Osama, the Media, and What's His Name

Very well written and thought provoking article.

Oh, yes! It simply had to be said, simply.

I guess it's all to do with that crowd mentality, when people lose their objectivity and get swept along with the tide. It's not right but it happens. Your words are a refreshing change to all the other opinions out there which come from sincere people who believe all they are told.

It seems to me, there are sheep and there are shepherds, but sometimes a few sheep decide to stop endlessly chewing the grass and running when everyone else runs and get on their hind legs and take a look round, take a larger view, come out of the crowd. You have simply expressed this 'other' view. There are other similar views, on Gather and on the net in general. We need to know many things about the 'truth' we are being led to believe. Among many others, Out There TV, Loose Change are worth a visit through your favourite search engine.

Peace.

Sue and Jerome.

You have no idea how much it means to me that I am not alone in feeling this way. I fully expect some to be less than welcoming of this rant, and it doesn't help that my mixed feelings are written in in such a way that someone might easily see a chance to say there are contradictions. We live in an environment that trumpets people's sorrows in the same way it hypes American Idol. Someone else's misery - even our own misery - seems to be just another low-budget product to keep us staring at the screen.

Christine, on another thread, noted that the next day three hundred innocent Iraqis died, and the VT tragedy was allowed on TV to completely overshadow it. Priorities? What priorities?

Well said. Thanks. I always resented the huge "truck sale" that went on right after 9-11. It seemed like a diversion. And we have yet to address the reason so many Muslims want us eradicated. Hell, we have yet to admit that we might not be perfect.

I was watching TV when the plane hit the WTC. I didn't feel played until Bush came to the scene and made a speech by the firefighter. Then I began to understand that there was no limit to how far the administration would go to brain-wash the public. It's hard to believe that some people still don't understand that a 'commander in chief' can be more for global business and his own greed for money and power, than for the rights of the people and the constitution he is sworn to defend. I can't understand why this administration was allowed to continue in office by hook or by crook, and even after all the failures and crimes is still supported by some people.

What provides me with hope is reading the voices in the other comments as well as reading your article. The media has been deciding what is newsworthy for quite some time, "Dirty Laundry" by Don Henley portrayed it well quite a long time ago.

Just like an article I read earlier regarding the shootings on Monday, we view all circumstances on the surface, failing to look under the hood at what the whole picture is. What appears on the surface to be "cause and effect" may not be actual truth. It takes a little time and research to try to understand the why and then dig deeper to analyze how to prevent such things, much as Weaver H. stated when he voiced our neglect to find the underlying cause of Muslim aggression against the U.S.. It's much easier to hit back fast and hard than it is to admit we might have been wrong as well. Only through connecting and understanding can the bridge between our cultures be built; it surely will not withstand our quashing of their society rules and structure and killing of their people.

Your essay does not detract from the significance of 9/11 or the college shooting, nor does it mean to deminish the amount of pain felt by the victims and their families. Instead it offers a way of comparing how we view the world to the world's realities. Well voiced and deserving to be heard, you expressed a point which requires debate. Thanks!

Ron, the war is covered a lot on the CNN, but we just don't seem to take the time to grieve for "them" (whoever they are).

E.M., I agree. 32 deaths matter, but my community is around me and this should be my focus. Being exposed to an abundance of horrors gives us a skewed view of this wonderful world.

Weaver, well said. before the Iraq invasion there were handfuls of people who want an American head. It might have been manageable. Now, it's like we want to take on the whole world. Lots of luck with that (whoever wants it).

Ruth, I think the objective in the Bush administration has been to deliver as little value as possible to get him past the second election, and then generate as much profit as possible. How some people do not see that is indeed a tribute to existentialism.

Genine, you have a very well-reasoned manner of expression. This is needed, and despite my more pointed means of expression you reassure me to boot. Thank you.

I thought about elaborating on the use of the word "gamed", but that could be done in a separate post. Thank you all.

I don't think Osama bin Laden is a celebrity, or the young man who went on the killing spree at Virginia Tech. Maybe it's the media's fault that we have no other term for someone who bursts upon the world's consciousness in an unwelcome way. Or maybe it is our own fault that we all seem to think it is normal and useful to have these things happen, then have orgies of emotionally flaming discussion about them for a brief period of time, and if there is enough coherence in one direction we fire someone, pass a law, or just whine and complain and think we have done out duty as citizens. We are well on the way to losing our democracy, not because of Bush, or the Democrats, or even the situations we are in that force us to have to tighten security, but because in our public consciousness we dumb down the discussion and make it seem like it is normal for everyone to discuss things at a second grade level even though the world runs on a level of precedent that is hardly able to be clearly comprehended by a post-doctorate degree, and then for each situation it is only a few people who really have something to say about it.

This is a mathematical question, our democracy does not scale as a system adequately for us not to have these big chaotic spams on anything that happens to bubble up and rub our collective emotions the wrong way.

Meanwhile the experts are the ones who downplay climate change, who were looking the wrong way when 911 occurred, who design products such as our cars that no one want to buy and puts half the workforce of America out of work while they send the rest of the jobs overseas.

You cannot trust the experts, and you cannot trust a distracted and stupid public ... what is it going to take to really get us to consider this and realize something has gotta give?

The other day I was sitting in a building in the middle of my college campus, and the news was on, as it always is, and what was being covered was Virginia Tech, of course. I couldnt help but overhear two people behind me chatting, and the one said "Don't we get enough of this everyday. There are other things going on in the world and this was bad, but I'd like to hear about something else." I agree. What happened was horrible, but where was the news on the Senate hearings of our Attorney General? I didn't see that covered much. I feel sorry for the people who had their lives ruined and ended that day, but, I'd like to see something else on the news as well.

While I was driving in my car to get my oil changed yesterday the hearing were in full session and I got to hear a Senator ask for Gonzalez'es resignation ... that is where the news is. Why do you blame the news when what you are listening to is not even news, it is the media. There is tons of stuff well presented on PBS ... it ain't perfect, but it is better that what you are talking about. Stop giving them money, stop buying their stupid products and the monster will starve and die ... then demand real informative news ... or listen to PBS.

...and we're still being played now more than ever.

Bruce, I'm not sure a "solution" lies in the directon we are headed, but a real leader could maybe turn us onto a different path. By the way, I very much enjoyed the last sentence in your first paragraph, not only for its content but for its construction also.

Whitney, you point out something very obvious that I didn't even mention. These mantrafests we have over a single topic distract from a greater variety of thought that might make us all a bit more intelligent. I don't watch CNN, etc., but I couldn't help but notice the Anna Nicole Smith thing went on and on.

Bruce, in the interest of disclosure, I work for public radio, and have felt a little silly about not saying the "commercial media". Yes, public media can do better than they are. I would especially like to see Nova stop doing shows on jet airplanes and other war toys. Is there no science to cover?

Oh, yes Diana. I used "being played" almost as a euphemism. We're promised love and protection and respect, but in the end we're just being "played", and the real subject of their affections is not us.

Maybe Ron ... but if it takes a leader and does not come from the people what do we get is when there is not a leader? We get a Bush. I don't mean that as a cheap shot to bash Bush, I mean it in the sense that Bush's background, except for his parentage did not qualify him to be President. I am getting nervous again about the lineup for the next election ... we have 300+ million people in the US, why can't we find a real exceptional person to lead the country? I think the fact that we do not get a leader is because no one in power wants high profile people anymore because they are unpredictable and can have too much emotional sway with people. Having just watched "The US Versus John Lennon", even though I lived through that era I had no real idea how sacred the government was of Lennon and the simple power of his personality.

And - Ron you are very polite, sheesh, I have been getting dinged for my 2 mile long run-on sentences since the second grade ... I just get typing and away I go....

I liked Nova, but as I said I do not watch TV anymore so I have missed years of it. I started to question Nova a short time after they they did an investigation of whether John Kennedy was assassinated by a lone shooter. I still liked it ... and I think have even watched some of the episodes online ... that is the way to go.

You're welcome, Bruce. Most second grade teachers I've known were not great literary critics. Nova has really gone down hill and pandered to sensationalism, at least compared to what it once was. You're not missing much on TV. Janie and I tape two soap operas during the day, and with luck we'll find some bull riding and documentaries.

We were supposed to become hypnotized with fear so that we would be willing to surrender our rights and let the Big Boys "protect us." We were also being sold a war that had been in the planning stages for years. This propaganda was supposed to stir us up and make us all eager to go over and "blast all hell out of the Middle East...." Right?

Olga, it's a protection racket. Textbook example.

We were also promised the gratuitous fun of "whoopin' ass on a bunch of A-rabs". Sounded fun, huh? Has it been fun? ______ no.

This is the second post I've done where I expected the apologists to jump up and give me a 1. None have come around. I say that speaks volumes. This administration has finally humiliated them. And if anyone jumps in to support Bush at this point, there's your fool.

I think you guys have got it wrong. No, we are not really whoopin' ass on the Arabs, that happened much more in the past, and it is not like the Arabs knew the value of their oil ... and for that matter, what was it back then ... nor was it the case the Arabs were guiltless since they regularly killed and stole from non-Muslims in their lands, ie. Christians, Jews, Buddhists anb Hindus.

Since the Arabs did find the value or their oil, or more specifically up the price of their oil that we told them about and engineer the technology and infrastructure for they have raised the price to the highest level they can without killing the goose that laid the golden egg, and used that money for the benefit of a few powerful Muslim families and religous hierarchies. Wahabi Islam is being used as a siphon to funnel money and absolute influence around the world to purge moderate Islamic leaders from their mosques and serve as the basis for the hierarchical totalitarian version of their military Nazi society.

If our troops or civilians enjoy whoopin'ass on the Arabs, well, I think that is much better than the misery I would consider it, and it is job well needed for a long long time.

An example of the difference of who is a hero in our societies. A suicide saver for example would be Liviu Librescu, the man who after having survived the Holocaust in Europe came to the US as a professor only to be murdered by the young man who opened fire in Virginia Tech while trying to get students out the door while holding it shut against the shooter. Suicide bombers kill themselves and others for the cause of the peaceful religion of Islam which you want to make out to be a joke until it's too late when they come and tell you to become Islamic. No more TV, no more music, no more freedom. By all means defend that if you can.

Bruce, I would agree the oil is being used to enrich a precious few. If the Saudi royal family cared about its people, they would refine the oil in their own country and ship us gasoline, but they are too short sighted for that. As long as the money is there for the raking why should they worry about getting the most out of their resource. It's not like they plan sharing it with the average Arabian, and they can get all the protection they need by letting the profits of processing take place in America, where their collaborators reside.

Whoopin' ass is something you do in a bar, if you're incompetent and have nothing better to do. The work of men is done more carefully. Anything less than prudent diplomacy is child's play, and such children chase their balls into the road.

Ron, Saudi Arabia does have refineries. The Saudi royal family which basically owns the whole country have been very attentive to securing their oil. They have even rigged the whole oil infrastructure with dirty bombs to prevent an outside power from being tempted to try to invade and steal the oil. The Saudis are not short sighted in the least and have long term plans that seem to include having Wahabi Islam to take over the world. I did not use the term whoopin' ass to begin with.

Bruce, this medium - like email - makes misunderstandings quite easy to have. I did not mean to say you were intent on whoopin' ass or that that's a term you would ordinarily use.

If I "owned" the oil under Saudi Arabia and ruled the country, I'd export very little of it in raw form. I'd capture the natural gas instead of flaming it off; I'd export gasoline; I'd use the oil to create a more diversified textile industry for the benefit of all Arabian citizens. When the rest of the world was out of oil, my country would still have vast stocks, and positioned to use that oil in tandem with technologies that could get things out of it no one even dreamed of in the "just burn it" age.

excellent..right on time

Thank you, Bhumika.

Ron, the "if I owned the oil under Saudi Arabia" comment makes a lot of sense. The problem is that the Saudis who have billions of dollars to spend on strategy have their own ideas which are actually very intelligent. It is their culture and their aims that are the problem. While they surely would like to help Arabian citizens the temptation of keeping the vast amounts of money in the royal family has proven to be too much. Some of these people have more wealth and power than anyone that has ever existed on this planet before. Many have multiple estates costing multiple tens of millions of dollars all around the world. Saudis own so much of America they make a deal with the government that it is unlawful for the US government to disclose how much they actually own. The book "Inside The Kingdom" collects most of this information in one place for those who would like to read about it. The Saudis, and other oil exporting nations had been using their excess cash to manipulate both our American industries and our American politicians. For almost 30 years they were legally able to manipulate American companies to rid their personnel of Jews as a condition to do business with Saudi Arabia. They have been buying into our industries and have so much money in such concentration of family, culture, religion and about any other dimension I think they and the rest of the Islamo-Nazis are about the most dangerous element in the world to the American way of life. Poopooing the war because George Bush is an incompetant leader is counterproductive to my way of thinking.

Thank you for the tip on the book. Does it by any chance suggest our oil lobbyist of a president may have attacked Iraq because the Saudis saw Saddam as a threat (or maybe that they would like access to this oil also)?

I am no fan of warfare by any means, but I did see the sense in going to war with the Taliban, as well as an ongoing search for nutcake terrorists, whether they be Osama bin Laden or Terry Nichols. I don't see the connection with Iraq, and am very disturbed that we went in there, and I am not at all alone in that concern.

I'm right there with you on the Saudis. At the same time, I would say nothing is more counterproductive than incompetence. The citizenry expecting competence in such vital matters is not at all counterproductive.

>> Does it by any chance suggest our oil lobbyist of a
>> president may have attacked Iraq because the Saudis
>> saw Saddam as a threat

Those kinds of ideas are entertained and debated in
the book.

A far as the war on terror, there are so many conflicting
dimensions and ways of looking at it, and factoring in our
President's influences and incompetancies as well as the
strange behavior of our own corporations that I am not
sure what is going on there. The fact is that if you look
at what we have let our country become we have no idea
anymore what is really operating it ... and the easiest bet
is that it is foreign "global" interests or some sort.

The "citizenry" that goes into mass hysteria over Don Imus is
not competant to perceive, understand or react to this threat,
meaning I guess that I think our days of delsusions are numbered
unless we start being a lot more aware of what is going on ...
and before we can even do that we have to have the will to
look objectively ... sadly I do not see that happening.

Bruce, I too can't claim to understand it all and in fact, my email tag is "If you're not confused, odds are you haven't been paying attention."

It is exactly these Don Imus, Monica Lewinsky, and "oh-my-God-gas has gone over $1.40" distractions that allow things to go on without being noticed by the public. I share your frustration with that, and I don't know the solution either.

I think no one "knows" the solution, but there are some things that move us closer in some ways to either learning, knowing, or doing. Iraq is one of those things in my opinion. What surely is not doing us much good are these wild spasms of public - whatever it is ... I call it mass hysteria, fire Imus without any thought (not that I care much for Imus) or ban handguns because of the shooting, the same stuff that comes out all the time at times like this and that passes for intelligent public discourse. The world is complex, in fact I think that is the main reason it stays the way it is ... it is like people who never challenge their ideas ... like the horse who knows he is tethered to the post even though the lead is just draped over it ... we are creatures of habit, and we need to either ourselves become rational creatures of action or stop just complaining and try to understand what is going on in the world and why. I think there are good guys and bad guys, and that we are the good guys at the broadest level. It doesn't mean we are perfect, but it does not either mean that we whip our own selves and despise our culture or country as the first reaction to anything.

I agree thought with your tag ... "If you're not confused, odds are you haven't been paying attention."

Spartan, I did actually hear (on the media, as not all are created equal) that mercenaries are being paid more than 10 times what our military are.

I have not heard about the end of training the Iraqi military. It must not be profitable.

One little caveat in an otherwise fascinating conversation, and that is, if the Saudis had done anything like you suggest they should do, they would have been the recipient of an Iraq like crusade, long ago. The fact that they have played ball with us, for what we wanted, has ensured their survival in an otherwise hostile environment, even though they are the main supporters of Wahabism. Just a thought from another confused observer.

Well, they must play the game pretty darned well to have such a good friend in George Bush. He's the consumate gamer of the system.

Yes Spartan. I fear this "Shadow Army" that Bush has created. It seems like another way to be able to operate outside the law as these mercenary groups are not held accountable for any of their actions.

What troubles me more is that this president now has the ability to use national guard troops for law enforcement or to "restore public order" within the country. This is frightening and should not be allowed to stand. It is a direct attack at another one of the pillars that hold our democracy together.

I fear that dark times are looming. Iraq was the opening act to major turmoil yet to come.

I think things could seriously unravel overseas as a result of this incompetence. At home, I think it's just going to add to the legacy of a man who never heard the saying that ends, "stop digging." If we elect a Republican as our next president, we'll be the ones who can't get "Fool me twice . . . " out without messing it up.

motombo,
I fear you and I seem to be the only ones that are either aware or worried about the posse comitatus thing around here. I have tried to comment on this numerous times, and it either sails right on out the door, or the reaction is that I am paranoid. When that is added to the MCA and the Patriot act, the pieces necessary for a well ordered military martial law takeover are all being put in place, one at a time. All that would be left is for a natural, or man made disaster to give the excuse necessary.

It's worriesome to know that there are still people that cannot accept the truth that 9/11 changed the world. It changed not only because America was successfully attacked, but because the world saw mass terror attacks in a western nation. America is currently the worlds only superpower and therefore must take the lead against the global threat of terrorism. The author's example of Congo is truthful but inaccurate in one respect. There was war in the Congo because of the nonexistence of law and order in that region. Look at Somalia or Sudan where thousands die daily because their governments cannot or will not control their own people.

It is more worrisome that there are those that buy that tripe. Terrorism has been around for years, and most countries have managed to deal with it without throwing their guaranteed freedoms away to gain a little false security. Quivering in our collective boots, we asked the fox to guard the henhouse, just as he planned, and there are still a pathetic thirty percent of us that haven't realized the lies perpetrated by this group that have the potential of making us all serfs to the ultra rich's royal kingdom.

You touch upon many interesting points in this article. Terrorists are generally in the business of creating spectacle through violent needs. The media covers their attacks and spreads their message for them. Perhaps if the media had payed more attention to the concerns raised by the Islamic community prior to 9/11 things would be different today.

E.M., exactly. This is news to me that the training of Iraqis is being cut back, but if so, it's yet more incompetence (if not outright lying to what end is anyone's guess).

Ron, I too have had some worries about a military coup, but three things mitigate it: 1) Rumsfeld is out; 2) Republicans no longer control congress; and last but not least my any means, the United States - for better or worse - is full of guns. Any attempt to turn is into a "safety dictatorship" would have the exact opposite result.

Edward, everything did not change. This was wishful thinking on Bush's part, and I interpret his words to mean, "All my campaign promises are out the door, especially the ones about nation building and keeping government out of the lives of the people." A lot has changed, but we had a choice to say "you little men cannot change us" and we instead rewarded them by becoming the ugly Americans they needed us to be in order to gain more recruits for their cause.

David, I wholeheartedly aggree with "The media covers their attacks and spreads their message for them." People who post pictures of decapitated bodies to the web are also great friends of the terrorists.

Spartan, the idea that we have mercenaries operating within our borders is a saddening thing, and that's putting it mildly.

Ron,
I am not trying to be insulting here, but your points are highly naive on the martial law issue. One, Rumsfeld was only a bit player and is irrelevant. Two congress would have nothing to say about it, GWB is commander in chief, and only GWB, and once martial law was declared, the average congressman is going to see the writing on the wall, if he wasn't already in collusion (how much has really been done since the dems captured congress? Not much, and that tells you something). Three, most of those guns are in the hands of conservatives, and would be more than likely turned to upholding any action of government, not opposing it. I can't imagine too many have the stomach to stand up and be counted in the first place, if push comes to shove. We've all seen shock and awe on our TV sets, and we know the score. Any resistance would be overwhelmingly futile. Can you imagine today's citizen trying to oppose today's army with his semi auto, even given assault weapons, and no air, no anything support? Satellite monitoring, smart bombs, etc. Short lived, would be my take on ANY resistance. The underlying laws that have been passed that would make it possible, are the key. GWB has control, over the objections of any or all governors, of the national guard, the force considered heretofore to be protection against this type of thing (posse comitatus act), and can move them from state to state, on his own, which incidentally is how Tienanmen square was put down, when local troops won't fire on civilians, due to families, friends, and a shared regional loyalty, they can bring in troops from far away, just as they did in Tienanmen, and shoot the protesters. Anyone voicing protest can be trumped into being an enemy combatant with the help of judges friendly to their cause, and basically disappeared with no habeas corpus, rendered to foreign lands, etc. They already probably have a handle on any dissident or discordant voices, through the NSA, FBI, etc. such as you and I. Add to that fact that the media, now under corporate control, has done very nicely under GWB, and would probably see the writing on the wall, and where it's next meal was coming from, and report little. It can't happen here has been legally transformed into it can, if they want to, and we ignore this fact at our own peril.

Add to the above, disinformation, and the bending of public opinion that they have shown themselves to be masters at, and the public's overwhelmingly obvious, at this point, will to be safe, no matter the cost, and you should begin to see the reasons it is of concern. You may scoff, but before you do, I'd investigate the implications of the actions of the last congress and their effects on our constitutional safeguards.

Ron, Thank you for expressing, clearly and sensitively, my own sense of this.
The best advice ever is the motto of "The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy." "DON'T PANIC!"

Ron, I was not really talking about martial law, though. I was referring to a takeover of the government by greed and force, and the conservatives I know and grew up with would rise in arms to oppose such a thing.

Karl, panic is weak. I agree.

No panic, but to not be aware is not an option we can afford. We need to demand the changes to posse comitatus be restored, and the MCA provisions to allow US citizens to be rendered, just like an enemy combatant, removed, etc. The fact that they have not done this already, speaks volumes about the real advocacy of the Dems we elected, and all that need be done to secure those patriotic conservatives you speak of, Ron, is to claim that those sinister liberals have a plan to take over the government themselves. It wouldn't even need to be a good story. Anyone that takes up arms against the national guard or the army today, needs to be ready to die, don't kid yourself, given the choice, the easy way is to believe it, and most would, without that, anyway. The polarization of the populace has not been done for nothing.

You could be right. At least there would be a noble cause to die for.

Ron, I was eating Cheerios and getting ready for an algebra test when I saw the second plane hit. I was horrified, and I was fully aware of what was coming next. When I got to class for that test, people had already started saying, find em, get em. That made it eerily clear what would be coming next. Bush has used this to further his highly suspect agenda to run this country into the ground.

The thing that bothers me more than that is that I am nervous about leaving a comment like this. I am aware of the internment camps. I don't want to end up there.

Yesterday, I read a post from a US soldier in Iraq who said liberals are terrorists. It is really ironic that he is supposed to be fighting for our right to oppose this war. Obviously, the fight in Iraq has nothing to do with freedom - ours or theirs - and I am sick of hearing that. I am tired of being condescended to that someone is fighting for me. Only a moron will still believe that. Not me. I never believed it.

They are fighting for something, but it is not for me, and it is not for the good of any country. We are more at risk for terrorism because we are blowing people up and we cannot justify what we are doing there. We have been played. How much more is it going to cost us? How much more can we afford to lose?

Jennifer, I am agreed with everything you say, except that I wouldn't worry about being put in a camp. There are millions of Americans who agree with you - probably several million are outspoken. The players couldn't build that many camps, and as incompetent as they are, I don't think extermination is one of their fall back plans.

>> Yesterday, I read a post from a US soldier in Iraq who said liberals are terrorists.

This kind of thing has scared me for a long time now. I have always been a "Liberal", a sort of middle of the road in American politics but my personal opinions have ranged from mostly the far left to some things on the far right, but I have identified mostly with Liberals because the Conservatives, the Republicans, the Reactionaries have always seemed greedy, mean, bullying, violent ... a whole host of what I think are anti-social terms.

Some years before 9-11 it started to hit me that the "Liberals" on closer examination has a whole host of bad characteristics as well. Non-rigorous, lazy, simple-minded, incoherent, pie in the sky, living in fantasyland, irresponsible, etc.

Then one day listening to the Pacifica radio station it hit me that the leftists somehow have rationalized being in support of the Palestinians and the Arabs and have spun that in a way I find even more incredible that what the right has done on most things. It is common for the left to not care what goes on in the world, to want to simplify things into one size fits all ... and that one size is an isolationism, a knee-jerk reaction to what they do not understand ... which is most of everything.

I am now stuck. I spent a whole year telling everyone I knew all about George W. Bush and all his faults and what he was going to end up doing to this country ... and no one I know listened. I cannot stand Bush's domestic agenda of tax cuts and the ownership society BS, it is one of the most anti-American things I have ever seen. I do agree with his stand in the world ... except he is completely incompetent and pursuing this Neocon agenda ... which sounds good to me. The world is a screwed up place and if the ball can get rolling on getting rid of the despotisms I think the world could be a much better place, a place where all people could coherently act to combat things like poverty, energy scarcity, global climate change. We have got to get rid of the rogue nations, and the rogue people first, and the Liberals just do not get it.

So I can completely understand frustration with the Liberals because I think they are not doing anything for the good of the country, they are mostly whining and complaining and will do anything to get Bush and his people out of office, with no real thought of what to replace it with.

For practical purposes there is only money, and there is no way to get rid of it or replace it because if you put a wheelbarrow of it in front of anyone they will get on board, and every day we all spend out money in a system that funnels the ever increasing profits up to the same people who decide what to tell us about what everyone thinks our reality is, and we do it every day without thinking, and we do not even think about not thinking.

The Liberals are kind of like the body when it is sick, it tries to fight with all its forces, and eventually it creates a temperature .. and that temperature can get so high that it can kill the body, and I think the unthinking Liberals can be perceived by some as doing the same think the the US in the mistaken belief they are living up to peace and love and some kind of pacifist philosphy that does not fit in this case.

Bruce, your comment is very compelling and I think it could stand alone as its - damn, I turn my back for one minute and the cat has eaten a quarter of my lunch and I have to throw the rest away. Anyway, this would make an excellent post. I was a staunch conservative, and I rebelled in a big way. In my adult life I now also pick and choose, and my views are only moderate on average. I take positions on the far right and I take positions on the far left and maybe half the time I have to admit I don't know enough to responsibly argue which side is right on some issues (in those cases I suppose I'm a moderate).

>> I have to admit I don't know enough to responsibly
>> argue which side is right on some issues (in those
>> cases I suppose I'm a moderate).

Well, look at America's foreign policy since WWII and it
has gotten so convoluted and complex. I think one could
argue that no one knows which is the right side, or even
what is the appropriate side for this country anymore.
Surely not our politicians ... or the political experts.

We used to stand for something and have a culture that
people believed in, even people that came from other
countries to live here understood simply what America
was all about. What our "mission statement"was. I think
that is gone, in favor of who we think we admire ... the
souless business man who succeeds at any cost. How
this icon rose to prominence, and the effect at least 50
years and probably more of this working away on our
insides has created a festering monster. There is no
right and wrong in the classical sense of morality, there is
what leads to survival and what doesn't ... evolution, and
that can only be determined after a long time.

I think the Liberals see past mistakes and seek to avoid
what they see wrong in the past in the future. The
Conservatives see the past mistakes and want to try to
do better next time.

In the absence of a national concensus as to what the US is
doing in the world a national focus seems missing. In the
early 1900's we learned how to focus national attention and
manipulate the public mind, but over time we have cut so
many corners that we have left that mind full of holes,
contradictions and doubt in our know-it-all-ed-ness -
recipe for insanity if ever there was one.

The threat from Islam and corrupt societies in general is
that they focus for real on a very low level simplified version
of the world that they enforce with terror, and terror is a
very motivating force. We are rich enough and insulated
enough that we have nothing except money that can motivate
us to that extent anymore. Money that is being concentrated
in the hands of a few and not allowed to get out and do its
thing in the marketplace to modify behavior or build infrastructure.

If America does not find its soul we will continue this decline and
fragmentation I think. Discussion cannot be bad as long as it is not
just the standard name-calling we see sometimes.

Name calling is just the most pathetic thing. I've dropped into some discussions to offer a different opinion, and - well - you'd think words *could* break my bones the way they type, lacking any interest in showing any rhyme or reason for their opinions.