THIS PAGE IS JUST ARCHIVED SHIT
PLEASE VISIT http://rdpmackie.blogspot.com/ for more current blatherings
03/21/07
What's playing on my random play One of my favorite
Gorrilaz songs - Dare - "featuring" the fabulously retarded, fat, old,
and don't forget drunk out of his mind: Shaun Ryder but it's REALLY
featuring Rosie Wilson who is such a complete fucking FOX! and i so
love her vocals. I wanna jump on stage and kick the fuck out
of Shaun Ryder for having the disrespect to even stand on the same
stage as this chick never mind open his fucked up mouth and hog the
audio.
Made me wanna show y'all two more of my fave's from the Gorrillaz.
This one is called Latin Simone featuring the
ancient Cuban Legend Ibrahim Ferrer. God this guy can sing.
Even with one foot in the grave he lets it rip.
03/16/07
What's playing on my random play One of my favorite ball
breaker songs from way back to one of my favorite movies ever...Henry
Rollins - Ghost Rider - that some guy put to First Blood (I certainly
own that DvD) 03/14/07
Cool Songs on Youtube It's
going to be cool when they integrate Youtube kind of sites with
television. I know we can play stuff off our computer on our
TVs but it's a pain in the ass and the resolution sucks arse.
TV will be alot more entertaining when we can just create a
bunch of custom smart filters to sort out a bunch of cool things, and
just watch those. Like instead of watching music video channels like
much music or mtv, and watching non-stop commercial garbage wanna-be
gangster rap and bubblegum whores you could set up your own rotation of
bands that don't suck.
Anyhow here are some music vids i've digged recently: This
guy
needs to read this. Just in case the link
gets gone in a week...the Pentagon's top
general (Peter
Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff)called
homosexuality immoral, and said he'd fiercely oppose changing
the "don't ask, don't tell" gayness.
Shouldn't
he be spending his time blowing up the middle east
or something?
Which reminds me...how is this guy allowed to talk about morality
without the entire globe falling on their asses because they are
laughing so hard? He's the top general of an organization
that has slaughtered what, about 50,000 civillians in the past 3 or 4
years? Someone who's OK with that has no right to have an opinion on
morality IMO.
03/07/07
This Scooter Libby Shit - or 'Why You Should Care' Polititians
lie more than they tell the truth...it's obvious to anyone with a clue.
So Libby lied to a grand jury and now he's in trouble.
Big
whoopdie-do right? Right. The problem with this
case is not
the actual case itself but the details surrounding the origins of this
scandal. The fucking rotten piece of shit media has
completely
side-stepped the roots of this issue and spent all of it's time talking
about the stupid and relatively unimportant matter of who leaked the
information that Wilson's old lady was a CIA agent...thus blowing her
cover. Not cool, but the much more important issue is what
wilson
wrote that had Cheney's panties so far up his fat crack.
Cheney was in charge of a probe that sent CIA agents to Niger
to
investigate intelligence rumors that Saddam was trying to buy nuclear
materials for weapons. This was more than a year before we
went
to Iraq <---that's very important. So the CIA
investigation
comes back to the USA with a full report that Saddam never bought
anything from Niger, and apparently according to the entire
administration, the man who was responsible for initiating this probe
(Cheney) never recieved this report, nor was he so much as even briefed
on it's findings. Why would the administration want to deny
that
Cheney had seen a report that his own probe generated?
Because
that would mean he knew without a doubt that Saddam had never attempted
to purshase nuclear materials from Niger A FULL YEAR before the
president used that information to sell his war to congress and the
American people:
"The
British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa." - Bush - 2003 State of
the Union address
The whole "British Intelligence" part requires more explaining:
http://uruknet.info/?p=m31184&s1=h1
Basically the Italian government turned over documents to the USA that
were a poorly forged bill of sale for 400 tons of uranium to
Iraq
from Niger. (LMFAO!! "Would you like a reciept sir?"
Ha ha
ha ha) The CIA immediately established the documents as
forged.
A year later when they needed to fabricate reasons to go to
war
in Iraq they recycled the bogus documents through British intelligence
agencies because they were already clearly documented to be forgeries
within our own CIA.
Who forged the documents? is a good mystery the news should
be
talking about every fucking day until it's solved. But i kind
of
got ahead of myself here...back to the whole Cheney knowing Saddam
never tried to buy anything from Niger, a full year before the
president used that as a selling point in his speech: If
Cheney
knew, then the President knew, and if the president knew yet chose to
LIE in order to pitch his war...!
Isn't that high fucking treason!?
If it's not high treason it's an incredibly HUGE justification to send
the president and all his scooters, cooters, cheneys and anyone else
who knew and kept that knowledge from the American public to prison for
the rest of their days on this earth.
This war cost the USA 400 billion dollars so far, the deaths of 3000
american soldiers, the deaths of 70,000 Iraqis. What kind of
prison sentence is that worth??
03/06/07
Castro sticks it to the man - I love it (see bold) From Wikipedia:
Assumption of power
On
January 8, 1959,
Castro's army rolled victoriously into Havana.[35] As news of the fall of
Batista's government spread through Havana, The New York Times
described the scene as one of jubilant crowds pouring into the streets
and automobile horns honking. The black and red flag of the 26th of
July Movement waved on automobiles and buildings. The atmosphere was
chaotic.[34]
Castro called a general strike in protest of the Piedra regime. He
demanded that Dr. Urrutia, former judge of the Urgency Court of
Santiago de Cuba, be installed as the provisional President instead.
The Cane Planters Association of Cuba, speaking on behalf of the
island's crucial sugar industry, issued a statement of support for
Castro and his movement.[36]
In
February Miró suddenly resigned and on February 16, 1959,
Castro was sworn in as Prime Minister of Cuba.[2]
Friction
with the U.S. developed as the new government began
expropriating property owned by major U.S. corporations (United Fruit
in particular) and announced plans to base the compensation on the
artificially low property valuations that the companies themselves had
kept to a fraction of their true value so that their taxes would be
negligible.[36]
Between
April 15th and 26th, Castro and a delegation of industrial
and international representatives visited the U.S. as guests of the
Press Club. Castro hired one of the best public relations
firms in the United States for a charm offensive visit by Castro and
his recently initiated government. Castro answered impertinent
questions jokingly and ate hotdogs and hamburgers. His rumpled fatigues
and scruffy beard cut a popular figure easily promoted as an authentic
hero.[38] He was refused a meeting
with President Eisenhower. Rebuffed,
he soon joined forces with the Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev.[35]
The
part i love is where he bases his compensation to the corporations of
nationalized properties on the artificially low valuations the
corporations themselves set to rob the cuban people of tax dollars.
I love it.
Now
Castro's no hero, but neither is George Bush. People like to
play
the blame game for cuba's woes, but i like to think the blame can be
almost equally shared by Castro and the USA...'almost equally
shared'...given that the USA is the greater power, has the
power
to fix the plight of cuba's people, and elects to refrain from doing so
is a greater injustice than the arrogant, outdated and mistaken ideas
of a stubborn old man.
I
think a very important factor to remember when doling out blame for the
conditions in cuba are the motives as revealed by the actions that
triggered the USA's actions against cuba: namely the
nationalization of major industries...the same thing happened in iran.
The usa would like you to believe that the conditions in cuba
are
maintained because castro refuses to end his totalitarian single party
system of government and build a democratic government, but if you look
at the iran scenario i briefly described here
you'll notice that the usa doesn't REALLY give a flying shit about
democracy...it's the undustrial assets we are concerned with, and the iran scenario reveals
clearly that the USA places industrial intrests well above democracy.
They removed a heroic democratic trailblazer who established
democracy (in the middle east for christ's sake!) and replaced him with
a monarchy. The single reason the USA did this was because
united
states (and british) owned corporations were given their assets back
and a free license to continue to pillage iran's national assets.
I
keep waiting for the USA to launch some kind of covert opperation
against Hugo Chavez as a result of his plans for nationalizing
Venezuela's major industries...who knows...maybe they've already
launched numerous opperations against chavez because of his
nationalization plans...i'd sure a hell never find out about it through
the shit churn that is mainstream media.
03/04/07
What happens when you pour coke on raw pork?
"Definition
of Taenia solium
Taenia
solium: The pork tapeworm. Contracted from eating undercooked or
measly pork (pork infected with the larval forms of the tapeworm).
Taenia solium causes two different diseases -- taeniasis and
cysticercosis.
Taeniasis
develops when the adult tapeworm infests the human intestine.
The worm can grow to be 3-6 feet (0.9-1.8 m) long there. It usually
causes no symptoms but the host becomes a continuous source of taenia
eggs in the feces which may contaminate food.
Cysticercosis
develops when people (or pigs) eat food contaminated with
taenia eggs. The eggs cross the digestive tract, enter the circulation,
and lodge in the tissues (usually the brain or muscles).
The
life cycle proceeds as humans ingest undercooked pork containing
the cysticercus (larva); the worm emerges and anchors in the intestinal
wall, and the worm grows and becomes a new and continuous source of
contamination.
Also
known as the armed tapeworm, solitary tapeworm and the measly tapeworm.
Synonyms include Taenia armata and Taenia dentata.
"
02/21/07
The Word "Addiction" Over
the past year or two i've seen more and more articles labeling video
games with the word 'addiction'...specifically my game of choice 'World
of Warcraft'. It's caused me to think about the word, its
meaning, and the negative connotations that it evokes. I've
come
to the conclusion that the word is much much more than a clinical
definition of behavior or compulsion. Its a word that is
often
used simply because the activity its used to describe is one we don't
approve of.
To cut to the chase, and not spend too many words, here are some
examples:
Am I 'addicted' to being a good father, or just 'dedicated'?
Is the person who works 60 hours per week addicted to work, or are they
just 'hardworking'.
Is a person who jogs 10 miles every morning addicted to working out, or
are they just dedicated to their fitness?
These are good examples because it shows how the word 'addiction' can
actually be used to describe activities that might be considered in an
opposite light. Admirable activites to some are described as
'addiction' by others.
If you generally disapprove of people sacrificing their family life,
and all their free time to amass wealth you might say they were
addicted to money, addicted to their career, addicted to work, etc.
But if you're Dick Cheney you might think those people are
admirable pillars of business, community, success.
If you're an ugly fat girl who's convinced yourself that you are happy
with your weight, you might view a super-fit girl who works out for an
hour per day as obsessed with being thin, obsessed with achieving the
social stereotype of female beauty...addicted to working out.
And
if pressed, each individual using the word has some fuzzy line where
their definition of a neutral activity becomes labeled an addiction.
One problem with the word 'addiction' is that it's also used to
describe chemical addiction. So the very real addiction that
is
chemical addiction lends it's weight to the more wishy-washy use of the
word when it's used to describe activities we don't approve of.
My opinion means nothing in the greater scheme of things, but I decided
to write this little blurb just to get a tiny few people to maybe think
about the word in this light the next time they hear it or
use it.
If we're not using it to descibe a chemical addiction, the word is most
likely just being used to describe an activity we don't approve of.
There's nothing wrong with disapproving of something, but
let's
use just say we 'dissapprove of that activity' rather than throwing it
in the same pile as heroin addiction.
02/12/07
Well not much new.
I got my hunter to 70 (world of warcraft) now i need to figure out how
i want to play this new endgame blizzard has designed for me.
I
think i'll probably spec for pvp rather than raiding since it's more
agreeable with logging in and out whenever the hell i feel like it, and
it doesn't force me to interact with people as much as raiding does.
(for the non-mmoers: pvp = player vs player combat in various
battlegrounds and arenas, and raiding = co-ordinating times and
schedules with guildmates to get 25-man raids together to get into
dungeons, kill epic monsters, and get phat lootz - it's really all
about how you want to get the gear that will allow you to crush as many
people as possible in pvp)
I'll write more soon, but now i have to get my girls some lunch.
01/23/07
What do you want from life?
A
good friend of mine asked me a very basic question that we would all do
well to answer. "What do you want from your life?"
Actually
it was two questions. The other being "If you were
to look at yourself as an old man, what do you hope to have done?"
I think many people who know me have wondered something to that effect.
I have no career goals, i'm not working on my great
unfinished
novel, i'm not painting, i have no dreams of fame or conventional
success. I've been a Mr. Mom going on 4 years now, and when i
go
back to work I hope to find a job doing something unchallenging that
doesn't require me to say too many words to people.
Mel: "I am sad
that you are disconnecting from life, even temporarily...I feel like
you have so much to offer whatever that means... it's a waste
to not be out there with people...Progressing, evolving, making
connections, loving. What do you want from your life? If you
were to look at yourself as an old man, what do you hope to have done?
Me:
I have said many times in my life that when we are on our
death beds remembering our lives it's not our "accomplishments" that
we'll be thinking of it's our relationships with other people, but i'm
not so certain of that anymore. I've also recently
thought about how we are ultimately alone, and when we lie on our death
beds it's our relationship with ourselves that we remember and think
about.
I
look at mostly everything as ultimately pointless...that's not the
right word...it's more like i feel like i look at mostly everything as
having vastly less value than most other people do. Or you
could phrase it as 'everything has the same value'. That's
why i brought up the shit about writing a brilliant novel or painting
something that would be known historically for hundreds or thousands of
years. To me those things would not make my life any more
meaningful than if i never spoke to another person so long as i lived
and spent the rest of my days living in solitude.
Ego, cash, adoration are generally what motivate people to be
artistically brilliant or successful in careers. If i lived
in solitude and had my needs financed, there would be no motivation to
write a book or paint or whatever. I wouldn't paint for
myself to see it. that would be crazy. Creating art
is work...hours and days and months, and maybe even years of
effort.
"What
do you want from your life?"
I'm
not sure. I'd like some things that are unattainable and i'd
like some things that are attainable. My hearts desire is to
understand the nature of my existence, but that's unattainable
so far as i can tell. Besides that i'd like to always be
happy, but that seems to my knowledge to also be
unattainable. Besides things that i deem unattainable i'd
like to have a simple, tranquil existence, free
of intellectual and physical clutter, free of emotional and
physical pain, free of obligations. I'm working towards those
things and doing the best i can. I can envision
myself living like that so i think maybe it's attainable and maybe even
not too far off.
As
far as other people go...i'd like to never have to interract with
another person so long as i live unless i CHOOSE to do so. No
forced interractions. That's of course unattainable, but i
can do my best to reduce the volume of people i'm forced to interract
with. I'd like a few friends, but only people capable of
sharing something i find value in. I have no need for
company, and the company of dullards irritates
me, and is not conducive to the tranquility
i seek. But how do i make interesting friends
without wading through the moronic masses? I'd need to
accidentally meet someone i found interesting, because there's no way
i'd be willing to actively seek people out and sort through hundreds of
idiots to find one interesting person. It's just not that
important to me i guess. I'm pretty happy in solitude, and
pretty unhappy when i have to deal with a clutter of unenlightened
people. So long as i have something minimally entertaining to
occupy myself with i don't care all that much about being sociable, but
if i happened to accidentally make some decent friends i wouldn't mind
it.
So
in conclusion i'd like a tranquil, unbothered life, free from emotional
and physical pain. That's all i want from life.
"If
you were to look at yourself as an old man, what do you hope to have
done?"
Nothing
much really. I'd hope that i didn't do too shitty of a job
with my kids, and that they turned out to be interesting,
kind people. I'd hope to die loved by them, and
Alaina. I'd hope to have reached a high level of
understanding with regards to the human condition, and maybe a glimpse
of a hint regarding our ultimate nature. I'd be happy to
think that i raised the quality of Alaina's life, and helped to create
a peaceful, unbothered lifestyle for the both of us. That's
about all i can think of.
Is
there something wrong with that? Mel told me it sounded more
like
death than life so now I'm questioning myself. That's the
kind of
value i find in friendship. Sharing ideas that stimulate
self-analysis and personal evolution.
To question everything is a good habit i think, but I can't for the
life of me figure out how to transfer items from the 'not important to
me' column to the 'important to me' column, and even if i could do that
would I want to? And why would i want to? I think
i've
worked hard to sort these things out over the span of my lifetime so it
would take much work to recategorize them now, and i very seriously
doubt it would even be possible. It would require an
incredibly
compelling argument for sure. My position feels like one of
liberation, not of death. I feel liberated from many/most of
the
petty delusional entanglements of mankind.
If you read this and have a reasonably thought-out opinion, pop me an
email: rdpmackie@hotmail.com
01/07/07 Scientists'
Report Documents ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation
Campaign on Global Warming Science ExxonMobil Spent Nearly $16
Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, and Create Confusion
ExxonMobil has adopted
the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics,
as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the
scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the
issue. more...
01/06/07
Cancer on my mind Alaina
had an abdomen muscle removed a few days ago because it had been taken
over by cancer. This one's no longer with us...
As
a result I've spent the better part of the past 3 days at the hospital,
and I have cancer on my mind. So i'm
continuing my previous subject which is the correlation between diet
and cancer.
Here are a few more links associating the consumption of animal
products and cancer, and one discussing the link between alchohol and
cancer:
Granted all but one of these articles is from the same organization,
but i selected them because they are easy reads, and if you scroll to
the end of those articles you can view from 30 to 50 sources cited for
each article.
There are so many studies that you can read about the correlation
between the consumption of animal products and various types of cancer
until your eyes bleed. But the headlines of these following
links
may be all the convincing you need:
I'm
lazy, and not a doctor or a scientist...read other people's
words...basically all our western diseases of affluence are caused by
the consumption of animal products. Dairy products cause osteoperosis,
and cancer. Huge studies have shown the clear link.
The
China-Cornell-Oxford Project
The largest, most comprehensive study ever done in the history of
medicine examines the relationship between diet and disease.
The findings in a nutshell...
"What made
this project especially remarkable is that, among the many
associations that are relevant to diet and disease, so many pointed to
the same finding: people who ate the most animal-based foods got the
most chronic disease."
In
1998, the UK Department of Health’s Working Group on Diet and
Cancer of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy
made public their cohort study showing that higher consumption of
produce and protein-rich plant foods such as beans and nuts is
associated with a later menarche, and the higher consumption of
protein-rich animal foods—meat and dairy—is
associated with an earlier
menarche and increased occurrence of adult breast cancer.
Similarly,
a 1999 study published by Berkey et al in the American
Journal of Epidemiology
followed children from birth and found that the girls who consumed more
animal products and fewer vegetables between the ages of one and eight
were prone to early maturation and puberty. The strongest predictor of
early puberty was a diet rich in animal protein before the age of five.
Many studies have shown convincingly that estrogen levels in children
can be managed through diet.
01/02/07 City
of God Rent
it, watch it, love it. One of the best movies I think I've
ever
seen. The setting and subject matter may not be my usual cup
of
tea but the story itself is brilliantly told.
I
watched it
about a year ago, and haven't seen it since so this isn't one of those
reccomendations people make when they're still high from viewing "the
best movie they've ever seen" until next weekend's "best movie ever!"
comes along.
Rather
than use my own lame words i'll use some that've already been
crafted by professional word crafters...
“****. A Powerhouse!
It moves with whiplash velocity. Sometimes a movie comes along and just
floors you, its images burn so deeply. ‘City of
God’ has the scent of a classic.”
-Peter Travers, Rolling Stone Click here to read the full review
“****! Fierce,
shocking, dazzling and wonderful. It’s that rare film that
manages to be seductively entertaining without ever compromising its
authenticity and power. Thoroughly engaging, with wicked humor and
style, director Fernando Meirelles is the one to watch.”
-Megan Turner, NY Post
“****! Supercharged,
Meirelles provides the energy and flair of “Amores
Perros.”
-Mark Caro, Chicago Tribune
“****! City of God
churns with furious energy. Breathtaking! It announces a new director
of great gifts and passions: Fernando Meirelles. Remember the
name.”
-Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times Click here to read the full review
“****! A masterful,
symphonic piece of work. Every once in a while a film restores our
faith in the art form. Absolutely hypnotic.”
-James Verniere, Boston Herald
01/01/07
An Oil Industry Lobbyist runs our Council on Environmental
Quality The
chief-of-staff of the Council on Environmental Quality is Phil
Cooney...a lawyer and oil industry (American Petroleum Institute)
lobbyist before he was hired by this administration to oversee our air
quality problems. Is that just insane or what?? I
almost
don't have to even say anything other than that, but as impossible as
it seems it gets even worse...Phil Cooney is not a scientist and is
therefore not qualified to edit scientific reports, but that
is one of his functions at the whitehouse.
"If the ice
sheets begin to disintegrate, what can you do about it? You
can’t tie a rope around the ice sheet. You can’t
build a wall around
the ice sheets. It will be a situation that is out of our control."
But that's not a situation you'll find in one federal report
submitted for review. Government scientists wanted to tell you about
the ice sheets, but before a draft of the report left the White House, the paragraph on glacial melt and
flooding was crossed out and this was
added: "straying from research strategy into speculative
findings and
musings here."
"As a
government scientist, James Hansen is taking a risk. He says there
are things the White House doesn't want you to hear but he's going to
say them anyway.
Hansen is arguably the world's leading researcher on global
warming. He's the head of NASA's top institute studying the climate.
But as correspondent Scott Pelley first reported last spring,
this imminent scientist says that the Bush administration is
restricting who he can talk to and editing what he can say.
Politicians, he says, are rewriting the science."
01/01/07
More extreme conflicts of interest - Monsanto's Government Ties In
writing the above blurb about the oil industry lobbyist who now heads
our Council on Environmental Quality, I remembered this list of extreme
conflicts of interest between Monsanto, our government, and the
FDA/USDA.
In case you don't know who Monsanto is, you probably
should read a little bit about who they are because unless absolutely
everything you eat comes from verified organic sources (monsanto also
opperates many "organic" companies) you are eating their
products...These guys develop and produce such lovely products as Agent
Orange, Roundup, PCBs, Dioxins, Bovine
Growth Hormone, and Asparatame.
They also engineer and produce most of the world's
genetically
modified foods ranging from genetically modified grains to genetically
modified livestock, and fish. They also ran the Oak Ridge
National
Laboratory in the 40's which was part of the Manhattan Project, and
helped develop the world's first nuclear weapons. Is it just
me or
does anyone else feel uneasy that the same company who engineered agent
orange is now developing much of the world's food sources? How
is it even possible that this company still exists after the damage
they've done with agent orange?? Did they just give the world
a big
"OOOOPS!" and proceed? Apparently so.
A
Monsanto official told the New York Times that the corporation should
not have to take responsibility for the safety of its food products.
"Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food,"
said Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications. "Our
interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety
is the FDA's job."
It
would be nice to think the FDA can be trusted with these matters, but
think again. Monsanto has succeeded in insuring that government
regulatory agencies let Monsanto do as it wishes. Take a look:
Prior
to being the Supreme Court Judge who put GW Bush in office, Clarence Thomas was Monsanto's
lawyer.
Former US Secretary of
Agriculture Anne Veneman
was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto's Calgene Corporation.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was on the
Board of Directors of Monsanto's Searle pharmaceuticals.
Former
US Secretary of Health, Tommy
Thompson, received $50,000 in donations from Monsanto
during his winning campaign for Wisconsin's governor.
The
two congressmen receiving the most donations from Monsanto during the
2000 election were Larry Combest (Former Chairman of the House
Agricultural Committee) and Missouri Senate candidate John Ashcroft (later to be
named Attorney General). (Source: Dairy Education Board)
In order for the FDA to
determine if Monsanto's growth hormones were safe or not, Monsanto was
required to submit a scientific report on that topic. Margaret Miller,
one of Monsanto's researchers put the report together. Shortly before the report
submission, Miller left Monsanto and was hired by the FDA. Her first
job for the FDA was to determine whether or not to approve the report
she wrote for Monsanto. In short, Monsanto approved its
own report. Assisting Miller was another former Monsanto researcher,
Susan Sechen. Deciding whether or not rBGH-derived milk should be
labeled fell under the jurisdiction of another FDA official, Michael
Taylor, who previously worked as a lawyer for Monsanto.
12/31/06 I
see a pattern here...The IRAN Problem The
USA sells weapons, provides intelligence services, and other forms of
'backing' to foreign violent warlords, dictators and lunatics (i say
"foreign" to distinguish between the violent warlords, dictators and
lunatics whom are citizens and policy makers within the USA) then a few
years later wages war against these former allies. WTF is going on here?
Stop.
Ok I started writing the above statement, and intended to discuss how
the USA's "War on Terror"
is the result of it's historical pattern of unbelievably bad foreign
policy decisions. By supplying weapons, intelligence and cash
to
guys like Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and the country of Iran the USA
actually created all the threats they are currently fighting.
But in reading about some of these past deals I realized it's too big a
subject for me to sit down and write about today. So let's
look
at the Iran problem...
In
1953 the USA in collusion with Great Britain staged a
coupe to remove the first democratically elected prime minister
of Iran - Mohammad
Mossadegh.
Mossadegh spent the bulk of his early political career
working to
install a democratic government in Iran to replace the corrupted system
of Monarchy, and stop the exploitation of Iran by foreign-owned
corporations...primarily Great Britain's British Petroleum (BP)(then
named "Anglo-Iranian Oil Company). I bought $30 worth of gas
from
BP yesterday. In 1951 Mossadegh was named Time magazine's
"Man of
the Year" beating out Eisenhower and Douglas McArthur even!
Why did the USA remove this hero of democracy to hand over power to
Iran's monarchy? Because after years of failed negotiations to increase
Iran's royalties from it's own oil fields (that BP had tapped and was
shipping to Great Britain and the USA) the prime minister (Mossadegh)
enforced the Oil Nationalization Act
which effectively stopped foriegn-owned oil
companies from exploiting Iran's oil.
"In
March 2000 then secretary of state Madeleine Albright
stated her regret that Mossadegh was ousted: "The Eisenhower
administration believed its actions were justified for strategic
reasons. But the coup
was clearly a setback for Iran's political
development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to
resent this intervention by America." In the same year,
the New York Times published a
detailed report about the coup based on CIA documents. [12].
In
the immoral, covetous eyes of the west, Oil is apparently greater than
all. Fuck democracy.
When I think of shit like this I think of the Republican party.
Famous for placing economic interests above all.
Fuck
global warming. Fuck the environment. Fuck worker's
rights.
Fuck human rights.
Fuck Christ. Fuck God. Fuck morality.
If it
makes economic sense, and we can get away with it, then it's justified.
How
the fuck did this party get associated with the religious right??
They
act like they are the moral compass for America when they
shit on God's work (human life...the planet). They shit on
Christ's
compassion. They shit on
morality. "What would Christ do?" the Republican party
replies "who
gives a fuck?" Their only concern is "Is it profitable?"
I'm sick of blabbing about it for today,
but if you'd like to see the timeline of the USA providing Saddam
Hussein with 60 military helicopters, approving 5 billion dollars and
other funding to Iraq, and providing Suddam with intelligence and
chemical weapons (much of this stuff was supplied to Saddam to use
against Iranians after we fucked up that country by removing the
popular leader who was a hero of democracy, and placing it in the hands
of the hated, corrupt monarchy, and creating the environment in which
the Ayatollah
Khomeini rose to power) just look
at this list: http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php
During
the 1980s
the United States sold Iran 12,000 anti-tank missiles, 235 Hawk
missiles and 200 Phoenix air-to-air missiles. W. T.
F. !!?? None
of this
shit is secret. It's all public information. So how
is it
that the world tolerates us? I fear for the day that American
civillians will be held accountable for the evil our administrators
have perpetrated in this world.
This insanity needs to end, but before that can happen people need to
be made aware. THE TEXT THAT FOLLOWS IS JUST
PASTED GARBAGE I WANT TO ADRESS AT A LATER DATE
US backs Bin Laden
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php 12/24/06 I
first heard the Flaming Lips about...oh I don't know...almost 20 years
ago covering Neil Young's "After the Goldrush" on a Neil Young tribute
album called "The Bridge". And it was that album that
actually
got me into Neil Young. I always thought he was a great
songwriter, but I held the opinion at the time that he should never be
allowed on stage because sucked as a performer. I've since
fell
in love with Neil Young, and consider him to be one of my all time
favorite, kindred musicians. So anyhow i really
remember
the album "The Bridge" and appreciate the impact it had on my musical
life.
I've always kept an eye on what the Flaming Lips were doing, but
although their message always seemed really cool i never developed an
appreciation for their sound. And that's still mainly true,
but
then along comes "Do
You Realize?" (listen to the whole thing on their main page
...please...click on the music tab, and then select the "Yoshimi
Battles The Pink Robots" album or watch the whole video on their videos
page).
Anyhow that song kicks my fucking ass. It's so lovely, sad,
beautiful I can't listen to it without coming to tears. The
music
is pretty nice, but the message just slaughters me. I want to
take it with me. I want to live it every second of every day
for
the rest of my life (but i can't). The message has been
covered
many times by many people, but the way it's communicated in this song
touches me in such a profound way...it just tears me open. I
need
to do some major adjusting to be able to carry this vibe around with
me. I "just" need to remember to realize. Sounds
easy, but
it's painfully difficult. I must REMEMBER.
Flaming Lips
Do You Realize?
Do You
Realize - that you have the most beautiful face
Do You Realize - we're floating in space -
Do You Realize - that happiness makes you cry
Do You Realize - that everyone you know someday will die
And
instead of saying all of your goodbyes - let them know
You realize that life goes fast
It's hard to make the good things last
You realize the sun doesn't go down
It's just an illusion caused by the world spinning round
Do You
Realize - Oh - Oh - Oh
Do You Realize - that everyone you know
Someday will die -
And
instead of saying all of your goodbyes - let them know
You realize that life goes fast
It's hard to make the good things last
You realize the sun doesn't go down
It's just an illusion caused by the world spinning round
Do You
Realize - that you have the most beautiful face
Do You Realize
Like don't eat animals or
something...seriously stop eating them.
The following information has been known for decades, but only by a few
"quacks" and tree-hugging environmental freaks. Thank satan
it's
finally been incorporated into a report published by a respectable
organization...the UN.
Livestock
a major threat to environment - Remedies urgently needed
29 November 2006, Rome - Which causes more greenhouse
gas emissions, rearing cattle or driving cars?
Surprise!
According
to a new report published by the United
Nations Food and
Agriculture Organization, the livestock sector
generates more
greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18
percent –
than transport. It is also a major source of land and water
degradation.
Says
Henning Steinfeld, Chief of FAO’s Livestock Information and
Policy
Branch and senior author of the report: “Livestock are one of
the most
significant contributors to today’s most serious
environmental
problems. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.”
With
increased prosperity, people are consuming more meat and dairy
products every year. Global meat production is projected to more than
double from 229 million tonnes in 1999/2001 to 465 million tonnes in
2050, while milk output is set to climb from 580 to 1043 million
tonnes. more...
12/18/06 Many of us are well aware
of the issues of mad cow disease, but a little reminder now and then
can't hurt.
One
lovely aspect of mad cow disease is that the incubation period in cows
ranges from 30 months to 8 years, and in humans can extend 30 years
into the future. Eat a hamburger on your 19th birthday, go
vegan on
your 20th birthday, then get diagnosed with mad cow when you're 50.
That's some crazy shit.
Beef cows are usually slaughtered between 14 and 16 months of age, so
most beef cows infected with the disease would never reach the 30
months incubation period to actually start showing symptoms of the
disease. http://www.organicconsumers.org/madcow/incubation62101.cfm
Another
lovely aspect is that the symptoms shown in humans with madcow disease
have often been misdiagnosed as alzheimers. So people may be
dying of
it, and we don't even know it.
Could
Mad Cow Disease Already be Killing Thousands of Americans Every Year?
by
Michael Greger, M.D.
October
2001, 34-year-old Washington State native Peter Putnam started losing
his mind. One month he was delivering a keynote business address, the
next he couldn't form a complete sentence. Once athletic, soon he
couldn't walk. Then he couldn't eat. After a brain biopsy showed it was
Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, his doctor could no longer offer any hope.
"Just take him home and love him," the doctor counseled his
family.[1,2,3] Peter's tragic death, October 2002, may have been caused
by Mad Cow disease.
March
16, 2006 -- The United States has lagged far behind the rest of the
world when it comes to testing for mad cow disease. This is primarily
because the USDA is run by people looking out for meat industry
interests, rather than the public's interests. Like most U.S.
government agencies these days, the USDA is run by officials from the
industries they are supposed to be regulating, in this case the meat,
dairy and processed food industry.
Despite USDA best efforts to test as few cows as
possible, mad cow has been
discovered repeatedly in the U.S. herd. (For years the
U.S. tested only only
one out of every 18,000 cows slaughtered, while European countries were
testing one out of every three cows, or in many cases -- every cow.)
The
USDA says it isn't testing for mad cow as a protective measure to the
population, they are testing simply to "surveil" how widespread the
problem may be. In other words, they're not testing to prevent infected
cows from entering the food chain as many other countries do, they just
want to get an estimate of how many mad cows are likely in the U.S.
food chain.
The
answer, from their own testing, is now available: statistically, there
have been at least 777 cows with mad cow disease which have probably
entered the food chain since U.S. testing began.
To
arrive at this number is simply a matter of mathematics.
According
to USDA figures, since U.S. began testing for mad cow 8 years ago, we
have tested about 773,000 cows.
Coincidentally,
the USDA has recently announced it will scale back the testing rate,
from about 1,000 per day to 110 per day. By doing so, statistically it
should take between 3 and 9 years to detect the next U.S. mad cow,
rather than the current rate of one infected cow each 4 to 12 months.
Scaling
back the testing for mad cow makes sense from the beef industry/USDA
perspective. It is a bit of a public relations problem for McDonald's
and the cattle industry in general when the rate of mad cow discovery
gets too frequent, as the public starts being reminded too frequently
that the U.S. herd is infected with this fatal disease.
For
the public to be reminded one to three times a year that it may be
eating beef which contains a brain-wasting disease similar to
Alzheimer's (and often mistaken for Alzheimer's) is problematic to the
sale of beef and beef products. Hence, the USDA won't continue current
testing levels lest it cause more problems for the beef industry.
If
the U.S. were using the same testing rates and methods as every other
major democratic government in the world, it would be interesting to
see where the U.S. stacks up in terms of herd infection. But this is
the last thing the USDA wants the public thinking about.
In her book, Safe Food,
Professor Marion Nestle, Chair of the Nutrition Department at New York
University, and author of the Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition
under C. Everett Koop MD, writes:
To
pick just one example: food companies donate campaign funds where they
are most likely to buy influence. According to the Center for
Responsive Politics, a nonpartisian group that tracks campaign
contributions on its Web site, www.opensecrets.org,
several
food companies and trade associations discussed in this book ranked
among the top 20 agribusiness donors in 2001, with contributions
ranging from $100,000 to nearly $1 million. The skewed distribution of
these donations to Republican rather than to Democratic members of
Congress is especially noteworthy. For example, the giant cigarette
company Philip Morris, which owns Kraft Foods, donated 89% of more than
$900,000 to Republicans. Other companies involved in food safety
disputes of one kind or another also donated heavily to Republicans:
Archer Daniels Midland (70%), the National Cattleman's Beef Association
(82%), the Food Marketing Institute (90%), the National Food Processors
Association (96%), and the United Dairy Farmers (100%). With the
Republican administration of George W. Bush in power, these groups
expect to receive especially favorable attention to their views on food
safety issues, and they usually do.
It
is a tribute to the current money-driven, lobbyist-tainted, corrupt,
corporate-controlled U.S. government that the U.S. beef industry can
currently dictate health policy for U.S. citizens. Of course, the
government cannot get away with duping the public in a democracy
without the complicity of a corporate-controlled media, which is why
you won't see exposes like this one on CNN or in the New York Times.
12/13/06 In
hearing about Jimmy Carter's new book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid"
I thought 'yeah! you tell 'em Jimmy!', but then I'm like most people
and don't know what the fuck i'm talking about.
My idea was that the UN or allied nations or whatever
they called
themselves right after WW2 grabbed the Palestinian's land, handed it to
Jews, and called it Israel. Thus unjustly displacing the
Palestinians. It turns out to be not quite so simple.
My
curious little mind turned to my favorite Cliffs Notes for everything
known to man...wikipedia.org.
It turns out the UN didn't 'take' the land from Palestinians
and
give it to Israeli settlers...Jews were already there occupying the
land...they occupied 30% of Palestine before the state of israel was
formed. The problem escalated to it's current level because
there
was no easy way to divide the country in two, so the UN just drew a
line around the area they thought would be appropriate for Israel, and
basically gave Israelis 45% of palestine...they already occupied 30% so
it really only increased their holdings by 15%...the problem was the
lines the UN drew left many Israelis in Palestine, and many
Palestinians in Israel. Each side of course worked to expel
the
other, and when they were all done with that it became a war between
the two countries. Each justifying their right to the land
now
called Israel, and both sides being partially right in that claim.
What
Carter's book does (with it's title at least) is compare the conflict
to Britain's occupation of South Africa calling it Pallestinian
apartheid, and his point is primarily that western support for the
state it created, is
one-sided, and unjustly discounts the Palestinian right to the land.
It's easy to see how this happened...the west is generally
anti-muslim...especially in recent years, and can easily identify with
Israelis...they are alot like us...rich, white, democratic, polyarchaic
(if it's not a real word i'm not all up in the caring) government.
And to be honest I'm anti-muslim to the extent that I'd
rather
support a people who don't find it appropriate to kill their women for
honor, or detonate themselves in crowded public places.
Those are the actions of lunatics...they need to learn to
indiscrimanently kill civillians like westerners do...from a safe
distance. (joke)
"It
was among the fastest, most efficient production cars ever
built.
It ran on electricity, produced no emissions and catapulted American
technology to the forefront of the automotive industry. The
lucky
few who drove it never wanted to give it up. So why did
General
Motors crush its fleet of EV1 electric vehicles in the Arizona
desert? WHO
KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR? chronicles the life and mysterious death of
the GM EV1, examining its cultural and economic ripple effects and how
they reverberated through the halls of government and big business."
The
pimps of big oil and the auto industry are probably the largest
influencing factors behind the death of the electric car. The
thing that really creeps me out about this documentary is the bleak
picture it paints of human nature...multimillionaires, who already own
everything, supressing, and destroying a technology that could save
humanity from ultimate destruction...selling out humanity for pure
greed. Oil companies buying up alternate energy technologies
just
so they can stick them in a dark filing cabnet never to see the light
of day again makes me sick.
Imagine,
just imagine the incredible good that 347 billion dollars could have
been used for in developing nations.
And if we spent just half of the military budget (235 billion dollars) on
global programs for suffering nations would we even need a military?
If so, how much money would that reduced military require to
opperate? Why is it necessary to
spend 7 times more than China (the next country on the list of military
budgets)?
The current (2005)
United States military budget is larger than the military budgets of
the next fourteen biggest spenders combined, and nearly seven times
larger than China's,
which places second. The United States and its close allies are
responsible for approximately two-thirds of all military spending on Earth
(of which, in turn, the US is responsible for the majority), and spend
57 times more than the six rogue nations combined (Cuba,
Iran, Libya,
North Korea, Sudan,
and Syria). Military spending accounts
for more than half of the United States' federal discretionary spending,
which is all of the U.S. government's money not spoken for by
pre-existing obligations.[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
11/29/06 Saddam just got sentenced
to death for killing a few thousand people, and he's just started
another series of trials
that will most likely result in a second death sentence for him.
According to the US department of defense Iraqi casualties
since the beginning of the war are about 29k and according to some
independent organizations it's actually closer to 50k. How many Iraqi's were
killed by the American military? I don't know (the exact
total isn't really important), but it was the Bush
administration's decision to remove Saddam from power which resulted in
the destabilization the country and caused the various factions within
to try to claim the country for their own. So even if all
those deaths weren't caused directly by Americans, they certainly were
caused indirectly by the Bush administration.
So if Saddam's slaughter of a few thousand people deserves the death
penalty, what does the Bush administration deserve for directly killing
maybe 10ish thousand (complete guess)and indirectly killing 40ish
thousand more? If bush is indeed the commander in chief then
he is ultimately responsible for 50ish thousand Iraqi deaths and
deserves at
least the death penalty (or maybe 4 or 5 death penalties stacked on top
of each other). And what about the deaths of the coalition forces? The
department of denfense has confirmed
3131 coalition
deaths, and 2882 of those are Americans. Bush killed 2882
Americans! Man he's sure giving Saddam some stiff
competition.
That would be a very cool way for the American people to redeem
themselves to the world...to impeach Bush, find him guilty of all those
deaths, then show our superiority to him by not sentencing him to
death, and instead sentencing him to ten consecutive life sentences
with no chance of parrole. (I'm not against the death penalty, but in
this case I'd rather not strengthen the world's impression of American
barbarism...Bush has done enough in that regard).
Anyhow...enough with my fantasy...here's a little counter for websites
that counts Iraqi civilian casualties since
the beginning of the US invasion of Iraq. This organization
lists a much higher body count than the US department of defense, but
they claim to arrive at that figure by documenting all the media body
counts since the beginning of the war.
11/28/06 In the decision-making
tree that is my life are there any 'wrong' branches?
ahh, decisions, decisions
It's
4:45am, and I've been up since 4. I was awakened from my
slumber
by a vivid, sentimental dream. The particulars are
not
important, but it involved a "decision" or a sequence of "decisions"
that occurred more than 15 years ago (god h'm old). I have
the
word "decisions" in quotations, because in retrospect the actions taken
by me (and others) were not so much conscious decisions, but kind of more
like just drifting where life takes you. We don't usually take
action without making some sort of decision to act, but sometimes the
decisions are made very lightly, without much thought of their future
implications. Anyone who knows the ancient, sordid details of my past
might think they know the specific scenario I am referring to, but they
are probably wrong. The beauty of my statements so far is
that
they fit any scenario.
I'm always eager to grab myself by the face, and stare into my own eyes
so my initial thought was to document in a more private way than this
public page all the wrong decisions I've made in my life.
While
it may sound like a sadomasochistic exercise, the intent is to
determine why I made those wrong decisions with the hope of discovering
some previously unknown aspect of myself. But I decided to
skip
the work, and just leap at the conclusion (so lazy...i know).
So
the question I'm asking is...in the decision-making tree that is my
life are there any 'wrong' branches? Any wrong decisions?
And at what point am I responsible for those decisions?
I'm asking these questions from a biased position. I've
believed
for years and years that there is no ultimate morality, and that the
idea is logically more sound than believing that there is some kind of
ultimate morality. But if that's true why do we fabricate a
moral
framework in which we try our best to operate in a 'moral' or
'ethical' way. Is our fabricated moral framework simply
created
to help us make decisions that will be conducive to social harmony or
approved of by society? What about when we make ethical/moral
decisions that are not conducive to social harmony, and probably would
not be approved of by the majority of society? What about
when we
take action without too much thought, and can barely call our actions
the result of a 'decision'?
I don't know.
I don't know.
What started this line of thinking this morning is sentimental regret.
A feeling of emotional responsibility for poor decisions I've
made...penitence.
"PENITENCEimplies sad and humble
realization of and regret for one's misdeeds <absolution is
dependent upon sincere penitence>"
A
sad and humble realization of and regret for one's misdeeds.
What
a perfect definition. I feel penitence for many, many
'misdeeds',
but what's this "absolution" stuff? ...back to Webster's...
"ABSOLUTION
- the
act of absolving;
specifically:
a remission of sins pronounced by a
priest (as in the sacrament of reconciliation)"
Ahhhh...it's
one of those things you need a priest for...beat your wife, and
sodomize your dog all week, confess, then get a free
pass for
next week's sins...absolution. But the definition also links
to
"absolving" so let's check that one out...maybe I don't need a priest
for that one...
"ABSOLVING 1:
to set free from an obligation or the consequences of guilt 2:
to remit (a sin) by absolution"
Sounds like I need a
priest for all of those.
It seems to me like the
main difference between the guy confessing about his wife and dog and
me is that I do genuinely feel a
sad and humble realization of and regret for my misdeeds...even if my
perception of my misdeeds is not quite accurate. And this
isn't
an isolated case...I've had these emotional realizations many, many
times in my life, and one poor decision usually acts as a trigger that
makes me think about many other poor decisions I've made.
It seems to me that penitence is much more important than any ritual
absolution. But is it all fabricated? Christians
seem to
base their entire faith on the concept of sin, penitence, and
absolution. The path to heaven is exactly that...we are born,
we
sin, we repent, god absolves us, and hands us a harp, and a
white
ten gallon hat as we enter through the pearly gates.
Thinking about stuff sucks...maybe I'll just find a priest instead.
I don't know.
I don't know.
Whatever
the answers are to all my questions, and given the limitations of the
technology i have personal access to, one thing is certain...I can't go
back. I can only go forward. The ethical framework
I've
fabricated for myself probably is just some overly complicated version
of an animal's understanding of social law, and I guess that'll have to
be
good enough for me. What other choice do I have?
11/18/06 Global
wealth distribution My well-meaning, Grecian
formula using buddy Lou Dobbs was talking about his favorite topic last
night, "America's
War on the Middle Class".
This time he was talking about free trade. For a
while I
didn't like Lou Dobbs. Every time his show came on he seemed
to
be talking about keeping Mexicans out of the USA so I pegged him as
either a racist or republican. A super-whitey keeping America
white. But he's actually a well-intentioned dude.
He really
just wants people who are reaping the benefits paid for by Americans to
contribute their fair share to the maintenance of those benefits
(taxes), and he wants to stop the degradation of wages by illegal
immigrant workers who are more than happy to work for half-pay.
Anyhow...last night he was debating with a Republican party-liner about
free trade. In case you don't know...the basic premise is
that
free trade is supported by the republicans because it benefits globe
trotting corporations. They can close down American
factories,
and re-open them in some country with much lower worker's rights
standards, significantly reduce operation costs, and ship the products
back to the USA without any tarrifs or penalties. This is
great
for profits, but screws everyone else involved. Jobs are lost
in
the USA, wages slowly go down, and the corporations who set up shop in
other countries actively work to keep worker's rights from improving in
those countries.
Another thing that happens is that the corporations that are native to
foreign countries get a free trade pass to sell goods in the USA.
So free trade = money getting pumped out of the USA. Lost
wages,
lost taxation, lost tarrifs, and all the costs associated with
building, maintaining the production facilities are lost, as well as
whatever resources the production facilities need to produce whatever
it is they are producing.
I like Lou, and what he was saying seems to make sense, but there's
another aspect to consider...global wealth redistribution.
Pumping money out of the country is bad, but is it fair that Americans
get to enjoy such an incredibly high standard of living while the rest
of the world must settle for something less...often FAR less?
Americans like to believe that they deserve a higher standard
because they're better, and smarter, and their fathers worked harder,
when they were really just lucky...lucky to be born here.
But what's the compassionate lay-person supposed to think?
Support free trade because it helps to increase the standard
of
living in third world countries? But it benefits
corporations,
and corporations need money and power taken from them...not given to
them. The ultra liberal ideal is a world without borders,
free
trade, free movement, and minimal government interference, but does
this not play into the hands of the corporate agenda of profit before
people? How do we have free trade and open borders without
giving
corporations a free license to rape the world?
So what's a compassionate layperson supposed to think about free trade?
I suppose I'll take a position against free trade until some
form
of yoke is placed on the shoulders of corporations, because although
I'd like to see wealth more equally distributed on a global level, I
can't just hand corporations a free license to rape the world.
The first short chapter talks mainly about the concept that the USA is
ruled by a small elite minority, while the majority's role is that of a
mindless herd that gets to occasionally stomp it's hooves in support of
one elite group or the other. Our system of democracy offers
the
herd the illusion of democracy, but is actually closer to a polyarchy.
"the term polyarchy was introduced by Robert A.
Dahl, former professor Yale University
to describe a political structure that was first implemented in the
United States and gradually adopted by many other countries especially
in Western Europe. This structure is one in which there are several
groups competing for political power and a large part of the population
of the country selects, through elections, which group shall have
ruling power for a set period."
Sounds pretty accurate to me.
The
chapter also talks lightly about the development of "huge industries"
developed to control the opinions of the herd...propaganda machines.
Britain's Ministry of Information and the USA's Committee on
Public Information whose primary objectives are to "manufacture
consent" amongst the herd.
Also sounds pretty accurate to me.
This information is intended to provoke a response in the reader.
The response is outrage or indignation that we are the herd
and a
"Ministry of Information" of some sort is manufacturing our opinions
and handing them to us. While this is true IMO, and we should
be
provoked by these words, we'd all likely do the exact same thing if we
were empowered to do so. Swaying others to our cause is the
life-long pursuit of many, many people. It's what debate is
intended to do, but if I could get the herd to agree with my agenda
without the effort of debate I certainly would.
The
thing that makes this wrong (or at least something that shouldn't be
allowed) i suppose is the fact that the Ministries of information are
controlled by the ruling elite (politicians), and that the ruling elite
are the ruling elite primarily because they've displayed subservience
to the true power of big money. So socially beneficial change
only occurs when it also supports (or at least doesn't subvert) the
interests of
corporations. The history of the subversion
of efforts to
reduce global warming is a perfect example of why it's wrong to allow
corporations to influence governmental policy.
That seems like the biggest problem...the union of corporate interest
and government. Sever that union and maybe we can start creating
policies designed to benefit society rather than increase profits.
I think aggressive campaign
finance reform is our best tool for squeezing corporations
out of the loop or at least greatly reducing their impact.
11/16/06
Depression = Realism? Am I depressed or is it just that most
things generally suck ass?
To me it seems like realism more than 'depression'.
If most
things generally suck ass, and most people are generally not depressed
what's going on? Are they blocking the suckage out?
Are
they lacking the capacity to recognize the suckage and yearn
for
change? Are they consciously ignoring all the aspects of
existence that suck or is it some kind of unconscious self-defense
mechanism that does the job for them? I understand life's too
bloody short to waste it dwelling on suckage, and I understand that I
lead a relatively blessed existence, so why am I unable to maintain
that thought? Why do i get so disheartened by the mundane
aspects
of life that others seem to either not even recognize or have a
seemingly unlimited capacity to ignore or brush off? Have I
simply discovered the first
noble truth of Buddhism?
Through meditation, and mindfulness I have gained conscious
understanding and control over my emotional outlook (and everything i
'think' for that matter). This is progress (because
understanding
HAS to be progress right?), but it doesn't make anything easier...it
just transforms the problem into something else. Removing
automation from our emotions, and claiming conscious control of
everything we think or feel opens up another can of worms.
True
objectivity is very, very difficult to carry around. The
difficulty no longer comes from emotions, but from the objectivity
itself.
It's tricky to explain, but it combines a true knowledge/feeling of
equanimity, and at the same time a disconnect from other people.
It's an inner understanding that when the automatic features
of
our personalities are removed, everything is one, ego vanishes,
equanimity is known. But at the same time it's like looking through the
eyes of someone else's body, observing the automatic reactions of this
shell that contains my personality. It is a direct, real-time
observation of the aspects of 'myself' that are my personality, and a
profound understanding that those aspects of myself are not 'me'.
The automaton is not the observer. This awareness
nullifies
everything. Words spoken between my 'self' and others often
seem
like words disassociated from meaning. I'm using words to
communicate my retardation to you all right now, so they do have some
kind of potential, but I'm also allowing the automaton to do the
typing. It's my automaton communication to your automaton.
The automaton maintains this website, the automaton has
interests
and hobbies, the automaton refers to my discoveries as 'retardation'
because he knows it's funny.
To function "I" have to relinquish control to the automaton.
I
still observe, but let the interaction unfold like it has to...like an
actor playing a part, but a part so ingrained and perfected that it
takes little to no effort to act.
I have children to raise, a wife to support (not economic support
silly), a world to function in, and people to say boatloads of words to.
In
hearing about Jimmy Carter's new book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid"
I thought 'yeah! you tell 'em Jimmy!', but then I'm like most people
and don't know what the fuck i'm talking about.
"It
was among the fastest, most efficient production cars ever
built.
It ran on electricity, produced no emissions and catapulted American
technology to the forefront of the automotive industry. The
lucky
few who drove it never wanted to give it up. So why did
General
Motors crush its fleet of EV1 electric vehicles in the Arizona
desert? 
It seems to me like the
main difference between the guy confessing about his wife and dog and
me is that I do genuinely feel a
sad and humble realization of and regret for my misdeeds...even if my
perception of my misdeeds is not quite accurate. And this
isn't
an isolated case...I've had these emotional realizations many, many
times in my life, and one poor decision usually acts as a trigger that
makes me think about many other poor decisions I've made.
Hegemony
Crickets Pinnochio!
The
thing that makes this wrong (or at least something that shouldn't be
allowed) i suppose is the fact that the Ministries of information are
controlled by the ruling elite (politicians), and that the ruling elite
are the ruling elite primarily because they've displayed subservience
to the true power of big money. So socially beneficial change
only occurs when it also supports (or at least doesn't subvert) the
interests of
corporations. The history of the subversion
of efforts to
reduce global warming is a perfect example of why it's wrong to allow
corporations to influence governmental policy.
The
two congressmen receiving the most donations from Monsanto during the
2000 election were Larry Combest (Former Chairman of the House
Agricultural Committee) and Missouri Senate candidate 
I
first heard the Flaming Lips about...oh I don't know...almost 20 years
ago covering Neil Young's "After the Goldrush" on a Neil Young tribute
album called "The Bridge". And it was that album that
actually
got me into Neil Young. I always thought he was a great
songwriter, but I held the opinion at the time that he should never be
allowed on stage because sucked as a performer. I've since
fell
in love with Neil Young, and consider him to be one of my all time
favorite, kindred musicians. So anyhow i really
remember
the album "The Bridge" and appreciate the impact it had on my musical
life. 
Like don't eat animals or
something...seriously stop eating them.