Paula, surely the thing about a family relationship is that it's a loving relationship. If you love someone (and many people do love their country) then if you disagree with them, surely you would stick with them and try to change them or their ideas. To walk away from such a situation would seem to me to be an act of despair.
You also say that Elizabeth seems to hate the USA. Remember hatred can be the flip side of love, especially a thwarted one.
hell bent on war
It's a family thang...
Paula --
I appreciate the props, but I do want to emphasize that in matters of substance, Lizzy and I are on the same side. Whether or not I tend to be a tad more cautious in waiting for the data to come in before I decide to believe in accusations or rumors --a product of my academic training, no doubt-- I share 100% with her the distrust --indeed, distaste-- of the imperialist agenda behind this enterprise. I also share her distrust with what I see as the overall U.S./corporate agenda, political/economic role in the world, and propogation of inequality both domestic and international. I certainly don't understand what might be characterised as "unhealthy" about her views -- to the best of my knowledge, she's not the one with the guns and the firepower.
Your point about "family" is a good one but --as you'd probably expect-- I think there's a different side to that consideration, as well. "Blood is thicker than water," perhaps, but "right and wrong" may be thicker than "blood."
Talk to a person whose family was abusive or --perhaps a better analogy in this case-- whose family was involved in some kind of illegal or immoral activity that harmed other people. (I'd draw an analogy to "The Sopranos" here, but I don't want to defile or trivialize issues such as this with cutesy pop-cultur references.) In this case, it's not so much a matter of turning a family member in to the "authorities," because the folks who are carrying on this war ARE the "authorities." It's more a matter of saying, "No. Family or not, I cannot and will not go along with these immoral and harmful acts any more -- and if need be, I'll tell the world that."
Sometimes one must stand up for what's right and speak truth to power, even if "home" or "family" is where that power resides.
David
I appreciate the props, but I do want to emphasize that in matters of substance, Lizzy and I are on the same side. Whether or not I tend to be a tad more cautious in waiting for the data to come in before I decide to believe in accusations or rumors --a product of my academic training, no doubt-- I share 100% with her the distrust --indeed, distaste-- of the imperialist agenda behind this enterprise. I also share her distrust with what I see as the overall U.S./corporate agenda, political/economic role in the world, and propogation of inequality both domestic and international. I certainly don't understand what might be characterised as "unhealthy" about her views -- to the best of my knowledge, she's not the one with the guns and the firepower.
Your point about "family" is a good one but --as you'd probably expect-- I think there's a different side to that consideration, as well. "Blood is thicker than water," perhaps, but "right and wrong" may be thicker than "blood."
Talk to a person whose family was abusive or --perhaps a better analogy in this case-- whose family was involved in some kind of illegal or immoral activity that harmed other people. (I'd draw an analogy to "The Sopranos" here, but I don't want to defile or trivialize issues such as this with cutesy pop-cultur references.) In this case, it's not so much a matter of turning a family member in to the "authorities," because the folks who are carrying on this war ARE the "authorities." It's more a matter of saying, "No. Family or not, I cannot and will not go along with these immoral and harmful acts any more -- and if need be, I'll tell the world that."
Sometimes one must stand up for what's right and speak truth to power, even if "home" or "family" is where that power resides.
David
"Nothing is said that is not sung."
First and foremost I do not think Lizzie is "dangeous" in her thinking. (sorry I think you have since amended your post to read "unhealthy" rather than "dangeous"). I think her thinking is unhealthy because. The thing that concerns me it is all black and white there are no grey areas. To nick the Masters words if she feels that strongly she needs to change the system from within. Get involved in the politics of your country and let her voice be heard that way. Yes I know you went on the march Lizzie but that is not involvement enough if in your heart you think your country is being as corrupt as you say you need to stand up and be counted.
And whether David agrees 100% with Lizzie or not your posts do not mirror that. Perhaps because I sense your ideas are not "set in stone" and there is still leeway for discussion.
And whether David agrees 100% with Lizzie or not your posts do not mirror that. Perhaps because I sense your ideas are not "set in stone" and there is still leeway for discussion.
When race was a big issue in this country and on every form to be completed for whatever reason there was always a little box in which you were asked to categorise yourself racially, many of us wrote "human".
I think we'd all do well to remember that now - that we are all "human" - whether we be American, British, Iraqi, Israeli or Pakistani.
During that same period mentioned above, there was one lone newspaper that published as many of the facts about a brutal and uncaring regime as they possibly could - often to their financial and/or other detriment. Anyone who read this paper was without further ado regarded as a communist or an agitator etc. My esteemed espouse who is a reasonable, intelligent and educated thinking man did not believe many of the stories published about police involvement in various brutal murders and government initiated and/or sanctioned actions. Being a naturally suspicious and sceptical person about the inherent "good" of mankind, I of course believed it all - and I was right, as has now been proved, corroborated and confirmed.
My point here? That many reasoning persons are loathe to accept that their very own government, the heroes they had perhaps voted for and placed into power, are capable of evil deeds - we have to accept the inherent good intentions of the people governing us or we would go bonkers contemplating the possibilities/consequences of our continued sanctioning by non-action of their atrocities. Governments are comprised of individuals - some one individual has to sign the order, has to carry out the order.
What makes anyone think that they belong to an elitist group who are not equally capable of war atrocities? If there is any evidence of American war atrocities I would say "Believe that there is at least a possibility of truth". If the September 11 events were beneficial to Bush's career, accept that there may be at least a possiblity of his knowingly using them, or more.
My second point is that, although I was (and still am) a white woman and was thus never directly in the firing line, there were times when I would've prayed (if I'd been a praying person) for America/Britain's intervention in driving out an oppressive regime. I would have been one of the "innocents" bombed in an air raid or killed in street fighting - and I would've accepted it for the greater good of freeing a nation from virtual slavery. However, once my children were born I was not as eager to be killed as when I had no responsibilities and no need to answer to anyone or anything but my own conscience. Circumstances change and our thinking changes, however radically or slightly, with our changing/changed life conditions. We cannot condemn anyone for their beliefs as we ourselves don't know how we will react or what we will believe were we in their position.
I loved South Africa, I loved the people, I loved the variety of their cultures and beliefs and humour, I loved the open spaces and the crowded cities (and I still do). If I didn't condone/accept Nationalist policy I was labled anti-South African - but if I admitted to my love for South Africa I was labled 'racist' by the opposite camp - and this was not my experience alone - many of my friends experienced those reactions - both here and abroad.
This war has so many issues embroiled and entertwined - if you don't agree, you're anti-american, pro Hussein, pro Palestinian; if you do agree that the war is necessary (in my humble opinion very few wars are necessary) then other labels apply. My sympathy lies with all of you and your many differing opinions - I've kept my opinions to myself as I've felt that this is not "my war" - but I've spent the better part of today reading all 27 pages (albeit not very thoroughly) of this thread - I laughed, I cried, I got real mad - I loved some of you , I hated some of you (it's difficult for me to separate an opinion from a person - but I think I got to know most of you rather well, within the limitations of this medium) but at the end of it - I love you all - and respect your opinions - in all their variations - having read all these I feel slightly more qualified in forming my own. I knew deep inside that my faith in anyone who appreciates Leonard Cohen's music was justified. And I loved that what came through very clearly is the caring for all life - not only American bit Iraqi as well - at the risk of (again) being called a harpie (or worse?) I have to say I love you Lizzy, and Byron - you're not far behind in my affections.
I forget now who it was who said "There is no evil - only an absence of good"
Thank you to all of you.
With love and hugs
Jo
I think we'd all do well to remember that now - that we are all "human" - whether we be American, British, Iraqi, Israeli or Pakistani.
During that same period mentioned above, there was one lone newspaper that published as many of the facts about a brutal and uncaring regime as they possibly could - often to their financial and/or other detriment. Anyone who read this paper was without further ado regarded as a communist or an agitator etc. My esteemed espouse who is a reasonable, intelligent and educated thinking man did not believe many of the stories published about police involvement in various brutal murders and government initiated and/or sanctioned actions. Being a naturally suspicious and sceptical person about the inherent "good" of mankind, I of course believed it all - and I was right, as has now been proved, corroborated and confirmed.
My point here? That many reasoning persons are loathe to accept that their very own government, the heroes they had perhaps voted for and placed into power, are capable of evil deeds - we have to accept the inherent good intentions of the people governing us or we would go bonkers contemplating the possibilities/consequences of our continued sanctioning by non-action of their atrocities. Governments are comprised of individuals - some one individual has to sign the order, has to carry out the order.
What makes anyone think that they belong to an elitist group who are not equally capable of war atrocities? If there is any evidence of American war atrocities I would say "Believe that there is at least a possibility of truth". If the September 11 events were beneficial to Bush's career, accept that there may be at least a possiblity of his knowingly using them, or more.
My second point is that, although I was (and still am) a white woman and was thus never directly in the firing line, there were times when I would've prayed (if I'd been a praying person) for America/Britain's intervention in driving out an oppressive regime. I would have been one of the "innocents" bombed in an air raid or killed in street fighting - and I would've accepted it for the greater good of freeing a nation from virtual slavery. However, once my children were born I was not as eager to be killed as when I had no responsibilities and no need to answer to anyone or anything but my own conscience. Circumstances change and our thinking changes, however radically or slightly, with our changing/changed life conditions. We cannot condemn anyone for their beliefs as we ourselves don't know how we will react or what we will believe were we in their position.
I loved South Africa, I loved the people, I loved the variety of their cultures and beliefs and humour, I loved the open spaces and the crowded cities (and I still do). If I didn't condone/accept Nationalist policy I was labled anti-South African - but if I admitted to my love for South Africa I was labled 'racist' by the opposite camp - and this was not my experience alone - many of my friends experienced those reactions - both here and abroad.
This war has so many issues embroiled and entertwined - if you don't agree, you're anti-american, pro Hussein, pro Palestinian; if you do agree that the war is necessary (in my humble opinion very few wars are necessary) then other labels apply. My sympathy lies with all of you and your many differing opinions - I've kept my opinions to myself as I've felt that this is not "my war" - but I've spent the better part of today reading all 27 pages (albeit not very thoroughly) of this thread - I laughed, I cried, I got real mad - I loved some of you , I hated some of you (it's difficult for me to separate an opinion from a person - but I think I got to know most of you rather well, within the limitations of this medium) but at the end of it - I love you all - and respect your opinions - in all their variations - having read all these I feel slightly more qualified in forming my own. I knew deep inside that my faith in anyone who appreciates Leonard Cohen's music was justified. And I loved that what came through very clearly is the caring for all life - not only American bit Iraqi as well - at the risk of (again) being called a harpie (or worse?) I have to say I love you Lizzy, and Byron - you're not far behind in my affections.
I forget now who it was who said "There is no evil - only an absence of good"
Thank you to all of you.
With love and hugs
Jo
Last edited by Jo on Sun Mar 30, 2003 10:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
"... to make a pale imitation of reality with twenty-six juggled letters"
"... all words are lies because they can only represent one of many levels of being"
Sober noises of morning in a marginal land.
"... all words are lies because they can only represent one of many levels of being"
Sober noises of morning in a marginal land.
Etc ...
Sorry about that temporary "dangerous" misprint -- I try to answer these things from memory, then click back to 'em to make sure I got everything right. That time I had to re-write what I said, because I mis-remembered what had been printed.
But -- sheesh, I dunno if my opinions are written in (or perhaps inside of?) "stone" or not -- I guess that depends on what one thinks about the thickness and composition of my skull!
But -- sheesh, I dunno if my opinions are written in (or perhaps inside of?) "stone" or not -- I guess that depends on what one thinks about the thickness and composition of my skull!
"Nothing is said that is not sung."
Change...
But Paula... we already knows what happens when you try to "change the system from within"!
On the other hand, given what's going on in the world right now, maybe "twenty years of boredom" doesn't sound like such a bad idea after all....
....but then, of course, one could simply do what I did and move to Indiana for six or seven years -- not twenty, I know, but it sure as hell felt like it!
On the other hand, given what's going on in the world right now, maybe "twenty years of boredom" doesn't sound like such a bad idea after all....
....but then, of course, one could simply do what I did and move to Indiana for six or seven years -- not twenty, I know, but it sure as hell felt like it!
"Nothing is said that is not sung."
David if you don't at least try to change the system you have no right to complain about the alternative.
I knew I would regret jumping into the fray. I am either in a majority of one or any one who concurs with me is too shy to say anything.
Maybe it is I who has the unhealthly attitude maybe the way forward is to be totally cynical about the "establishment". It is not my nature to disbelieve as a matter of course. I still believe in the inherent goodness of people.
I know it is hard to disconnect the person from the argument but don't judge me on my views on this thread. It is a difficult subject. There is much I agree with so far as Lizzie and David's views are concerned there is also much I disagree with. It is not easy for me to vocalise my feelings as I do not want this war but if I was living in Iraq I don't think I would not want it. And now we are in the midst of it I think we need to support our countries.
I knew I would regret jumping into the fray. I am either in a majority of one or any one who concurs with me is too shy to say anything.
Maybe it is I who has the unhealthly attitude maybe the way forward is to be totally cynical about the "establishment". It is not my nature to disbelieve as a matter of course. I still believe in the inherent goodness of people.
I know it is hard to disconnect the person from the argument but don't judge me on my views on this thread. It is a difficult subject. There is much I agree with so far as Lizzie and David's views are concerned there is also much I disagree with. It is not easy for me to vocalise my feelings as I do not want this war but if I was living in Iraq I don't think I would not want it. And now we are in the midst of it I think we need to support our countries.
The Fray...
Well, speakin' for myself, I've dedicated a good part of my so-called life to trying to "change the system" -- from peace rallies back in the days of 'Nam through my time as a community organizer in Chicago throuhg my years as a public health researcher and advocate in both Chicago and Indiana, into the present day as I'm taking courses to eventually teach literacy to adults --and you can be I won't be teaching 'em the Wit And Wisdom of Rush Limbaugh!
I'd put my "other" career as a freelancer writing about music in there, too, because I'm utterly convinced that the arts are --as the man once said-- a "signpost to new space" that can lead us to alternative, better and more meaningful/cooperative ways of thinking and envisioning ourselves and the world around us. I hope that by sharing with the world some of the miracle and wonder that music has brought into my life, I've helped keep at least a bit of that miracle and wonder alive for the common good, as well.
But Paula -- I don't think that beliving in the goodness of the motivations of the U.S. or any other government or authority is a matter of whether or not one believes that people are inherently good. In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that most so-called "conservatives" are the ones who are pessimistic about whether people are, or even can be, good: to be a tad over-simplistic about it, capitalism is based, in its essence, in the conviction that humans will ultimately act in their self-interest, and that self-interest is ultimately what will drive both individual behavior and the social/political dynamics of a society --"greed," as they say, "is good." (The conservative columnist/author Dinesh D'Sousa has written and spoken copiously on this very matter.)
Likewise, many (not all, but many) adherents of mainstream organized religion are convinced that "man" is inherently sinful, and must thus submit to a regimen of discipline and obedience to authority in order to avoid self-destruction (as well as destruction of "his" fellow "men"). I don't think it's reading too much in to suggest that our man Leonard feels very much that way.
In fact, it's often (if not usually) the pacifists, believers in cooperative or communal alternatives, and other "radicals" who are accused of having a Pollyanna-ish view of human nature. Certainly and without question that's the accusation that conservative columnists like George Will and Charles Krauthammer continually throw at people who believe in the viability of the United Nations, or in non-violent resolution to problems both domestic and international.
Personally, I try to avoid the theoretical debate about "human nature" (although I do confess that I've become quite convinced that people IN POWER --secular, religious, even emotional-- are dangerous critters to be trusted only warily). I see the U.S. as carrying out a military policy in support of an economic SYSTEM --modern-day corporate capitalism-- which depends upon exploitation, inequality, and suppression to exist. Whether or not any one given individual within this overclass/system is "good" or "bad" is almost beside the point: if he's going to act in his class interests, he's going to do brutal and inhumane things.
And don't worry Paula -- I, for one, deeply and sincerely hope that I don't cavalierly "judge" you or anyone else, either in this thread or outisde of it. Glad you stayed in the fray -- please don't be a-fray'd to stay and say more!
I'd put my "other" career as a freelancer writing about music in there, too, because I'm utterly convinced that the arts are --as the man once said-- a "signpost to new space" that can lead us to alternative, better and more meaningful/cooperative ways of thinking and envisioning ourselves and the world around us. I hope that by sharing with the world some of the miracle and wonder that music has brought into my life, I've helped keep at least a bit of that miracle and wonder alive for the common good, as well.
But Paula -- I don't think that beliving in the goodness of the motivations of the U.S. or any other government or authority is a matter of whether or not one believes that people are inherently good. In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that most so-called "conservatives" are the ones who are pessimistic about whether people are, or even can be, good: to be a tad over-simplistic about it, capitalism is based, in its essence, in the conviction that humans will ultimately act in their self-interest, and that self-interest is ultimately what will drive both individual behavior and the social/political dynamics of a society --"greed," as they say, "is good." (The conservative columnist/author Dinesh D'Sousa has written and spoken copiously on this very matter.)
Likewise, many (not all, but many) adherents of mainstream organized religion are convinced that "man" is inherently sinful, and must thus submit to a regimen of discipline and obedience to authority in order to avoid self-destruction (as well as destruction of "his" fellow "men"). I don't think it's reading too much in to suggest that our man Leonard feels very much that way.
In fact, it's often (if not usually) the pacifists, believers in cooperative or communal alternatives, and other "radicals" who are accused of having a Pollyanna-ish view of human nature. Certainly and without question that's the accusation that conservative columnists like George Will and Charles Krauthammer continually throw at people who believe in the viability of the United Nations, or in non-violent resolution to problems both domestic and international.
Personally, I try to avoid the theoretical debate about "human nature" (although I do confess that I've become quite convinced that people IN POWER --secular, religious, even emotional-- are dangerous critters to be trusted only warily). I see the U.S. as carrying out a military policy in support of an economic SYSTEM --modern-day corporate capitalism-- which depends upon exploitation, inequality, and suppression to exist. Whether or not any one given individual within this overclass/system is "good" or "bad" is almost beside the point: if he's going to act in his class interests, he's going to do brutal and inhumane things.
And don't worry Paula -- I, for one, deeply and sincerely hope that I don't cavalierly "judge" you or anyone else, either in this thread or outisde of it. Glad you stayed in the fray -- please don't be a-fray'd to stay and say more!
Last edited by David on Sun Mar 30, 2003 12:25 am, edited 3 times in total.
"Nothing is said that is not sung."
Ooops --
Paula, I just realized that you didn't get my joke about "changing the system from within." It was in reference to Leonard's song "First We Take Manhatten":
"They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
For trying to change the system from within..."
...thus my quip that rather than try to change the system from wtihin and be sentenced to twenty years of boredom, a person could just as easily just move to Indiana.
I gotta stop trying to be funny...
"They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
For trying to change the system from within..."
...thus my quip that rather than try to change the system from wtihin and be sentenced to twenty years of boredom, a person could just as easily just move to Indiana.
I gotta stop trying to be funny...
"Nothing is said that is not sung."
David I did get your joke - and I got your "do not be afray". Your jokes are worse than mine and mine need life support. 
The only think I know about Indiana is Paul Newman and the races and that bloke (whose name escapes me) singing "Indiana wants me".
Indiana on the basis of your joke must be like our Milton Keynes
The only think I know about Indiana is Paul Newman and the races and that bloke (whose name escapes me) singing "Indiana wants me".
Indiana on the basis of your joke must be like our Milton Keynes
Change the country from within[/i], brings to mind destroy the country from within. Anyone have any comments on brainwashing? This I ask myself many times, "am I so brainwashed" and I know I am, but to what extent. I try to read, listen to, watch as much and as many sources of information that I can, I feel when you start to follow one source because you agree with everything they say, you are in trouble. Yes Lizzytysh, I have listened to NPR but not on a regular basis.
With the hatred there is in America right now, definetely of our President but otherwise also, brainwashing comes to mind. It may not be that far fetched because we train terrorists to be pilots in our country, a king pin in terrorism was teaching in a Florida university. I believe it could be a good terrorist tactic. United we stand divided we fall. Or are we who support the President and this war the brainwashed ones? Somthing is going wrong in this great county of ours. I feel I am just as well informed as they are, I am neither left or right, I grew up in a liberial home, over the years I have definetely gone toward conservative, but do not vote for the party. I did not vote for our former President because I didn't agree with his stand on a lot of issues that were important to me, however, I still called him President Clinton. Next election vote. Yes, I know about the election and also have my own opinion there.
I don't believe protesting with people from around the world against your country is the answer, and hard for me to except.
This morning watching the news and seeing Iraqi children in hospitals wounded and also knowing that some were killed is also hard for me to except. It makes you want to say bring the troops home, end this war, let life go on. I also ask myself what has happened to get to this, how intellegent are we that war has to be a solution? I may be brainwashed but can't see that George Bush is the total blame. I feel I am just as much to blame, why wasn't I paying attention and doing something to get Saddam to liberate his people. What about the UN doing what they were suppose to be doing to hold him accountable.
If President Bush is lying; there are no weapons of mass destruction, chemical or biological, there is no evidence of Saddams involvement in terrorism, and the oil ends up being our sole objective. I will be the first to say impeach him and try him for war crimes.
With the hatred there is in America right now, definetely of our President but otherwise also, brainwashing comes to mind. It may not be that far fetched because we train terrorists to be pilots in our country, a king pin in terrorism was teaching in a Florida university. I believe it could be a good terrorist tactic. United we stand divided we fall. Or are we who support the President and this war the brainwashed ones? Somthing is going wrong in this great county of ours. I feel I am just as well informed as they are, I am neither left or right, I grew up in a liberial home, over the years I have definetely gone toward conservative, but do not vote for the party. I did not vote for our former President because I didn't agree with his stand on a lot of issues that were important to me, however, I still called him President Clinton. Next election vote. Yes, I know about the election and also have my own opinion there.
I don't believe protesting with people from around the world against your country is the answer, and hard for me to except.
This morning watching the news and seeing Iraqi children in hospitals wounded and also knowing that some were killed is also hard for me to except. It makes you want to say bring the troops home, end this war, let life go on. I also ask myself what has happened to get to this, how intellegent are we that war has to be a solution? I may be brainwashed but can't see that George Bush is the total blame. I feel I am just as much to blame, why wasn't I paying attention and doing something to get Saddam to liberate his people. What about the UN doing what they were suppose to be doing to hold him accountable.
If President Bush is lying; there are no weapons of mass destruction, chemical or biological, there is no evidence of Saddams involvement in terrorism, and the oil ends up being our sole objective. I will be the first to say impeach him and try him for war crimes.
Linda
Brainwashing
Linda --
The term "brainwashing," I think, technically means the kind of psychological mind-warping --accompanied by physical discomfort if not torture, deprivation, isolation from the familiar, etc.-- usually associated either with cults, political demagogues training their acolytes, or --at least arguably-- the kind of intensive psychological onslaught that soldiers (almost all soldiers, not soldiers from any one country or society) often receive as part of their training. Its purpose, at least in theory, can be for good or ill: the negative use of it, of course, is to browbeat people into following the Leader, the Party, the Savior, the Master, or whoever else is in power (and/or to adhere unquestioningly to his/her/their ideas). But some would argue that combat, for instance, requires feats of almost superhuman endurance --as well as the temporary suppression or denial of normal human emotions like fear for one's own life and compassion for others-- that only intensively invasive psychic techniques like those sometimes called "Brainwashing" can enable.
What goes on in most modern societies, I think --definitely ours-- is something different. We're bombarded with cultural ideological messages that definitely shape our values and our priorities: I recently observed a first-year college class in which the instructor asked the students if they had a hobby; fully 70% of the students said that their main hobby was "going shopping," a rather appalling indictment of how corporate-sponsored culture warps and shapes the values and worldviews of the people who are subjected to it.
But in terms of believing "our" leaders or not questioning the acts of "our" government or the corporate overclass it works for, certainly there's no Nazi scientist anywhere studying ways to make us into conformist robots. But the system itself, favoring as it does types of discourse and modes of expression that depend upon access to wealth and power to disseminate, manages to filter out or to marginalize voices of dissension. It's not that we're not "allowed" to question, or have alternate opinions; it's that those who do question, or do have alternate views of how society might work, very seldom can afford access to the means of really disseminating their ideas to the "mainstream."
I think the best book ever written on this is "Manufacturing Consent," by Edward Herman with Noam Chomsky. It's a superb analysis of censorship --not by force, not at the barrel of a gun, but by "market forces" that privilege wealth and thus isolate and filter out opinions and views that truly challenge those who gain their power through consolidation of wealth-- in putatively "free" and "democratic" modern societies. I would say it's essential reading for anyone who wants to understand why the American people (and American policy) so often lag behind much of the rest of the world on many social issues.
Linda, I understand the sentiment of your final statement. But the problem, I think, is that the true "crime" that Bush is committing, the actual crime against freedom, equality, democracy, and humanistic values, is the one that he will be PRAISED for by the "liberal" media, if in fact the Iraqi conflict goes "well": the establishment of pro-corporate, anti-populist regimes in Iraq and other middle eastern nations, the carving out of "markets" for cheap and exploited labor, the consolidation and entrenchment of corporate power in more and more of the world. As I mentioned earlier, in that sense it's not "just" about oil, and it's certainly not about "freeing" the Iraqi people (are the Asian and Indian women and children slaving in sweatshops for the Disney Corp. and This message has been classified as spam and will be deleted by the moderators any more "free" than they would have been under any of the so-called "communist" or "socialist" movements that the U.S. has quelled in that part of the world?) Remember what happened in Chile after the CIA assassinated Allende and installed Pinochet; remember the genocidal U.S.-supported Suharto... and the list goes on...
But, as far as Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and/or involvement in 9/11 go (and I would bet "very likely" on the former, but "still not very likely, given current evidence" on the latter), I honestly do continue to argue that it's a crime to "invade first and gather the evidence later," even if in fact that evidence does eventually show up. Think of it in police terms: if the cops invade your house without actual evidence (i.e., on a "hunch") and find something illegal, that search and seizure was just as illegal as it would have been if they'd found nothing. I think the same standards need to apply here.
The term "brainwashing," I think, technically means the kind of psychological mind-warping --accompanied by physical discomfort if not torture, deprivation, isolation from the familiar, etc.-- usually associated either with cults, political demagogues training their acolytes, or --at least arguably-- the kind of intensive psychological onslaught that soldiers (almost all soldiers, not soldiers from any one country or society) often receive as part of their training. Its purpose, at least in theory, can be for good or ill: the negative use of it, of course, is to browbeat people into following the Leader, the Party, the Savior, the Master, or whoever else is in power (and/or to adhere unquestioningly to his/her/their ideas). But some would argue that combat, for instance, requires feats of almost superhuman endurance --as well as the temporary suppression or denial of normal human emotions like fear for one's own life and compassion for others-- that only intensively invasive psychic techniques like those sometimes called "Brainwashing" can enable.
What goes on in most modern societies, I think --definitely ours-- is something different. We're bombarded with cultural ideological messages that definitely shape our values and our priorities: I recently observed a first-year college class in which the instructor asked the students if they had a hobby; fully 70% of the students said that their main hobby was "going shopping," a rather appalling indictment of how corporate-sponsored culture warps and shapes the values and worldviews of the people who are subjected to it.
But in terms of believing "our" leaders or not questioning the acts of "our" government or the corporate overclass it works for, certainly there's no Nazi scientist anywhere studying ways to make us into conformist robots. But the system itself, favoring as it does types of discourse and modes of expression that depend upon access to wealth and power to disseminate, manages to filter out or to marginalize voices of dissension. It's not that we're not "allowed" to question, or have alternate opinions; it's that those who do question, or do have alternate views of how society might work, very seldom can afford access to the means of really disseminating their ideas to the "mainstream."
I think the best book ever written on this is "Manufacturing Consent," by Edward Herman with Noam Chomsky. It's a superb analysis of censorship --not by force, not at the barrel of a gun, but by "market forces" that privilege wealth and thus isolate and filter out opinions and views that truly challenge those who gain their power through consolidation of wealth-- in putatively "free" and "democratic" modern societies. I would say it's essential reading for anyone who wants to understand why the American people (and American policy) so often lag behind much of the rest of the world on many social issues.
Linda, I understand the sentiment of your final statement. But the problem, I think, is that the true "crime" that Bush is committing, the actual crime against freedom, equality, democracy, and humanistic values, is the one that he will be PRAISED for by the "liberal" media, if in fact the Iraqi conflict goes "well": the establishment of pro-corporate, anti-populist regimes in Iraq and other middle eastern nations, the carving out of "markets" for cheap and exploited labor, the consolidation and entrenchment of corporate power in more and more of the world. As I mentioned earlier, in that sense it's not "just" about oil, and it's certainly not about "freeing" the Iraqi people (are the Asian and Indian women and children slaving in sweatshops for the Disney Corp. and This message has been classified as spam and will be deleted by the moderators any more "free" than they would have been under any of the so-called "communist" or "socialist" movements that the U.S. has quelled in that part of the world?) Remember what happened in Chile after the CIA assassinated Allende and installed Pinochet; remember the genocidal U.S.-supported Suharto... and the list goes on...
But, as far as Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and/or involvement in 9/11 go (and I would bet "very likely" on the former, but "still not very likely, given current evidence" on the latter), I honestly do continue to argue that it's a crime to "invade first and gather the evidence later," even if in fact that evidence does eventually show up. Think of it in police terms: if the cops invade your house without actual evidence (i.e., on a "hunch") and find something illegal, that search and seizure was just as illegal as it would have been if they'd found nothing. I think the same standards need to apply here.
"Nothing is said that is not sung."
o.k the word brainwash in its dictionary definition,might not quite be the right word for it in its less subltle form. But in our schools doesn't a teacher to some degree influence their students to their way of thinking? Movies are a big influence on our young peoples thinking. Television programs, the way news is presented, music, all the way down to yes your example of shopping. Our young peoples minds are shaped. Jim Jones is an example of not brainwashing by force or torture.
In your way of thinking David, this is George Bush's war, which it isn't, and there is no way that he will win, because it will just lead from one bad deed to another.
I don't believe you can compare it to the police having to have a search warrent to come in and search my house. They do not wait until after the trial to arrest me if I am a suspect of a crime.
Paula I didn't even see your post when I was typing up mine, so it was no response to what you put on
In your way of thinking David, this is George Bush's war, which it isn't, and there is no way that he will win, because it will just lead from one bad deed to another.
I don't believe you can compare it to the police having to have a search warrent to come in and search my house. They do not wait until after the trial to arrest me if I am a suspect of a crime.
Paula I didn't even see your post when I was typing up mine, so it was no response to what you put on
Linda
thank you Jo for expressing so many truths so well. It is hard to stick with our gut instinct when it is at odds with popular mainstrain opinion.
To a certain extent we are all brainwashed by the limit or tone of information we are allowed to see. Time often reveals that people in power, either in governments or big business don't always tell the truth, or are certainly economical with it. In government it is usually because of "national security" Of course many of us don't recognise that we are being brainwashed because it is so subtle in the west. We are better educated and not so easily fooled. . It is easy to identify propaganda such as that broadcast on Iraqi or North Korean TV, which I saw recently, but in the UK and USA what we are bombarded with by the media is much more sophisticated.
It has been said that power corrupts, whether in politics, business, organised religion etc. It is certainly true. We need to continally challenge our elected representatives and governments and not give them carte blanche to do whatever they wish just because we elected them. We can only vote every 4 or 5 years, but in a free society we can still do a lot to influence how they behave in between those elections. Not many of us have the necessary qualities (or the funds!) to become politicians, and leaving the country is not going to have any effect, it will just ensure there is less opposition . By making our feelings known through peaceful protest, and by continually lobbying our elected representatives, jamming their phonelines and/or computer systems with emails we can achieve significant changes. Our governments are not infallible, and if people sometimes have missgivings about what they do they should not be branded as traitors.
I hope I have not upset anyone by expressing these thoughts, I have never been a political animal. Over the years I have come to take with a large pinch of salt what politicians say, and their motives.
To a certain extent we are all brainwashed by the limit or tone of information we are allowed to see. Time often reveals that people in power, either in governments or big business don't always tell the truth, or are certainly economical with it. In government it is usually because of "national security" Of course many of us don't recognise that we are being brainwashed because it is so subtle in the west. We are better educated and not so easily fooled. . It is easy to identify propaganda such as that broadcast on Iraqi or North Korean TV, which I saw recently, but in the UK and USA what we are bombarded with by the media is much more sophisticated.
It has been said that power corrupts, whether in politics, business, organised religion etc. It is certainly true. We need to continally challenge our elected representatives and governments and not give them carte blanche to do whatever they wish just because we elected them. We can only vote every 4 or 5 years, but in a free society we can still do a lot to influence how they behave in between those elections. Not many of us have the necessary qualities (or the funds!) to become politicians, and leaving the country is not going to have any effect, it will just ensure there is less opposition . By making our feelings known through peaceful protest, and by continually lobbying our elected representatives, jamming their phonelines and/or computer systems with emails we can achieve significant changes. Our governments are not infallible, and if people sometimes have missgivings about what they do they should not be branded as traitors.
I hope I have not upset anyone by expressing these thoughts, I have never been a political animal. Over the years I have come to take with a large pinch of salt what politicians say, and their motives.