02/27/04 09:42 - ID#35455
On a lark
Permalink: On_a_lark.html
Words: 67
Location: Buffalo, NY
02/26/04 01:38 - ID#35454
I wonder...
We come now to my problem. I believe almost 100% of what dear Noam is saying, but find my acceptance a bit suspect. Am I not falling into Noam's propaganda model? I simply can't make myself check his facts. He's a super-genius who's spent 50 years gathering his data, how could I (even if I had the willpower and stamina) test his data? I somehow don't think I'm being lied to though. It all makes too much sense, it fits into the exact mould that the Bush administration is now occupying. I see/hear/read the propaganda everyday. It's becoming more and more obvious. I can't decide if I've become attuned or if our current administration is so egoistic that it doesn't even bother to try very hard. A perfect example is our vice-president. We seem to have no problem that his (former?) company is being formally investigated by the DOJ for overcharging the government (ie: you and me sorry taxpayers) and being granted multi-million dollar Iraq reconstruction contracts at the same time. Does no one see how ridiculous this is? Does no one see that this should be at least questioned? This example and many others lead me to trust what Chomsky says. Why shouldn't I, when everything in my own experience agrees so completely?
Chomsky at one point in the book is asked (it's a series of lectures/Q&As) if he votes. He replies that he votes if he thinks it will make a difference one way or the other. And, especially because it's somewhat of a hot-topic on the site now) I sorta agree with him. In our current example, we have Bush vs. a democrat (most likely Kerry, or Edwards, or some combination). And while I want Bush gone with heart and soul, it is very disheartening to have no "real" candidate to vote for. The quotations around real mean that there are candidates who I feel share many of my concerns and priorites: Kucinich, Mosley-Braun, Nader. They have all been so marginalized by our system and by the media as to be virtually non-existant. That is so fucking wrong. This is supposed to be a democracy. Yet every candidate who has even an inkling of my views is so intentionally marginalized that they fall right off the politcal map. And, you tell me I should vote for the lesser-of-two-evils. I don't want any evil though. A little evil? A big evil? WTF, mates? We're caught in a cycle of hardcore Republican (Reagan/Bush) to centrist "Democrat" (Clinton) to hardercore Republican (Bush) to centrister "Democrat" (Kerry/Edwards), I don't see it ending anywhere besides Facism. These are not real choices. These are margarine or butter when I want olive oil. I guess I want Revolution. I don't believe in the system. I don't believe in capitalist democracy, it's an oxymoron. As long as real power lies in the hands o
f
co
rporations instead of politicians there can be no meaningful change (by and large we don't even debate possible alternatives). So, I don't believe in change through the system, and challenge anyone to find a single instance of meaningful substantive change that has come only through the system. So, yes, maybe I'll vote, but I won't like it and won't be satisfied. I'll probably vote for Nader and you can all come burn my house down when fucking Kerry doesn't win. Nananana-boo-boo.
Permalink: I_wonder_.html
Words: 773
Location: Buffalo, NY
02/25/04 02:01 - ID#35453
Terry talkshow
Permalink: Terry_talkshow.html
Words: 307
Location: Buffalo, NY
02/23/04 01:41 - ID#35452
Open the Presidential Debates
Sign the petition if you "believe that the presidential debates should serve the American people first, not political parties. We support replacing the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates with the nonpartisan Citizens' Debate Commission..."
Permalink: Open_the_Presidential_Debates.html
Words: 142
Location: Buffalo, NY
02/23/04 01:06 - ID#35451
Noam on the wall
I've been waiting for someone to have the balls to write about this in the mainstream (NY Times via Google News). I didn't expect it would have to come from Noam, but I guess there's nobody who could do it better. Here're some tidbits. Take the to read the full article.
"What this wall is really doing is taking Palestinian lands."
"...the wall would cut the West Bank into 16 isolated enclaves, confined to just 42 percent of the West Bank land that Mr. Sharon had previously said could be ceded to a Palestinian state."
"Palestinians in the seam between the wall and the Green Line will be permitted to apply for the right to live in their own homes; Israelis automatically have the right to use these lands."
"It is misleading to call these Israeli policies. They are American-Israeli policies — made possible by unremitting United States military, economic and diplomatic support of Israel."
"At most, the Hague hearings will end in an advisory ruling that the wall is illegal. It will change nothing. Any real chance for a political settlement — and for decent lives for the people of the region — depends on the United States."
Permalink: Noam_on_the_wall.html
Words: 241
Location: Buffalo, NY
02/22/04 07:45 - ID#35450
awfully amusing alliteration
Permalink: awfully_amusing_alliteration.html
Words: 655
Location: Buffalo, NY
02/20/04 01:05 - ID#35449
If you're going to San Fran Cisco
How much more 'oomph' does a city have than any individual that would sue for the same right. It's just so cool. I wish my stupid-ass city would do something like this. But, what would Tony Viso do?
Permalink: If_you_re_going_to_San_Fran_Cisco.html
Words: 81
Location: Buffalo, NY
02/24/04 01:29 - ID#35448
Bush wants Marriage Amendment
Bush has finally done it. Proposing the first amendment to the Constitution that would deny rights to a group of people. Every other Amendment has done the exact opposite, from granting women the right to vote, to recognizing african-americans as people.
Bushie says, "On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse. If we're to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country."
I just don't get what the hell marriage is being defended from. Who is trying to take away the rights that currently married people already enjoy? How, by recognizing the freedom of others is your freedom diminished? I guess there's only so much freedom and liberty to go around, and Bush doesn't want the gays to take it all away from the straights. Well, hopefully it will come to a vote, and the American people will rally together and realize that they don't want to be the generation that enshrined in our Constitution the first unright, to deny to a few what many now enjoy. I wonder though, if the vote goes the other way if I will finally have a right to flee somewhere and ask for amnesty from an oppressive regime that denies me basic rights.
Permalink: Bush_wants_Marriage_Amendment.html
Words: 265
Location: Buffalo, NY
02/19/04 12:19 - ID#35447
Paul's (and Mike's) dad is censored
Permalink: Paul_s_and_Mike_s_dad_is_censored.html
Words: 80
Location: Buffalo, NY
02/18/04 01:43 - ID#35446
Zinnteresting
Permalink: Zinnteresting.html
Words: 200
Location: Buffalo, NY
Author Info
Date Cloud
- 10/13
- 02/13
- 12/12
- 11/12
- 10/12
- 09/12
- 08/12
- 06/12
- 05/12
- 04/12
- 03/12
- 01/12
- 12/11
- 11/11
- 10/11
- 09/11
- 08/11
- 07/11
- 04/11
- 03/11
- 08/10
- 07/10
- 06/10
- 05/10
- 04/10
- 03/10
- 12/09
- 10/09
- 09/09
- 08/09
- 07/09
- 06/09
- 05/09
- 07/08
- 06/08
- 04/08
- 02/08
- 11/07
- 09/07
- 08/07
- 06/07
- 03/07
- 12/06
- 11/06
- 10/06
- 09/06
- 08/06
- 07/06
- 06/06
- 05/06
- 04/06
- 03/06
- 01/06
- 12/05
- 11/05
- 10/05
- 09/05
- 08/05
- 06/05
- 05/05
- 04/05
- 03/05
- 02/05
- 01/05
- 12/04
- 11/04
- 10/04
- 09/04
- 08/04
- 07/04
- 06/04
- 05/04
- 04/04
- 03/04
- 02/04
- 01/04
- 12/03
- 11/03
- 10/03
- 09/03
- 06/03
- 05/03