From the King Of Blogging, Sean Conners. Various articles and op/ed's on just about anything from A to Z. Politics, religion, entertainment and whatever else seems interesting at the moment. Members and non-members alike are welcomed to participate in th
About 5 years ago, George Bush stood at ground zero and told the American people that we would get the people who had attacked America. He was wrong. Osama is still at large. Shortly thereafter, anthrax was used as a weapon against Americans. We never caught anyone for the crime despite boastful statements. Almost 4 years ago, George Bush was running around the country telling us Saddam Hussein had massive stockpiles of WMD's and was just a yellowcake transaction away from a nuclear bomb. He was wrong about all of that. Meanwhile, his cronies were selling this message along with fear mongering and false allegations about 9/11 and Iraqi ties.

Then after we pre-emptively invaded, George Bush stood on a US naval ship in a flight suit costume and declared "Mission Accomplished" when nothing had really been accomplished except allowing the Iraqi militants to bunker down in their familiar turfs so they could pick us off and blow us up at will. The Supreme Court have told the administration that their tactics which mainly involve circumventing any law or constitutional point of order are illegal and must stop. But that doesn't stop the Rove driven propoganda bus. Nothing does, because it's all about control and power with them as their agenda can't survive when anyone challenges it and can debunk most of their theories with good ol common sense.

Since then, Bush and his administration, along with the right wing talking heads have made about every mistake and miscalculation that one could make. They destroyed the Iraqi military and govermental infrastructures only to have that create a country with no leadership or institutions to build on and improve. Today's "security force" (why can't they call em an army?) has virtually no officers or personel with any significant experience and the capabilities to actually lead anyone or anything. All the "good soldiers" seem to be working for the sunni and shiite militias except for the ones they send in to infiltrate the regular "security force."

Claims of "last throws" and "dead enders" havve peppered the American political vernacular like birdshot flying towards a good friend's face. Critisism has been squelched by accusations of treason and unfair comparisons of Nazi's and other unpopular historical groups. Domestically, the administration showed just how unprepared and incompetent we were when a long predicted hurricane was treated like an inconvenient surprise.

Can these guys get anything right?

Now, Bush is going to Republican fundraisers and eroneously framing any dissenting opinions. he is claiming once again, "do as I say, or bad things will happen."

My first question has to be about their track record. My second has to be considering the track record, why should we believe you now?

The blatant politicizing and propogandizing of every single issue mixed with facts that aren't facts, red herring and scarecrow arguments against any dissent and their "shape the evidence around what they want to be true" policy has totally shot any credibility this administration ever had. The neoconservative "chess game" agenda coupled with a radical religious fervor has gotten us where we are and enough is enough.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not a Democrat and have nothing inherently against Repulicans or real conservatives. There are issues I agree with the right, and sometimes I side with the left. Sometimes, I think both are wrong. But this is no longer a GOP v s DEM thing. We're well beyond that. Yes, Karl Rove and company would have you believe it is, but that is the only way they can pursue their reckless agenda. That is, continuing their stranglehold on a party they hijacked in the early 90's. The 2000 supreme court decided election solidified their iron grip and since then Rove and Company have used every opportunity to scare everyone, including good repulicans into letting them run the show, as if no one else could. I liken that to a coach who consistanty loses almost every game in every season. It doesn't take a lot of skill.

The fact is, just as the Iraqi people need to stand up and run their own country and find the skills and people needed to do so, so does the Republican party here at home. Back when this all started, I and others commented on the administrations ties with oil. Beyond Bush's close family ties with the saudi's and Cheney's Halliburtion collusions, they had an NSA advisor who's biggest claim to fame was having an oil tanker named after her. And there were others, but that's another article. Point being, many of us were concerned, not with the party affiliation of those in charge, but with the business and personal affiliations withthose in charge. Unfortunately, those concerns were legitimate. And beyond that, these guys just aren't very good at running anything. Bush has proved he is no better at running a country than he was the baseball team he ran into the ground or the ironic failures of his Texas oil biz.

Cheney's "One % doctrine" has made us into a country that is fighting the terrorists last tactics, and causing unnecessary fear with the American people. Bush's "all hat, no cattle" cowboy antics has destroyed any short term hope of much diplomatic progress on the world stage at a time when we could really use some good faith credibility with our allies and the world's players. Because of this administration, Americans can't admit to being American when traveling abroad. How sad is that? Because of this administration, America will have to work for years to restore some of the credibility we have lost in just a few years under this leadership.

Now, Bush predicts that things would be a disaster if we left Iraq. Newsflash,,,,things already are. He speaks of certain actions "emboldening the enemy." Newsflash,,,,the enemy couldn't be any bolder, just ask Iran, North Korea or Hezbollah. While we have been mislead and had our vital recources drained because of this administration misleading us into an unnecessary war and a distraction from those who ACTUALLY attacked us, ALL of our enemies hve been strengthened. We now look like a bully and an aggressor, hardly the postion we want to be in. It's kind of hypocritical to be preachin freedom and democracy while you are busy blowin up 2 countries and some are eager to invade a 3rd or 4th.

Yes, the tactic of terrorism is a dangerous weapon, and those who endorse and support it are dangerous. But it's time people faced the fact that a strategy like terror can't be defeated militarily. There is no way, short of absolute genocide to eliminate every terrorist in a region. And by their very nature, that genocide will only create new people willing to die for their cause and avenge theri deaths. One of the biggest falsehoods that perpetuates our dialog on the subject is that "terrorists hate us for our freedom." They don't. Some of the leaders may, as their grip on power can't have any dissent either. But the "rank and file" members of these various groups are willing to die because they believ in their cause. Just as the suicide bombers we knew as kamakazi's did. Just as the IRA members who were willing to die for N. Ireland's independence did. They may be absolutely 100% wrong, but they do believe in it. And while at 1st glance, that may seem to be the same thing as hatin us for freedom, it isn't. Think about it. If your neighborhood was invaded by ANYONE, you'd fight to the death to send em back over the ocean. The passengers of flight 93 proved it. 2 minutes after the "take planes and run em into buildings" strategy was implemented, the passengers defeated that strategy causing the plane to fall into a less populated place and failing to reach any of it's prospective targets. They sacrificed their lives because they believe in America and wouldn't have anyone, regardless of their philosophy have any chance in defeating it. And I dare say, if anyone tried that tactic again, it would be defeated just as the passengers of flight 93 defeated al qaeda.

Attacking terrorism militarily only enboldens it. The only way terrorists can be defeated is for them to lose their rank and file members to better ideas. That's not a very sexy or testosterone driven tactic, but it is effective. The war against terrorism can be fought covertly, and with sound intelligence and can be minimilized with good PR (over a long period of time, one sales pitch ain't gonna do it). Terrorism can be squashed where opportunity exists, but we have done a horrible job in the mid east on that front for decades. We have supported , and still do support many facist regimes (just ask pakistan) in the arab world. We don't insist the people know where all the aid they get comes from. The people don't see all the good we have done in the arab world since WWII because of our need to support their facist leaders like the Shah of Iran, The Saudi Royal Family et al...

That needs to change. As does many other things we do in the world arena. Otherwise, all the world will see is an Imperialist power aggresively attacking everyone who is different from them...like a terrorist. I'm in no way saying we are what they see, but perception is reality in this case and will continue to be. So we need to change the perceptions. Instead of shunning hollywood, maybe Washington could be using them much in the way we used hollywood in WWII to spread our messages and show the world why we're #1. Maybe every time we cut a check to Egypt or Jordan etc, it should be made widely known that we are the generous nation trying to help them make a better life for themselves. I'm thinkin it might work better than blowing up a village to show how wonderful freedom is. It might not satisfy the ego as much as goin round, tryin to "kick everyone's ass" but it just might be more effective and yield more positive long term results.

One thing is for sure, if this administration is saying something will happen, based on their track record, it probably won't. It's time for some new ideas as trying to be "the good guy" and the world bully just don't work together.






Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Sep 01, 2006
To San Chonino,
Probably a poor choice of words (post-partum). Let's say post-appointment as in birth of a new President.
on Sep 02, 2006
Can You Trust Anything You See in the Movies?

One of the basic philosophical themes of the Matrix movies is skepticism - specifically, philosophical skepticism that questions the nature of reality and whether we can ever actually know anything at all. This theme is played out in the conflict between the \"real\" world where humans are struggling to survive in a war against the machines and the \"simulated\" world where humans are plugged into computers in order to serve the machines. Or is it?

A very curious feature of the Matrix movies is how they seem designed on the one hand to get us to ask difficult questions about reality and what we can know by showing us such a perfectly constructed simulation of our reality, but on the other hand they also rely upon us failing to question what we are told about the genuinely \"real\" world. How can these two principles co-exist?

The truth of the matter is, we aren\'t actually given any particular reason to believe that the \"real\" world of Zion portrayed in the movie is \"real\" after all. Even the character of Morpheus suggests that what is \"real\" is open to question, stating: \"What is \'real\'? How do you define \'real\'? If real is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then \'real\' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.\"

Before Neo leaves Zion for the final time in The Matrix Reloaded, he is given a gift: a spoon. This is a reference to the first movie where he learned that the principle of questioning and manipulating the simulated \"reality\" of the Matrix can be summarized in the phrase, \"There is no spoon.\" In other words, what appears to be real is actually illusion - there is no spoon, just your mind. But wait of minute, Neo was just given a real spoon - so there is a spoon now. Or is there?

There is one possibility worth considering: we haven\'t actually been shown the \"real\" world in Matrix movies yet. What is portrayed as \"real\" is, instead, a meta-simulation that exists around the computer-generated world of that Matrix that we have already seen as a deception. Sound crazy? Perhaps - but that is one of the problems of radical skepticism. Once you start, there is no means to stop.

No one who is \"awakened\" from the Matrix has much cause to believe that the new world around them is \"real\" after all. There are in fact a few reasons to suppose that the Matrix and the \"real\" world share much more in common than was originally described by the first movie. The most obvious occurs near the end of The Matrix Reloaded when Neo, now in the \"real\" world of Zion, realizes that he can \"feel\" the Sentinels chasing them. As they approach, he reaches out with this hand, stops them, and causes them to self-destruct.

How can this happen? That\'s a power of Neo in the Matrix, where he is able to manipulate the code which describes the simulated world, not of Neo in the \"real\" world. Perhaps we can speculate that he is developing telepathic and telekinetic powers, but that would be inconsistent with the principles already established in the Matrix. A much more consistent explanation would be that the \"real\" world is a meta-simulation and Neo is now learning to manipulate that code as well.

Another internal reason to suspect that something strange is going on is the ability of Agent Smith, now apparently a rogue program, to transfer something of himself to the \"real\" world. There are other possible explanations for this - it doesn\'t contradict the principles of the Matrix world to suspect that a program might alter a human consciousness. However, it has already been established that a human mind in the Matrix can be hacked by the computer programs, so if a human mind in the \"real\" world is still in a simulation and Agent Smith has become aware of this, it could be easy for him to influence events there as well.

There are further, philosophical reasons to wonder if perhaps the line between the Matrix and the \"real\" world is as firm as is generally portrayed. On the psychological front, it makes a lot of sense for whomever controls the Matrix to provide a sort of \"safety valve\" to allow for the release of rebellion among those not given to obeying authority. The creation of a meta-simulation where people can imagine that they have been \"awakened,\" acquired knowledge of \"reality,\" and are fighting for freedom will prevent them from genuinely doing it and genuinely threatening those in charge.

Notice that in Zion there is no evidence of the freed humans doubting their \"reality\" or thinking very hard about why things are the way they are. They are committed to that reality, so \"hopelessly dependent\" upon their roles as freedom fighters that \"they will fight to protect it.\" Sometimes, channels of dissent are only channels of further control - and the Prophecy of the One may allow those behind the Matrix to gradually improve their levels of control over humanity.

Epistemologically, a strict division between the Matrix and reality may not even be possible. A person\'s reasons to believe that she has awakened to the \"real\" world are predicated upon categories of thought and action which developed while in the \"unreal\" Matrix. But if the experiences of the Matrix cannot be believed, then those categories of thought and action are no longer reliable - and, as such, are an inadequate basis upon which one can say that they now know what the \"real\" world is.

In other words, if we wake up and Morpheus tells us that the Matrix has been feeding us lies all our lives, then we really don\'t have any firm basis upon which we can conclude that Morpheus must be telling us the truth. Believing Morpheus takes away our reasons to believe Morpheus: it\'s a self-refuting belief. This is a subtle, but important point. If a we are going to be able to make our way in the \"real\" world at all, there have to be a whole lot more similarities between it and the Matrix in which we grew up than we realize - but if the \"real\" world is just a meta-simulation for above-average rebellious minds, then those similarities would only be natural.

Ah, but the attraction of radical skepticism is powerful. I keep being drawn to the scene near the end when Neo is talking to the Architect and the walls around the room frame Neo with multiple images of himself on monitors. Behind the image of Neo on each of the monitors are more banks of monitors with more images of Neo. Twice through the conversation we focus in on one of those images, move through the screen, and now that is the \"real\" Neo speaking. Worlds within worlds within worlds.

If the Matrix is a computer simulation that exists within a larger simulation that encompasses Zion, what about the world beyond that? And the world beyond that? Just how deep does the rabbit hole actually go? Once we reject the truth of one utterly convincing reality, we are compelled to doubt and question the reality of any other world presented to us as being \"real.\" There might not be an end to the rabbit hole at all - perhaps that is a message of The Matrix: no matter how deep we delve, we\'ll never reach an end of illusions, questions, and doubts.


www.youtube.com/watch?v=acVA0uDdxws
on Sep 02, 2006
So, while your analysis is interesting, your conclusion that "it's time for some new ideas" is a constitutionally guarenteed outcome.


Whys that? Seems to me its been the same old shit for the last 100 years or so.

I disagree with the premise of the rest of the article which seems to be that someone is screwing something up. This only applies if you actually believe the bullshit propaganda the US routinely pumps out from the White House and its associated disinformation delivery subsystems.

What they say their trying to accomplish and what their actually trying to accomplish are two very different things.... which is another article altogether... If you review their actions in light of the actual goal, they are actually doing particularly well. The US populace still believes that they are "defenders of freedom", "leaders of the free world" and all that shite after all. Thats remarkably well executed population control in my book.
on Sep 03, 2006
some interesting responses,,,some, more than others, lol,,,thanks all:)
2 Pages1 2