For a moment i was wondering who's rubble he was standing on? Was he standing on the rubble of 9.11 in America or was he standing on the rubble of Iraq and Afghanistan?

Rubble here, rubble there, rubble almost anywhare!

You know, there is some truth here. I would rather have a President who does what he thinks right even if I think it is wrong (Bush) than a President who does what he thinks the public wants even if he thinks it is wrong (Hillary? EEEEEEEEKKKK!)

You have to admire George W's conviction. I just wish he had some smarts to back it up with.

I'm speaking as a frustrated Republican, of course.

I do truely worry for this country. The executive branch is growing weaker, it has since the time of Nixon. Bush was probably one of the biggest blunderers internationally, but he is pushing for Congress to once again issue impeachment, which might in time make it a regular order of bussiness.

And Mac, no one really cares, I dont even think you do. You talk about it on the forums and maybe to your friends, but do you actually do something. Were you at the protest on the aniversery of the war, are you giving donations to places around the world that are in need? Do you even know of places like Somalia and Darfur?

You're right. I don't. I often wonder if any of us who haven't served or have loved ones serving know what we're talking about.

But I have a 16yr old son that could be serving in two years, and I employ 45+ high school students. When I see the soldiers running out of HUM-Vs on the news I try to remember that these could be the kids I have working here that are fighting and dying, kids that have their whole lives ahead of them, and it hurts. Sorry to get you upset, Mac. I don't mean to downplay their sacrifices in any way.

My point is that, really, what we do is elect a king, one individual that speaks for us as a country. It appears that this time our king is an idiot. But he believes deeply that what he is doing is correct. I value the fact that he has those beliefs, even if I think they are wrong. I think we are better represented by a man like that than by someone who changes his mind daily based on which way the political wind is blowing at the moment. At least he has a clear picture of what he wants to do, even if it may be impossible. In Vietnam no one knew what we doing there, and soldiers were dying anyway.

Right now, I think that we are sacrificing our young people for a noble goal that may be unrealistic. That is better than sacrificing them for nothing. Better yet would be not sacrificing them at all.



That is a growing problem. If Congress runs the country then what is to stop them from spending the budget by passing out free goods and services to ensure re-election? We need a president who is secure in what he thinks, and the election process makes those people hard to find.

Evil, is that one that you posted? I'd love to see your list of what you're happy about



Edit: Holy Cow, Dude!! I was just joking, but then I see you actually posted one! Well, I guess I'd better read it, then.

actually, during the month preceeding the war there was the largest grass-roots protest in recorded history. it tooks place in the streets of almost every major city in North America and Europe, as well as many in East Asia and the Middle East. but you're right, it got next to no coverage in the U.S.



this reminds me of a quote from Herbert Marcuse, a Marxian theorist during the 60s.
"Under the rule of a repressive whole, liberty can be made into a powerful instrument of domination. The range of choice open to the individual is not the decisive factor in determining the degree of human freedom, but what can be chosen and what is chosen by the individual... Free election of masters does not abolish the masters or the slaves. Free choice among a wide variety of goods and services does not signify freedom if these goods and services sustain social controls over a life of toil and fear..."



i think there needs to be a balance. too many of our leaders ignore their personal ethics in favor of career advancement. but at the same time, a leader must be sensitive to his/her people's goals and sensibilities. over-zealous leadership is one of the problems countries like Iraq face.

Was invading Iraq a mistake? The second time no! the second invasion was inherintly connected to the first invasion. Since Saddam agreed to allow weapons inspectors in which in turn made America and everyone else feel safe to leave him in power. Since Saddam decided to interefere with the inspectors then that is exactly the same as rejecting the initial treaty agreement. So if Saddam had rejected the initial treaty agreement the allies would have completed the first invasion.

This second invasion is nothing more than what would have happened anyway had Saddam rejected the initial treaty first up instead of rejecting it later on down the road as he did.

Now as far as the first invasion is concearned, that is the mistake! Personally i feel that since Kuwait told America to F-off when they had a military base there, America should have in turn laughed in Kuwaits face when Saddam invaded. If there is a more classic example of poetic justice out there than that, well i havn't heard it!

Or do you?

The average individual gets pelted with 3000 thousand advertisements each, at least a third cary subliminal messages.

Think about it.

I always wonder that if we were like the Compactors the world would be a better place.

It is a common peice of equipment used in the process of garbage disposal. As to how us being garbage disposal units makes the world a better place, i have absolutely no idea! Sounds like a crazy mans talk.

hehehe sorry.

Unfortunately their system only works because not everyone buys second hand.... if everyone did suddenly start buying second hand then the economy would colapse and the price of existing second hand items would go through the roof! Not an ideal outcome for the world at all.

As a relatively poor person i do often buy second hand but i am always grateful for those who buy new because they cause my second hand things to be cheaper!

good morning Oz,



not in the slightest, at least not as far as i'm concerned; i believe you're a rational and composed individual. and i didn't get the impression that you doubt my intelligence. the random bad mood notwithstanding, i try to be polite and civil - assuming i'm treated as such.



and you raise very important questions. i myself don't fully agree with any theorist, Marxian or otherwise. i do accept the premise that there's a propoganda machine built up especially in the U.S., for two reasons. one is simply the advertising-media complex, how thickly it saturates everyday life. whether or not you view that as a source or propoganda is your decision, but i also feel that ideology pervades our society because i don't think it's possible to live outside ideology. real objectivity isn't possible by human beings, and the best course of action we can take is to try and see the ways we each think and act in accordance with ideologies. in other words, i think an aware person is reflexive.

maybe you don't feel that a propoganda machine surrounds your everyday life. it certainly doesn't seem as obvious or heavy-handed as that of Orwell's 1984. but i ask, did the inhabitants of Airstrip One seem aware of the propoganda machine surrounding them? it seemed stark to us because it's unfamiliar. if there's an effective machine surrounding us, it'd certainly be hard to see it. but after learning as much as i have about the institutional structure of the media and advertising, i believe these industries function as a propoganda machine. it isn't a nationalistic propoganda, it's a consumeristic one - but don't think for a second that means there isn't a political agenda behind the advertising propoganda.



to this, i have another Marcuse quote:
"Freedom of enterprise was from the beginning no altogether a blessing. As the liberty to work or to starve, it spelled toil, insecurity, and fear for the vast majority of the population. If the individual were no longer compelled to prove himself on the market, as a free economic subject, the disappearance of this freedom would be one of the greatest achievements of civilization."

is such a society possible? probably not in our lifetimes, but some current Marxians think mechanical automation is what'll cause a true communist revolution (none of that Soviet B.S.).



that statement makes less sense out of context. he builds up to it by describing how many people experience freedom as the choice between things with only minor differences, such as an SUV vs. a motorcycle (or Pepsi and Coke for a more obvious example). but that's still a limited freedom.

it'd be extremely difficult for me, for example, to chose to spend the rest of my life as a student. i know i'd love it - i love learning. no, it's not an impossible choice to make, but the costs of making it would be too high (ever-mounting debt that'd pass to a next of kin when i died, not to mention a life of student poverty). i think this is what he's getting at when he says, "...but what can be chosen and what is chosen." our society makes the cost of some choices nearly suicidal, but other choices are so totally easy that making them doesn't seem like choice but common sense.

for example, i don't drive. i don't even have a lisence, and at age 25 i never have. that might not be so hard to believe, except i live in southern california, where cars may well outnumber people. i made the choice, but when people find this out about me, they're shocked. i make about 32k/year, but in one of the country's most expensive cities, if i "chose" to drive like everyone else i'd barely have enough money to scrape by. yes, i save enough money by not driving to enjoy my free time, but it costs me a spiderweb of other choices i could make if i had a car and more money. if i did chose to have a car, i'd probably be urged towards a better-paying job so that i could enjoy the "freedom" opened up by owning a car (freedom which mostly amounts to being able to spend my money more places).

this line of reasoning often provokes accusatiosn of immaturity, that's it's naive to expect something for nothing. i hardly expect that. i bring up this idea as a way to highlight the pressures in our society that marginalize certain choices. there are, in think, few things that anyone can do to prevent people from making most choices they might make. but at the same time, there's virtually no limit to how much dissuation might be fostered - either through negative pressure, or by making the desired choices so much easier to make. it's not so much that there's a single conspirator; the structure of the society we continually re-create is the source of most of these pressures i'm talking about.

personally, i consider myself a pragmatist. society changes slowly, and revolution isn't an answer in my view (what's born of fire ends in fire). i avoid clinging to an overly elaborage central belief - Marxian or otherwise. i consider communism an idea that's worth keeping in mind. ideas aren't urgent, and they don't need to be right. belief is a trickier matter. i think Marxian communism is a good idea because it teaches us that we can enact our virtues through organized government. the basic idea of communism is to feed, shelter, and give unfettered access to health care, education and persnal development to everyone. personally, i'd say that's very much in line with the american idea of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'