Previous Entry Share Next Entry
You want Fries of Mass Destruction with that?
2012
unknownj
I talk phenomenal amounts of shit sometimes, you know... Thoughts enter my head at a worrying rate, and leave even faster, and it's just a mad scramble to write them all down before I lose them again. Because that's the thing - I just sit around thinking. I don't quite know how other people seem to be able to distract themselves, or just stop, but I can't, and I don't even get it. More often than not, I'll just sit around, and think about conversations I've had, things people have said, things I've noticed, whatever... I go through entire days just thinking, then I go to bed, and lie there thinking. Then I sleep, and dream, and then I wake up and think again. If there's an Off switch, I'd love to know how to use it...
A shadow took me aside one day
It whispered in my ear and warned me
Don't trust, don't love, don't feel
If you do, you'll become a shadow too

He told me of a girl with magic in her eyes
There's only one, but she'll find you, and
She won't steal your soul away, he said
You'll give it to her and wave it goodbye
I want to get some writing published. Either something I've already written, or something I'm going to write, or something I'll write for the express reason of getting it published. I know the idea is to start small, and build up, but I just don't feel like that's something I can do. I want to write for a publication I would myself read, because otherwise what's the point? I'm not going to write something I don't care about for people I don't identify with in order to further my own career. Well, at this stage I'm not going to - I'm not sure about the future, maybe I'll lose a few of my stuck-up 'principles'.

Perhaps if I polish up my Lusernet guide and then send it off to a few places that might find it amusing - it's received fairly good 'reviews' where posted. Except one guy, who got mad because it was presented as fact, and didn't end with "By the way, this is just a joke". Apparently subtle humour is lost on some people (and it was barely even subtle at that).

I could always try writing something political. I check the news twice daily, always read updates on the Iraq situation, and often read as much of the other stuff as I can. Just because for some weird reason, I enjoy learning new things, and the news is a great way to improve one's knowledge and understanding about the world we live in. My conclusion - it's screwed up.

For starters, there's no war against Iraq. Not yet. Not happening. If they were actually going to go to war with the current political climate, would they be sitting around discussing it? War, like Love, is one of those things where you either know, or you don't. And if you don't know whether you're declaring war, then odds are you're not going to. If there was a case for going to war, then it would have happened by now. The whole "but we're still in Afghanistan" thing is crap, it's not even as if those troops are doing anything anyway.

No, the real reason is that it's one of those political conspiracies that I so often deny the existence of. From this point on, everything I say is pure conjecture, but it makes sense to me. Never before has a war been so over-hyped in the media, and there's a reason - they want Iraq to do something about it. Look at the things the US have said:

"We have to perform a pre-emptive attack, we can't wait for them to kill our people first"
"Their country's leadership represents a danger to our nation"
"Their leader's interest run contrary to those of our people, and theirs"

Pronouns employed for a reason - these aren't reasons for the US to go to war. They're hints for why Iraq should attack the US first. Swap the roles around, and you suddenly see that it can all apply backwards. So here's a hypothetical scenario - let's say that Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction, and that Saddam's finger is on the button. Iraq strikes at the USA, and a few people die - what happens? For starters, Bush has all the justification he needs to sink Baghdad into the dessert forever. He does so, and earns Daddy's approval.

And then what? Well, for starters, he maintains his "I can save you all from terror" image, and assures the Republicans success in government for the next few years. But it goes beyond that - it makes Bush right, and the international community wrong. Bush wanted to attack and the UN held him back, and that's what happens. The US gives the UN a slap on the wrists, and tells them to keep the Hell out of their business in future. Bush now has a mandate to do as he pleases and if the UN disagrees, well, they're always holding America back and it's been bad in the past.

Enter a new reign of terror, where George W Bush has more power than any man who has ever lived - he rules the most powerful country in the world, who have been shown to be acting in the right while the international community has been getting in their way. Let's face it, that would allow Bush to do anything he wants, when in a fair and just society, he'd be just about fit to flip burgers... Every time the man says something, I'm waiting for the instinctive "You want marinara sauce with those cheese sticks?" at the end... I bet sometimes he forgets himself and says "Welcome to Arby's" when greeting visitors to the White House. I say demote the fucker and send him to the Fast Food industry where he rightfully belongs, where his skills might be useful...
Our good eatery is under attack, it is an attack you can't see, but it exists nonetheless. Bacteriological warfare is under way, and we must put a stop to it. Quick, fellow Drive-Thru operatives - to the cleaning cupboard!!
They could turn it into a reality TV show or something, and each week you could vote for one of his immigrant co-workers to get deported... Call it "Republic Access TV" or something...

I mean really, sure the American people can elect who they want to lead them, and okay so less than half of them voted, and less than half of those voted for Bush, but I'll accept his rule over America. But I'm not sure at what point I voted for him to have any sort of control over my country. I'm guessing the good people of Iraq didn't vote for him to control their destiny. Granted, the people of Iraq didn't vote for anything at all, but I'm guessing that if you gave them all the freedom they wanted, their To Do lists would not include "Put our futures in the hands of that redneck fuck"

But let us not forget, it's not just Bush who has this unreasonably dangerous power over the world - his lackeys (read: congress) are also partly responsible. Now, I don't recall seeing wherever it is those guys hang out, but it wouldn't shock me if it was a massive tent, with elephants, and Dick Cheney running around in pants that are seven times too large and can fit Dubya right into them with him... Does nobody teach people to have a social conscience any more? When was the last time that the US made a policy change that in some way inconvenienced a few American citizens, but did wonders for the rest of the world? Everybody is so fucking self-centered, because the starving people don't vote for the new president.

And it's the same over here, too... I mean, you know, what does it matter if people are dying, they don't contribute to our government's coffers, and they can't vote. I don't even see why they make the news, it's not like they have TVs or anything. Best ignore them, and concentrate on local events which have real life significance to a nation too deluded to notice the rest of the world. Nine people get trapped in a mine in Pennsylvania, and it's a news story for days. Hundreds of people die every year in mines in China, and nobody cares.

Perhaps that's why I sit here thinking all the time.... Because nobody else seems willing too... So you know what - fuck everybody.... Any day now I expect to see a big flashing sign (accompanied by a nuclear wind) that says "Game Over" right before my eyes, informing us (as a race) that we've messed up, and could we please step away from the controls so that somebody else can have a go....

  • 1
Excellent point regarding the US use of language to tempt others into a fight by the way, but I think you may be being a little harsh on people in general. People DO think about things, but you have to remember that thoughts are tempered by the prison of previous experience and by the structures that are deeply embedded within society. While it is indeed possible to search out information (as you yourself have done with regards your multi-sourced news), you need to remember that you are in a very privilaged position. You have the time to do these things. You have access to the web pretty much 24/7. You have the time to go to the library. You have the time to sit and think. You have the time to discuss these things with your friends or to formulate your ideas in your journal.

I would argue that it would be substantially more difficult to do this if you were employed full time (I know you have a job, but hopefully you will see my point), were raising a family, were travelling great distances to work etc etc. Capitalism imposes demands over the human body which prevent it from following certain causes of action. These structures (I am talking about a rudimentary level of structuation theory) were discussed by Marx when he wrote of the labour forces at the time, and how being employed actually forced people to live within the structures created by and for capitalism.

You are in a very privilaged position as a student as you do have the time and resources backing you to think 'outside the box' (for want of a less cheesy term). Anyway, the demands of my labour force me to end this here as I have to go reproduce capitalism and analyse Tesco Clubcard Data.

I hadn't considered it like that - capitalism maintains itself by not allowing the workers to consider alternatives. Scary :o)

But yeah, I do agree that I'm lucky to be in a position where I can just sit and think about things. I just think it's a sad world where people are forced to prioritise their jobs and lifestyles over global issues... The world is broken :o)

And you still have the opinion that your entries are boring?!

Yes. This entry is a perfect example :oP

i don't think about things.

well. i do. but not coherently. and generally, i'll get distracted by things. like knitting or cross-sitch.
when i'm doing something i concentrate on what i'm doing and...don't think about things.

the only time i really think is when i have to write something or comment on something like... i dunno... an essay on why people liked hitler. or something.

the last thinking i had to do, well. apart from this. was a religious type thing in amm-m about buddhism and things. but i think towards the end i lost track of what i was saying.

meh. and the publishing stuff thing... you have to write stuff and send it to people. until they get sick of you bothering them and print something to shut you up and that's when people see what you write and some of them will like it and by then you will have developed the writing thing further and can um...

yes. get more things published because it's good rather than because people are trying to get rid of you.


that might work. but um. it might not.

start your own newspaper or something

or become president of the united states.

technically he can't be presidnet of the us because he has to have been born here.

jay, tell you what, come over here, we'll have a kid, you can enstill in it your ideals, a mini-jay if you will, and he will be president....

bush is so agrivating.... more on this later. i have a shit load of work to do today. *grumble...


.. come over here, we'll have a kid ..

Rather an elaborate way of propositioning me, but sure, why not... ;o)

Here we go...

(Anonymous)
First off, we care about those 9 because they are our own. You dont cry for every person that dies, but when its a friend or family member, it sends you reeling. Plus, even in capitalist America, we care about our workers more than supposedly communist China.

2nd, We really ought to be blowing the shit out of Iraq, because their dictator has already proven he is willing to use chemical weapons, even in his own nation (remember the Kurds?), and has also demonstrated that he is looking to obtain nukes and better chemical weapons. When we fought the gulf war, he was only a few years from building his own nukes. Thats not even the same as buying one, thats MAKING YOUR OWN. Much worse. Give an asshole a nuke, he'll blow up a city. Teach an asshole to nuke he'll blow up the world.

3rd, the International Community can kiss our ass. The UN is a bickering, inneffective group who's only power comes from US muscle they can throw around. Let them debate AIDs policy and Diplomatic parades. Not war. They are the student council in the elementary school that is the world.

Who's your alternative for president? Gore? Nader?

No, you don't cry for everyone that dies. But why cry for an American more than somebody in China? You said that if it was a friend or family member - well here's news for you, those guys weren't the family members of everybody in the country. The people of the USA didn't know them. However, they immediately got news coverage and "the thoughts and prayers of a nation" because.... of what? They watch the same TV shows as you? They pay taxes to the same government as you? They pissed in the same toilets as you once? What is it? What makes a US citizen more important than other people in the world?

Saddam used a few chemical weapons in the gulf. The USA, through incompetence, used a lot more. Pop quiz, what happens when a US missile hits a known chemical weapons factory when civilians and US soldiers are nearby:
  1. It vanishes from existence and evil is vanquished
  2. It blows up, spreading chemical shit everywhere
I didn't say that I wasn't in favour of a change of regime in Iraq, or that Saddam isn't a bad person. However, it is a fact that US policy is dictated by US interests, not by any sort of moral decision, or any desire to do good in the world. War is not necessary, it's not productive, and if it goes ahead, I hope the US gets their asses kicked like they did in Vietnam.

And at this point, it becomes obvious that you must be joking... "The International Community can kiss our ass"... Because the US obviously knows best. Here's a newsflash for your dumbass country and anybody who thinks of supporting it - military might does not equate to being correct. You can kill everybody in the world who disagrees with you, and you'll still be wrong. At this rate, Bush will probably try that. Go check the news - Bush is currently threatening other countries unless they promise not to prosecute American war criminals. Despite the fact that the US justice system is owned by large corporations, there's still this paranoid isolationist belief that somehow, US justice is still better than international justice, in an international court, with no agenda other than to see that the right thing is done. Bush is crying about how it will just lead to political persecution of Americans - bullshit. If claims of war crimes are unfounded, the court will throw them out. He's worried that he'll ultimately be held responsible for all the shit that he's creating in the world.

As for the alternative to Bush - I suggest me. I'll stick taxes at 90% and nationalise healthcare, education, housing and food. Everybody will be able to live in the comfort and security that the country tries to promise, and the rich can damned well pay to see that the planet is a little bit nicer. And if they don't, then somebody might want to ask what's wrong with them, that they can be so self-centred. Have a nice day.

Re: Here we go...

(Anonymous)
A.) The president cant raise taxes to 90 percent, dumbfuck, that would make you a dictator.

B.) You really trust the government that cant run fucking AMTRACK to run our FOOD and HEALTH CARE? Christ. Government is not the solution. By the way, computer boy, did it ever occur to you that you ARE the rich? Hmmmm? The fact that you have the time to debate this with me already proves you are in the ruling class.

C.) Lets think of countries where they tried it your way? Russia...China...East Germany....yeah.

D.) What missle hitting what chemical plant are you talking about? Did this ever happen, or do you just assume it must have?

E.) The international community can and should kiss our ass. And what the fuck is this court crap? Send US soldiers to clean up Europes messes, then hold them liable to this JOKE of a court? Fuck that. If you want to play that way, we ought to take our ball (ie: the military that props up half of the world) and go home.

A) Wrong. A dictator is one who rules with absolute authority, undemocratically. The word you're looking for is 'socialist'.

B) And no, I didn't say I would trust the government that can't run those things. I didn't say those things would be directly government controlled - they would be subcontracted out to companies with experience in those fields, with massive subsidy-penalties for underperformers. In a capitalist world, you have to think like a capitalist even if you're trying to undo it. So you offer a company a lot of money to feed the world, and then if they fuck up, you penalise them for it. Don't see why it wouldn't work...

As for being rich, my having time to debate this doesn't mean a thing. I'm sat here at work, in my break, using one of their computers. That is irrelevant to my social standing. As for being one of the rich, it depends on your definitions. Some weeks I don't have enough money for food - that hardly puts me in the same 'rich' category as most. And does it make a difference, in the end? I wouldn't mind having my ass taxed massively and taking a minor cut in my standards of living if it would genuinely help others. Why is it that you would?

C) They tried socialism from a communist point of view, typically with a power-hungry dictator at the helm. This would be a socialist outcome from a capitalist mechanism, which would work very differently, and would suit today's economic climate.

D) There were incidents where the US blew up Iraqi chemical weapons facilities. Go read up on the subject before you start trying to take the intellectual high ground. The US destroyed chemical weapons factories, and managed to poison half their own soldiers in the process.

E) "we ought to take our ball and go home" - couldn't agree more.

In fact, if you recall, wasn't that why you got the shit kicked out of you by terrorists to begin with? The way I remember it, the whole thing started because the US threw its weight around and didn't listen to anybody. Osama Bin Laden is pissed at your country because you used Saudi Arabia as your military base for the Gulf War. A lot of the Arab world is pissed off because the US is still arming Israel. I think the World Trade Center stunt was their way of saying "so take your ball home".

And so you're saying here that US soldiers should be able to act as they please, without the fear of future prosecution? So, say if US soldiers managed to kill a couple of hundred Afghan civilians, in a war that the US itself initiated (as opposed to "cleaning up Europe's messes"), should they just be able to walk away from it? I doubt the US would prosecute its own soldiers, that would be like admitting fault and the US government/military rarely does that. So let's say the entire world wants those people prosecuted, but the USA doesn't - is it right that they would have immunity?

In a fair and just world, everybody is accountable for their actions, and the majority is right. The US can take their ball, piss off back home, and play war games in Nevada for eternity for all I care, it would be a lot better for Palestine, for Afghanistan, for Iraq, and pretty much every country in the world. If you don't want to live by the rules of the rest of the world, then stay the fuck in America.

Re: Here we go...

(Anonymous)
A.) No, if you become president and have the authority to raise taxes arbitrarily, and control the change of government from Capitalist to Socialist, then you are a dictator. Maybe a Socialist dictator, but one all the same.

B.)You got a company in mind? McDonalds is the only one that comes close to having experiance moving that kind of thing, and the HMOs that everybody hates are the only ones that could work that kind of health care. Besides, look at Canada, where people flee to america to pay for care because they dont want to die on a waiting list for their Cradle to Grave care.

C.)This is pretty in theory, but how exactly would you pull this off?

D.)I know of plenty of sites we bombed, but where can you point out times when there has been dangerous chemical exposure as a result. Generally, all that shit is obliterated, hence the point of bombing it.

E.) We didnt really get the shit kicked out of us by Terrorists. Stunt is exactly the word to describe it too. And what the fuck gives Bin Laden the right to do so much as complain about what deals we work out with the Saudis? Hmmmm? So you are justifing terrorism now?

Bosnia is the area of conflict with the world court, NOT afganistan. and that is Europes mess. US soldiers are court martialed all the time.

Also, Palistine is not a nation, it is a poorly run semi-state of refugees and terrorists. Afganistan needs the US just to keep its leaders alive, and of course Iraq would be happy without us. But tough shit.

A) Well I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with the exact technicalities of US law, but exactly why can't the president raise taxes? Or is it just that that's covered by a different area of government? Were it in England, the Prime Minister would tell the Chancellor that he wants taxes set at about 90%, and the Chancellor would just make it happen (or, at least, try). Naturally people (typically rich) might complain, but ultimately, it's allowed.

And again, this has nothing to do with being a dictator, or a change of government. The processes would still be the same, you'd just have a Department Of Food or something, etc. There'd still be elections, there would still be due process, the people would just give more of their money in taxes. The only new thing (since tax changes aren't new) would be that the government would have more responsibility to its people - hardly a dictatorship...

B) It wouldn't be entered into lightly. And this isn't about providing a hot meal to everybody in the country. It's about the distribution of vital food supplies to people living below the poverty line. The government would be in possession of massive funds (especially since my second act as president would be to slay military spending by a huge amount) and could easily pay somebody like Wal*Mart to just buy in more food, which could be claimed with social security voucher type things. Kinda like rationing, only good....

C) Well the way I see it, Socialism for the sake of Socialism isn't going to work because people are inherently too greedy, and the powerful like their power and don't want to let it go. So what you do is you work out where you want to get to - a system where people are more equal, people have better chances in life for education, healthcare, whatever, and you try to get there using methods that already exist.

For example, the government puts up taxes massively. With this money (plus aforementioned military budget money), the government pays a large company to buy in a lot of food. Furthermore, government hands out some sort of voucher type deal to everybody in the country (traceable back to Social Security numbers, or whatever). Free food filters down from large companies through to smaller firms, who are paid (by the government) to give this food away for free in exchange for vouchers. So we have that everybody pays taxes, and everybody gets food and is happy.

But where's the motivation for the large companies? Firstly, now that we have high taxes, rich executives are all desperate to claw back their money, since most of it is going to the poor people. I bet they'd hate that. So you offer tax breaks to people who contribute to the system. Let the greed of a few executives motivate them into playing along. So two companies are competing for the government tender to supply food to the masses - you give tax breaks to the one who wins. One company offers a better service, and gets the contract, but fails to deliver. They get taxed again. Other company then wins the contract and is tax-exempt.

In today's greedy world, the only way to make things happen is to use peoples' greed. At least in this way, you're using it to motivate them into helping others.

D) The claims of a lot of Gulf War veterans (and their reason for wanting to sue the shit out of the US government/military) is that they destroyed chemical facilities without ensuring that doing so was safe. A lot of them seem to think that they were exposed to nasty stuff through the actions of their own military. I expect if it could be proved conclusively, then we'd not have this debate about the validity of GWS, but it's certainly been alleged, by people who would probably know... But knowing one way or another is difficult, since it was all a decade ago, and nobody who was there is going to be un-biased.

E) I think Bin Laden's complaint was with the way the US rolled into Saudi Arabia with their military and occupied land that a lot of people didn't think they should be in. The deal was worked out with the Saudi government, not the people, and the people weren't overly happy about it. And let us not forget, the US likes to use its economic weight to make things go its way - they bribe/threaten nations' governments until they have no chioce but to agree, which in turn angers the people.

And at no point did I say that terrorism was justifiable. I merely pointed out that it's not done at random - there are reasons why people want to blow the shit out of the US, and they're mostly America's fault.

With regard to the International Court, I've heard Bush mention the US troops in Afghanistan. The Bosnia issue is because he threatened to pull peace-keepers out if they'd be accountable to the court, but he disagrees with the whole idea of it. Apparently his soldiers aren't responsible to the human race as a whole.

Palestine would be a nation if the extreme right-wing in America would stop funding Israel, giving them tanks and equipment with which to keep occupying territory. It is fact, agreed by the UN, that Israel is unlawfully occupying Palestinian territory. If an arab nation did that to a Jewish nation, the US would jump in there guns blazing, but when it's the other way around, the US turns a blind eye. Until the arab nation starts fighting back the only way they're able to - then everybody complains about it.

(and no, I'm not justifying suicide bombers - but Israel has no right to be occupying large amounts of territory that was not given to them, and was partly only given to them because Zionist terrorists shortly after the second world war bullied and guilt-tripped the world into it)

  • 1
?

Log in

No account? Create an account