Hail, Caesar!

Most of the American people, with the bankrupt and corrupt economy, will welcome cheap oil, while it lasts, and they will engage in a multitude of psychological and sickening rationales that will, in the end, amount to nothing more than saying, 'I don't care how many women and children you kill. Just let me keep my standard of living.'" As the Empire embarks on the occupation of the Middle East, to control the largest reserves of oil remaining on a planet that is coming to grips with the fact that oil is finite and depleting, the American people are on the threshold of getting a taste of what real sacrifice means.

The military occupation of Iraq (and Saudi Arabia) may come fairly quickly and be hailed as successes. But the prices that will be paid in casualties, economic expense and global hostility will be bitter and permanent pills for this Empire and its people. Homeland Security will provide Caesar with the means to permanently suppress any restlessness at home.

There was one other great message from this election. On Wednesday morning I watched a crawl on the bottom of the CNN news screen. It said, "Proprietary software may make inspection of electronic voting systems impossible." It was the final and absolute coronation of corporate rights over democracy; of money over truth; and of man's self-destructive fears over the best parts of the human heart.

I note with irony the fact that much of the new software to resolve voting issues is either created by Microsoft and/or the companies that own and sell the voting machines, These are the same firms connected to the election debacle of 2000. Some even have Bush family connections. And here we see the final purpose of the 2000 Florida voting scandals: In order to prevent the same kind of hanging-chad confusion, we now have electronic machines so the problem won't occur again, and the results have been forever totally removed from public scrutiny.

And wasn't it convenient that Voters News Service decided at the last minute that there would be no exit polling this year. Exit polling was a reliable standard against which the numbers from the voting machines could be compared.

[Ed Miller]

Microsoft owns and sells voting machines? News to me... and I work for Microsoft (not that that means too much). Microsoft behind hanging chads in Florida in 2000? Wow...

[J_V]

I'm a young kid and I grew up learning that the United States was the infallible, good, superhero protecting all that was good in this world. It took me a long to realize that all we seek to protect is our standard of living, regardless of who it affects. I am an American, but no patriot.

By the way, anonymous, you write well.

[Clarkmeister]

I'll be dead when we run out of oil in a hundred years.

[nicky g]

we could all be dead a lot sooner than that if bush carries on the way he is going.

[Clarkmeister]

I'll be dead a lot sooner than that if I keep eating cheeseburgers and no vegetables.

[Jimbo]

Quote from J_V "By the way, anonymous, you write well." Yes he/she is quite creative with fiction. If not a patriot the door swings both ways out of the USA as well as in.

Jimbo

[nicky g]

you should put the cabinet on a similar diet. it'd be especially good for cheney.

[HDPM]

Inappropriate post nicky g. I hope and assume you were joking, but wishing death on political opponents is bad form. For instance, when Paul Wellstone was killed I thought it was a tragedy even though I very much wanted him to lose his election. Wishing death on one's ideological opponents makes political discussion much more unpleasant and immature.

P.S. If Cheney had the quality of medical care available in your country after the disaster of socialized medicine, your wish might have been granted. /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif

one thing that disgusts me is this personal rancor. i remember when clarence thomas was confirmed to the supreme court. julianne malveaux, who at the time was a newpaper columnist, said that she hoped his wife fed himlots of butter and eggs so he would die faster. when the interviewer showed disgust, she blandly relied "thats just the way i feel." i am sure that when he dies republicans wont turn it into a political rally.

Pat

[Ed Miller]

Honestly, I don't see any tangible difference between the Democratic and Republican parties that would suggest to me that they would treat the memorial service differently. While I was shocked when I heard about what happened... saying that Democrats behave boorishly while Republicans are respectful is like saying, "White guys are named Lenny and black guys are named Karl."

[Ed Miller]

[andyfox]

When the USA doesn't welcome people who are not patriotic, as well as those who are, it ceases to be the USA.

[B-Man]

How do you figure?

[Jimbo]

Andy,

What kind of logic is that? Are you implying we welcome Terrorist's? I would not think that is what you mean. My post was to reflect that if you want to be an American being patriotic is part of the package. You are either patriotic or anti-patriotic, I do not see neutral as a viable option. Perhaps you could explain how being neutral is reasonable without being anti-patriotic. Admittedly I may not be recognizing a viable alternative.

Jimbo

[Clarkmeister]

I think you all need an agreed upon working definition of "patriotic". Otherwise you could argue in circles all day and quite possibly totally misunderstand each other.

[Jimbo]

That is certainly true and reasonable Clarkmeister. If Andy will provide his definition I may just agree with him. Mine does not leave much wiggle room but it is probably too strict an interpretation and probably far exceeds what Andy meant in his post.

Jimbo

Here is a generic definition: love for or devotion to one's country Now to define devotion: being ardently dedicated and loyal (as to an idea or person) Now we define ardently: characterized by warmth of feeling typically expressed in eager zealous support or activity. If we define zeal we return to ardent again.

[Ed Miller]

What is "one's country"? Is it the government? Is it the land? Is it the people? Is it the nation-state with that name?

Some examples of the distinctions... if the US Constitution were replaced with a different one, but the borders and residents remained the same, would it be a different country? What if the Constitution and borders remained the same, but the majority of citizens were now of Mexican descent and Spanish was now the dominant language.

While I love the people of the United States, and I love the land of the United States, I do not love the government of the United States, nor do I love the sovereign nation-state of the United States. Does that make me patriotic or anti-patriotic?

[Ed Miller]

I think the "love it or leave it" logic is purely nonsense. I was born here and I live here, but I am an individual and owe my allegiance to no one. If the United States government enacts policies that I agree with, then I will support it. If it enacts policies that I disagree with, then I will fight it and/or fail to support it when called upon to support it.

If a despot seized control of the United States government tomorrow and enacted policies you found abhorrent, would you still feel the same way?

Be patriotic! Do not contribute to terrorism, money laundering, and organized crime by playing online poker!
You won't stop. What a hypocrite.

[J_V]

If you knew half of the things the USA has done in the name of securing world peace and justice, it might be hard to close your eyes to what the U.S. does to secure our economic paradise.

I love my life, I love the life the United States let's me lead, but when I hear about the travesties we support and conduct in foreign nations, it's hard to consider the U.S. just.

The U.S. hand picked the Taliban. Nothing like screwing over a nation in the name of cheaper oil prices.

[andyfox]

I figure what makes the USA the USA is that we can all think different. If we decide that those who don't fit your or my definition of patriotic need to leave, we all might as well leave. Love it or leave it is a profoundly anti-American sentiment.

[andyfox]

One can be not patriotic without being a terrorist. Part of the package of being an American is not having to be patriotic.

My dictionary defines patriotic as "feeling, expressing, or inspired by love for one's country." When my country does things that make me proud, I am overwhelmed with patiotic feelings. When it does something that makes me ashamed, I am anti-patriotic. What makes our country great, in my judgment, is that we all have the right to feel in either of these ways at any time. We are not forced to agree with everything about our country or with everything it does.

I flew a flag on my car after 9/11. I agreed with going after the criminals in Afghanistan. I will not fly a flag if we attack Iraq. I do not see the wisdom of a preemptive war.

One can love and be devoted to one's country and still be critical of a particular policy that one disagrees with, that one sees as anti-American in that it violates our principles. True patriots don't blindly accept all that their country does, right or wrong, but when they think it is wrong, speak up to try to reassert American principles.

[Ed Miller]

Hehe.. I was kidding. The "love it or leave it" people need to get a clue. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[brad]

thats not true. ashcroft was on national tv and was very explicit that if you werent with us (US policy on whatever), then you were with the terrorists.

so there you have it.

[nicky g]

well, i take your point that the post may have been in poor taste; it was meant as a joke. however, given cheney and friends' sterling efforts to actually and sincerely bomb and kill 1000s of people, i'm sure he can handle the joke.
i'm not british, but i also can't agree with your reference to the supposedly disastrous socialised health in the uk. everyone here gets health care if they need it; the rich can go private if they don't like it. they don't let people die here because they can't afford health insurance. not for the moment, anyway.

[adios]

"Most of the American people, with the bankrupt and corrupt economy"

That's hilarious really. One might not agree with what you write but you do have a sense of humor.

"will welcome cheap oil, while it lasts,"

Of course they will, who wouldn't.

"and they will engage in a multitude of psychological and sickening rationales that will, in the end, amount to nothing more than saying, 'I don't care how many women and children you kill. Just let me keep my standard of living.' "

Pure conjecture I don't agree at all. Basically you're stating that US society collectively has a believe that the end justifies the means. IMO nothing could be further from the truth. I find it a tad amusing that you condemn the people of the USA and their system for their ways while the truth is that comparing USA system to those of the Arab countries shows that they, the Arabs systems of government like Saudi Arabia and Iraq, should be condemned. Why is there no outrage regarding their "justice" systems, their treatment of women, their intolerance of other religions, their intolerance of government dissent, their total disregard for individual rights among other things?

"As the Empire embarks on the occupation of the Middle East,"

How do you figure this one? In the absence of any data to support your claim, you're totally wrong.

"to control the largest reserves of oil remaining on a planet"

If we occupy the countries you mention we'll do a lot more than control them, we'll own em.

" that is coming to grips with the fact that oil is finite and depleting,"

Hahahaha. Have you checked out what Economic theory is based on? People have realized that resources are "finite and depleting" for a long, long time.

" the American people are on the threshold of getting a taste of what real sacrifice means."

Another swipe. I know the American people are nothing more than a bunch of lucky bastards who never worked hard or sacrificed to acheive anything.

"The military occupation of Iraq (and Saudi Arabia) may come fairly quickly and be hailed as successes."

Pure conjecture and there is nothing to support this claim.

" But the prices that will be paid in casualties, economic expense and global hostility will be bitter and permanent pills for this Empire and its people."

Americans will unilateraly get behind an occupation of the Middle East and then have to swallow a bitter pill. In case you haven't noticed there is quite a bit of opposition to the Bush proposals already in the USA.

"Homeland Security will provide Caesar with the means to permanently suppress any restlessness at home."

In case you haven't noticed the Bush proposals for Homeland Security are being debated vigoursly in Congress and to my knowledge a comprehensive Homeland Security bill is still on the table. Many people (even on this forum) have problems with the possible infringement of individual freedom that Homeland Security may bring about. Your implication is that the American people will blindly accept repression and a curtailment of their individual rights. I don't think that historical events support your claim.


I won't even get into your claim regarding MSFT doing voting machine software and the conspiracy to fix elections in the future that you imply exists. It's just more crackpot jibberish that I've spent too much time on already. The Republicans won majority in both Houses of Congress, get over it.

[nicky g]

you are right to condemn the authoritarian regimes in the middle east, such as saudi arabia. however, who supports these regimes? the west, lead by the us. after israel, the biggest beneficiary of american economic support is the egyptian government, a dictatorial regime which jails and tortures its opponents. saudi doesn't need as much economic support becasue of its vast oil wealth, but it gets a hell of a lot of military and diplomatic back-up instead. its massive human rights abuses are virtually ignored by its western allies.

there are a lot of crackpot conspiracy theories out there, and i've no idea about mr A.non's microsoft story, but it's not all rubbish. In 2000, George Bush's cousin preempted the result in Florida by having a national news network, that he was in charge of announce that Bush had won, even though he hadn't - before the voting had even closed in some states. One of Bush's closest supporters, Katherine Harris, was in charge of the electoral process in Florida, and had thousands of black voters disenfranchised for having committed felonies when they had in fact done no such thing. Al Gore would have won if the electoral process in Florida had not been so badly handled. Bush's brother is the governor of Florida. A Republican supreme court, partly appointed by Bush's own father, awarded Bush the presidency. Bush was given Florida, even though he lost it. He was given the Presidency, even though he lost it.

it is also true that private firms hired to run electronic polling booths are refusing to let electoral officials inspect their code, on the grounds of commercial confidentiality. don't you think that's at all dangerous?

[brad]

'it is also true that private firms hired to run electronic polling booths are refusing to let electoral officials inspect their code, on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.'

i was gonna say, write sec. of states office and ask to see the source code (ok a little out there), or (more reasonable) ask what elected/nonelected official is in charge of verifying that such software is fair. (since with all electronic voting now, recounts are impossible with no ballots.)

also see that book votescam for details (amazingly enough) of florida (same area) problems in the past.

www.votescam.com (http://www.votescam.com)

If you don't like it here leave and don't clutter this site with your trash talk

[adios]

I guess my last reply didn't get in. I worry too that the USA is comprimising it's values for the sake of oil as oil does make for some strange bedfellows. As far as the software is concerned, brad made some excellent points. I'm not familiar with this sofware so any info on requirements it fulfills (even a link if you can) would be helpful. From my limited knowledge independent validation of such software should be straight forward I would think.

[nicky g]

i don't know of any info on the web about this; you could check out brad's links, which suggest this has been a problem for a long time. i read about it in michael moore's book "stupid white men." (it's not a great book, though his new film is amazing.) i'm sure the code is indeed very easy to scrutinse, and doubt it's particularly complicated or unique, which makes it all the more silly that it isn't open to public scrutiny. whether it's actually being abused, i couldn't say, but i think it's extraordinairily dangerous.
if you're interested in the disenfranchisement issue, you could try http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=30&row=1, which also has links to more neutral sources of info. apparently, the same people who were wrongly banned from voting in 2000 (disproportionately black) weren't able to vote this week either, even though they it was acknowledged they shouldn't be on the list of barred voters and were promised that they would be taken off.