So I'm the only one that'll probably ever read this but whatever.
"Terror is a product yah push
"Terror is a product yah push
I'm a truth addict oh $hit I gotta head rush
sheep tremble here come the votes
thrown from the throat new cages and scapegoats"
-Rage Against the Machine "VietNow"
-George Bush Jr. Has control of one of the two largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons, but cannot pronounce the word NUCLEAR. (new-klee-err) not (New-cue-ler). We all know someone must have mentioned this to him by now. So what did he do? Ignore them? Is he just to stupid? Or is it because the average apathetic ignorant will say they don't know how to pronounce it either so its a PR move to appear affable? Its probably just the arrogance that all bad things he has done slide out of the public consciousness as soon as he exploits 9/11 for political gain, its been working well, but the public is starting to catch on(just in time for the election EXACTLY like his oil baron father)
-According to the NODCP in Samuel Walker's book: "Sense and Nonsense about crime and drugs" 74% of those incarcerated for drug crimes in the United States are African-American, while this minority is 12% of the population and 13% of drug users. The drug war is a system of institutionalized slavery that has been used to oppress African-Americans since they were given political equality in the 1964 civil rights act. Since 1964 the prison population has quadrupled, the Prison Industrial Complex is growing at an incredible rate and privatization means that even businesses want a chance to lock people in cages for extended periods of time(because prisons will never close with the drug war being endless and all, privatized prison companies make a great stock investment).
Its very easy to stop racial profiling: Step 1:record the race of all traffic stops, searches, and arrests; Step 2: make records public; Step 3: public takes care of rest.
Its very easy to stop the incarceration of perpetrators of victimless crime: step 1: legalize all narcotics, step 2: legalize prostitution, step 3: legalize euthanasia
-Part of the coalition of individuals who vote republican are people that call themselves free marketers, these individuals are strong believers in Adam Smith's theories of an invisible hand that balances the market. These individuals voted to elect George Bush Jr. Who subsequently created a protectionist policy for steel, in a blatant attempt to win this swing state(Pennsylvania) when re-election comes. Also a huge amount of taxpayer dollars are being given as corporate welfare to the oligopoly known as the airline industry, this will sure help the free market's balance.
*If you support a free market George Bush Jr. Is not for you*
-Also part of this coalition are people who fear and hate bureaucracy and a large federal government, these individuals also voted for Governor George Bush Jr., who subsequently presided over the largest expansion of the federal government in history.
*If you are against expanding the federal government George Bush Jr. is not for you*
-The republican party strategists and the Bush Jr. Administration have decided to hold their convention later than any convention in history(September) and a few blocks from ground zero. They are NOT in any way trying to use the nation's worst tragedy in years to bolster their public support.
*If you think exploiting 9/11 for political gain is immoral the Republican Party is not for you*
-Homeland security asked for special powers to separate political conventions from the public, because of am ambiguous terrorist threat(I believe its called "chatter"). This is no way motivated by the massive amounts of people mobilized to protest at the Republican National convention(otherwise known as the 2004 battle of NYC), and the very few that will protest at the DNC.
*If you think dissent and freedom of speech should only be allowed when they praise the status quo the Republican party is for you*
-Along with these emergency powers there needs to be the ability to postpone elections. So if terrorists disrupt the democratic process, Homeland Security should have the power to do the same. Ashcroft admits there is "no specific intel"(real quote) about any plans to disrupt elections or the conventions, but of course there is what everyone has feared for hundreds of years: chatter.
*If you think the government needs to take powers from congress, the courts, and the people and centralize this power within the executive branch of the government, then the Republican party is for you*
-The US should give Iraqis full custody of Saddam so they can try their own tyrant, the only problem is they'll probably kill him, but it is their choice. I don't support capital punishment no matter how atrocious the crimes, which is why I oppose the death penalty when George Bush Jr. and Rumsfeld are tried for war crimes(for specifically violating the geneva conventions through well documented torture of prisoners). I instead support life without parole, hopefully he will then read a history book and learn about Vietnam, France's war in Algeria, USSR in Afghanistan, the American revolutionary war, etc... and learn not to send people in to an imperalist bloodbath that is unwinnable, because of the guerilla tactics used and the lack of public support in the occupied country.
*If you like torture of Innocents and history doomed to repeat itself then the Bush Jr. Administration is for you*
-Do you think when Rumsfeld went to Iraq to congratulate Saddam on his chemical weapons use in Halabjah, that he would be invading him 20 years later and trying him for the crime the US supported before and after?
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm
-Reagan was so optimistic: He really believed Iran-Contra wouldn't be his legacy, but with so many of your administration indicted its hard to look clean. Remember a few ultimate ironies of Reagan's presidency:
1.Reagan could "not recall" many key facts when testifying about Iran-Contra and later developed alzheimers.
2. Reagan was a religious fundamentalist quoting scripture and a republican, but he supported stem-cell research.....After he got alzheimers.
3. Nancy Reagan started the campaign: "Just say no":During the Iran-Contra affair the administration hired thugs to fly the arms to the death squads of Nicaragua, once there they thought "why in the hell would I fly back with an empty cargo plane?", So they filled their planes with Cocaine and brought it back to the United States. It found its way to California, just in time for the 1986 crack epidemic that brought us the new weapon to oppress minorities: Mandatory Minimum Sentencing laws(like locking them up longer will stop the profitability of the drug trade).
-The same criminals that worked for Nixon are still in power, The people that used terror to gain political capital with McCarthyism are trying the same method, using terror to gain political capital with threats of imminent terror. The parties don't matter when it comes down to protecting our liberties and the continued survival of humanity. Unilateral blatantly imperialist actions only anger the entire international community. The unabashedly Orwellian administration is so surreal sometimes its incredible: cutting veterans benefits on memorial day, Dick swearing at a senator on the same day a bill that raises the fine for swearing is passed on broadcasts, justifying intervention by pointing out a UN charter was violated when in fact intervention violates a UN charter, or arguing that religious fundamentalists like Bin Laden are a danger, but Ashcroft and Falwell are infallible.
The era did not start with September 11th, it started the day the US decided to give the terrorists exactly what they want: a response that went fully overboard. ok lets see when does civil and violent disobedience work: civil disobedience in the 60s sometimes took the form of sit-ins at lunch counters. In this form of protest of Plessy v. Ferguson(JimCrow) black and white civil rights activists would sit at a lunch counter together. The local teens and young white men then proceeded to dump food and abuse these individuals(Imagine a young Strom Thurmond and a young Trent Lott and you get the idea) We all know Trent believes African-Americans are less then human and therefore animals, but then this abuse is captured on camera and the picture begs the question:"Who is the real animal?"
Ok now when does violent protest work? Lets take Arafat the only man to address the UN with a gun in his belt. This individual may not openly admit it now, but he was an accomplice in acts of asymmetrical warfare against Israel. Of course any country has the right to defend itself from a blatant clear and imminent danger. In this example though the PLO used suicide bombing tactics(which enact violence on the individual thus the suicide part of the phrase, but also projects a great deal of violence and death outward indiscriminately, and thus the bombing facet of the phrase). After a campaign of suicide bombing Israel's reaction seemed overwhelming and international opinion placed Arafat at the head of a legitimate organization and he started to shun violence as a means to a Palestinian state. The violence gained him legitimacy only as long as the reaction was so atrocious it made the initial attack look like someone sneezed on the country then the act of terrorism was a success. Also this helped restrain future attacks, because of Arafat's legitimacy he was able to try his best to rein in some of the organizations previously violent to use non-violent means.
sheep tremble here come the votes
thrown from the throat new cages and scapegoats"
-Rage Against the Machine "VietNow"
-George Bush Jr. Has control of one of the two largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons, but cannot pronounce the word NUCLEAR. (new-klee-err) not (New-cue-ler). We all know someone must have mentioned this to him by now. So what did he do? Ignore them? Is he just to stupid? Or is it because the average apathetic ignorant will say they don't know how to pronounce it either so its a PR move to appear affable? Its probably just the arrogance that all bad things he has done slide out of the public consciousness as soon as he exploits 9/11 for political gain, its been working well, but the public is starting to catch on(just in time for the election EXACTLY like his oil baron father)
-According to the NODCP in Samuel Walker's book: "Sense and Nonsense about crime and drugs" 74% of those incarcerated for drug crimes in the United States are African-American, while this minority is 12% of the population and 13% of drug users. The drug war is a system of institutionalized slavery that has been used to oppress African-Americans since they were given political equality in the 1964 civil rights act. Since 1964 the prison population has quadrupled, the Prison Industrial Complex is growing at an incredible rate and privatization means that even businesses want a chance to lock people in cages for extended periods of time(because prisons will never close with the drug war being endless and all, privatized prison companies make a great stock investment).
Its very easy to stop racial profiling: Step 1:record the race of all traffic stops, searches, and arrests; Step 2: make records public; Step 3: public takes care of rest.
Its very easy to stop the incarceration of perpetrators of victimless crime: step 1: legalize all narcotics, step 2: legalize prostitution, step 3: legalize euthanasia
-Part of the coalition of individuals who vote republican are people that call themselves free marketers, these individuals are strong believers in Adam Smith's theories of an invisible hand that balances the market. These individuals voted to elect George Bush Jr. Who subsequently created a protectionist policy for steel, in a blatant attempt to win this swing state(Pennsylvania) when re-election comes. Also a huge amount of taxpayer dollars are being given as corporate welfare to the oligopoly known as the airline industry, this will sure help the free market's balance.
*If you support a free market George Bush Jr. Is not for you*
-Also part of this coalition are people who fear and hate bureaucracy and a large federal government, these individuals also voted for Governor George Bush Jr., who subsequently presided over the largest expansion of the federal government in history.
*If you are against expanding the federal government George Bush Jr. is not for you*
-The republican party strategists and the Bush Jr. Administration have decided to hold their convention later than any convention in history(September) and a few blocks from ground zero. They are NOT in any way trying to use the nation's worst tragedy in years to bolster their public support.
*If you think exploiting 9/11 for political gain is immoral the Republican Party is not for you*
-Homeland security asked for special powers to separate political conventions from the public, because of am ambiguous terrorist threat(I believe its called "chatter"). This is no way motivated by the massive amounts of people mobilized to protest at the Republican National convention(otherwise known as the 2004 battle of NYC), and the very few that will protest at the DNC.
*If you think dissent and freedom of speech should only be allowed when they praise the status quo the Republican party is for you*
-Along with these emergency powers there needs to be the ability to postpone elections. So if terrorists disrupt the democratic process, Homeland Security should have the power to do the same. Ashcroft admits there is "no specific intel"(real quote) about any plans to disrupt elections or the conventions, but of course there is what everyone has feared for hundreds of years: chatter.
*If you think the government needs to take powers from congress, the courts, and the people and centralize this power within the executive branch of the government, then the Republican party is for you*
-The US should give Iraqis full custody of Saddam so they can try their own tyrant, the only problem is they'll probably kill him, but it is their choice. I don't support capital punishment no matter how atrocious the crimes, which is why I oppose the death penalty when George Bush Jr. and Rumsfeld are tried for war crimes(for specifically violating the geneva conventions through well documented torture of prisoners). I instead support life without parole, hopefully he will then read a history book and learn about Vietnam, France's war in Algeria, USSR in Afghanistan, the American revolutionary war, etc... and learn not to send people in to an imperalist bloodbath that is unwinnable, because of the guerilla tactics used and the lack of public support in the occupied country.
*If you like torture of Innocents and history doomed to repeat itself then the Bush Jr. Administration is for you*
-Do you think when Rumsfeld went to Iraq to congratulate Saddam on his chemical weapons use in Halabjah, that he would be invading him 20 years later and trying him for the crime the US supported before and after?
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm
-Reagan was so optimistic: He really believed Iran-Contra wouldn't be his legacy, but with so many of your administration indicted its hard to look clean. Remember a few ultimate ironies of Reagan's presidency:
1.Reagan could "not recall" many key facts when testifying about Iran-Contra and later developed alzheimers.
2. Reagan was a religious fundamentalist quoting scripture and a republican, but he supported stem-cell research.....After he got alzheimers.
3. Nancy Reagan started the campaign: "Just say no":During the Iran-Contra affair the administration hired thugs to fly the arms to the death squads of Nicaragua, once there they thought "why in the hell would I fly back with an empty cargo plane?", So they filled their planes with Cocaine and brought it back to the United States. It found its way to California, just in time for the 1986 crack epidemic that brought us the new weapon to oppress minorities: Mandatory Minimum Sentencing laws(like locking them up longer will stop the profitability of the drug trade).
-The same criminals that worked for Nixon are still in power, The people that used terror to gain political capital with McCarthyism are trying the same method, using terror to gain political capital with threats of imminent terror. The parties don't matter when it comes down to protecting our liberties and the continued survival of humanity. Unilateral blatantly imperialist actions only anger the entire international community. The unabashedly Orwellian administration is so surreal sometimes its incredible: cutting veterans benefits on memorial day, Dick swearing at a senator on the same day a bill that raises the fine for swearing is passed on broadcasts, justifying intervention by pointing out a UN charter was violated when in fact intervention violates a UN charter, or arguing that religious fundamentalists like Bin Laden are a danger, but Ashcroft and Falwell are infallible.
The era did not start with September 11th, it started the day the US decided to give the terrorists exactly what they want: a response that went fully overboard. ok lets see when does civil and violent disobedience work: civil disobedience in the 60s sometimes took the form of sit-ins at lunch counters. In this form of protest of Plessy v. Ferguson(JimCrow) black and white civil rights activists would sit at a lunch counter together. The local teens and young white men then proceeded to dump food and abuse these individuals(Imagine a young Strom Thurmond and a young Trent Lott and you get the idea) We all know Trent believes African-Americans are less then human and therefore animals, but then this abuse is captured on camera and the picture begs the question:"Who is the real animal?"
Ok now when does violent protest work? Lets take Arafat the only man to address the UN with a gun in his belt. This individual may not openly admit it now, but he was an accomplice in acts of asymmetrical warfare against Israel. Of course any country has the right to defend itself from a blatant clear and imminent danger. In this example though the PLO used suicide bombing tactics(which enact violence on the individual thus the suicide part of the phrase, but also projects a great deal of violence and death outward indiscriminately, and thus the bombing facet of the phrase). After a campaign of suicide bombing Israel's reaction seemed overwhelming and international opinion placed Arafat at the head of a legitimate organization and he started to shun violence as a means to a Palestinian state. The violence gained him legitimacy only as long as the reaction was so atrocious it made the initial attack look like someone sneezed on the country then the act of terrorism was a success. Also this helped restrain future attacks, because of Arafat's legitimacy he was able to try his best to rein in some of the organizations previously violent to use non-violent means.
How about another example: the FARC; certain members of the FARC had been engaged in Guerilla warfare(Different from Terrorism, because to stage Guerilla warfare one must have property, military barracks, and a formal command structure, it is similar to terrorism in the fact that it is asymmetrical warfare [Another obvious delineation is the extent to which an organization will indiscriminately kill, since Guerilla warfare is essentially hit and run tactics on infrastructure, military and government; blowing up a whole bunch of random people on the street is not Guerilla warfare]). Some members denounced violence and started a party called the UP or Patriotic Union party. Their violent acts had made the public aware of their agenda and they used this to attempt to reform the government through peaceful means. (Many UP members were assassinated, hunted down by para-militaries that the government does not try THAT hard to keep under control, under the adage "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Often these clandestine paramilitaries are the ones who can do the military's "dirty work". Although this example failed in the end, the violence did work to establish enough public opinion to get UP party members elected in the first place.
Sometimes violent action works though, it grants legitimacy to an opinion, by making people aware of it. It also reminds people that if they are marginalized and not given the right of self-determination through elections or even after this their opinions are not represented in the least, these individuals will take up arms to have their voices heard.
So what would be the ideal conditions for Osama Bin Laden in respect to 9/11, what would really help him achieve his agenda.
-Well for starters the leader of the country you attack can have direct business connections to your family which hurts said leaders credibility(just a bit) and makes sure conspiracy theories abound and will multiply over the years.
-A hardline presidency is needed to ensure a mandate from the reactionary constintuents, this condition was granted by the supreme court of the US in Bush v. Gore.
-The public media goes in to hibernation allowing a centralization of power in the executive branch and destroying the advantage democracy has when it comes to war: people who have to die for a war want to make sure it is well worth it, but congress granted sweeping power to the executive branch.
-Also it would help if the leader of the country attacked is a religious fundamentalist himself and has no problem justifying his war by peppering his speeches with references to his Christian God.
-The most important thing that helped Osama was the invasion of a country that was not involved with the endeavor of 9/11. This spreads terror throughout the world(people are deathly afraid of the United States) and anti-American sentiment
The only thing that can hurt Osama is if a rational leader who lets public interest and international relations be his guide rather than Jingoists and Religious fundamentalists, which are Bush Jr.s guides.
Sometimes violent action works though, it grants legitimacy to an opinion, by making people aware of it. It also reminds people that if they are marginalized and not given the right of self-determination through elections or even after this their opinions are not represented in the least, these individuals will take up arms to have their voices heard.
So what would be the ideal conditions for Osama Bin Laden in respect to 9/11, what would really help him achieve his agenda.
-Well for starters the leader of the country you attack can have direct business connections to your family which hurts said leaders credibility(just a bit) and makes sure conspiracy theories abound and will multiply over the years.
-A hardline presidency is needed to ensure a mandate from the reactionary constintuents, this condition was granted by the supreme court of the US in Bush v. Gore.
-The public media goes in to hibernation allowing a centralization of power in the executive branch and destroying the advantage democracy has when it comes to war: people who have to die for a war want to make sure it is well worth it, but congress granted sweeping power to the executive branch.
-Also it would help if the leader of the country attacked is a religious fundamentalist himself and has no problem justifying his war by peppering his speeches with references to his Christian God.
-The most important thing that helped Osama was the invasion of a country that was not involved with the endeavor of 9/11. This spreads terror throughout the world(people are deathly afraid of the United States) and anti-American sentiment
The only thing that can hurt Osama is if a rational leader who lets public interest and international relations be his guide rather than Jingoists and Religious fundamentalists, which are Bush Jr.s guides.
Governor George Bush Jr. may have singlehandedly brought more recruits to Al-qaida then Bin laden's ideology ever could have.
I'm not sure I know why i'm starting a blog.
I just want to have something I can point to when my grandkids ask "What did you do during the Religious Zealots Era, when governments spent massive percentages of the budget on missiles to kill other human beings across the world who had different religious beliefs? "
and I can answer "Some people thought it was alright to kill for their religion or political beliefs. Some people even hid behind symbols such as the Crucifix or the Flag, but your grandfather saw right through the disguise and saw it for what it was: naked self-interest for oil and continuted world domination, perpetuated by the elites using the lower class as the cannon fodder. Most importantly it was violence not enacted in self-defense which is no better than the third reich's blitzkrieg."
More importantly I have blood all over my hands, I look around on trains and in elevators and this is what I see coating peoples hands: the blood of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis. As a democracy we all share responsibility for the path our country takes. It is hard for me psychologically to know that my government is systematically torturing citizens of another country, because of their religion. I need to feel like i'm doing something to not be complicit in the atrocities of overt imperalism and I will never perpetuate a violent action for political purposes on any human being, so maybe if I just complain a whole lot to the black hole of this blog I'll feel better(no altruism involved).
I also remember the Democrats are not our freinds, but if Gore had been elected this Iraq occupation would have never even been thought about. No one in government would have pushed for it and no one in the public would have pushed for it. So we need to take feasibility of morality in to account or should I say the Teleological calculus of our actions. By voting for Nader you can vote your mind, but those means lead to an end of ongoing jingoism. So the lesser of two evils is all we can deal with at this point. It may help change the two-party system even by slowly bringing Nader more and more votes, but throughout these many hardline presidencies the people will be suffering and not just mentally, they will go lose limbs(and life) for imperalism in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. So you cannot deny that the lesser of two evils is better than Governor George Bush Jr. who still holds the record for most executed under any governor in history even though he didn't even finish his second term, never granting a stay of execution even to mentally ill and mentally disabled individuals.
Some fox news anchor was espousing the value of war today how it creates great men and offers the opportunity for glory. Does my generation believe that war is a moral end in and of itself?
The thought is chilling, well anyway better enlist to become an officer before the draft is put back in to place in 2005 compliments of George Bush jr.
"Know your enemy"
-Rage
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible only make violent revolution inevitable."
-JFK
-Jimothy J. Jones the Second
any factual inaccuracies let me know)
No comments:
Post a Comment