Fucking America!

[Petra]

This shit makes me so grumpy. You know I love you Americans that I've come to know (well, a few of you, anyway :wink: ), but your fucking nation is a party at others expense. :fuming:

I'm not even going to blame Bush, 'cos this kind of crap has been going on for decades, regardless of which party holds office. What am I talking about? Well, this (http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=358&row=0) is what I'm talking about. America is like the Mafia - it's success has only come through extortion, murder, exploitation, and theft. Argh! Sorry guys, but I cannot wait for America to fall. And no, it's not a "jealousy" thing - there's nothing to envy in a greedy, sociopathic criminal. :fuming: :fuming: :fuming:

Whatever it is, OUR President has decided that THEIR president has to go. This is none too easy given that Chavez is backed by Venezuela's poor; and the US oil industry, joined with local oligarchs, has made sure a vast majority of Venezuelans remain poor.


Some months ago, a little birdie faxed to me what appeared to be confidential pages from a contract between John Ashcroft's Justice Department and a company called ChoicePoint, Inc., of Atlanta. The deal is part of the War on Terror.


Justice offered up to $67 million of our taxpayer money to ChoicePoint in a no-bid deal for computer profiles with private information on every citizen of half a dozen nations. The choice of citizens to spy on caught my eye. While the September 11 highjackers came from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon and the Arab Emirates, ChoicePoint's menu offered records on Venezuelans, Brazilians, Nicaraguans, Mexicans and Argentines. How odd. Had the CIA uncovered a Latin plot to sneak suicide tango dancers across the border with exploding enchiladas?


What do these nations have in common besides a lack of involvement in the September 11 attacks? Coincidentally, each is in the throes of major electoral contests in which the leading candidates -- presidents Lula Ignacio da Silva of Brazil, Nestor Kirschner of Argentina, Mexico City mayor Andres Lopez Obrador and Venezuela's Chavez -- have the nerve to challenge the globalization demands of George Bush.


However, when Mexico discovered ChoicePoint had its citizen files, the nation threatened company executives with criminal charges. ChoicePoint protested its innocence and offered to destroy the files of any nation that requests it.


But ChoicePoint, apparently, presented no such offer to the government of Venezuela's Chavez.


In Caracas, I showed Congressman Nicolas Maduro the ChoicePoint-Ashcroft agreement. Maduro, a leader of Chavez' political party, was unaware that his nation's citizen files were for sale to U.S. intelligence. But he understood their value to make mischief.


If the lists somehow fell into the hands of the Venezuelan opposition, it could immeasurably help their computer-aided drive to recall and remove Chavez. A ChoicePoint flak said the Bush administration told the company they haven't used the lists that way.

Our team located a $53,000 payment from our government to Chavez' recall organizers, who claim to be armed with computer lists of the registered. How did they get those? The fix that was practiced in Florida, with ChoicePoint's help, conscious or not, appears to be retooled for Venezuela, then Brazil, Mexico and who knows where else.


Here's what it comes down to: The Justice Department is averting it's gaze away from Saudi Arabia while shoplifing voter records in Venezuela. So it's only fair to ask: Is Mr. Bush fighting a war on terror -- or a war on democracy?

Fuck the New American Century.

[livius drusus]

That is some sick, sick shit, luna.

[Petra]

That is some sick, sick shit, luna.

And this kind of thing has been going on for years, liv.

America's impact on the rest of the world stinks. Grubby politics and big business. So much lies at your feet; but guess who pays?

I get quite torn, because of my friendships - but I swear I'll support any global action that brings America to it's knees. As a nation, an ideology, a business, and a culture, America is a poison. Totally toxic. :(

[livius drusus]

I understand, luna, really. I have British friends; it doesn't mean I want India to be a colony.

You know, when I was in my early teens, I read an article in my dad's Fortune magazine about the decline and fall of the British Empire. The conclusion mentioned that the US was bound to go through something similar sooner or later, and it totally scared the shit out of me. Keep in mind that I had never lived in the US at that point, but I was still so deeply invested in the idea of its superpowerhood that it actually caused me pain to think of it being gone.

Needless to say, those days are over. I found out CIA subversion of post-war Italian elections was real, not my friends making shit up just to fuck with me. I found I could no longer rationalize US support of fascist and military dictatorships using some parroted Kissingerian theory of realpolitik. I read stuff.

So I agree: the US has too much power which it uses horridly. I think we would all be better off if it were just a regular ol' country.

[Petra]

I understand, luna, really. I have British friends; it doesn't mean I want India to be a colony. Good analogy.

You know, when I was in my early teens, I read an article in my dad's Fortune magazine about the decline and fall of the British Empire. The conclusion mentioned that the US was bound to go through something similar sooner or later, and it totally scared the shit out of me. Keep in mind that I had never lived in the US at that point, but I was still so deeply invested in the idea of its superpowerhood that it actually caused me pain to think of it being gone.

I actually think that the USA should break up into smaller countries. The only reason I support the growing EU is as a counter-weight to US superpowerdom and the America dollar.

I guess as German-born Kiwi with duel British citizenship, I grew up with a more UK/European/Asian/Polynesian focus. America was just somewhere flashy that pumped out entertainment products. Later, from about Reagan on, I learned to fear America and it's cultural/economic hegemony and war-profiteering nature. The UK and France weren't too favoured, either. The thing is, it almost - almost - doesn't matter who the POTUS is; the President is just a puppet when it comes to all this CIA/big business crap. So are the everyday people of the USA. It's the CIA and big business that fully understands the power of realpolitik. They are mercenary.

Needless to say, those days are over. I found out CIA subversion of post-war Italian elections was real, not my friends making shit up just to fuck with me. I found I could no longer rationalize US support of fascist and military dictatorships using some parroted Kissingerian theory of realpolitik. I read stuff.
Yup. There's no need to make shit up - the facts may read like fiction, but they are facts.

So I agree: the US has too much power which it uses horridly. I think we would all be better off if it were just a regular ol' country.
Or several smaller countries, perhaps. Maybe one day that'll happen.

As it stands now, though, it's one giant Mafia - and all the terrorists wear Armani suits.

[The Lone Ranger]

The thing that impresses me on reading that article is that no U.S. newspaper would dare print such a thing. "Liberal media" my eye! I find that I can learn a lot more about the United States' foreign policies from sources like the BBC than from even the most careful perusal of U.S. sources (even NPR, sadly). It's a long list of things that don't get printed in U.S. newspapers or mentioned on news broadcasts.

And don't get me started on television news! Granted, I haven't watched television news in years, but I catch it every now and again when visiting friends, and I'm simply astonished at how shallow, sensationalist, and almost completely lacking in substance it is.




So I agree: the US has too much power which it uses horridly. I think we would all be better off if it were just a regular ol' country.

I agree wholeheartedly.




The thing is, it almost - almost - doesn't matter who the POTUS is; the President is just a puppet when it comes to all this CIA/big business crap. So are the everyday people of the USA. It's the CIA and big business that fully understands the power of realpolitik. They are mercenary.

That's the truly frightening thing.

Given its power and wealth, the United States could be a great country. By that, I mean that it could have a huge positive influence on the world -- leading the way in reducing environmental damage, feeding the hungry, educating and helping the poor, and so on and so on. But do we use our wealth and power responsibly? Not at all!

Given the way that our political system works nowadays, I think it's all but impossible for an honest and decent person to make it to the White House. You have to sell your soul to get there.

Jimmy Carter might -- I repeat, might -- have been an exception, but I suspect that he'd never have made it into office if not for the collective disgust over Nixon's Watergate affair and everyone (read Ford) who was associated with him.


I do think an important distinction must be made (as you have, actually) between the American people and the American government. The American people are mostly kind, decent, and generous people (if hopelessly uninformed on world affairs), in my opinion. The American government is corrupt, power-hungry, and ruthless.


I'm perfectly serious when I say that I think of emigration more and more frequently these days.

*Sigh*

Michael

[Dingfod]

I'm perfectly serious when I say that I think of emigration more and more frequently these days.You and me both, pal.

But, perhaps it was inevitable, as predicted in Paul Kennedy's book The Rise and Fall of Great World Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict 1500-2000 (published 1987). It's been a long time since I read it, so I grabbed this quote from an outdated (pre-Iraq War) review:
Once their productive capacity [is] enhanced, countries...normally find it easier to sustain the burdens of paying for large-scale armaments in peacetime and of maintaining and supplying large armies and fleets in wartime. It sounds crudely mercantilistic to express it this way, but wealth is usually needed to acquire and protect wealth. If, however, too large a portion of the state's resources is diverted from wealth creation and allocated instead to military purposes, then that is likely to lead to a weakening of national power over the longer term. In the same way, if a state overextends itself strategically--by, say, the conquest of extensive territories or the waging of costly wars--it runs the risk that the potential benefits from external expansion may be outweighed by the great expense of it all--a dilemma which becomes acute if the nation concerned has entered a period of relative economic decline.One could argue that as a percentage of GDP, the US, even with it's Iraq War,has not even come close to World War II military expenditure levels. Add to what we are spending to the size of the national debt and the deficits as far as the eye can see along with declining energy production, I can see how the USA might indeed become marginalized globally in the future, out of economic necessity. But, the question is, will it go quietly, or go down kicking and biting all the way?


Warren

[Petra]

...I'm simply astonished at how shallow, sensationalist, and almost completely lacking in substance it is.

I often wonder how the ratings of shows such as Survivor and Jerry Springer compare with the ratings of TV news, as they appear to be competing in the same race.

Given its power and wealth, the United States could be a great country. By that, I mean that it could have a huge positive influence on the world -- leading the way in reducing environmental damage, feeding the hungry, educating and helping the poor, and so on and so on.

Unfortunately, the character of those who pursue great power and wealth is not condusive to that vision, Michael. And those people run the show.

I think those countries and their leaders who don't feel the need to own and rule everything at any cost are much more likely to have positive influence in the world. Alas, that influence is already a tiny thing compared to the behemoth, and is diminishing.

Given the way that our political system works nowadays, I think it's all but impossible for an honest and decent person to make it to the White House. You have to sell your soul to get there.

You guys really need to do something about that.

[Petra]

Warren,

Great quote! Thanks. :)

[JoeP]

I actually think that the USA should break up into smaller countries.That is a fantastic idea. Where shall we draw the boundaries? Obviously California could make up a sizeable country on its own.

What about Texas? Would that be part of the "South" with Louisiana, Florida, the Carolinas, and so on?

DC, New York and all of New England?

Would the central states and the midwest, wherever that is, form a coherent whole? Or just a hole?

Does Utah need to be on its own - "one nation under Joseph Smith"?

[JoeP]

And don't get me started on television news! Granted, I haven't watched television news in years, but I catch it every now and again when visiting friends, and I'm simply astonished at how shallow, sensationalist, and almost completely lacking in substance it is.We get CNN and I can see exactly what you mean. Did you notice after Sept 11th there was a sudden deepening of serious reflection, and lots of comment on how it might be a landmark shift in American news attitudes? It lasted a couple of months.

I'm perfectly serious when I say that I think of emigration more and more frequently these days.Don't! The rest of the world needs clear-headed people to stay in America and counterbalance the rest. Correct the system from the inside. However impossible it seems.

[Petra]

That is a fantastic idea. Where shall we draw the boundaries? Obviously California could make up a sizeable country on its own.

What about Texas? Would that be part of the "South" with Louisiana, Florida, the Carolinas, and so on?

DC, New York and all of New England?

Would the central states and the midwest, wherever that is, form a coherent whole? Or just a hole?

Does Utah need to be on its own - "one nation under Joseph Smith"?

Sing it with me, Joe. :D

[Nil Desperandum]

Having been born and raised here, all I can really remember from my youth is the continuous feeding of the great American legacy. Apple pie, family car, Dick, Jane, Spot, and the two children (not creative enough to think of names other than offensive ones). I remember our great split-off from the oppressive rule of GB, and I remember thinking, "But, but, the Indians were here first!"

I remember thinking how much that must have sucked for the Indian cultures of Mexico to be wiped out by horses and long-range guns.

I, of course, remember that everyone wanted to come live the American dream. We're such a wonderful and open place. I remember that 'Drugs are bad, mmmkay.' and "Read my lips, no more(or was it 'new'?) taxes."

I remember Ronald Reagan had something to do with Yorba Linda, since I was from Southern California and all. Oh, he was an actor, too. :P

Iran-Contra affair? Huh?

All of these things. Then I started to read the web this year. I became extremely interested in politics.

I never realized how far Israel's fist was stuffed up our asses.
I never realized my parent's tax dollars paid for the CIA to help Osama when we needed an edge over those damn Commie Atheist Bastards(tm).
I never realized that Big Business(tm) couldn't sneeze without a couple hundred people trampling each other to wipe the snot off, with the winner's hard-on getting ready to bust the seams on some underoos.
I never realized how much disinformation is being spread in the media.
Right-Wing? Left-wing? WTF?
I never, EVER thought I'd say the War on Drugs was class-warfare at its best. (Mmmkay!) Didn't think it would be a way to launder my hard-earned cash, either.
I never thought I would kill innocent civilians in an illegal war based upon nothing but lies (Oh, but Tommy Franks sez, "We did it for Israel. There was a threat to them."(paraphrase)
I never thought I would literally desire to move to Sweden, because Nordic Chicks(tm) make me hot.

Above all, I never thought I'd look at this country, it's foreign police since the end of World War II, and be disgusted.

I just bought a townhome in October. The Real-Estate Bubble(tm) is going to pop next year, and this country is going to go down kicking and screaming.

If I lost 10% of $1 million, that may suck ass, but I can still get by.
If I lose 10% of $40,000, I'm fucking screwed. I'm scrapimg the barrel.

Hopefully, when this country tanks, I'll be on a beach somewhere else, with my love in one hand, and our seductive, dark-skinned mistress in the other.

What a sham. I was sold these lies all of my life. I feel betrayed. Either we rise up, or we get slammed to the ground by the waves of self-interest assholes.

Nader may be loony, but Israel's puppets we are.

Chris

[Dingfod]

That is a fantastic idea. Where shall we draw the boundaries? Obviously California could make up a sizeable country on its own.

What about Texas? Would that be part of the "South" with Louisiana, Florida, the Carolinas, and so on?Would they even want it?

DC, New York and all of New England?Northeast Administrative District.

Would the central states and the midwest, wherever that is, form a coherent whole? Or just a hole?Heartland.

Does Utah need to be on its own - "one nation under Joseph Smith"?I'm sure that would suit 70-75% of all Utahs just fine, but they'd probably want at least the southern half of Idaho too.


Warren

[livius drusus]

I actually think that the USA should break up into smaller countries. The only reason I support the growing EU is as a counter-weight to US superpowerdom and the America dollar.

Ah... Is that the sweet scent of Anarchism I detect? ;) Americalets could be great, but it seems far more likely to me that they'd be horrific. Most of the separatists I know of strike me as utter cunts (present company and indigenous peoples movements excluded), so what are the odds the Diced States of America would be great places to live?

Scroll down here (http://www.constitution.org/cs_separ.htm) to see a list of the current secessionist types. He he... Silly Texas....

I guess as German-born Kiwi with duel British citizenship, I grew up with a more UK/European/Asian/Polynesian focus. America was just somewhere flashy that pumped out entertainment products. Later, from about Reagan on, I learned to fear America and it's cultural/economic hegemony and war-profiteering nature.

I woke up to Reagan's assholishness when he bombed Libya and Quaddafi fired those missiles at Lampedusa in revenge. That, my profound, visceral fear of nuclear war, Genesis' Land of Confusion video and Sting's Russians made me hate the bastard.

The thing is, it almost - almost - doesn't matter who the POTUS is; the President is just a puppet when it comes to all this CIA/big business crap. So are the everyday people of the USA. It's the CIA and big business that fully understands the power of realpolitik. They are mercenary.

Yup. That's why Chomsky says he'll never run for president. Wise man. It also explains how someone like Jimmy Carter, who seems to me someone who truly cares about human rights, could support the likes of the Shah of Iran.

As it stands now, though, it's one giant Mafia - and all the terrorists wear Armani suits.

Many of them can't even make that claim, I'm afraid. I'd have more respect for them if they at least spent their billions in good taste.

[lisarea]

I guess as German-born Kiwi with duel British citizenship

So you're an American citizen? Get it? Get it? Har har. That were a spelling joke. I done burnt ya.

Anyway, I have to say that, on paper, I like America the best. I like our Bill of Rights better than anything else I've seen. I like that we're a young, diverse nation, and that we're not, on paper, as xenophobic as so many other cultures.

What makes me sick is, say, look at Canada's Bill of Rights. It's lame. It's a watered-down copy of ours. It starts out with a bunch of crap about "as long as it's OK with the monarchy" that just makes me sick. And I don't care for Canada's casual approach to free speech, either. I despise--and I do mean despise--the concept of SUBJECTS.

But why is Canada so much better off than us? Because, despite the fact that, on paper, we are the people, we're not. We're subjects, too, whether we say so on paper or not. And we're not just subjects to some flaccid old bats in RenFaire costumes, either. We're subjects of legal fictions. And our legal fictions are fucking HUGE. They get our tax money. They whine about their civil liberties. They pay our politicians. They write our fucking laws. They dictate our foreign policy. And we just sit around, fat and happy, drinking the Kool Aid.

We believe that we're better than the rest of the world. Not just the government. Not just the politicians. The rest of us. We don't know what exactly it is we believe in, but we know it's red, blue, and mostly white. We value our own lives I'd say ten times as much as we value the lives of others. And that's a conservative estimate.

We're pointlessly nationalistic. We're short-sighted and greedy. When we hear about our own troops going into Iraq and rounding up civilians looking for evidence that they support Saddam, we cheer. Anyone remember the picture of the Iraqi guy, sitting on the curb with soldiers pointing their guns at his head because they found a picture of Saddam in his house? We figure it's A-OK for us to invade a country and imprison and torture civilians there because they just might support a government we don't approve of. How many of us, though, would feel the same way if a more civilized nation invaded us, searched our homes for pictures of Bush, and tortured those who disagreed with them? Would we be terrorists, too, if we resisted these invading armies? Would we mind all that much if they stripped our moms naked and humiliated them because they didn't agree with them?

And do we even know what sort of government we're fighting so hard to spread? Just saying "Freedom" doesn't count. What is the point of our constitution, and our democratic process, if we don't know what the fuck we stand for? And make no mistake, we do not know.

The foundations of American politics are entirely meaningless if the people don't know what's going on (http://hnn.us/articles/1463.html). Most of the people don't know what's going on. The foundations of American politics are almost entirely meaningless.

And in "What Americans Know About Politics," published in 1996, political scientists Michael X. Delli Carpini and Scott Keeter cite some similarly dreary findings: Forty-five percent of Americans attributed the phrase "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" to the U.S. Constitution rather than to Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto." Nearly a third of Americans thought the Constitution guaranteed every American a job, 42 percent thought it guaranteed health care, and 75 percent thought it guaranteed a high school education.

To be fair, most of us know what the constitution guarantees: All the candy we can eat, free pornography, government subsidies for Everybody Loves Raymond, and free long distance phone calls with every arrest.

But enough of us don't know, or don't care, that we've allowed the foundations of our government to be eroded through the tireless efforts of those with the most to gain from doing so. And if they say the word "Freedom" a few times, we start to believe that we stand for pure, unfettered capitalism and world domination.

Now, I don't even really have a problem with interventions sometimes. To be honest, I'd fucking love to see every nation in the world have a bill of rights guaranteeing the right to vote, and freedom of speech and religion and all that. And I don't have a problem with using aid and embargos and even deposing the occassional bloodthirsty dictator, as long as we're really doing it in the interests of oppressed people, and as long as we let them run their governments, and give them the tools to rebuild their countries and retool their governments.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if our power were really what it's supposed to be, what it was set up to be, and if our priorities and our goverment recognized our real foundations, the fact that we're huge and influential would be a good thing for everyone.

But it's not.

[livius drusus]

Such a great post, woman.

[viscousmemories]

I don't know which is more offensive here: All this America bashing or all this Texas bashing. I'm an American Texan, dammit, and contrary to the statements of my drill sergeants I am neither a steer or queer. Speaking of drill sergeants, I was in the Army when we bombed Libya. I thought it was pretty cool 'cause we were bombing people who fucked with us. That was the extent of my knowledge of, experience with and concern about International affairs.

Anyway despite my having become disillusioned with America years ago, I'll be damned if I'm gonna be emigrating anytime soon. With my luck I'd end up moving to that country, wherever it may be, that becomes the next drug or terrorist haven that the good ole US of A has to wipe off the map in its effort to free the people. Besides, there are a lot of things I like about America. For one thing it's a lot easier for me to get around 'cause I can read the signs and menus and communicate with most of the people most of the time.

Anyway I have a lot of respect for Chomsky too, and I notice he hasn't emigrated. :P

Hasn't Texas wanted to be its own country for a long time? I heard that recently...

[Dingfod]

Such a great post, woman.Oh bullshit. Lisa has a picture of George W. on her nightstand, one of those on plate where the eyes follow you around the room and shit. She has a Reagan portrait decoupaged on her toilet seat so she can sit on his face every day. You know she does. She whittles images of John Ashcroft in her rutabagas. You just know she does.


Warren

[Dingfod]

I don't know which is more offensive here: All this America bashing or all this Texas bashing. I'm an American Texan, dammit, and contrary to the statements of my drill sergeants I am neither a steer or queer.

Hasn't Texas wanted to be its own country for a long time? I heard that recently...I grew up in Texas. Most Texans think they don't need the rest of the states. Most Texans are so full of bullshit you can smell them over a feedlot in Northern Oklahoma. :wink: {j/k}

I heard that Texas has the right to break up into five states all my long life. This one is oddly enough true:
28th Congress of the United States, Session II, No. 8 Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States, 1 March A.D. 1845 (U.S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 5, p. 797) [I have indicated the start and end of italics with square brackets]

[ Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, ] That Congress
doth consent that...the Republic of Texas, may be erected into a
new State...in order that the same may be admitted as one of the
States of this Union.

2. [ And be it further resolved, ] That the foregoing consent of
Congress is given upon the following conditions, and with the
following guarantees...New States, of convenient size, not
exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas,
and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by consent of
said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall
be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal
Constitution...

[ Be it resolved, ] That a State...shall be admitted into the
Union...as soon as...the cession of the remaining Texian
territory...
Emphasis mine. I think it's the only state with that exception. There isn't anything in there about being allowed to secede, though. I say break the sumbitch up, it's too fucking big for it's britches as it is. Maybe cede it to Mexico, they're about to take it over by non-violent means as it is (immigration).


Warren, who grew up in Panhandle, the high plains state, the land where you can see fifty miles by standing on a horny toad's back, the land where all the trees grow sideways...

[lisarea]

Oh bullshit. Lisa has a picture of George W. on her nightstand, one of those on plate where the eyes follow you around the room and shit. She has a Reagan portrait decoupaged on her toilet seat so she can sit on his face every day. You know she does. She whittles images of John Ashcroft in her rutabagas. You just know she does.

Heh heh. I was telling the ODB just yesterday about how I am secretly a God-fearing nationalistic Republican infiltrating the seedy librull enclaves so that I can destroy them from within, and so I can drain the great state of Ohio® of its hippy dippy anti-corporate lawyers.

® Ohio is a registered trademark of the Diebold corporation.

[livius drusus]

Oh bullshit. Lisa has a picture of George W. on her nightstand, one of those on plate where the eyes follow you around the room and shit. She has a Reagan portrait decoupaged on her toilet seat so she can sit on his face every day. You know she does. She whittles images of John Ashcroft in her rutabagas. You just know she does.

Well, she is a registered Republican. And she does have that weirdo Jesus statue she adores. You make a good argument, my friend, a very good argument.

[The Lone Ranger]

Ah... Is that the sweet scent of Anarchism I detect? ;) Americalets could be great, but it seems far more likely to me that they'd be horrific. Most of the separatists I know of strike me as utter cunts (present company and indigenous peoples movements excluded), so what are the odds the Diced States of America would be great places to live?


I'm with livius on this. Here in Eastern Washington/Northern Idaho, we have a fair number of "Aryan Nation" types. They're shockingly small-minded and hate-filled people. Similarly, growing up in North Carolina, I encountered quite a few unrepentent "The South Shall Rise Again Types." They were mostly of the same ilk.

Those Americans who want to break the U.S. up into smaller nations are mostly very scary people, in my opinion.



I woke up to Reagan's assholishness when he bombed Libya and Quaddafi fired those missiles at Lampedusa in revenge. That, my profound, visceral fear of nuclear war, Genesis' Land of Confusion video and Sting's Russians made me hate the bastard.

Oh, how I remember those times! Reagan joking on an open microphone about bombing Russia. Reagan insisting that the Russians are so "evil" and "militaristic" that their language doesn't even have a word for "peace." Reagan insisting that we could win a nuclear war with the U.S.S.R. for crying out loud -- with "acceptable losses"!

I remember a lot of us young folks being quite convinced that we weren't going to live long-enough to grow up, because that fool Reagan was going to get us into a nuclear war any day now.



Yup. That's why Chomsky says he'll never run for president. Wise man. It also explains how someone like Jimmy Carter, who seems to me someone who truly cares about human rights, could support the likes of the Shah of Iran.

*Sigh* We have the best government money can buy.

Noam Chomsky's Deterring Democracy and Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States should be required reading for all American citizens.


Cheers,

Michael

[freemonkey]

the American people....... (if hopelessly uninformed on world affairs)

This is it, in a nutshell. We have the power to make things better, to do things better, to be better. But instead, a huge number of Americans choose to be distracted by non-issues.

Lisa, I agree, excellent post. :super:

[Gawen]

Hasn't anyone seen the parallels between America today and Germany of the late 20's and 30's? All it will take is something a little more dreadfull then 9/11 and more of it (something or someone to blame it on) for some president to call martial law into effect and postpone elections...forever.

As an American, I am at times quite ashamed at American arrogance. Man, there's so much I could say....

I reckon we're just fucking ourselves right out of existance. I had thought of moving to Australia or New Zealand. But may as well stay here and fight.

[godfry n. glad]

<sigh>

Amerika.

Overseas, it was not "the United States"...that brought blank stares. It was "Amerika". That brought recognition. That recognition was friendlier than I expected.

I still felt the need to apologize for my fellow citizens. I find many Americans to be willfully ignorant. So much so that they are taken in by the chicanery of the puppets of the plutocrats masquerading as our elected officials. It's a nation that's been bought and sold, several times over. Money is authority. Plain and simple.

Sad to say, but our leadership is a reflection of us. A bad one, perhaps. We can only hope it's temporary.

I personally would be willing to immigrate, but Canada won't have me.

And, Warren... Utah can't have any part of the Columbia Basin, including the Snake River drainage. Those phony Maroni types in central Idaho can lump it or go back to Mormonland. Cascadia keeps it all.

I'd like to see how the Mormons would split the desert with the Sin City types. Or would Lost Wages become part of Californizonia?

godfry

[Ronin]

And this kind of thing has been going on for years, liv.

America's impact on the rest of the world stinks. Grubby politics and big business. So much lies at your feet; but guess who pays?

I get quite torn, because of my friendships - but I swear I'll support any global action that brings America to it's knees. As a nation, an ideology, a business, and a culture, America is a poison. Totally toxic. :(

<emphasis mine>

Aside from the myopic vitriol discounting that which this country has done to improve the human condition...I found this to be the most disturbing and disheartening sentiment.

I may not like everything about the way this country functions, but I'll still defend it...even for it's potential...against any global action that attempts to bring it down.

That said, anyone want to suggest which power would hypothetically fill the vacuum left in the wake of a defeated America?

[Petra]

Ah... Is that the sweet scent of Anarchism I detect? ;) Americalets could be great, but it seems far more likely to me that they'd be horrific. Most of the separatists I know of strike me as utter cunts (present company and indigenous peoples movements excluded), so what are the odds the Diced States of America would be great places to live?

Scroll down here (http://www.constitution.org/cs_separ.htm) to see a list of the current secessionist types. He he... Silly Texas....

It's a shame that secessionists are such nutjobs. Must be something in the water.

[Petra]

So you're an American citizen? Get it? Get it? Har har. That were a spelling joke. I done burnt ya. LOL. Y'know I looked at that word several times thinking I'd done it wrong. I was right. An' ya did burn me. See what an insidious influence y'all have? :P

Anyway, I have to say that, on paper, I like America the best. There is much to like about America. Your Bill of Rights is better than your Constitution - if only it applied to US foreign policy, as well....that we're not, on paper, as xenophobic as so many other cultures. On paper. Actually, I don't think those at the top of American politics and society fear foreigners so much as look at them with an eye to screw them. And then perhaps it is me that is phobic.

But why is Canada so much better off than us? Because, despite the fact that, on paper, we are the people, we're not. We're subjects, too, whether we say so on paper or not. And we're not just subjects to some flaccid old bats in RenFaire costumes, either. We're subjects of legal fictions. And our legal fictions are fucking HUGE. They get our tax money. They whine about their civil liberties. They pay our politicians. They write our fucking laws. They dictate our foreign policy. And we just sit around, fat and happy, drinking the Kool Aid.

Watch out for the Kool Aid. It ain't good for ya.

We believe that we're better than the rest of the world ...
We're pointlessly nationalistic. We're short-sighted and greedy. Aye, there's the rub. Like solipsistic Hollywood superstars, so much of the strut is all style, no substance. And it's a style that should have gone out of fashion eons ago.When we hear about our own troops going into Iraq and rounding up civilians looking for evidence that they support Saddam, we cheer.And yet can't understand why others cheer when the US suffers a blow.We figure it's A-OK for us to invade a country and imprison and torture civilians there because they just might support a government we don't approve of.And this has been done overtly or covertly for decades. How many of us, though, would feel the same way if a more civilized nation invaded us, searched our homes for pictures of Bush, and tortured those who disagreed with them? Would we be terrorists, too, if we resisted these invading armies? lol. I guess you'd be freedom fighters.

And do we even know what sort of government we're fighting so hard to spread? Just saying "Freedom" doesn't count. What is the point of our constitution, and our democratic process, if we don't know what the fuck we stand for? And make no mistake, we do not know.

The foundations of American politics are entirely meaningless if the people don't know what's going on (http://hnn.us/articles/1463.html). Most of the people don't know what's going on. The foundations of American politics are almost entirely meaningless.

You fighting to spread the word of lassaiz faire capitalism in other countries while practising protectionism at home. Your fighting to fuck everyone, because fucking makes you da man.


To be fair, most of us know what the constitution guarantees: All the candy we can eat, free pornography, government subsidies for Everybody Loves Raymond, and free long distance phone calls with every arrest.lol. Funny, but pretty much the crux of it.

But enough of us don't know, or don't care, that we've allowed the foundations of our government to be eroded through the tireless efforts of those with the most to gain from doing so. And if they say the word "Freedom" a few times, we start to believe that we stand for pure, unfettered capitalism and world domination.Yup

Now, I don't even really have a problem with interventions sometimes. To be honest, I'd fucking love to see every nation in the world have a bill of rights guaranteeing the right to vote, and freedom of speech and religion and all that. And I don't have a problem with using aid and embargos and even deposing the occassional bloodthirsty dictator, as long as we're really doing it in the interests of oppressed people, and as long as we let them run their governments, and give them the tools to rebuild their countries and retool their governments. I would be more of a supporter of the US if that were the case. As it stands now though, I am highly suspicious of every move the US makes.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if our power were really what it's supposed to be, what it was set up to be, and if our priorities and our goverment recognized our real foundations, the fact that we're huge and influential would be a good thing for everyone.

But it's not.

Good post, lisarea. Thanks.

[Petra]

<emphasis mine>

Aside from the myopic vitriol discounting that which this country has done to improve the human condition...I found this to be the most disturbing and disheartening sentiment.
Yup, that was myopic vitriol.

Yes, America has done things to improve the human condition. You have many wonderful specialists in all scientific fields, and have added much to the wealth of human experience in the arts, the sciences, humanities, and even in war.

That all seems such a long time ago, now.

I may not like everything about the way this country functions, but I'll still defend it...even for it's potential...against any global action that attempts to bring it down.Of course you would: It's your home, your heritage, your ethnicity, your heart. I would expect you to defend it.

That said, anyone want to suggest which power would hypothetically fill the vacuum left in the wake of a defeated America?

That's the problem. The fall of power leaves a vacuum, which idiot man must egotistically fill. I wish the UN were more effective. Single superpowers are a blight on the landscape.

[livius drusus]

Aside from the myopic vitriol discounting that which this country has done to improve the human condition...

What sorts of things did you have in mind? The spreading of the wonderful on-paper ideals lisarea referred to? Luna's arts, sciences, humanities influences? I guess in the end I can't help but dream of a government that stands by those ideals and supports the artists and scientists without hypocrisy and miserliness. The succession of horrors wrought by every US government I know of, starting right off with George Washington's administration and the 80% of its federal budget dedicated to Indian wars, makes it easy for me to discount that which the government has done to improve the human condition.

I may not like everything about the way this country functions, but I'll still defend it...even for it's potential...against any global action that attempts to bring it down.

What do you mean by the country, though? Because I think I'd be glad to see the federal government brought down. It wouldn't be total chaos - our state governments will do in a pinch - and then we could get to the business of calling a new constitutional convention and having one of those revolutions Jefferson thought we should have every 30 years or so.

That said, anyone want to suggest which power would hypothetically fill the vacuum left in the wake of a defeated America?

Well, the country is still replete with natural resources, industry, money so I don't think it would become an economic nonentity or anything. Other than that, I'd imagine the EU would step up to the plate, and of course, there are plenty of countries around the world with large, functional economies.

Militarily, I would say there is no power that would become a superpower; the vacuum would be splintered, not filled. The world hasn't always had superpowers. We could return to balance of power systems or stable, long-standing alliances and unions.

[Farren]

I don't want to see the US of A on its knees. I want to see the rest of the world on its tippy-toes. Like Luna, I'm bitter about the way America has wielded its power, but I think things would be a whole lot better if the US just wasn't top dog any more.

That can be accomplished by other nations picking themselves up just as much as by tearing America down and I'd rather not see a nation of 350 000 000 people go down in flames.

A little humility is all that's needed and increased economic power in other parts of the world can usher that humility in. Its already happening with the strong Euro emerging as a viable second reserve currency, developing nations starting to negotiate as a bloc at events like the WTO talks and China rising faster than anyone could have imagined.

[lisarea]

There is much to like about America. Your Bill of Rights is better than your Constitution - if only it applied to US foreign policy, as well.

Well, I was referring to the constitution inclusive of the bill of rights.

Basically, I think this country was founded on excellent ideals, and I can't imagine a better set of standards on which to found a nation.

And from the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Ain't that beautiful?

With the stipulation that my creator is not sentient, I can't imagine a more concise and well-crafted outlining of the purpose of government.

Based on these general ideas, and on the degree of power and influence we have over world politics, I can certainly see justification for intervention.

I'm not ready to give up on us yet. I do think we're progressing, still. We're way too big for our britches, at least in terms of leaders, but we still have the potential to be a force for justice.

What we need is for the US people to put aside their nationalism just enough to realize that dissent is patriotic, and that it is our duty to understand what's going on in our names, and to hold our representatives accountable to us. And we really need to understand just what it is we stand for.

And I actually have some hope for that, too. This is not scientific data, I know, but based on my own observations, kids now are much smarter and more aware than they were when I was young. I grew up in a white-bread suburb about ten miles from the white-bread suburb in which my son is growing up, and I can tell you that the kids I see now know more about politics, are kinder and more ethical and worlds more tolerant than the kids I knew growing up.

The LM has way too many friends, and of all of these teenaged boys, I am aware of one that is marginally homophobic, for example, and the other four or five present dogpiled the poor kid when he said something about it. I would lay odds that an impressive percentage of them could name the AG. I'm not sure if the kids I knew could have identified the VP. These guys are talking about the elections.

I fully expect these guys to grow up to be far better informed than their parents. I really do.

And hell, I expect these kids--most of them are just becoming eligible to vote--to start making a difference now.

Sure, things are never going to turn around entirely. We have too much power and too much infrastructure in place to protect the interests of those with influence. But these kids are smarter than their parents, and I like to think that maybe that's not just my experience.

I don't want to see us destroyed, by any stretch. I want us to start paying more attention, and getting back to standing for what we're supposed to stand for, and I really think that might be starting to happen already.

[freemonkey]

After hearing my husband talk about some head-spinning conversations he's had with some of his fellow federal employees who get their news from Fox News, I've decided I'd like to print up some cards listing alternative news sources. Maybe even make some that people could download and print themselves to hand out to to people who are ignorant about what really goes on in the world.

They'd probably need to have some compelling snippet of information to get people curious enough to look at the rest of the story. Or maybe repeat some mindbogglingly insipid news headline, and then point to a brain cell refreshing news source.

I just think Americans need to stop allowing themselves to be distracted by junk and to learn some critical thinking skills.

[Petra]

Basically, I think this country was founded on excellent ideals, and I can't imagine a better set of standards on which to found a nation.Sure. So what went wrong?

And from the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness...you just reminded me - I need to read the Pursuit of Happiness thread, I'd forgotten about it. That line was part of the inspiration for that thread. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.The consent of those who the government governs. The US government does not govern the whole world - just the USA. I think they need to remember that. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Ain't that beautiful?

Yes, it is beautiful. It almost sounds like a more socialist ideal. If only it were true.

Based on these general ideas, and on the degree of power and influence we have over world politics, I can certainly see justification for intervention.

Hmmm. Sounds like you could be a supporter of the New American Century, lisarea.

I will agree that intervention is sometimes needed. I don't think it is of any benefit to anyone when that intervention is exercised through the stealing of elections or blowing the fuck out of a country, though.

I'm not ready to give up on us yet. I do think we're progressing, still. We're way too big for our britches, at least in terms of leaders, but we still have the potential to be a force for justice. Who's justice? What justice?

What we need is for the US people to put aside their nationalism... The dangerous patriot: "The one who drifts into chauvinism and exhibits blind enthusiasm for military actions. He is a defender of militarism and its ideals of war and glory. Chauvinism is a proud and bellicose form of patriotism . . . which identifies numerous enemies who can only be dealt with through military power and which equates the national honor with military victory.": Marine Corps, Colonel James A. Donovan
And we really need to understand just what it is we stand for.By all means, stand for whatever it is you stand for - but do it at home. Not all nations stand for the same things. And not all nations are dangerous simply because they have a different ideology.

And I actually have some hope for that, too. This is not scientific data, I know, but based on my own observations, kids now are much smarter and more aware than they were when I was young. I grew up in a white-bread suburb about ten miles from the white-bread suburb in which my son is growing up, and I can tell you that the kids I see now know more about politics, are kinder and more ethical and worlds more tolerant than the kids I knew growing up.

Well, I sure do hope so. Though at this stage I remain unconvinced. Time will tell, I guess.

I fully expect these guys to grow up to be far better informed than their parents. I really do.

I agree with you completely here. There are so many more avenues to seek and receive good information - let's hope that the information they receive is good information. The propaganda machine is still a powerful force in constant change to accommodate new technologies and change attitudes to whatever end the propagandists wish.

And hell, I expect these kids--most of them are just becoming eligible to vote--to start making a difference now. I hope so, lisarea. And I must say I like your optimism, it's refreshing and even gives a bitter old cynic like me some hope.

Sure, things are never going to turn around entirely. We have too much power and too much infrastructure in place to protect the interests of those with influence. But these kids are smarter than their parents, and I like to think that maybe that's not just my experience. I just hope they don't become so smart that they find even more devious ways to screw the planet over.

I don't want to see us destroyed, by any stretch. I want us to start paying more attention, and getting back to standing for what we're supposed to stand for, and I really think that might be starting to happen already.

Meh. I don't really want to see you destroyed - that was my anger and frustration speaking. I do want to see you wield a lot less power, though.

Livius said it earlier:

The world hasn't always had superpowers. We could return to balance of power systems or stable, long-standing alliances and unions.


Anyway, I'd better get back to work - I'll respond to others who have posted this evening.


Thanks to those who have participated so far. I don't want to make you feel bad as individuals, or even as Americans, and I apologise to those who felt that I was attacking you personally. Like many of you, I just want some positive change - change that won't just be good for America, but for the planet from human rights and sovereignty to the environment. I'm angry at those in the top political and economic tiers of American society, and their riding roughshod over anything that doesn't support their own selfish ends.

And I'm really adverse to the New America Century, fo'sure.

BTW, lisarea - check out the German constitution - you may find it interesting.

http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/docs/german.htm

http://library.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/germ/ggeng.html

[lisarea]

Hmmm. Sounds like you could be a supporter of the New American Century, lisarea.

I will agree that intervention is sometimes needed. I don't think it is of any benefit to anyone when that intervention is exercised through the stealing of elections or blowing the fuck out of a country, though.

Who's justice? What justice?

I'm in the middle of something right now, but I just want to clarify that I am absolutely not a supporter of the PNAC, and I'm genuinely pissed you'd have the gall to say such a thing. You know goddamned well that's not what I'm talking about.

You may disagree, but I genuinely believe there are some human rights you just don't violate, and the US, as the only remaining superpower, should use some of its influence and power to do something about human rights abuses. That doesn't always mean military action. That means economic sanctions, enforcement of international laws, covert actions, covert actions, and generous asylum policies, among other things. We can't go back and be isolationists now. We cannot unring the bell. It's done.

And you know what? If any government thinks that it has a right to control what its people think, and what they say, and what they believe, they're fucking wrong. Not different. Wrong.

This is entirely different from enforcing some kind of nationalistic world government. There's plenty of room for diversity in self-ruled governments. But when a government violates its constituents' most fundamental human rights (http://www.un.org/rights/50/decla.htm), it behooves the rest of the world to step in and stop them whenever possible.

It's not just our right, but our duty to stand by our principles, and do what we can to stop it.

Maybe I'll respond more later. Maybe not.

[Petra]

I'm in the middle of something right now, but I just want to clarify that I am absolutely not a supporter of the PNAC, and I'm genuinely pissed you'd have the gall to say such a thing. You know goddamned well that's not what I'm talking about. I was being facetious. Shoulda put one of those winking smilies in there.

You may disagree, but I genuinely believe there are some human rights you just don't violate,I agree. and the US, as the only remaining superpower, should use some of its influence and power to do something about human rights abuses.Sure, but on UN and the greater international community's terms. And with full transparency (http://www.transparency.org/).That doesn't always mean military action. That means economic sanctions, enforcement of international laws, overt actions, covert actions, and generous asylum policies, among other things.Things that need to be nutted out by the greater international community. We can't go back and be isolationists now. We cannot unring the bell. It's done. You're actually more isolationist now than ever. I'd just like to see America live in the world, not on top of it.

And you know what? If any government thinks that it has a right to control what its people think, and what they say, and what they believe, they're fucking wrong. Not different. Wrong. Well, under the Patriot Act, your government is doing just that. They are also, trying at least, to tell the rest of us what to think, say and do.

Tell me, if a country that is somewhat socialist in nature, but democratic as well, do you think the US has a right to stamp on what the people of that nation want? Both Australia and New Zealand were subject to CIA shit stirring and political coups in the 70's because we were socialist. Hugely popular leaders were undermined, and in one case possibly murdered, by US government operatives.

The US government during those heady days of the 80's and 90's used the power of the WTO and IMF to blackmail countries seeking loans. Part of the loan agreements were the stipulation that borrowers had to sell their public assets (be they telecommunications, forestry, mineral resources, whatever) to private investors abroad. Thus begun globalisation.

This is entirely different from enforcing some kind of nationalistic world government. There's plenty of room for diversity in self-ruled governments. But when a government violates its constituents' most fundamental human rights (http://www.un.org/rights/50/decla.htm), it behooves the rest of the world to step in and stop them whenever possible. I agree. And that's where a global collective- like the UN, and balance of power comes in. The US has a few human rights abuses of it's own to deal with, too.

It's not just our right, but our duty to stand by our principles, and do what we can to stop it. I'm all for that. But under the UN, not the US.

Maybe I'll respond more later. Maybe not.Ok.

[livius drusus]

Well, I was referring to the constitution inclusive of the bill of rights.

Basically, I think this country was founded on excellent ideals, and I can't imagine a better set of standards on which to found a nation.

With certain salient exceptions, I agree. In some ways we have gotten closer to the DoI principles through constitutional amendments (the 13th is an obvious one); in some ways we are, imo, way off track (damn you, standing army!).

What we need is for the US people to put aside their nationalism just enough to realize that dissent is patriotic, and that it is our duty to understand what's going on in our names, and to hold our representatives accountable to us. And we really need to understand just what it is we stand for.

Our history and laws are checkered enough that we stand for lots of things, including some really shitty things. That's why I think it's not enough to say that the principles are good and we need to embrace them, because someone can just as well make a perfectly reasonable argument that we stand for colonialism and convenient lies masked as treaties. In fact, Kissinger pretty much makes that argument every time he opens his mouth and even though he makes me ill, I really don't think we can say he's an aberration or an incarnate rejection of American principles. Washington talked empire a lot.

I don't want to see us destroyed, by any stretch. I want us to start paying more attention, and getting back to standing for what we're supposed to stand for, and I really think that might be starting to happen already.

I agree that these kids today are way ahead of the game compared to their parents (the internet rules), but I don't think it's so much a matter of getting back to what we're supposed to stand for as re-examining the whole magilla with a fearlessly critical eye.

[Shake]

Hasn't anyone seen the parallels between America today and Germany of the late 20's and 30's? All it will take is something a little more dreadfull then 9/11 and more of it (something or someone to blame it on) for some president to call martial law into effect and postpone elections...forever.
Well, maybe, but I don't think it's quite that bad.

As an American, I am at times quite ashamed at American arrogance. Man, there's so much I could say....
Arrogance? Or ignorance? Or both? Either by itself is scary enough, never mind the combination of the two.

I reckon we're just fucking ourselves right out of existance. I had thought of moving to Australia or New Zealand. But may as well stay here and fight.
Yeah, I believe there's more we can do as citizens to change things from within. Ya know, maybe having the fundies take over (temporarily) wouldn't be the worst thing in the long run. Think about it ... they'd ban most TV programming and we'd be forced to pay more attention to our actions around the world rather than who Ben Affleck is fucking at the moment or what Paris Hilton is up to.

Hmm. So much to say on this topic and not enough time right now. The one thing about change, the sort that needs to happen here in order for the US to mature a bit, is that it takes time.

Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing if we went back into isolationist mode for a while. But in reality, we really can't. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, we're the only big kid on the block. We've worked ourselves into the position of having to be the world's policeman, as the UN is largely ineffective. If the UN would step up, maybe we could step down from things.

Along those lines, and please correct me if I've gotten an Americanized (incomplete) view of things here: but unless others are willing to step up, the US will have to continue to intervene. Example: the breakup of Yugoslavia and the subsequent action in Serbia. The rest of Europe seemed (again, I may not have the full story here, so, sorry) to be content to let things go to shit there, so we stepped in.

I hope the UN will make changes to be more effective and that the EU will also step up to handle things in its neighborhood. I hope they'll have the balls to tell us to butt out when we aren't needed (and I hope we'd listen).

-Shake, a proud American, trying to affect change from within

[Dingfod]

I've got no choice but to affect change from within, no other country wants my uneducated, aged, decrepit, broke-down butt.


Warren

[Petra]

Back to Venezuela:

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=362&row=0

So why, with a huge majority of the electorate behind him, twice in elections and today with a nearly two-to-one landslide victory in a recall referendum, is Hugo Chavez in hot water with our democracy-promoting White House?




Maybe it's the oil. Lots of it. Chavez sits atop a reserve of crude that rivals Iraq's. And it's not his presidency of Venezuela that drives the White House bananas, it was his presidency of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC. While in control of the OPEC secretariat, Chavez cut a deal with our maximum leader of the time, Bill Clinton, on the price of oil. It was a 'Goldilocks' plan. The price would not be too low, not too high; just right, kept between $20 and $30 a barrel.




But Dick Cheney does not like Clinton nor Chavez nor their band. To him, the oil industry's (and Saudi Arabia's) freedom to set oil prices is as sacred as freedom of speech is to the ACLU. I got this info, by the way, from three top oil industry lobbyists.




Why should Chavez worry about what Dick thinks? Because, said one of the oil men, the Veep in his bunker, not the pretzel-chewer in the White House, "runs energy policy in the United States."




And what seems to have gotten our Veep's knickers in a twist is not the price of oil, but who keeps the loot from the current band-busting spurt in prices. Chavez had his Congress pass another oil law, the "Law of Hydrocarbons," which changes the split. Right now, the oil majors - like PhillipsConoco - keep 84% of the proceeds of the sale of Venezuela oil; the nation gets only 16%.




Chavez wanted to double his Treasury's take to 30%. And for good reason. Landless, hungry peasants have, over decades, drifted into Caracas and other cities, building million-person ghettos of cardboard shacks and open sewers. Chavez promised to do something about that.




And he did. "Chavez gives them bread and bricks," one Venezuelan TV reporter told me. The blonde TV newscaster, in the middle of a publicity shoot, said the words "pan y ladrillos" with disdain, making it clear that she never touched bricks and certainly never waited in a bread line.




But to feed and house the darker folk in those bread and brick lines, Chavez would need funds, and the 16% slice of the oil pie wouldn't do it. So the President of Venezuela demanded 30%, leaving Big Oil only 70%. Suddenly, Bill Clinton's ally in Caracas became Mr. Cheney's -- and therefore, Mr. Bush's -- enemy.




So began the Bush-Cheney campaign to "Floridate" the will of the Venezuela electorate. It didn't matter that Chavez had twice won election. Winning most of the votes, said a White House spokesman, did not make Chavez' government "legitimate." Hmmm. Secret contracts were awarded by our Homeland Security spooks to steal official Venezuela voter lists. Cash passed discreetly from the US taxpayer, via the so-called 'Endowment for Democracy,' to the Chavez-haters running today's "recall" election.




A brilliant campaign of placing stories about Chavez' supposed unpopularity and "dictatorial" manner seized US news and op-ed pages, ranging from the San Francisco Chronicle to the New York Times.




But some facts just can't be smothered in propaganda ink. While George Bush can appoint the government of Iraq and call it "sovereign," the government of Venezuela is appointed by its people. And the fact is that most people in this slum-choked land don't drive Jaguars or have their hair tinted in Miami. Most look in the mirror and see someone "negro e indio," as dark as their President Hugo.




The official CIA handbook on Venezuela says that half the nation's farmers own only 1% of the land. They are the lucky ones, as more peasants owned nothing. That is, until their man Chavez took office. Even under Chavez, land redistribution remains more a promise than an accomplishment. But today, the landless and homeless voted their hopes, knowing that their man may not, against the armed axis of local oligarchs and Dick Cheney, succeed for them. But they are convinced he would never forget them.




And that's a fact.


Sorry, but what were those highfalutin' humanitarian principles for which the US stands, again?

[viscousmemories]

Sorry, but what were those highfalutin' humanitarian principles for which the US stands, again?
It doesn't follow that corruption in our political system (and, I suspect, in most) implies that our ideals are flawed, and anyway I haven't seen anyone in this thread suggest that America does a great job of upholding the ideals our country is founded on. The closest I've seen to that is lisarea saying she believes that the ideals themselves are noble and that we're improving on the implementation score. I don't disagree with her but I'm probably more cynical and less optimistic about what that means for the future.

I'm not a believer in the PNAC either, but I agree that if we have the resources to protect human rights around the world we have a moral obligation to do so. In my personal opinion this means we should have intervened to stop the genocide in Rwanda and we should have ousted the Taliban in Afghanistan long before 9/11, and we should not be occupying Iraq now. But I believe we should act only with the consent and cooperation of the UN, and we should base our decisions on when to get involved on the human need, not the economic advantage.

Personally I hope this can happen without America being brought to its knees, and I suspect a whole lot of other people in the world wouldn't want to see that happen to us either. As corrupt as our politicians are, I still believe our system is designed to prevent the level of human rights abuses that some people, given the opportunity, would effect. Not that we don't deserve some more humility (though I think 9/11 was a fairly strong dose of it), but I would rather not see America crippled.

[Petra]

It doesn't follow that corruption in our political system (and, I suspect, in most) implies that our ideals are flawed, and anyway I haven't seen anyone in this thread suggest that America does a great job of upholding the ideals our country is founded on. The closest I've seen to that is lisarea saying she believes that the ideals themselves are noble and that we're improving on the implementation score.

Your very political system (the first-past-the-post-two-horse-race-with-no-proportional-representation) implies that your ideals are flawed - or at least aren't pursued in earnest by the majority.

I don't disagree with her...I will disagree with her. How, exactly, are you improving on the implementation score?

I'm not a believer in the PNAC either...Look, honestly, that PNAC supporter thing was a poor joke. I doubt very much that anyone here is a supporter of the PNAC. I'm quite sure I'd have to go to Rapture Ready or Baptist Boards, or some raving neo-con site to find people who are PNAC supporters. I most humbly apologise for that comment.....but I agree that if we have the resources to protect human rights around the world we have a moral obligation to do so. In my personal opinion this means we should have intervened to stop the genocide in RwandaRwanda was a definite failure of the global community to come together and stop the genocidal mania that prevailed there. We are all guilty in that crime against humanity by the willful inaction of our respective nation's representatives. I guess there was just no money or political advantage in helping such a godforsaken country as Rwanda. ...and we should have ousted the Taliban in Afghanistan long before 9/11,Afghanistan has been a major fuck up since the dawn of time. A plan of action to help the people there and remove the Taliban should have been on the international agenda since they first began..... and we should not be occupying Iraq now.I don't mean to be dismissive of what's happening in Iraq, but I've done Iraq to death, if you'll pardon the expression, so many times at II and CF that I'm burned out from it. But, yeah... But I believe we should act only with the consent and cooperation of the UN, and we should base our decisions on when to get involved on the human need, not the economic advantage. Agreed.

As corrupt as our politicians are, I still believe our system is designed to prevent the level of human rights abuses that some people, given the opportunity, would effect.How so?

[viscousmemories]

Let me start by saying that I'm not interested in fighting about this. I'm far from a nationalist and anyway probably the least informed person on Earth when it comes to politics, American or otherwise. So if you're looking for a good row you're probably wasting your time talking to me. But I've recently decided to quit burying my head in the sand and learn what I can, so that's my number one motivation in this discussion and in any other political thread. I don’t have a viewpoint I'm trying to defend or promote beyond my own subjective moral opinion.

However I do live in America, as do many people I love and care about, so I'm not likely to support any political philosophy that involves "bringing America to its knees". Which isn't to say that I deny such a thing could potentially benefit the global community – I can absolutely see how someone might think that – but it's just not something I can in good conscience support.

Your very political system (the first-past-the-post-two-horse-race-with-no-proportional-representation) implies that your ideals are flawed - or at least aren't pursued in earnest by the majority.
I don't know what "a first-past-the-post-two-horse-race-with-no-proportional-representation" means. You mean the fact that we essentially have a two party system with an electoral college instead of each vote counting?

I will disagree with her. How, exactly, are you improving on the implementation score?
She implied that our political system is improving and it gives her hope for the future. I said I didn't disagree with her but I'm nevertheless less optimistic. I didn't disagree because I don't know enough to agree or disagree. I'm less optimistic because I believe the people with the money and power control the world, and I hold no hope that they're gonna give it up. As far as I'm concerned politics and the vast majority of its practitioners are fucked through to the core, always have been and always will be. I firmly believe that most of them wouldn't blink an eye at the death of thousands, even millions of people if it meant more money for them and theirs. But then I'm a natural born humanitarian. For as long as I can remember I've thought that that which is best for the most people should be the foremost consideration at all times, not money, power or possessions.

Look, honestly, that PNAC supporter thing was a poor joke. I doubt very much that anyone here is a supporter of the PNAC. I'm quite sure I'd have to go to Rapture Ready or Baptist Boards, or some raving neo-con site to find people who are PNAC supporters. I most humbly apologise for that comment.
Just to give you an idea of how ignorant I am about politics, I only recently learned what 'neocon' means through some threads over at skepticalcommunity.com. I had heard of the PNAC but had no idea what it was when you made that joke. I went to their web page, though, and my first thought was "Aha! This must be the neocon hive!" Anyway I realize you were being facetious but I do think it's important to point out that it isn't necessary to support American global domination to support intervening in world affairs as needed.

Rwanda was a definite failure of the global community to come together and stop the genocidal mania that prevailed there. We are all guilty in that crime against humanity by the willful inaction of our respective nation's representatives. I guess there was just no money or political advantage in helping such a godforsaken country as Rwanda.
I'm a little more cynical than that. I suspect there was some economic or political advantage in not intervening there.

Afghanistan has been a major fuck up since the dawn of time. A plan of action to help the people there and remove the Taliban should have been on the international agenda since they first began.
Naturally I'm not terribly well-versed on that history either, but from what I read about the Taliban starting about six months before 9/11, I agree.

I don't mean to be dismissive of what's happening in Iraq, but I've done Iraq to death, if you'll pardon the expression, so many times at II and CF that I'm burned out from it. But, yeah...Agreed.
I got burned out talking about Iraq in the months leading up to the first Gulf war. By the time we started dropping bombs my disillusionment with our government was pretty much solidified. Hence my only recently venturing into the political arena.

How so?
I don't know specifics, but it seems that we have some checks and balances in our system that prevent GWB being able to use nerve gas on the Kentucky National Guard. That kind of thing. I could be totally wrong (it certainly wouldn't be a shocker to anyone at this point) but I would bet that given a choice of one government to rule the world, the global community would choose the American government over Saddam Hussein's regime.

[lisarea]

I guess I'd sort of hoped you'd muddle through your little shortsighted vitriolic haze there, and stop misrepresenting what I've been saying, Luna, but I was wrong. Apparently, it's not happening anytime soon. I just really don't have the fucking time or energy to continually clarify what I've already stated pretty clearly, over and over and over, for disingenuous internet posters. II is bad enough. I don't need this fucking bullshit.

So let me just leave you with a couple of clues: What are you bitching about? There is a huge fucking difference between ideological political action and self-serving corporatism, and believe you me, the US does not have a monopoly on the latter. Genuine political ideologies are not the same thing as corporate ideologies using political means. As Edward Abbey said, "Growth for growth's sake is the ideology of the cancer cell." Do you think the cancer cares if it's American or lymphoma or European or leukemia?

You're big on Palast. Have you read his book? Have you read the Tony Blair section on his website, even? Or are you selecting based on what you want to hear?

And WTF is the shit about the IMF and the WTO? Hint: The bolding means those parts are important.

So the US ceases to exist because you support any action that will bring it to its knees. Now who's in charge?

How about France? (http://www.doublestandards.org/nowicki1.html)

No?

OK. How about Britain? (http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=211&row=2) (You'll have to either read the whole thing or search on thatcher, but I thought it might be nice to use Palast as a source here.)

We could probably handily run through the G8 here, if you insist.

What is the common theme here? Is it the US? Is it really? Or does the US just happen to be the most powerful member? Is the problem the foundations of the American political system? Or is it maybe something else? Maybe something that starts with a c and ends with an orporations? National and multinational alike?

Sure, the US has had a run of bad administrations, and those administrations have attacked the core of the American political system. And it's almost charmingly naive to think that the current situation is somehow historically unique. Election fraud happens. Has always happened, and always will, anywhere elections are held. Greed happens. Ditto. This is not the first abuse of power the world has seen, and it will not be the last. To trash a genuinely sound political ideology in favor of, say, a nation of subjects of some ridiculous old ceremonial bat without a real job would be, well, fucking retarded.

Do you honestly, and I do mean honestly, believe that getting rid of America would do fucking THING ONE to solve the real problems?

[Ronin]

What she said.

vm, you needed more F words...otherwise, :bow:

Sorry, but what were those highfalutin' humanitarian principles for which the US stands, again?

Right here in my life, Petra...and the glee with which you patronize my country is what makes this whole exchange so miserable.

I'm no nationalistic freak by any stretch of the imagination and I've argued for the rule of law and liberty for ages, but this continued fixation on America as the Great Satan just really gets right up under my skin as much as any other blind dogma.

We could banter back and forth over what constitutes the valuable contributions to health, art, education and science that have arisen within the socio-political home I call America.

What would be the point, though?

You have conceded that they exist, yet discount them anyway...in favor of happily trotting out the injustices.

Injustices, I'll add, that most every fucking other government has been found guilty.

Btw...looks like Chavez (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20040817_110.html) kicked Cheney's ass back to the stone-age.

Back to bitching about Eurodisney I suppose...

PS ~ the difference between this particular thread and our own prior discussions regarding the topic of historical American injustice...was your staunch and sworn support for global action to bring my country to its knees. I know you've retracted, but I can't seem to get that out of my head. Looks like one of us can consider pre-emptive strikes based upon irrational fear afterall.

[Petra]

So let me just leave you with a couple of clues: What are you bitching about?It started with Venezuela, oil and the CIA. There is a huge fucking difference between ideological political action and self-serving corporatism, and believe you me, the US does not have a monopoly on the latter.I know that. But the OP was about dodgy goings on by the US in Venezuela. Genuine political ideologies are not the same thing as corporate ideologies using political means. As Edward Abbey said, "Growth for growth's sake is the ideology of the cancer cell." Do you think the cancer cares if it's American or lymphoma or European or leukemia?Not at all. And my point was that genuine political ideologies are meaningless if they are not at least a part of what drives those elected to serve you (or them), and that corporate ideologies are indeed a cancer and have a dangerous stranglehold on everything that is good, including freedom and democracy at home and abroad.

You're big on Palast. Have you read his book?No, I haven't, but I intend to Have you read the Tony Blair section on his website, even? Yes, I have; but I started with Venezuela which has nothing to do with Blair. Or are you selecting based on what you want to hear?That may be possible, but it is not intentional.

And WTF is the shit about the IMF and the WTO? Hint: The bolding means those parts are important. Lemme guess - the bolding is for International and World, respectively, right? The IMF and WTO, like America, started out with grand ideologies and a desire to right wrongs. The reality is that they are run by and for multi-national corporations and have had a devastating effect on developing and third world countries. The loan agreements are crippling. Yes, Europe, has a part to play in that, too, but America still has the biggest influence, as far as I know. Other arseholes in that game are UK, Germany, and France.

So the US ceases to exist because you support any action that will bring it to its knees.Economic sanctions and a call of your debt. Now who's in charge?So, you agree you're in charge? Unaccountably, irreversibly, Kings of the World, ruling as you see fit?

(Actually, don't even bother answering, I'm not coming back in here. Unless you'd like to bitchslap me for general public view, of course. Your call.)

How about France? (http://www.doublestandards.org/nowicki1.html)

No?No.

OK. How about Britain? (http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=211&row=2) (You'll have to either read the whole thing or search on thatcher, but I thought it might be nice to use Palast as a source here.)I grew up with Thatcher, thanks. Fuck her, too.

We could probably handily run through the G8 here, if you insist. Never heard of a balance of power? Peaceful alliances? Fair play; even playing fields?

Gee, I'm sounding almost as romantic as that Bill of Rights of yours.

What is the common theme here? Is it the US? Is it really? Or does the US just happen to be the most powerful member? Is the problem the foundations of the American political system? Or is it maybe something else? Maybe something that starts with a c and ends with an orporations? National and multinational alike?Yes, it's that the US is the most powerful and that it abuses that power more than any other. It has nothing to do with the foundations, but how those foundations have evolved. And yes, it has to do with Big Business and the political power it wields across the globe.

Sure, the US has had a run of bad administrations, and those administrations have attacked the core of the American political system. And it's almost charmingly naive to think that the current situation is somehow historically unique.Did I say it was historicall unique? I said this shit has been going on for decades. To trash a genuinely sound political ideology in favor of, say, a nation of subjects of some ridiculous old ceremonial bat without a real job would be, well, fucking retarded. If your political reality is so far removed from your 'genuinely sound' political ideology, then your 'genuinely sound' political ideology is rendered meaningless. Actions speak louder than words.

Do you honestly, and I do mean honestly, believe that getting rid of America would do fucking THING ONE to solve the real problems?"Getting rid of" is overstating it. Reducing the power of is better. And yes, I do.

[Petra]

I'm no nationalistic freak by any stretch of the imagination and I've argued for the rule of law and liberty for ages,I know that, and you have always had my utmost respect for your work and for your efforts in your community. ...but this continued fixation on America as the Great Satan just really gets right up under my skin as much as any other blind dogma.

PS ~ the difference between this particular thread and our own prior discussions regarding the topic of historical American injustice...was your staunch and sworn support for global action to bring my country to its knees. I know you've retracted, but I can't seem to get that out of my head. Looks like one of us can consider pre-emptive strikes based upon irrational fear afterall.

That was angry hyperbole, as I have said. I'm not talking about pre-emptive strikes, I'm talking about economic sanctions and a calling of US debts. I'm talking about actions that will reduce US power and influence.


Well, I sure did open a can of worms, here, didn't I. And I'm done with it.

Ciao.

[Blake]

I'm really sorry how this thread has turned out. I was still back at the point of marveling at how many people were expressing sophisticated, informed political opinions all in my precise neighborhood, and am still a little surprised that a few people got really pissed off and have stopped talking.

My perspective is that if it were possible, economic sanctions and debt recall against the United States would counter-productively destroy the rest of the world as well. However, I don't think any scenario in which the U.S. is curbed by outside force, military or social, is a real possibility for at least the next 100 years.

I do think the United States needs a revolution to replace its government, as soon as possible, for its own sake and for the rest of the world. I don't think a successful military rebellion from within is a real scenario either; that leaves, however unlikely, a political or legal revolution.

I really think there are too many powerful groups of people--incumbents, the party machineries, lawyers, lobbyists, revolving-door CEOs/senior bureaucrats, top managers of capital--for anything but a knockout blow to succeed. Maybe a very strong, cunning and intelligent President could get us partway there, but I doubt it (not to mention, of course, that such a person would be very unlikely to perform the necessary curbing of the power of the presidency itself): he (she?!) would in any case probably be blocked by Congress, if not then by the courts.

Consequently, though I haven't developed the idea yet (why, I don't know, I've been convinced of it for years) is that the only viable, incredibly-long-shot solution is to organize from the grassroots to bring about a constitutional convention. Article V of the U.S. constitution says that one must be called if asked for by two-thirds of the states. (Quite a few actually have active resolutions calling for a convention floating around.) The convention would then have a chance to redraft the government completely; they might not think up a completely new brilliant system, but at least they could place limits on the executive, stiffen the powers of the representative assembly, curb the major parties, establish a truly independent judiciary, guarantee universal health care, etc. etc. etc....

If that new constitution survived its transition to embodying its first government without being co-opted by the prior ruling groups, then ... well ... hurray. We'd be there, at least for a little while.

</armchair dilettantism>

[Shake]

I'm with you, Blake.

And when you mention debt recall, I'm forced to try to think about how much debt the US has forgiven over the years. I kinda think Japan still owes us for rebuilding their country (sure, we bombed the shit outta them, but they attacked us) after WWII.

Besides, if there were some sort of major collapse (economic or otherwise) in the US, you can bet one of the first things to happen would be all those billions in aid would dry right the hell up!

I'm not naive enough to realize that the US' effect on the world isn't entirely positive, but it isn't entirely negative either.

I'm not sure a change of government per se is needed. A change in administration won't really change things much either. We need a better educated population ... better educated in how our government is supposed to work and our role in it. Critical thinking has been mentioned (here and repeatedly at II), and that's a step in the right direction. History and workings of the Constitution need to be learned as well. The system isn't perfect, but it's adaptable and flexible. The fact that certain groups have an unfair influence merely shows where change needs to occur. Abuses of the system need to be pointed out and corrected. An ignorant population will not be able to see such abuses, and thus won't be able to act on them.

A Bush reelection could make things worse, but the upside to that is that there definitely would be a change in administration in '08. Now, I'd rather be rid of him sooner than later, but another 4 years might wake up some folks who would then realize how far he'd gone in a bad direction.

[godfry n. glad]

Consequently, though I haven't developed the idea yet (why, I don't know, I've been convinced of it for years) is that the only viable, incredibly-long-shot solution is to organize from the grassroots to bring about a constitutional convention. Article V of the U.S. constitution says that one must be called if asked for by two-thirds of the states. (Quite a few actually have active resolutions calling for a convention floating around.) The convention would then have a chance to redraft the government completely; they might not think up a completely new brilliant system, but at least they could place limits on the executive, stiffen the powers of the representative assembly, curb the major parties, establish a truly independent judiciary, guarantee universal health care, etc. etc. etc....

If that new constitution survived its transition to embodying its first government without being co-opted by the prior ruling groups, then ... well ... hurray. We'd be there, at least for a little while.

</armchair dilettantism>

Indeed.

I think you are exceedingly optimistic on the possible results.

I'm not sure why you think that a constitutional convention would necessarily produce something better than what presently exists. Throwing open the entire process like that allows all the existing interest groups to push their own agendas. Stop and look at all the proposals for constitutional admendments that have been floated in the recent past. If recognized as a constitutional convention, it would allow conventioneers to dispose of all those petty impediments to effective law enforcement, like the Bill of Rights.

I'm not all that thrilled with the idea of a constitutional convention. I'm more interested in making the current constitution work correctly, rather than throwing out the whole ball of wax and starting over.

godfry

[lisarea]

I'm not all that thrilled with the idea of a constitutional convention. I'm more interested in making the current constitution work correctly, rather than throwing out the whole ball of wax and starting over.

Agreed.

The American Constitution (inclusive of the BoR and most of the other amendments) provides the best legal foundation for change out there now.

One of the reasons I mentioned Palast's book (I know he's written others, but I'm talking about The Best Democracy Money Can Buy) is that he addresses this somewhat in his final chapter.

We're very used to hearing smug condemnations from Canadians and Europeans about US media's political coverage, and the fact that their media covered things like the US election scandal better than our own did.

And that is true. But the reason for this is not because of a fundamental problem with our system of government. The reason is complicated, but is likely a confluence of media ownership rules, which promulgate very distanced, bottom-line motivated thinking among media owners, and of some delicate social phenomena that lead to a sort of widespread information exhaustion among the public.

Fundamentally, the US has the best protections for freedom of information in the civilized world. We have the best legal foundation protecting journalists, and allowing freedom of expression among the population. Britain, for example, has stifling libel laws that effectively chill their own media from reporting on issues that may defame the character of those who can claim a right of action there. Germany has its laws about holocaust denial and the like. (France does, too, doesn't it?), and the Canadian media is subject to censorship as well, both governmental and de facto.

Censorship in the US is largely of the de facto variety, and thus should be simpler to eliminate. Note the distinction between 'simpler' and 'easier' here, because it's significant.

The reason that stories are under-covered in the US media has far more to do with things like the fact that we've loosened our fairness rules for the media, including ownership and fair time regulations. Massive media conglomerates make coverage decisions based on much broader baseline factors. It's all about appealing to the broadest base possible for the least amount of time and effort.

Corporations do not have consciences, but they do have agendas. Their agenda is to make as much money as they can. As such, the large media conglomerates make coverage decisions based on 'lowest common denominator' factors, thus tending to eschew things like investigative reporting as a rule; and they will tend to protect their other corporate interests as well.

The problems with the US government's actions are primarily rooted in the fact that the population is largely ignorant of current affairs. This is not endemic to the US, though, as many seem to think. People are lazy. Not just Americans. And if you think for a moment about the sheer time and effort involved in really keeping up to date on the news, you'd have to apply some pretty broad values of lazy to pass that particular judgment. As a result rampant corporatism, we simply do not have the variety and competition that keeps the media relevant and vital.

What we need is not to change the fundamental nature of the American political system. We don't need a new constitution. The most effective course of action would be to reign in corporate interests--not just in the US, but worldwide. We need a vital and dynamic media that, at the very least, is diverse enough that various outlets answer to different corporate interests, and that there is real competition in the field. We need a return to the equal access rules that provided airtime for opposing viewpoints.

It's hardly an easy answer, but the problems are very entrenched, not only in the US but worldwide. The corporate interests that control extragovernmental entities such as the WTO, the World Bank, and the IMF have worked very hard to protect their own interests, and they have a great deal of money and power at their disposal.

Of course these influences can't be effectively hobbled in a generation or two. To do so would require a consistent trend toward a more enlightened and engaged public, and a long-term chipping away at the license they've been afforded over time. And the best place to start that is in the US, where we have the most effective protections for our press and our private right to expression already in place.

[Clutch Munny]

Censorship in the US is largely of the de facto variety, and thus should be simpler to eliminate.


If all there was to the problem was media ownership concentration, that'd be one thing. But it's not clear to me that the bigger problem isn't that impossibly nebulous whatsit, culture. Of course popular demand and the media feed off one another, but the fact is, even such variety as there is in the American media is not effective in overcoming market-driven media self-censorship. Limited though the mainstream options are, people don't have to watch Fox News. They watch it because they like what it tells them.

This phenomenon too is found in every nation; the question is one of degree. But there's something about American culture -- like that daily pledge recitation throughout childhood, or that compulsory God Bless America at the end of every public announcement from presidential addresses to bus departures -- that seems to have created a nation with a particularly strong wish to have a particularly attenuated stream of information.

[Blake]

Hi godfry and lisa and everybody--I've replied and continued the discussion about a constitutional convention in this new thread (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=4039#post4039). Thanks!