Black Dog

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. Bush looked terrible during his PressOp. That, in and of itself, is not news. But his inability to roll with the punches was apparent as soon as the Q and A started. He got defensive, he got flustered and, at points, looked angry. He also kept hitting the same five or so key messages, regardless of what teh questions were. Worst of all, he appeared arrogant and dismissive. If last night was a test, Bush came might close to failing (but what do you expect from a lifelong C student?).

Germany had a pre existing democratic tradition going back to post World War 1 days. Hitler, you'll recall, was elected. You shoulda said Japan. the BJ comement was old news, and I retracted it. i didn't accuse you of being Stalinist, but implied you harbour Stalinist views vis a vis "the ends justify the means." The Mr. T-ism "jibber jabber" is hardly grounds for hurt feelings, and never mind the bollocks. I think the weakness of your arguments is illustrated by the speed with which you play the victim card, but whatever... Well, I, millions of others the world over and, more importantly, thousands of Iraqis, respectfully disagree. And that, I suppose, is the end of that conversation. No point going around this particular mulberry bush again, really.

Goebbels, though part of a monstrous regime, had some pretty bang-on assessments of human behavior and the power of media manipulation. Much of what he talked about informs the basics of modern public relations and communications. I'm in P.R. I don't just think the masses are easily manipulated. I know they are. What matters to most people most are the basics. They want a job, food, a place to live, a cold beer and something to entertain themselves with. Frankly, most people don't give a crap about politics or world affairs (do you agree?). The question is, to what degree is this disinterest promoted and fostered by the media and to whose benefit? How important is a well-informed, educated and critical populace to a healthy democracy and, in today's consumerist, pop-oriented media culture, do we have such a populace? I don't like a lot of the choices North Americans make. That includes Toby Keith and SUV's, but I'm not about to deny their right to make the choices (though I would consider changing that stance when it comes to Toby Keith... ) . However, I think it's very important to question the choices we make and their meanings and what the short and long-term effects are on ourselves and the world. What's wrong with encouraging people to think for themselves?

Stalin-esque, then. I see U.S. ideals of political, economic, social and religious freedom are really taking of fin Uzbeckistan, China (who's appalling human rights record is ignored in exchange for "favored nation" trading status). What is the invisible hand? How does it provide these "ethical results" you speak of? Can you cite some examples of where application of U.S. power has corresponded with the fostering of democratic values? Kuwait, maybe? You just can't resist playing the victim, can you? Where are these insults and foul language you speak of? If you have a case, let Greg know and let him act. Or you can just keep hurling your baseless accusations to keep your alleged fan club (none of whom, interestingly enough, bother to back you up on the board itself) amused.

Unfortunately, the reality is not so simple. Sports, entertainment, industry and politics all speak the same language...money. These segments cross-pollinate and interact (F'r instance, take GE, which owns NBC, makes household items and nuclear bombs. Or take AOL Time Warner, which owns Time magazine, CNN, the Atlanta Braves and more. Now take a look at recent events surrounding the FCC's bid to loosen ownership regulations). It's a tangled web. Oh really? And they are given what sort of alternative to the relentless consumerist sellathon of modern media? Making informed choices requires critical thinking and actual alternatives, both of which western society seems to be running low on.

Oh bollocks. Methods matter greatly. Despite your Stalisnst obessession with teh ends justifying the means, how one accomplishes its goals is equally as important. If one assumes that the end goal of the U.S. is to reduce terrorism and spread democracy, its methods are proving to be counterproductive to this goal. But that first requires an enormous amount of faith in the motives of one's leadership, faith which I do not share based on past and continuing hypocrisys. As for the rest, it's all tautological jibber-jabber.

Nope. Just pointing out hypocrisy. What I'm saying is is that the U.S. has about as much interest in the well-being of the Iraqi people as I do in aquiring the complete works of Celine Dion. Which is to say none. This war is about power, about maintaining the U.S.'s standing as the most powerful nation on earth. The talk of security, human rights, freedom and democracy are window dressing. Good questions. Quite simply, I don't believe the U.S. has the moral authority too anoit itself the world's policeman. A reformed and strengthened multinational body would be a better option.

Pretext: 1.An ostensible or professed purpose; an excuse. 2. An effort or strategy intended to conceal something. "Ooops, the WMD pretext is inoperable. What now?" "Just trot out the 'human rights' one." "Yeah, but didn't we actually support Saddam during the period where he was conducting his worst atrocities?" "Well, yeah, but that was when he was acting as a bulwark against radical Islam in Iran, see. So we could overlook his worst crimes. However, it no longer became practical to do so." "Because he was a threat, right?" "Well, no. Actually Saddam was at his weakest when we invaded." "So it was because of human rights, then, like we said?" "Well not really. See, it's been policy for a long time to cozy up with the worst criminals and thugs in the world, provided thay suit our national interest (which just so happens to be the interests of Halliburton, Exxon and the rest of our beloved campaign contributers. Heck, we do it today in places like Uzbeckistan, where our current best bud likes boiling his political opponents alive." "But wait, isn't that -supporting inhumane regimes and interfering in the domestic affairs of foreign countries- the kind of thing that got us into this mess in the first place?" "Well, yeah. But that won't happen again, honest. Besides, ignoring international law, squandering the good will of the world community, fanning the flames of anti-Americanism throughout the Arab world, misleading our own citizens as we send their children off to die is a small price to pay for a peaceful, democratic Iraq."

Chomsky's hardly breaking new ground on that one. Hell, Roman poet Juvenal was talking about "bread and circuses" two millenia ago. Hardly the stuff of conspiracy. The difference between then and now is that the circuses are bigger and flashier and the bread harder to come by. I don't think any one can deny the role of popular culture in pacifying and stupifying the populace. I mean, how many people watch "American Idol" on a given week compared to, say, vote?

It's 2004: who's president now? Who's his opponent?

Uh...is that really necessary? Seriously, you can make your point without resorting tio use of racial slurs, even if it is suppossed to be "ironic". :angry:

Try to live or raise a family on a Micky D's wage So rather than park the gas guzzling SUV, pursue sustainable development and sound public investment in new technologies (which would also create countless jobs), we just need to continue the slash'n'burn policies that have served us in the past. F**k the future, eh? As for the final remark, it seems like Shell, Exxon, halliburton and all the other F.O.B.'s (Friends of Bush) do okay whether they are dealing with Arab regimes or their friends in the White House. (Why do I even bother?)

Boo frigging Hoo. How many Americans have any say or any stake in the stock market? Less than 25 per cent? And of those, how many are dabblers and how many make fortunes on the market? And of the latter category, what's their bottom-line look like? Basically, these people can afford to pay their way. So your solution to corporations ducking out on paying their share of taxes is to eliminate the traxes? WTF? Yeah, this article (which appears on the web site of a new service co-owned by socialist icons Microsoft and NBC) is full of silly nonsense like: Why, that's commie talk!

This is an abstraction, a nebulous critique of "socialist" governments, tinted with a broad and unsupported generalization. As for the cupboard being bare, that's not the case. It's not a question of resources but one of priorities. Over the past two decades, debt and deficit reduction, low inflation and reduced spending have been the key priorities of most western governments. This is often accompanied by privatization and the selling off of public assets, reduced services and, paradoxially, tax cuts. This budget year, the feds earmarked $4 billion to reduce the debt, with the ultimate goal being a 25 per cent debt-to-GDP ratio. Yet the question of why debt reduction is the key priority is seldom asked. Indeed, like the notion of tax cuts, it's become gospel. Of course standard of living is more than just money in the bank, but includes quality and accesability of services like health care, education etc. As for high union wages being responsible for unemployment, I think that's a mighty simplistic view. For one thing, globalization has contributed greatly to the problem as well-paying jobs are being outsorced internationally for far cheaper. Then there's downsizing, which has seen even profitable companies chop jobs in order to maximize profits. In short, it's far more complicated than the "unions are bad" scenario being peddled The difference is who's paying the freight. Back in the day, wealthy people carried a larger share of the tax burden. I don't have the Canadian figures handy, but in 1955, the U.S's top marginal income tax rate was 91 per cent. Today, it's about 36 per cent. Nowadays, it's the poor and middle class who are picking up the slack income tax wise, while also paying additional hidden taxes and user fees. Wealthy individuals and corporations also have a dizzing variety of tax loopholes, dodges and shelters that the average individual can't touch. The solution, then, is in progressive taxation, debt management (BTW, the debt isn't actually growing; economic growth would naturally reduce the debt so an aggressive debt-reopayment strategy is uneccesary) and public investment in infrastructure and other programs to create jobs and boost the economy.

Actually it was the shutdown of ther paper that prompted this latest round of violence. Anyway, exactly what is it that the U.S. is "too afraid" to do "to win"? There's no doubt a broad number of interests at stake, but given Iraq's strong anti-colonial history, I think the characterization of the Iraqi resistance as freedom-hatin' terrorists is, at best, disingenuous. The Brits in Malaysia had a huge material advantage and were facing a tiny opponent that didn't even have the benefit of a sympatheicc local population. It still took them 12 years to put the rebellion down. Dopn't forget: Iraq is a desert and Vietnam mostly covered in jungle. The parralells with Vietnam mostly revolve around the political circumstances and not the realities of life on the ground. The circumsatances are that the U.S. is paralyzed: withdraw now and risk thE whole country degenerating further into civil war and whatever meager gains made will be lost. Stay, and continue to lose troops and public goodwill at home. Lemme guess: the liberal media in action, right? Reuters. AP FOX Al Jazeera BBC "We had to destroy the village to save it."

You don't even know what the term means, do you?

Thanks for proving my point that Coulte ris an opportunistic hack who uses controversy and sensationalism to peddle her swill. Thing about Moore is, no one on the left takes him seriously (he's seen as an agent proveceteur who plays on emotion more than facts to get his point across), whereas Coulter is regarded as a "wit". Oh so the 10,000+ dead Iraqi civilians should be thankful thay were killed by Americans instead of Saddam? Though it is refreshing to see a bit of honsety: "No one likes a foreign occupier". That's the essence right there: despite whatever high-minded rhetoric about "freedom" and "democracy" emenating from you and other war cheerleaders, the Iraqi people (y'know, the people who's country is being occupied by a foreign power) see the U.S. as just another western colonial power. They hated Saddam, but they don't care much for their liberators. For starters a massive privatization of Iraqi industry to benefit American firms (it's already happening) and a permenant military base from which to assert U.S. military power in the region and maintain a secure supply of oil. Totally out of context. Japan was weakened, on the verge of surrender after 5 long years of brutal warfare. Yeah that's right: 9-11 happened totally out of nowhere, with no context or rationalizations on the part of the perpetrators. they just..uh..hate freedom...or something. Yeah, Palestinians are dying at a ratio of three to every one Israli casualty. Israel is dividing palestinian lands with a wall, demolishing homes and instituting other forms of collective punishment, denying basic human rights to nearly 1.5 million people...and they're showing restraint?! Not bombing, invading and occupying a country that had nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks, thus formenting more anti-American sentiment and breeding yet more terrorists would have been a good start. Dunno why you think I'm a Clinton or Democrat partisan. They're all the same to me. That said, they caught the guys responsible for the '93 WTC bombings. As for the rest, Al Q has lauinched 35 successful attacks since 9-11, including devestating one's in Bali and, possibly, Spain. Yeah the U.S. hasn't been hit yet, but i wouldn't give Bush credit for that. Like the Republicans keep saying : it's only a matter of time. (in the interest of full disclosure, I wouldn't brake if I saw him crossing the street either, so there you go.)

Oh come on. You may buy the clash of civilizations, "us or them" crap, but I don't. It's all very complicated; indeed, too complicated to be broken down in such simplistic terms in a medium like this. See, how can one undertake a meaningful discussion when talk degrades into discussion of what "these guys" want. Who are they? What are their motives? What is the greater context. Once it turns into a matter of "us or them", that's when rational discourse is reduced to Bushesque sloganeering.

I have to question the sense of humour of anyone who'd use the deaths of 168 people as a punchline. Imagine the hue and cry if someone like Michael Moore said that Osama bin Laden should have targette dplanes at Fox News. As for the Times, reporter Judith Miller was a key figure in supporting administration claims of Iraq's WMD capability in the run up to war. Senior columnist Thomas Friedman is one of the biggest boosters of the war on terror. So there may be a bias, but it's not the one you and Coulter see. The U.S. has 8,500 troops in Afghanistan right now, the bulk of the international force there. That's not exactly a figure that inspires much confidence. Remember, Afghanistan has a longhistory of turfing occupiers. As one Soviet general said, it's easy getting in, the hard part is getting out. Furthermore, perhaps I'd be a little less skeptical of your claims if the ADD president had stayed focused on the task of capturing bin Laden, smashing Al Q'aeda and rebuilding Afghanistan instead of rushing off with guns blazing into Iraq. Putting aside your initial straw man, and assuming for the sake of argument that the Bush administration's intentions are, in fact, to democratize the Mid East, Iraq presents several problems. First, there is no historical or cultural basis for democracy in the region, making the establishment of a fully functioning democratic state unlikely. Secondly, and most importantly, it's becoming abundantley clear that, as much as the Iraqi people loathed Saddam, they have little love for foreign occupiers and their quislings. But really, all that's beside the point. As the WMD fiasco showed (and yes, it matters), this administration is not above playing fasty and loose with the truth to suit its own ends. Why, then, should we expect them to be completely forthcoming with regard to its true intentions for the future of Iraq? It's called credibility and in the eyes of many Iraqis and many around the globe, it's something Bush and company are severely lacking. Of course this flie sin the face of conventional wisdom, not to mention your notion of good intentions. As the growth of the Iraqi insurgency illustrates, the more of "them" you kill, the more you piss "them" off and the more they'll come at you. Violence begats violence. Actually, this has never worked. See: Israel vis a vis Palestine. Nor is it the kind of policy that guarantees a peaceful world. No sane person would advocate such a policy. Only people like Ann "Kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" Coulter. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass about Clinton. He's not president and he's not strutting around in a flight suit claiming he's made the world safe from terror. But, just to shut you up, here's a selection of Clinton's anti-terrorism measures. Click. The point isn't what Clinton did or did not do. The point is that Bush has botched the job since 9-11.

It's getting downright ugly. U.S. airstrike hits mosque Heavy fighting continues Here's the most disturbing part: the U.S. is now facing both Shia and Sunni uprisings. The last time this kind of thing hit the fan was 1920, when the Brits were faced with a widespread revolt. Thery used heavy bombardment and poison gas to suppress it.

Oh, pish posh. Can you give a concrete example of a time Chomsky has done that? Comparing Canada with Lebanon or any other third world country is specious logic. Each country's situation must be evaluated in the broad historical context.Chomasky knows this and, indeed, I've never found his work to be anything but exacting in its detail. So your caricature of Chomsky as a wild-eyed soapboxer blaming all the ills and evils of the world on the U.S. is just wrong.

Actually, I think it's a healthy hatred. I hate Coulter because she embodies th edecline of intelligent discourse with her hysterical accusations of treason, her reliance on personal attacks and all around unplesantness. Hell, this was a person who was quoted as saying her only problem with Tim McVeigh was that he didn't target the New York Times. As for her article, I'll bite: Well, in this paragraph alone she completely overstates Bush's "accomplishments". 1) Afghanistan. Here, the Taliban and regional warlords control most of the country outrside Kabul. Banditry and rape are th eorder of the day. Heroin production is skrocketing and Al Q'aeda is still active in the border regions. Some success. 2) Yes, the U.S. deposed Saddam. In his place, however, they've sowed the seeds of civil war as both Shia and Sunni factions are turning against the occupation. An dthere's still no trace of them WMD. 3) Finally the threat of terrorism has grown, not diminished under Bush. U.S. actions in the Mid East, including the Iraq invasion and continued support of Israel have spurred a huige growth in anti-American sentiment. In fact, there have been more Al Qaeda attacks since 9-11 than any time prior. So Annie can bitch about the Democrats till the cows some home. fact is, under Bush, things have gotten much worse.

Then it's abundantly clear that you're just shooting blanks. Ta ta!