|
|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Mr. Mechanical ontological terrorist

Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Scare Room 99
|
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 9:09 pm |
|
|
Fox most trusted news channel in US, poll shows
Explains so much.
| Quote: |
| Dean Denham, president of Public Policy Polling, the North Carolina-based survey firm that carried out the poll, said the Fox strategy had been brilliant commercially but its implications were troubling. "That people see the network as trustworthy is worrying in terms of the future of reasoned debate in America. A lie screamed loudly will trump a truth spoken quietly," he said. |
Gee, you really think so Dean? _________________
| internisus wrote: |
| You are a pretty fucked up guy. |
True Doom Murder Junkies - Updated On Occasion |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Mechanical ontological terrorist

Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Scare Room 99
|
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 10:20 pm |
|
|
 _________________
| internisus wrote: |
| You are a pretty fucked up guy. |
True Doom Murder Junkies - Updated On Occasion |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Mechanical ontological terrorist

Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Scare Room 99
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Mechanical ontological terrorist

Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Scare Room 99
|
Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2010 3:54 am |
|
|
Yeah that was great. Never mind the fact that military spending makes up like 4/5 the budget, Jeb! _________________
| internisus wrote: |
| You are a pretty fucked up guy. |
True Doom Murder Junkies - Updated On Occasion |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Mechanical ontological terrorist

Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Scare Room 99
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Mechanical ontological terrorist

Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Scare Room 99
|
Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 6:43 am |
|
|
The Secessionist Campaign for the Republic of Vermont
| Quote: |
| A former Duke University economics professor, Naylor heads up the Second Vermont Republic, which he describes as "left-libertarian, anti-big government, anti-empire, antiwar, with small is beautiful as our guiding philosophy." The group not only advocates the peaceful secession of Vermont but has minted its own silver "token" — valued at $25 — and, as part of a publishing venture with another secessionist group, runs a monthly newspaper called Vermont Commons, with a circulation of 10,000. According to a 2007 poll, they have support from at least 13% of state voters. The campaign slogan, Naylor told me, is "Imagine Free Vermont." In his fondest imaginings, Naylor said, Vermonters would not be "forced to participate in killing women and children in the Middle East." |
| Quote: |
| But what about that comfort zone of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps, plus the infrastructure currently funded by the federal government, including bridges, roads and particularly the interstate highways? One analysis by a researcher at the University of Vermont found that the state only gets 75 cents back for every dollar it hands over to the federal center. The secessionists say they'd prefer to save their money and keep it at home. "Not only would an independent Vermont survive," says Naylor, "It would thrive, because it would free up entrepreneurial forces heretofore held in abeyance. We're not preaching economic isolationism. We want to confront the empire, and that doesn't mean just owning a Prius and keeping a root garden." |
Their official website.
While I'm pretty sure that Texas talking about seceding a while back was just political posturing this seems a bit more serious, being an organized campaign with apparently a sizable amount of support behind it. 13% of voters isn't a majority by any stretch but it's enough to make people take notice.
I've wondered, at least since the talk from Texas of secession, what a balkinization of the US would look like in the beginning. How it would start, and whether or not the Feds would go apeshit and try to militarily occupy the seceding state(s) in order to get them back in line or if cooler minds would prevail.
A peaceful secession would be a definite first for the country, though at this point I hope that we won't have to find out if it's possible. _________________
| internisus wrote: |
| You are a pretty fucked up guy. |
True Doom Murder Junkies - Updated On Occasion |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Mechanical ontological terrorist

Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Scare Room 99
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Mechanical ontological terrorist

Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Scare Room 99
|
Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 10:04 pm |
|
|
To quote Wikipedia: Libertarians embrace viewpoints across a political spectrum, ranging from pro-property to anti-property (sometimes phrased as "right" versus "left"), from minarchist to openly anarchist.
edit-What Shiren said.
edit2-Left-libertarianism article on wikipedia _________________
| internisus wrote: |
| You are a pretty fucked up guy. |
True Doom Murder Junkies - Updated On Occasion |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Mechanical ontological terrorist

Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Scare Room 99
|
Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 7:20 am |
|
|
| manmachine plays jazz wrote: |
| Mr. Mechanical wrote: |
To quote Wikipedia: Libertarians embrace viewpoints across a political spectrum, ranging from pro-property to anti-property (sometimes phrased as "right" versus "left"), from minarchist to openly anarchist.
edit-What Shiren said.
edit2-Left-libertarianism article on wikipedia |
Oh, I'm not saying it doesn't exist; I don't think it's possible to seperate the concepts of liberty and self-determination from the concept of private property. |
Ah. I could see it not being possible with individual liberty or self-determination, but in terms of a collective deciding the terms of the collective's liberty/self-determination I could see the concept of private property being a bit of a detriment. _________________
| internisus wrote: |
| You are a pretty fucked up guy. |
True Doom Murder Junkies - Updated On Occasion |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Mechanical ontological terrorist

Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Scare Room 99
|
Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:06 pm |
|
|
| manmachine plays jazz wrote: |
| Mr. Mechanical wrote: |
| manmachine plays jazz wrote: |
| Mr. Mechanical wrote: |
To quote Wikipedia: Libertarians embrace viewpoints across a political spectrum, ranging from pro-property to anti-property (sometimes phrased as "right" versus "left"), from minarchist to openly anarchist.
edit-What Shiren said.
edit2-Left-libertarianism article on wikipedia |
Oh, I'm not saying it doesn't exist; I don't think it's possible to seperate the concepts of liberty and self-determination from the concept of private property. |
Ah. I could see it not being possible with individual liberty or self-determination, but in terms of a collective deciding the terms of the collective's liberty/self-determination I could see the concept of private property being a bit of a detriment. |
This rationale flies in the face of centuries of liberal thought. You're thinking more of positive liberties (you have all the liberties we grant you, but you aren't intrinsically entitled to any) in the former case; and state sovereignty, assuming you mean the collective's ability to govern a tract of land and determine what to do with it. Neither are liberty in the classical liberal sense, which is the freedom from outside coercion. I'm fairly certain that a collective deciding that you can't own anything is a coercive act. |
When I made my post I was thinking of the Native Americans, who had no concept of "property" at all (let alone public or private), and who lived collectively (albeit as separate bands of tribes) free from coercion, determining the course of their own destiny for thousands of years before the Europeans showed up.
Though to address your point directly, if a person is a part of a collective then they are incapable of coercion because presumably they are in agreement with the collective's stated philosophies (otherwise why would they join?). Note that I am only speaking abstractly here, as there are plenty of historical examples where a collective was formed which then went on to impose it's will on others (Khmer Rouge, for example) just as there are examples of collectives that didn't (individual Native American tribes*).
*I suppose you might argue that since there was inter-tribal warfare even among Native Americans well before Europeans came along this might nullify the point somewhat, in that one tribe attacking another is a form of coercion and interference with self-determination.
edit-Actually, thinking about this more I think our difference arises out the definitions we're using. You seem to be using more specific meanings for "liberty" and "collective" and such, whereas I'm just using them in a general sense. Like, when I refer to a "collective" I'm not so much thinking "the State" but rather any group of people who have intentionally united under one banner for whatever reason. _________________
| internisus wrote: |
| You are a pretty fucked up guy. |
True Doom Murder Junkies - Updated On Occasion
Last edited by Mr. Mechanical on Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:03 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Mechanical ontological terrorist

Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Scare Room 99
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Mechanical ontological terrorist

Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Scare Room 99
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Mechanical ontological terrorist

Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Scare Room 99
|
Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 4:19 am |
|
|
Dear Mexico,
You can have Texas back, we've decided we don't need it anymore. No, please, take it back.
Please?
Love,
America _________________
| internisus wrote: |
| You are a pretty fucked up guy. |
True Doom Murder Junkies - Updated On Occasion |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Mechanical ontological terrorist

Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Scare Room 99
|
Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 5:20 am |
|
|
We're cool, Adi. Don't worry. I consider you "one of the good ones".
And usually I have no beef with Texans. I don't care if their football teams beat my football teams, right? But I read articles like that and I think man it's time we start messing with Texas. _________________
| internisus wrote: |
| You are a pretty fucked up guy. |
True Doom Murder Junkies - Updated On Occasion |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Mechanical ontological terrorist

Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Scare Room 99
|
Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 5:24 am |
|
|
| Adilegian wrote: |
Serious question Mech:
What is it with midwestern states and their rivalries? I once dated a girl from Omaha who hated Nebraska's neighbors, and this seemed to be a general sentiment of contempt, and I've actually had B&N customers from Oklahoma patronizingly compliment me on being "a nice Texan." And when I explain that I'm not from Texas they laugh and say that that must explain it.
I mean, the only state that I've heard disparagingly referred to across the southeast is FL (and southern FL as well, like Naples and the moneylands), but I've never seen anything like this.
Should I take sides and prepare for the coming war or what
please advise. |
Eh I think it's just petty tribalism. Really ingrained culturally, but at its heart just tribalism. Gotta have an outside enemy, right, or the people in the community have nothing to rally together against.
RE: taking sides. My strategy so far has just been not really commenting publicly and letting people think that I agree with them whenever the subject of some rivalry or another comes up. And if I'm in a position where opposing views are vying for my allegiance I just fess up and say I really don't care about y'alls made up conflict. _________________
| internisus wrote: |
| You are a pretty fucked up guy. |
True Doom Murder Junkies - Updated On Occasion |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Mechanical ontological terrorist

Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Scare Room 99
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Mechanical ontological terrorist

Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Scare Room 99
|
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 2:14 am |
|
|
| Cossix wrote: |
| Did anyone think it was weird that the mainstream media never seemed to refer to the guy in Austin flying his plane into the federal building as a terrorism incident? I mean isn't that basically what it was, or can terrorists only be islamic now? :( |
Terrorism: the most meaningless and manipulated word _________________
| internisus wrote: |
| You are a pretty fucked up guy. |
True Doom Murder Junkies - Updated On Occasion |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Mechanical ontological terrorist

Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Scare Room 99
|
Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 11:13 pm |
|
|
The title of the paper, “Development of an Aerosol System for Uniformly Depositing Bacillus Anthrax Spore Particles on Surfaces,” demonstrated that to create anthrax in a dry aerosol form of the sort that can be dispersed through the air is a long and difficult process involving a lot of highly specialized machinery.
The original culture has to be incubated; spore pellets are then collected with a centrifuge; those spores are dried “by a proprietary azeotropic method,” before an “amorphous silica-based flow enhancer” is added to turn the otherwise sticky anthrax spores into an aerosol, after which the material has to be passed through a series of ever finer mesh screens that are activated by a pneumatic vibrator.
The point, as one scientist specializing in fine particle chemistry told me, blows a large hole through the 92-page summary of the investigation released last week by the F.B.I. and the Justice Department, the main conclusion of which is that Bruce E. Ivins, a scientist at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, in Maryland, was the anthrax mailer.
“Note that the proprietary azeotropic drying technique and the pneumatic mill are both superspecialized pieces of equipment, neither of which is at Detrick,” the specialist in fine particles, Stuart Jacobsen, said in an e-mail message.
But the F.B.I.’s entire case against Mr. Ivins is that he was able to manufacture the anthrax used in the attacks at his Fort Detrick lab, working late at night on the days before the actual anthrax mailings so nobody would see what he was doing. _________________
| internisus wrote: |
| You are a pretty fucked up guy. |
True Doom Murder Junkies - Updated On Occasion |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Mechanical ontological terrorist

Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Scare Room 99
|
Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 4:06 am |
|
|
| Talbain wrote: |
| CubaLibre wrote: |
| It's the ultimate act of self-expression, the independent and totally personal creation of another human life. |
This is maybe the creepiest way I've ever heard of someone talking about another human life. |
How so? _________________
| internisus wrote: |
| You are a pretty fucked up guy. |
True Doom Murder Junkies - Updated On Occasion |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Mechanical ontological terrorist

Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Scare Room 99
|
Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 4:30 pm |
|
|
Oh, right. Because nobody ever does anything for others, just themselves. We should all be scolding our parents for being selfish enough to want kids which destroy the planet, is that it?
Why haven't you killed yourself to save the planet yet Dracko? Why are you being so selfish? _________________
| internisus wrote: |
| You are a pretty fucked up guy. |
True Doom Murder Junkies - Updated On Occasion |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Mechanical ontological terrorist

Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Scare Room 99
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Mechanical ontological terrorist

Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Scare Room 99
|
Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 5:02 am |
|
|
Damn after watching that I'd like everything to be accessible via Pivot. Like, yesterday kthx. _________________
| internisus wrote: |
| You are a pretty fucked up guy. |
True Doom Murder Junkies - Updated On Occasion |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Mechanical ontological terrorist

Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Scare Room 99
|
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 2:26 am |
|
|
http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/what-you-get-when-hcr-passes
| Quote: |
Here are ten benefits which come online within six months of the President's signature on the health care bill:
1. Adult children may remain as dependents on their parents’ policy until their 27th birthday
2. Children under age 19 may not be excluded for pre-existing conditions
3. No more lifetime or annual caps on coverage
4. Free preventative care for all
5. Adults with pre-existing conditions may buy into a national high-risk pool until the exchanges come online. While these will not be cheap, they’re still better than total exclusion and get some benefit from a wider pool of insureds.
6. Small businesses will be entitled to a tax credit for 2009 and 2010, which could be as much as 50% of what they pay for employees’ health insurance.
7. The “donut hole” closes for Medicare patients, making prescription medications more affordable for seniors.
8. Requirement that all insurers must post their balance sheets on the Internet and fully disclose administrative costs, executive compensation packages, and benefit payments.
9. Authorizes early funding of community health centers in all 50 states (Bernie Sanders’ amendment). Community health centers provide primary, dental and vision services to people in the community, based on a sliding scale for payment according to ability to pay.
10. AND no more rescissions. Effective immediately, you can't lose your insurance because you get sick. |
A good start. Only took us till 20-fucking-10 though. _________________
| internisus wrote: |
| You are a pretty fucked up guy. |
True Doom Murder Junkies - Updated On Occasion |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Mechanical ontological terrorist

Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Scare Room 99
|
Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 3:51 am |
|
|
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8009635
| Poll_Blind wrote: |
The Pentagon and WikiLeaks will probably never be scribbling BFF on each other's yearbooks- that part should not come as a surprise. One relishes keeping secrets secret, the other in sharing those secrets with the world. Including, sometimes, classified information.
Things got a bit hotter between the two ever since WikiLeaks published a 2008 article from the Army Counterintelligence Center (and verified by the Pentagon as genuine) which openly mused about ways to shut down or discredit WikiLeaks to destroy it entirely. (see: "Pentagon deems Wikileaks a national security threat")
But things are (presumably) about to get much hotter- WikiLeaks has more than hinted that they have been actively trying to decrypt and now have successfully decrypted (thanks to purchased supercomputer time) footage of a killing of some sort, believed to be from or related to an airstrike, which they claim proves a Pentagon murder cover-up. Speculation on what this video contains or from what vantage point it was taken is still unknown.
WikiLeaks have stated they will reveal this material at the US National Press Club on April 5th of this year.
Things have taken a turn for the bizarre in the last 48 hours as the WikiLeaks sent out a number of frantic messages via its Twitter account. I'll let this article from Technorati pick up the next twist:
| Quote: |
According to tweets from Wikileak insiders, members of their editorial advisory board are being tailed by State Department and CIA officials, and have been shown ominous photos taken secretly during their production meetings.
Apparently, the recent interest in WikiLeaks stems from a video they obtained of a military airstrike. Here are some recent tweets from inside the Wikileaks organization:
| Quote: |
* We have airline records of the State Dep/CIA tails. Don't think you can get away with it. You cannot. This is WikiLeaks. about 10 hours ago via bit.ly
* We have been shown secret photos of our production meetings and been asked specific questions during detention related to the airstrike. about 10 hours ago via bit.ly
* If you know more about the operations against us, contact https://secure.wikileaks.org / about 10 hours ago via bit.ly
* We know our possession of the decrypted airstrike video is now being discussed at the highest levels of US command. about 10 hours ago via bit.ly
* One related person was detained for 22 hours. Computer's seized.That's http://www.skup.no about 10 hours ago via bit.ly |
|
So...what does this video depict and why is it perceived to be so damaging and inculcating to the Pentagon? WikiLeaks had to shut down earlier this year due to shortfalls in funding. Is this a publicity stunt or the beginnings of a major breaking story? Why not just release the video now? And if it is as big a story as WikiLeaks implies, might it have finally bitten off more than it can chew?
The most recent article, just a few hours old at most, by TechEye gives the following account:
| Quote: |
The WikiLeaks team added earlier "If anything happens to us, you know why: it is our Apr 5 film. And you know who is responsible." Having a look at the Wikileaks Twitter stream reveals the whistleblowers allegedly received an encrypted video showing a US military airstrike on January 8th this year. Wikileaks called for supercomputer time, to aid with encryptment. The encryption was announced cracked on February 20th this year.
Apparently, the video shows the shooting of journalists and civilians by the hands of the US military. The public will know more on April 5th, when Wikileaks says it will release the film. If the video in question indeed shows the slaughter of unarmed journos and civilians, heads are bound to roll. |
Airstrike? "Shooting of journalists and civilians by the hands of the US military"? WTF? More questions than answers...
ONEDIT: It appears the "Shooting of journalists and civilians" speculation was based on this older Tweet from WikiLeaks.
PB
|
_________________
| internisus wrote: |
| You are a pretty fucked up guy. |
True Doom Murder Junkies - Updated On Occasion |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Mechanical ontological terrorist

Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Scare Room 99
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Mechanical ontological terrorist

Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Scare Room 99
|
Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 4:22 am |
|
|
A Detention Bill You Ought to Read More Carefully
| Quote: |
| Why is the national security community treating the "Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010," introduced by Sens. John McCain and Joseph Lieberman on Thursday as a standard proposal, as a simple response to the administration's choices in the aftermath of the Christmas Day bombing attempt? A close reading of the bill suggests it would allow the U.S. military to detain U.S. citizens without trial indefinitely in the U.S. based on suspected activity. |
_________________
| internisus wrote: |
| You are a pretty fucked up guy. |
True Doom Murder Junkies - Updated On Occasion |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Mechanical ontological terrorist

Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Scare Room 99
|
Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 1:23 am |
|
|
| Dark Age Iron Savior wrote: |
| dracko, I'm not sure what you're trying to point out, and who to? |
That James Lovelock is an authoritarian statist who thinks you can just "put democracy on hold" while there's a war going on and then after the war return everything to normal? Which is an odd line of thought because given his credentials (scientist, general smart guy) one would think that he would have noticed from history that panicking during wartime and "putting democracy on hold for just a little bit" is exactly how authoritarian dictators sometimes come to power.
Like how Rome started as a monarchy but eventually became a republic then after a while they got into some shit and things were looking bleak so a guy stepped up and said give me total control and I'll fix everything then I'll restore the republic. Only after that guy took control he never gave it up and Rome went from republic to full blown totalitarian empire for hundreds of years after.
Granted, he comes to these kinds of conclusions from an environmentalist background but that's not as uncommon an occurrence as you'd think. It's the same net effect, they're just panicking about something other than war. _________________
| internisus wrote: |
| You are a pretty fucked up guy. |
True Doom Murder Junkies - Updated On Occasion |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Mechanical ontological terrorist

Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Scare Room 99
|
Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 2:30 am |
|
|
| Adilegian wrote: |
| Mr. Mechanical wrote: |
| Dark Age Iron Savior wrote: |
| dracko, I'm not sure what you're trying to point out, and who to? |
That James Lovelock is an authoritarian statist who thinks you can just "put democracy on hold" while there's a war going on and then after the war return everything to normal? Which is an odd line of thought because given his credentials (scientist, general smart guy) one would think that he would have noticed from history that panicking during wartime and "putting democracy on hold for just a little bit" is exactly how authoritarian dictators sometimes come to power.
Like how Rome started as a monarchy but eventually became a republic then after a while they got into some shit and things were looking bleak so a guy stepped up and said give me total control and I'll fix everything then I'll restore the republic. Only after that guy took control he never gave it up and Rome went from republic to full blown totalitarian empire for hundreds of years after.
Granted, he comes to these kinds of conclusions from an environmentalist background but that's not as uncommon an occurrence as you'd think. It's the same net effect, they're just panicking about something other than war. |
I think that sums it up perfectly.
I'm kind of puzzled that the matter of democracy still factors into the way that we think about such problems. The mechanisms by which climate change (and amending it) and war propagate are manipulated through secrecy and outsourcing to the point that few people who actually do anything are elected, which punts that little shred of populace control of "representative" in "representative democracy" pretty far out of the ballpark.
I mean, I don't see it describing any actual method by which we distribute power or by which those with power take it. If anything, the term "democracy" might serve the interests of power more as a smoke screen over actual organizations of power. Am I being too cynical here? |
Maybe but I'm pretty cynical myself so I'm inclined to think not. There's lots of different groups of people in the world and democracy is a pretty good way to attempt to meet the needs of each group but like you say there's that whole problem of secrecy among those in power. Or rather, I think the problem is with the nature of power itself, how we relate to and conceptualize it in our lives, and the mechanisms by which it is transferred among generations. Centralized forms of power like wealth and political office are easy targets for corrupting influence because only the interests of a few must be taken into account (those at or close to the source of power like the wealthy or political elites), and people being people are going to act in their own self-interest more often than not. And of course if you're wealthy or you're in office somewhere you'll want to pass those same opportunities onto your heirs, so it's stupidly easy to do this (even with political office, just look at any of the american political dynasties we've had running the country for generations).
We've seen the face of the beast and its name is Hegemony. You can't fight it directly because that only makes it stronger (Hegemony has whole armies with guns and missiles and shit what do you got?). Instead the answer is to gradually shift yourself away from the centralized power structure and towards something more decentralized in nature. This is extremely difficult to do though, especially in our modern world where everything is all plugged in together and people look at you weird if you ever indicate that you might want to unplug from the matrix someday. You have to examine all the ways in which you currently benefit from centralized authority and try to imagine which ways you could most easily do without and start working from there. Though I think with enough individual autonomy and organizing at the community level with other autonomous individuals you can easily get onto a decentralized hierarchy of power where everyone is supporting each other for the common good and at the same time massively lessen one's dependence on the central authority figures of the day. A kind of neo-tribalism sort of thing.
Which of course runs counter to those of an authoritative bent because authority is all about exerting control and making sure everything is all lined up nice and neat like it's supposed to be. It's difficult to have independence and personal liberty coexisting with a centralized authority structure but America, despite the measures of authoritarians past, present, and future, still has hella independence/liberty going for it so as long as that's there then not all is lost.
Damn what happened with this post.
| Dark Age Iron Savior wrote: |
| I'm sure that Dracko has spent a lot of time following/researching this controversial 90-year old, award-winning scientist and therefore knows exactly what he's talking about when he says that Lovelock has shown his "true colors", but to me it seems that a man very prone to excessive hyperbole is trying to get across that climate change skepticism is greatly undermining the necessary efforts that need to be made to stop environmental damage and help renewable energy progress. I don't think he's making a serious argument about how democracy should occasionally take a smoke break and let a dictatorship handle things for a while. |
He is suggesting there are some problems too big even for the democratic process to solve, and he's probably right in that regard. Unfortunately like he says, there is no alternative to democracy. What people find alarming is that he goes on to suggest that we need some kind of authority figure for people to have faith in because otherwise we won't all be able to stop arguing and solve the big problems. And he just leaves it at that, without making any suggestions as to what such an authority would look like, how it would operate, how it would be held accountable (something he seems to recognize the importance of). Maybe it's not fair to expect him to go into more detail on this one point but this was apparently a two hour long interview so you'd think maybe the interviewer asked some follow up questions. I can't find the actual interview itself, otherwise I'd listen to/read it since I do agree with Lovelock on a number of other points he raises.
| Quote: |
| of course, I skimmed the article. If you guys read it through and came to your conclusions via some means other than tuning into the paranoid theme of this topic in general, let me know! |
Sorry DAIS I'm not going to stoop to your level here okay. _________________
| internisus wrote: |
| You are a pretty fucked up guy. |
True Doom Murder Junkies - Updated On Occasion |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Mechanical ontological terrorist

Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Scare Room 99
|
Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 2:53 am |
|
|
Starting to see why Dracko didn't respond to you. :( _________________
| internisus wrote: |
| You are a pretty fucked up guy. |
True Doom Murder Junkies - Updated On Occasion |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Mechanical ontological terrorist

Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Scare Room 99
|
Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 3:14 am |
|
|
| Dark Age Iron Savior wrote: |
| Of all his traits, I didn't think you would share his cowardice. |
DAIS, I'm not trying to be mean here but what the fuck are you on about?
You mean I'm a coward because I don't share your interpretation of what this guy said? Am I being unreasonable because the guy said some stuff that made me crinkle my nose and I elaborated on it?
I don't need to tell you that I don't think he supports institutionalized genocide because I know that you know what strawmen and ad hominem attacks are but I'll say it here anyway because then if it doesn't get said then someone might wonder in the back of their mind why I didn't try to defend myself.
In short:
| CubaLibre wrote: |
| Goodnight, DAIS. |
But do call me in the morning when you're a bit more rested. _________________
| internisus wrote: |
| You are a pretty fucked up guy. |
True Doom Murder Junkies - Updated On Occasion |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Mechanical ontological terrorist

Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Scare Room 99
|
Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 5:00 am |
|
|
I can see the initial attack perhaps being justified. After all, I don't know what an AK47 or an RPG looks like when viewed through youtube quality footage. And the pilots had heard from some ground troops in the area that they were under fire, so it's understandable that they reacted the way they did. Initially.
What I cannot see as being justified, at all, is shooting up the black van that shows up and tries to help the wounded guy who's still alive. Attacking unarmed people trying to help a wounded person is against the rules of engagement and defies the Geneva Conventions. Not to mention the children in the van.
Heads should roll for this but they won't because that's not the world we live in.
The mainstream media will treat this as an aberration, a few "bad apples", like they did with Abu Ghraib. But it isn't. It's war and these kinds of incidents are actually par for the course in wars. We are able to see them as aberrations because we are not exposed to the reality of warfare reading the Pentagon's press releases and we don't have a mainstream media that is much interested in covering the reality of warfare like they were in Vietnam. Can't risk losing access to those high level government officials they always like to quote anonymously, see.
As usual, Greenwald is on point about how this propagandizing works, in this case about Afghanistan (Warning: If the leaked chopper video angered you don't read this, it involves an attempted cover-up of the murder of pregnant women at the hands of US troops).
While this stuff isn't pleasant to hear about it's extremely necessary that the public know about what's really going on "over there". It's public money that's funding these crimes and it will ultimately be public outrage that ensures anything is done about them. _________________
| internisus wrote: |
| You are a pretty fucked up guy. |
True Doom Murder Junkies - Updated On Occasion |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Mechanical ontological terrorist

Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Scare Room 99
|
Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 8:45 pm |
|
|
| Dark Age Iron Savior wrote: |
| I just....feel something about this, but I'm at a loss for words as to what. I think this opened my eyes a bit about the scope and nature of media in the information age. |
Video quality is a bit crap but the sound is fine.
And of course Glenn Greenwald covering exactly what you posted about.
Are you going to stop calling me paranoid now? _________________
| internisus wrote: |
| You are a pretty fucked up guy. |
True Doom Murder Junkies - Updated On Occasion |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Mechanical ontological terrorist

Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Scare Room 99
|
Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:37 pm |
|
|
Support The Troops?
Barack Obama is operating with the war powers granted George W. Bush three days after the 9/11 attacks.
Greenwald - Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen
| Quote: |
UPDATE: When Obama was seeking the Democratic nomination, the Constitutional Law Scholar answered a questionnaire about executive power distributed by The Boston Globe's Charlie Savage, and this was one of his answers:
5. Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?
[Obama]: No. I reject the Bush Administration's claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.
So back then, Obama said the President lacks the power merely to detain U.S. citizens without charges. Now, as President, he claims the power to assassinate them without charges. Could even his hardest-core loyalists try to reconcile that with a straight face? As Spencer Ackerman documents today, not even John Yoo claimed that the President possessed the power Obama is claiming here. |
_________________
| internisus wrote: |
| You are a pretty fucked up guy. |
True Doom Murder Junkies - Updated On Occasion |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Mechanical ontological terrorist

Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Scare Room 99
|
Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 6:43 am |
|
|
| Dark Age Iron Savior wrote: |
| I ask you this - what does this story make you think of Barack Obama? Does this, in fact, make him the same as Bush? Does it make him worse? Is he slowly transforming into a dictator, or was he always one? |
When I read stories like that I am not thinking specifically about Barack Obama but rather the kind of political ecology that he is a part of, or the ways in which institutional structures of power like the defense industry intersect with our elected representatives to legitimize lawless behavior that our elites claim they need to do their jobs or protect us or whatever. I think that stories like that are an example of a problem that is much bigger than any one person and require the kinds of solutions that can only happen when people on an individual level are able to come to some kind of understanding about the problem and their own relationship to it.
In this sense I kind of give Obama a pass because he's not the messiah or anything, he's just a person like you or me. Though I am disappointed that he spent his campaign playing up the civil liberties angle only to so dramatically backpedal from it once elected. It's easy to say oh well he's a politician what can you do, but if the whole system is truly that rotten that all I'm doing by voting is just exchanging one liar for another then I no longer want anything to do with the process. Like, I didn't expect him to come in and reform everything from day one but I also didn't expect him to actually keep continuing and even endorsing the radical lawlessness of Bush and Co.
I am suspicious about things, yes. Largely because I don't trust institutions that can be seen to be motivated by their own self interest (read: all of them). I also don't trust my own perceptions or the conclusions I reach because I can never have all the information, so the bits and pieces that I am able to acquire must be analyzed not just on the surface level but probed via counterfactual reasoning and cross referenced with the things I am most certain of. I'm not seeking the ultimate truth (partly because I'm not even sure such a thing exists) but I do not believe that the human world and all our various interactions with each other on various levels are all so complex that it is beyond human understanding. I am at least fairly certain that if I can assemble enough information and hold it all in my head at once I can make some kind of sense out of the world.
I know this might make me sound crazy to you and I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable or whatever, but I don't need your pity because I'm fairly certain that I'm not actually crazy though I do occasionally have a poor way of expressing myself when discussing emotionally hot topics. However I do think I have made progress lately in not letting too much of my deep seated cynicism soak into my posts where I'm just trying to pass on information. _________________
| internisus wrote: |
| You are a pretty fucked up guy. |
True Doom Murder Junkies - Updated On Occasion |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Mechanical ontological terrorist

Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Scare Room 99
|
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 5:53 am |
|
|
| Adilegian wrote: |
| Then again, I also wonder if it's really possible to remain sensible when discussing matters as enormous as these. |
I believe it is, as long as you constantly remind yourself that when discussing matters of "enormity" about any event or series of events that you and everyone involved in the discussion are only ever working from interpretation(s) and are also able to remain mentally flexible enough to pick up or discard entire strains of thought at a whim. Basically you have to keep your mind open enough to accommodate any given number of potential scenarios that are in conflict with each other without giving precedence to any one more than the others. You have to always be cognizant of the fact that no matter how sure you feel about something you could still be totally wrong about it because you overlooked something that seemed minor and insignificant to you in the beginning.
You have to ask yourself questions like "If X turned out to be true tomorrow how would I react?" and explore your own inner feelings. You will get angry about stuff that you think about but it's necessary that you burn through the anger, because it only clouds your judgment and in times of true crisis you can not afford to be overcome with emotion. If you can do this then you need never worry of venturing "too far" out into the fringe of accepted thinking. Understand and get cozy with the notion that what you think of as reality often diverges wildly with what someone else thinks of as reality, not because you or that person is necessarily crazy but because you're both blind men feeling different parts of the elephant and because "reality" might actually be more plastic than you realize. It helps to be cynical and skeptical of everything but not to the point that you are bitter or apathetic, because you aren't the only person out there grappling with this exact issue.
"Conspiracy" is a thought-terminating scare word and guys like Peter Dale Scott know it, so when they give lectures or write books on the subject they call it "deep politics" or "parapolitics" which I feel is a more honest appraisal of what many so-called conspiracy theorists are actually attempting to investigate, and not just because it avoids the stereotype of people chasing after little green men. Scott has some forums that are worth browsing in your spare time, however you should always remain vigilant of misdirection by outside influences.
Patricia Hill Collins has examined the issue from the perspective of black feminist theory and brings up the crucially important point that each of us has within us a "piece of the oppressor" that we can choose to root out and expose, and that doing so is helpful in placing ourselves within the broader context of this social ecology. After all for real change to be possible it must start from within, first and foremost. Collins and others like her view the issue through the prism of intersectionality, which seeks to map out the ways in which various cultural and social vectors cross over and interlap with each other, and how they contribute to social inequality. Here's a decent summary of her views: Patricia Hill Collins: Intersecting Oppressions
| The thing I just linked wrote: |
| The hegemonic domain legitimates oppression. Max Weber was among the first to teach us that authority functions because people believe in it. This is the cultural sphere of influence where ideology and consciousness come together. The hegemonic domain links the structural, disciplinary, and interpersonal domains. It is made up of the language we use, the images we respond to, the values we hold, and the ideas we entertain. And it is produced through school curricula and textbooks, religious teachings, mass media images and contexts, community cultures, and family histories. The black feminist priority of self-definition and critical, reflexive education are important stepping stones to deconstructing and dissuading the hegemonic domain. As Collins (2000) puts it, "Racist and sexist ideologies, if they are disbelieved, lose their impact" (p. 284) |
Now hold that in your mind and expand it out way beyond the scope of just racism or sexism, and realize that it applies to any "ism" you can throw at it. You don't have to be black or a feminist but the "priority of self-definition and critical, reflexive education" can be yours all the same and for the same purposes. It's easy to feel like you're alone in the wilderness but you have more allies than you may realize.
| Talbain wrote: |
| I think it's also hard to question the problems when things seem to be working. |
I think I see what you mean but can you give me an example? _________________
| internisus wrote: |
| You are a pretty fucked up guy. |
True Doom Murder Junkies - Updated On Occasion |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Mechanical ontological terrorist

Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Scare Room 99
|
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 6:07 am |
|
|
K thx for playing!
protip: i'm not talking about just politics anymore _________________
| internisus wrote: |
| You are a pretty fucked up guy. |
True Doom Murder Junkies - Updated On Occasion |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Mechanical ontological terrorist

Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Scare Room 99
|
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 6:17 am |
|
|
A tangentially related question for you: Do you think it's really possible for someone to choose their beliefs, or are beliefs the result of automatic processes that are largely invisible to us? _________________
| internisus wrote: |
| You are a pretty fucked up guy. |
True Doom Murder Junkies - Updated On Occasion |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Mechanical ontological terrorist

Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Scare Room 99
|
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 6:18 am |
|
|
| Shiren the Launderer wrote: |
| Mr. Mechanical wrote: |
| The thing I just linked wrote: |
| The hegemonic domain legitimates oppression. Max Weber was among the first to teach us that authority functions because people believe in it. This is the cultural sphere of influence where ideology and consciousness come together. The hegemonic domain links the structural, disciplinary, and interpersonal domains. It is made up of the language we use, the images we respond to, the values we hold, and the ideas we entertain. And it is produced through school curricula and textbooks, religious teachings, mass media images and contexts, community cultures, and family histories. The black feminist priority of self-definition and critical, reflexive education are important stepping stones to deconstructing and dissuading the hegemonic domain. As Collins (2000) puts it, "Racist and sexist ideologies, if they are disbelieved, lose their impact" (p. 284) |
|
not mentioning Gramsci in a discussion of hegemony  |
I don't know Gramsci yet dude, help a brother out! _________________
| internisus wrote: |
| You are a pretty fucked up guy. |
True Doom Murder Junkies - Updated On Occasion |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Mechanical ontological terrorist

Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Scare Room 99
|
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 6:35 am |
|
|
Uh-oh!
Quick everyone act surprised. _________________
| internisus wrote: |
| You are a pretty fucked up guy. |
True Doom Murder Junkies - Updated On Occasion |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Mechanical ontological terrorist

Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Scare Room 99
|
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 6:48 am |
|
|
| Shiren the Launderer wrote: |
| Quote: |
I don't know Gramsci yet dude, help a brother out! |
he is generally considered the main theorist of cultural hegemony
http://www.mediafire.com/?mzr43h1nzie
but i think the frankfurt school idea of culture industry should also be mentioned |
Danke. _________________
| internisus wrote: |
| You are a pretty fucked up guy. |
True Doom Murder Junkies - Updated On Occasion |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Mechanical ontological terrorist

Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Scare Room 99
|
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 6:53 pm |
|
|
| Talbain wrote: |
| Mr. Mechanical wrote: |
| Talbain wrote: |
| I think it's also hard to question the problems when things seem to be working. |
I think I see what you mean but can you give me an example? |
Well, this is an economic example, but the housing bubble and its connection to over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives. The "free" market makes profit in excess by attaching itself to bad policies that work, more wealth is created than even the richest can deal with, trickle down works in such an instance, growth soars (yet eventually inflates beyond its means). The problem is that in the thick of things, the process that seems to be working is entangled with everyone (such that most people cannot see outside or around the system in place). It's not just Congress or Wall Street, but all the people these guys are trading to. Which makes its way down to homeowners and small businesses, who can (maybe) lose everything because of bad business policy at the top. In theory and in practice, the market can even adjust from one or two of these big markets busting, but the recession was a result of assets being entangled, not just people entangled in businesses. That is to say, there were assets that might have had 1/400th of a home's value along with a car's value, along with a small business asset, etc. Altogether, these things, combined into a singular asset can "work" and be sold at higher value than might otherwise be possible, but if one starts seeing devaluation, then they all start seeing devaluation (and thus how a housing problem can lead to a car problem and an insurance problem that had previously not been overt). It's the unfortunate conundrum of today where we are stacking a house of cards and selling it as cement foundation is common practice. Built up long enough, those cards can become stronger, and it certainly looks impressive, but they are still just cards. We've become so image conscious that I think the former is also more appealing to the general public than the latter. |
I'm not sure I'd considering that to be a system that "works". Sure, it makes some people money and gets some other people things like cars or homes that they wouldn't be able to get otherwise, so it seems win-win, but if it can all fall apart so easily how can that be seen to be working? _________________
| internisus wrote: |
| You are a pretty fucked up guy. |
True Doom Murder Junkies - Updated On Occasion |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|