PSA

I apologize, but this is necessary. It's a short PSA.

Will it take something as drastic as the Day After Tomorrow scenario for Americans to admit that there has been damage done? The biosphere is a living entity. Small changes to imbalance the homeostasis, the balance, of that entity result in drastic shifts. For example: A person's body temperature is 37 degrees celsius (98.6 degrees fahrenheit). A small change in temperature, 0.7 degrees celsius or 1.4 degrees fahrenheit, results in a fever. A slightly larger change in temperature, 5.2 degrees celsius or 9.4 degrees fahrenheit, results in death. It stands to reason that a larger system with more variables is less resistant to drastic changes. A system the size of the planet, may only be able to withstand an average temperature change of 2 to 3 degrees celsius before we see great changes. By the way, we're already half way there.

End PSA

Reversal of Fortune

On with the show... full text here

5. Privation

Bush has furthermore committed to complete reversals identity and culpability in his statements made June 27th. He characterizes the "terrorist" insurgents with qualities exhibited readily by the GOP.

"murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises all dissent. Their aim is to remake the Middle East in their own grim image of tyranny and oppression -- by toppling governments, by driving us out of the region, and by exporting terror."

Wow.

This not dissimilar to the actions of the Bush administration; "a totalitarian ideology[,]" the Religious right, "that hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises all dissent." The GOP has averted this problem by managing a stranglehold on both media sources and both houses of government, keeping the American people in the dark. "Their aim is to remake the Middle East in their own grim image of tyrrany and oppression[.]" Sounds like a crusade to me and if the shoe fits... Did I mention the Religious Right? "By toppling governments," remember Mission Accomplished Day? Yes. It makes me MAD too. "[B]y driving us out of the region," where US -- er.. the U.S. -- does not belong. The U.S. invaded Iraq, remains as an occupying force, toppled the government, and has plans to do the same across the region. "Exporting terror" viewed from the other side of the equation, the Iraqi side or the Islamic side, is equivalent to "Exporting America."

"The terrorists believe that free societies are essentially corrupt and decadent... They are mistaken."

No, there's no corruption in free societies. Wait, I really can't say that with a straight face. There is WIDESPREAD corrpution in free societies and it is only getting worse.

There is no reason to believe that the election that permitted President Bush into office was on the level, nor was there any strong investigation into the second election. The Bush administration, in my opinion (cause it's my blog) just got better and sneakier about election tampering. Reducing polling stations in less affluent regions in the country forcing extensive lineups, whereas, in the suburbs and affluent neighbourhoods and red states, polling stations were convenient and ready to receive the votes for the incumbent.

Corruption in industry continues to get worse, supported by policies made at the highest levels. The lack of interest in ratifying the Kyoto accord is only one such example. The nature of the beast remains committed to economic glut. Anything that impedes this track is definitely a threat to the economy. Thus, the Bush Administration refuses to enforce the reduction of toxic emissions on industries in America. This action is in the face of warning signs everywhere that the decay of the ecosystem is well underway. Massive heatwaves across North America are driving energy consumption to unheard of levels. Flooding is widespread across in many parts of the world as heavy rains and massive snowmelts drive water levels up.
This does not even begin to mention the white collar crime that has become a hallmark of rampant capitalism. Shell corporations are everywhere protecting ne'er do well industrialists from culpability at every turn.

As for decadence; air conditioned castles, hundred acre homesteads and 400 horse-power carriages are no sign of decadence. Live that American dream, vote Quimby.

6. NIMBY

Not In MY Back Yard

"The commander in charge of coalition operations in Iraq -- who is also senior commander at this base -- General John Vines, put it well the other day. He said: "We either deal with terrorism and this extremism abroad, or we deal with it when it comes to us.""

This is the most appalling of statements. To think that the President echoed the remark of this military buffoon makes him, well, a bigger one. {southern slang} "We'll fight the fight, jus' so long as it don't mess up our country. We deal with it jus' fine." Terrorism and extremism as being "deal[t] with" from a military standpoint involves guns, bombs, inspection, co-option, and occupation. Perhaps, then America should revisit McCarthyism. Timothy McVeigh was not dealt with. How many more domestic terrorists are there and, more importantly, are they being monitored or arrested?

As mentioned by the President on September 20th, 2001, wars have been fought on "foreign soil" for "136 years, ... except for one Sunday in 1941." Now 140 years later, and one Tuesday in 2001 added to the list, America still refuses to risk their Homeland Security in to fight their good fight. Still, the President banters about "evil doers" and "murderous ideology." Wherein do to the actions of the Bush Administration fit? The Exporting of America under the guise of spreading freedom and democracy co-opts the freedom of others. It washes away culture and diversity as though dirty smudges on the clean face of a new world; a global Mall of Americas.

There is more to this post, but, I must go to the grind. My personal slice of corporatism.

8

Hedge

President Bush addresses the nation, er... a bunch of Armed Forces guys at Fort Bragg and then it was broadcast to the nation... trying to shore up the effort in Iraq. Full text here.

Four points.

1. Childishness -- Name calling and historical inaccuracy (within his own presidency, no less)

"The troops here and across the world are fighting a global war on terror. The war reached our shores on September the 11th, 2001. The terrorists who attacked us -- and the terrorists we face -- murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises all dissent. "

President Bush was empowered to declare the current global War on Terror on September 18th, 2001; and did so on September 20th; there was an incident on Septmber 11th, but the "war" did not touch Americans until the President declared American participation eight days later. His over-reaching statement, that "[o]ur war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated." The implication, that a war against a non- national, non-political, non-static identity can be won. Anyone can be a terrorist, accept it. Or watch the movie, The Terrorist, or revisit the actions of April 20th, 1999.

This being said, that anyone can be a terrorist, or at least can be percieved as a terrorist, there is something to be said about the situation in Iraq and, furthermore, about definitions in this War on Terror. Implying that the insurgency that thrives in Iraq today is being carried on by terrorists is absurd. The United States military is an occupying force in Iraq. Pay attention, news sources have stopped referring to the military presence in Iraq as an "occupation," this does not make it any less true. The insurgent forces in Iraq are battling the greatest war machine the world has ever known. Any who oppose the occupation are aligned, whether they are sympathizers to the old regime or not. The soverignty of Iraq, the ability for that nation to select its own fate, does not exist. It is America that defines the future for the Iraqi people. Initial opposition, of course, was from those empowered by the regime of Saddam Hussein, so-called state-sponsored terrorists. Now, this loose definition has spread to any opposition to American policy.

The definition of terrorist, in Iraq, works both ways. The insurgents are freedom-fighters -- fighting against "American freedom" and in favor of freedom for Iraqis and all Islamic people -- are labeled terrorists by this President. This irony, fighting freedom for freedom, seems to be growing more widespread. On the other side, Iraqis seeking freedom from "American freedom" may perceive the U.S. occupying force as the present state-sponsored terrorist. With each day, their mere presence encourages further destruction. Though "better off" than in the former regime, the raids and attacks that accompany an insurgecy against occupation are "soft" comfort.

As to the establish leader sought in the campaign in Iraq, Saddam Hussein IS in prision, his regime ended. This, WITHOUT direct connection to the September 11th attacks, WITHOUT discovery of the weapons of mass destruction that constituted a clear and present danger to the security of the United States and her interests, and WITHOUT any causal connection of state-sponsored international acts of terror.

2. Playing God -- Creating an Allied nation

"Our mission in Iraq is clear. We're hunting down the terrorists. We're helping Iraqis build a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror. We're advancing freedom in the broader Middle East. We are removing a source of violence and instability..."

"A little over a year ago, I spoke to the nation and described our coalition's goals in Iraq. I said that America's mission in Iraq is to defeat an enemy and give strength to a friend -- a free, representative government that is an ally in the war on terror, and a beacon of hope in a part of the world that is desperate for reform."

These statements lead me to beleive that the War on Terror is designed to never end. It is designed to be a check an balance that the United States can use on the world at large to police any state that it chooses. The statement made, September 20th, 2001; "either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists" could prove to be a landmark statement. If becomes true that the 9/11 attacks have sparked an Orwellian global perspective -- constant surveillance and constant war -- as a suitable and profitable replacement for the Cold War, then this American incursion into global affairs cannot be supported.

US foreign policy of this type demands that every nation of the world open itself to inspection for "terrorist" activity, whatever such activity is on that day. Allies will, undoubtedly, acquiesce. Opponents will be subject to scrutiny. Scrutiny, invariably, offers up evidence and evidence leads to indictment. This process, policing the world and rebuilding in the image of American ideals, seeks to subvert and destroy the diversity that makes the world what it is.

The slogans of 1984: "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength" eerily parallel the state of affairs in the US. Orwellian doublespeak continues to come to light. Freedom from America is slavery, but American freedom is the best slavery there is.

3. Passing the buck

"would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight... Like free people everywhere, Iraqis want to be defended by their own countrymen, and we are helping Iraqis assume those duties."

Whose fight is this anyway? The U.S. staged a pre-emptive strike against Saddam Hussein. American forces looked in every hole they could find until they rooted out Saddam Hussein and killed his two sons. Once that finished stumbling toward success, they realized that there's a country here that somebody, anybody but US, should run and that they had entrenched themselves a fight in Iraq against Islamic extremism, one that the Iraqi people hadn't necessarily believed would follow from the deposition of Hussein. So they undertook the difficult task of nation-building; from designing and helping to equip new security forces, to staging elections, to picking up juicy contracts for infrastructure rebuilding.

Why hire an Iraqi engineering firm for US$10 000 when you can get an American one for US$1B?

The new, representative assembly of New Iraq, does not have the capacity to stand on its own yet. Nor do they have control of their military, their judicial or executive branches of government. The legislative side is all theirs, though. Soverignty does not exist without self-determination. Being founded with the interests of a foreign nation at heart, not having fought for their own independence from a foreign power, New Iraq will not stand without American forces constanly present to support it. Thus, America will never be able to leave New Iraq.

America decides everything for this fledgling nation; including what the basid institutions of their society should be. For example:

"... by building the institutions of a free society, a society based on freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and equal justice under law. The Iraqis have held free elections and established a Transitional National Assembly. The next step is to write a good constitution that enshrines these freedoms in permanent law."

While I don't disagree with what is being attempted, the establishment of a social order that guarantees individuals rights and freedoms, the question remains, is this representative of the desires of the Iraqi people? Or, is this another case of ethnocentrism and a lack of understanding in patronizing and administering an occupied territory?

4. References to 9/11

Without a causal connection between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, the two cannot be mentioned in context with one as justification for the other. Thus, each time "terror," "terrorist," "security" wrt. America, or "9/11" was mentioned, it constitutes an unjustifiable causal connection.

The total, in this speech alone: 58

References to Terror/Terrorism: 38
References to 9/11: 12
References to American Homeland Security: 8

The more times he says it, the truer it gets. History records that which is most widely held as it is that popular opinion which is translated into its annals.

"The terrorists can kill the innocent, but they cannot stop the advance of freedom. "

Before America took to rejuvenating their imperial advance of their ideals, the twin towers of the World Trade Center were attacked. This is true terrorism. The insurgency within Iraq is a protest against such imperial power, a fight against the usurption of freedom. The terrorist tactics of al-Qaeda, if they are an organized group headed by Osama Bin Laden as reported in media, seek to strike against sinks of power generally held by America. This is not in disdain of their freedom, it is against the oppression that much of the world is subjected to, which secures American freedom that is at issue.

By standing ignorantly on the backs of the impoverished nations of the globe, by utilising its armed forces to secure this seat of power and influence, and by flaunting its glut and excess as virtue, America encapsulates a clear and present threat to the rest of the world. The spread of democracy and freedom opens markets for Americans. The promise of "the advance of freedom" is an empty promise. The freedom and democracy of America cannot promise the any real difference to people around the world; vast poverty grips Americans too. This is the infidelity at issue, that America concerns itself with interests of the uppermost echelon while guaranteeing the suffering of the less fortunate. As a devout Christian, and the leader of a powerful near theocracy, President Bush denies his Christian duty to treat all people as brothers.

"We continued our efforts to help them rebuild their country. Rebuilding a country after three decades of tyranny is hard, and rebuilding while at war is even harder."

Rebuilding a country after you've bombed the crap out of it is even harder than that, Mr. President. Did I mention the juicy contracts? Yes, JUICE. Join US In Commercial Entropy, the more you destroy, the more you can charge to rebuild it. That's the joy of presiding over a country with absolutely no value for ancient history and no ancient history of its own. If it can't be rebuilt for billions of dollars, then it isn't worth anything. See also: National Treasure

There are two more points to follow, NIMBY and Doublespeak. Demain, j'espere.

8

Forgetting

Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
- George Santayana

The media is the single most influential means of persuasion and co-option of thought since the advent of organized reloigion. In fact, in many homes across the world the mindless drone of media influence is comparable if not supercedent to the influence of organized religion. Why then is it not take more seriously? The freedom of press enjoyed by the free nations of the world is supposed to work in favor of the people, permitting voices of reason to be heard when the powerful seek to overtly or sublimely take absolute control of society. The opposite has, in fact, happened.

The media is controlled by a small group of ultra-powerful corporate entities. The boards of these entites make decisions that determine what is broadcast and finds its way into the social consicousness of the general population. this power to tap and manipulate the public consciousness, specifying messages for many segments of the population. This specificity molds and seeks to sedate the population, allaying their fears on the one hand and reminding them of their fears the next. This rollercoaster of emotive content is the new propaganda; the world exterior to western culture, specifically American culture, constantly calls the insualted, sheepish population to attention. It is, however, easier to maintain focus on that which is familiar. Television, film, and advertising; the messages delivered by a government run amok. It has all been seen before and, now, it may be unstoppable.

The use of force as a motif in popular cultre has gained wide acceptance as mere triviality. Perhaps, then, it is for this reason that the use of force in the actual world goes virtually unnoticed, unrecognized, or passes for normalcy in the minds of consumers. If, by watching "COPS" or "24" or any other police drama, an acceptance of the use of force is mentally established, then the resonant experience in reality is less impactful as it has already been accepted.

Past arguments that observing violence in film and television would perpetuate violence in the community fell flat as violence had always predated the medium by which it was being broadcast. The desensitization argument may still be credible, though individual acts of violence have seen no proportional increase over time. The desensitization argument ought to slice both ways, however. Not only does the threat of violence exist within individuals against the general public, but also the threat of violence from authority figures against the rest of the world.

Authoritarian rule flies in the face of the freedom, at least this is logically true. The facist regimes of the 1930s and 40s demanded absolute authority over the population. This authority was challenged by the actions of WWII. The authoritarian rule of Stalin and other communists regimes stood to the challenges of the Cold War. Yet, the authorites on each side of these conflicts bore greater, or simply more popular, moral authority only due to the mistakes of the authoritarian states. Had Nazi Germany embraced the Jews as part of the population -- or, even better, had they promised them a secure Jewish state -- would the war have been fought? If there had been no nuclear arms race between the Western and Eastern superpowers, no gulags, and no global market competiton, would there have been a Cold War?

The essence of authority is the ability to establish and maintain one's control over others. If an authority cannot be challenged, due to some internal machinery that denies the capacity for challenge, then the self-importance of that authority exceeds the freedom of the people to which it is responsible. The result is an authoritarian state. Freedom does not exist where authority cannot be challenged.

What has been forgotten here? The freedom for which armies fight on this very day has been relinquished. The machinery of the world has co-opted the freedom for which millions have fought and died over the centuries. The processes of humanity, from politics to economy to lawmaking to enforcement, have created a world in which freedom is slavery.

Industry is the means of this enslavement. To uphold the form and function of western society all people must have jobs, all people must perpetuate the economy, and all people must parttake of the media. The jobs we undertake provide us with the means to survive. The economy we perpetuate takes that money away and distracts us with shiny objects, toys, and gratifications for the senses. The consumption of media allows us to be lulled into a false sense of security -- or a false sense of insecurity, when needs be -- such that we search only for immediate needs. The richest industries, that of media, utilises and installs ideas into the minds of the audience. This fearsome power drives all other endeavours. Industries perpetuate themselves, through advertising, by consuming people.

It is the greatest irony of human endeavour -- consumers, themselves, are consumed; consumed externally by industry and internally by the desire for consumption.

Now it's time for me to go to work.

Whose Family Values?

from Hollywood.com

HOLLYWOOD, May 30, 2005

Lohan Has Digital Breast Reduction
By WENN
............................................
Teen actress Lindsay Lohan's breasts have been digitally reduced for forthcoming Disney film Herbie: Fully Loaded, to avoid offending family audiences.

Test screenings for the new movie, the fourth sequel to the 1968 film The Love Bug about a Volkswagen Beetle car with a mind of its own, indicated that some parents felt Lohan's character Maggie Peyton was too raunchy for a children's film.

Disney technicians were forced to plough through numerous scenes - especially those showing the busty actress jumping up and down at a motor racing track, reducing her breasts by two cup sizes and raising revealing necklines on her T-shirts.

Amused at her digital bosom reduction, Lohan says, "I don't know how Renee Zellweger kept swelling and shrinking for Bridget Jones. It's no fun.

"Bring on the computer guys."

Article Copyright World Entertainment News Network All Rights Reserved.

***

Whose family values are these?

Merely stating that "some parents felt.. Maggiee Peyton..[is] too raunchy" for a family film is utter nonsense. If two parents felt that the character's bouncing breasts are too much for the film, that would be "some." However, for the sake of maintaining Disney's golden facade of excellent family programming, Lindsay's titties have to go.

This is not an argument from the perspective of identity for Lindsay Lohan, though, as a role model for American kids, it should be. No-one should be ashamed of their body, no matter how disproportionately large or small it is in any area. I could speculate that Lohan's recent weight loss is a product of this digital identity crisis and that Disney forced her to close her mouth when it came to criticism of this move. Short of interviewing Lohan and a search for a gag order or her contract with Disney, all remains pure speculation.

Furthermore, these problems could have been taken care of at any point in shooting. Wardrobe changes, different camera shots, etc. They could have cast an actor with breasts two cup sizes smaller. Lindsay Lohan is, at present, the living "it girl" for Disney. This, however, seems to have reached its end. Lohan turns 19 in a few weeks, and, with six Disney pics completed her contract with the House of Mouse may be terminate. She can no longer play the strong, smart, little girl with perfect morals. She gets to have it her way -- no good for a Disney star.

This is an argument from the perspective of the puritanical nature of the powers-that-be in America, especially within corporate America. Were it not for moves as extreme as digital breast reduction, there would not be a $1 trillion porn industry in America. The values of focus groups, pandering to the lowest common denominator, is the reason for the undermining of any nascent form of culture in America. As long as the major concern is protecting the children from anything outside 'childhood' experiences rooted in and espoused by Disney films, the iron fist of corporate America will make these types of demands. There are too many advertising dollars on the line to offend any segment of the population.

And so, the proteges of Disney, once freed will continue to make protest songs on the eighteenth birthdays, inducing more kids to do crazier stuff and wear less clothing. Hmmm... maybe the Mouse should be the one to loosen up first.

Muted

All of my responses are muted, held back from full expression. Nothing is as I truly intend, the words are memories of a moment, my actions as refined by the expectations of others.

Nothing is cutting edge, as there are no edges upon which to cut. All things are rounded off. Safetied for consumption. Made for all. Dumbed down, really. And what for? Because, [it must be] that [which] is not objectionable - safe, really.

I have forgotten to live beyond the bounds of safety, or, perhaps, I've never known how. The capacity is there, but, how to get it across has always been the problem.

I, predictably, yet subtly, have assumed that the reverse must also be considered. That the thoughts, emotions, [and] motives of others are constantly veiled in their discourse, body language, and histories. Knowing a person, talking to him/her, and listening above all else - remembering - can tell you the truth. And yet, for all our intelligence, it remains impossible to convey truth.

The essence of experience cannot be told. It can be only what it is.