accompaniment).

Silicone in your ass, your breasts, your calves, your testes, and anywhere else is OK.

Botox in your forehead? Go right ahead.

Sun-worshipping? Sure.

Suck liters of fat out of your body with a vacuum cleaner? Thin is in.

Slice your tongue in half? Nope.

What’s the difference? The first have the weight of industry and economy behind them, whereas tongue-splitting is only done by poor folks; and it’s such a bizarre modification, it’s unlikely to draw too many adherents. Thus, instead of starting a craze, we get a law.

It’s quite obvious that corporations pull much more weight than citizens.

Another reason Nader wasn’t allowed to debate is that the debate was not a publicly-sponsored presidential debate in the way that we assume it to be. It was an event organized by the Democratic and Republican parties; each wanted the debate because they thought they could steal votes from the other. They don’t have to let anybody else debate if they don’t want to.

We don’t have publicly-sponsored debates in the States — that would be far less manageable and controllable and is therefore not done. What we are allowed to see of presidential candidates is carefully controlled and distributed — Nader wouldn’t have filled that bill at all, especially with his anti-corporate agenda, which is so very bad for both sponsors (in which the media are interested) and campaign coffers (which the parties are extremely interested in filling).

“When it stops being about issues and starts being about personal hatred, I turn off the TV.”

Being unbiased does not mean liking everyone equally not matter what. Just because the Daily Show ridicules the Right more does make the show about ‘personal hatred’. That’s the same logic that people use when they call anyone against Israel’s policies an anti-Semite. If one group is doing more stupid things that hurt more people than another, it’s the news’ job to report it. Despite Stewart’s claims that the Daily Show is a fake news show, it’s probably the most informative one the US has got.

I think the Daily Show does a great job of presenting issues you don’t see every day. An issue may be wrapped in silliness, ridicule and humor, but the fact that it was chosen as a topic for the show is important. That show presents a side of issues we rarely see on American TV.

Jon Stewart’s ‘Waaaaa???’ is his way of training Americans to approach all news with the same attitude. When CNN talks about the Democratic debate, they blather on and on about Gore’s endorsement of Dean.

The Daily Show steps back and shows us how far from actual issues that is. It shows how your standard newscast, liberal though it may be, is still nicely herded into covering the wrong issues or covering them in a placid, uninterested, unquestioning way.

So maybe the next some blithe newscaster is showing footage of Iraqis packing a truck with all of their belongings and he/she notes that ‘they’re all smiling’, maybe you’ll think to yourself: ‘waaaa???’.

Some clarifications about what Democrat should mean are necessary here, no?

The ‘Democrats’ mentioned as having a problem with Dean are Lieberman and Kerry, both also pure political machines without a single unpolled opinion. Both also quite conservative Democrats — Republicans running as Democrats (watch the debates, read their platforms, not very left-leaning, are they?)

I lump Dean in with them for the most part because his platform and debating suffers the same flaws — he seems to say what he needs to in order to swing polls.

I’m happy to hear that the Democratic front-runner has voiced a reasoned opinion about the capture of Saddam, though I fear he’s doing it not because he believes it, but because he wants to distance himself from the hoe-down going on in the White House. I mean, he’s right, catching Saddam wasn’t worth the war, but that he’s the anti-war candidate? He’s switched opinions several times in the last year. Kucinich and Sharpton are the anti-war candidates. They may not have a chance in hell, but let’s be clear.

The puerile responses from Lieberman and Kerry shouldn’t even be noted: it shows them for the shallow creatures that they are. They are happy to sweep away all the evil the war has brought (and will bring), not because a dictator has been removed (that’s good, but what is he replaced with…is it better? Are less Iraqis dying? Are more fed? Watered? Provided with electricity? Jobs?) but because they see political advantage.

Dean is right, but he’s doing it because he sees political advantage. If Kucinich says it, its because he really believes it and doesn’t care about the polls. Dean only says it (even if he believes it) when the polls jibe.

“Using Occam’s Razor, the simplest reason for why he appeared to be hiding something is that he had something to hide.”

I don’t buy it. Imagine you’re parked somewhere, haven’t done a thing wrong, just waiting for your spouse to come back out of the Kwik-e-mart and two cops stroll up to you, guns not at the ready, but the little leather snap is undone.

The cop says you’ve got drugs in your car and to ‘fess up. You, of course have done nothing wrong, right? If you then refuse to let him search your person or your vehicle, you’ve got something to hide, right? You’re not just standing by your right not to be searched without just cause? Of course not, the fact that you didn’t jump out of the car and strip means you’re guilty. Occam’s Razor.

Let’s suppose further you notice that one of the cops is the same guy that already beat the living shit out of you once for stealing a candy bar from the Kwik-e-Mart…I’m betting your reluctance to cooperate is a little higher, no? I’m betting you might just tell him to fuck off, just because you can, wouldn’t you?

He’s in deep shit if he beats you down again, when you’ve done nothing wrong.

Or he should be.

By the time the primaries have concluded, the Democratic party will have shaken itself loose from every last progressive or populist idea any of its candidates may have had.

The Democrats will simply come up with a ‘not Bush’. The current front-runner agrees (albeit reluctantly, to maintain the proper image) with Bush on most major issues, including the war in Iraq (sure he disagrees now, but his vote was cast for it … spineless), the Patriot Act (we didn’t know what we were doing …) and the economy (tax cuts rock …).

So, if, by some miracle, the Rove slime machine doesn’t work, and people vote in a Democratic version of Bush, who’s a bit warmer and a bit fuzzier, what’s the gain?

I know, I know, people just to love to have voted for the winner — principles and issues be damned. What exactly is a wasted vote?

“What most parents are trying to get through homeschooling is not a better education but one that more closely fits their own ideology, even to the point of downright denial of facts and the censorship of ideas. For the sake of their ideology they exclude knowledge, which is a harm to the child.”

That’s true, but if you take a look at public education in America today, say in the history or social studies areas, I think that “downright denial of facts … censorship of ideas” applies there as well.

Is it worse to indoctrinate your child with your own world view … or to let your child be indoctrinated with a government-sanctioned worldview intended to create worker drones/consumers that will perpetuate the existing system of power without question?

The world view you pick up in American school is only coincident with reality in the sense that it creates and maintains a reality our society needs in order to continue. (anybody else here take High School economics or history in the 80s? Anybody else discover there’s not a whole lot of overlap with reality?) Without sufficient indoctrination, the whole system would fall on its face, as 99% of the people wake up and find that they, in fact, are getting screwed.

How can a parent screw it up worse that that?

US Historians are so adorable…when they talk about world history. here’s the example cited at the end of the article, by Kiesling:

“It was ugly when the Germans did it, and it didn’t (I admit) prevent civil war in Greece after they left. Fortunately, outside encouragement of Iraqi civil war is more limited than it was in Greece in 1946.”

I really like the part about “outside encouragement” … I’ll give you three guesses which country was doing all of the encouraging … and the first two don’t count.

After the end of WWII, Greece, naturally, was quite anxious to purge itself of fascist, and especially Nazi, influence. They were poised to elect an overwhelmingly socialist government with accompanying social reforms. Unfortunately for them, it would have decreased their viability as a US export market, so … in a now-familiar pattern, we (the US) dumped tens of millions of dollars into their political system in supporting the Nazi-sympathizers the Greeks were so anxious to get out of power. The ‘civil war’ (as it’s called here in the US) was the majority of the people who no longer wanted a fascist government reasserting themselves and finally ousting the government we implanted for them.

The reason it’s not an exact historic parallel is that we are playing the role of the Germans now … and it’s unlikely that anyone is going to come to our rescue in the way the US helped out German-sympathizers in 1946.

Kudos and well put. That’s one of the most shocking things to confront you when you start to discuss ideas of expression with Europeans if you’ve grown up in America. You’ll be all American and say that you have the right to say whatever you please (even though we Americans exercise it less and less), whereas the European will tell you that the local laws disagree. There are things you cannot say. Art Bell would be in jail by now instead of an underground radio legend.

There are many people in Europe who applaud the clampdown on the extreme right because its major proponents are racist shitheads. It doesn’t make their laws right. Bad, insidious ideas should be fought with good (or other) insidious ideas, not with state power.

People are such sheep when it comes to these things–they’ll just piss and moan when it all snaps right back in their face when they’re forced to shut the hell up when the WEF comes to town — because at some point it’s going to be illegal to speak out against the religion of capitalism too.

1) It’s relatively clear what the agenda is when all of the answers default to the worst possible choice — way to bump the numbers for people who would have chosen “don’t know”.

(2) Switzerland’s average is 4.1 hectares. My footprint was 4.9. I answered truthfully and I know that my footprint is smaller than most other people around me. I can only conclude that all other Swiss are disgusting liars.

(3) I hope Americans get their car questions in MPG, otherwise the numbers could get quite interesting if they’re asked about liters/100km.

(4) Nice to see almost 2 hectares for goods and services even though I said I almost never use packaged food. Shelter gets 1 hectare even though I live in an efficient apartment building.

Nice quiz, morons. Earth Day knows about as much about winning people to their cause as PETA.

Replies to your post by the participants:

Rush: “Put me in the same group as Moore? You’re a communist and a liar! And who the fuck is this Chomsky guy? Sounds like another communist.”

Moore: “I’m just like Chomsky!”

Chomsky: (wry grin)

Tell your mom-in-law that Yeltsin was a piker. Bush is the real deal. He is “merely an idiot” in the same way that the ocean is merely wet. Bush is also a recovering alcoholic, has physically destroyed not one, but two, countries, and is putting the finishing touches on his own, all signs indicating that he’ll wrap that up well before the Jan. ‘09 deadline.

Afghanistan* has seen quite a bit of bombing over the last 5.5 years, with its fair share of US cluster bombs adding to the already staggering total of land mines just laying around there. Just because we think their country is essentially worthless doesn’t change the fact that we destroyed it. And the fact that it was already partially blown up has no bearing on our responsibility for finishing the job.

Although I’m sure there are lot of folks out there perfectly willing to forgive the second person to punch them in the face … no harm done, the nose was already broken and the jaw already dislocated. No worries.

*If you like, you can follow a tortuous chain of logic in which the Lebanese lay the Israeli destruction of their infrastructure last summer at America’s feet because of our unwavering military support to the tune of $3Billion+ per year. However, since that’s been the case for the last 50 years, it would be unfair to lay it at Bush’s feet.

“I mean, damn, we found mines from the 1980s there while we were trying to build roads. They don’t come much more pre-broken than Afghanistan.”

You’re right about the land mines (which I mentioned as well) … so, the destruction of Afghanistan also cannot be laid at Bush’s feet, as that too was started before his time (much more a Carter/Reagan thing). A lot of those land mines are ours though … just from last century’s war there.

I agree with you … it’s a damned shame. Afghanistan is like Africa in that it would take such a minor fraction of our war budget to really get them well on their way. Instead we give them more bombs.

Ok. Retracted to the destruction of one (1) country that Bush destroyed on his own. Any other destruction was purely business as usual. Even for Iraq, one could argue that Clinton’s sanctions were so deadly that they’d already started destroying the country, but Bush has increased the scale of destruction so breathtakingly that I’ll happily give him all the credit.

First of all, there is no requirement that one be perfect, or even good, at some task in order to provide constructive criticism of someone else’s performance at the same task. It might make them a hypocrite, but it doesn’t necessarily make them wrong. The US does have problems with its democracy and so, apparently, do the Europeans. I will not attempt to rank them, as that’s not really salient to the argument.

That said, I think the phrase “subvert[ing] democracy” is a bit strong, as the US also purports to have a democracy and it doesn’t let its people vote on constitutional changes either. The US elects representatives and they take care of things until the next election cycle. So, let’s leave the bar for declaring a country or conglameration of countries as democratic as being that the representatives of the people are elected in a fair and democratic way.

The laws of all of the other EU countries allow constitutional changes without a referendum; Ireland does not. It’s arguable that the representatives of the other countries are not being very “representative” when they vote “yes” to a constitution that polls very low among their constituents, but that does not make those countries any less democratic in any official or legal sense.

It’s also arguable that countries, like Ireland or Switzerland, that require ratification of constitutional amendments, are more likely to express the will of the people. Switzerland, in fact, has the kind of relationship with the EU that it seems many of the smaller members of the EU would like to have. It’s interesting to see a push in that direction from some EU member nations.

“but you can’t let somebody come into this country, rape a seven year old kid, and let him go free simply because he chose to move somewhere that he couldn’t communicate with anybody.”

He did, however, move to America, where people are still innocent until proven guilty. Just because the write-up made the case sound cut and dried and beyond question don’t make it necessarily so.

“Maybe he can go to a store and buy things, and maybe order food at McDonald’s, but does he have a job to earn some money? Does he own a car? If so, how did he register it? Does he have health insurance? If so, how did he set it up?”

A tremendous number of people get by in America (and as immigrants in any number of countries) without understanding a lot of the native language. Communicating in hand signals, while OK for the grocery store, is not an acceptable way of convicting someone of child abuse and/or statutory rape. This is just the kind of one in a million case that raises hackles, but is a natural consequence of a fair system in a country of over 300 million people. Americans can be proud that their courts did not bend the rules or devolve to farce.

First of all, there is no requirement that one be perfect, or even good, at some task in order to provide constructive criticism of someone else’s performance at the same task. It might make them a hypocrite, but it doesn’t necessarily make them wrong. The US does have problems with its democracy and so, apparently, do the Europeans. I will not attempt to rank them, as that’s not really salient to the argument.

That said, I think the phrase “subvert[ing] democracy” is a bit strong, as the US also purports to have a democracy and it doesn’t let its people vote on constitutional changes either. The US elects representatives and they take care of things until the next election cycle. So, let’s leave the bar for declaring a country or conglameration of countries as democratic as being that the representatives of the people are elected in a fair and democratic way.

The laws of all of the other EU countries allow constitutional changes without a referendum; Ireland does not. It’s arguable that the representatives of the other countries are not being very “representative” when they vote “yes” to a constitution that polls very low among their constituents, but that does not make those countries any less democratic in any official or legal sense.

It’s also arguable that countries, like Ireland or Switzerland, that require ratification of constitutional amendments, are more likely to express the will of the people. Switzerland, in fact, has the kind of relationship with the EU that it seems many of the smaller members of the EU would like to have. It’s interesting to see a push in that direction from some EU member nations.

“I expect the media will be hostile to Palin from the get go and an early gaffe will destroy her.”

A media that has happily echoed McCain’s justifiable criticisms of Obama’s lack of experience would be quite hypocritical not to notice the same of McCain’s choice of VP.

That said, I don’t expect the media to be uniformly critical; as mentioned in a post upstream (and cited on the Daily Show as coming from “Fox & Friends”), she’s been touted as having scads of foreign-policy experience for being governor of a state bordering the Siberian wastelands of Russia. I expect more of the same “glass is half-full” interpretation from the mainstream media.

I haven’t read the book and I’m not sure Taibbi has either, but his post about Sarah Palin, WWE Star is pretty insightful. Quoting from the post:

“Sarah Palin’s battlefield, on the other hand, is whatever is happening five feet in front of her face. She is building a political career around the little interpersonal wars in the immediate airspace surrounding her sawdust-filled head. And in the process she connects with pissed-off, frightened, put-upon America on a plane that’s far more elemental than the mega-ditto schtick. […] Sarah Palin is on an endless crusade against assholes. It’s all she thinks about. She doesn’t really have any political ideas, in the classic sense of the word.”