it would appear that americans are purposely shielded from the horrors of war directly
we don't see the murder and destruction and we don't see the bill (financial cost) (yeah you could see it, but you'd have to spend a few minutes on a search engine and "ain't nobody got time for that")
however a few of us see some of the "unintended consequences" like the heart breaking domestic horror stories
it would appear that americans are purposely shielded from the horrors of war directly
we don't see the murder and destruction and we don't see the bill (financial cost) (yeah you could see it, but you'd have to spend a few minutes on a search engine and "ain't nobody got time for that")
however a few of us see some of the "unintended consequences" like the heart breaking domestic horror stories
probably some of the same things that killed/stifled other ethical and critical thought/response
a good place to start would be the fact that we're conditioned to automatically give credibility and respect to those in power
schooling and media are pretty effective at this
i'd say for the most part americans are shielded from the horrific behavior of their leadership
we don't see the human rights abuses, the war, the murder, the destruction, the mayhem and most importantly the staggering amount of money that it all costs
it's one thing if we actually saw the atrocities, saw the truth, but we can and do claim ignorance don't we?
we tell ourselves that we didn't know, get lost in other distractions, life, work, etc.
however, what really gets our attention though is money
especially if we have to pay out of pocket for something, especially by force (like a tax)
just imagine if the people got taxed and rec'd a bill for the war and had to pay or else
magically people start giving a damn and paying attention when they have to labor/pay for something
politicians know this, that could never stay in power or get re-elected if they couldn't borrow from future generations to pay for the unethical largess
and sadly this form of theft has to be shielded from the masses lest reality sets in
we can always turn a blind eye to the violence, but if it comes directly to us (in the form of an immediate financial obligation) we'd see some folks get hip
rant over
peace
We are reaping what little we have sown.
The lack of a draft and the all voluntary military has allowed our attentions and conversations to drift.
No one has skin in the game anymore and no one understands the true meaning of money anymore.
Someone else will fight for me and someone else will pay for it. Its dangerous when these two things become taken for granted as they presently have. During Nam, everyone knew someone who either died or was hurt for life, personally. Nowadays, hardly anyone knows someone who fits that description.
Ironically, the more one screams Foul !, the less it means. We have succeeded in kicking the can down the road for so long that the masses no longer believes the crash will happen.
Bread and circuses still keep coming to mind. Everyone is talking about Miley. Everyone is talking about the new tiny computers posing as portable telephones. Here we are now, entertain us ...
We see the polls that say a majority of people are upset with the way things are, yet we see no physical manifestations of those polls.
Very little makes sense anymore. Perceptions mean more than reality. Emotions mean more than critical thought.
I can think of a hell of a lot of songs and lyrics from the music of the 60's that are more relevant now than then. The diagnosis lies within those songs. Yet they are dismissed as so much hippie dross, dated and irrelevant. That music expressed an anger reflecting the times, which are very similar to today.
The difference between then and now is that no one has skin in the game. The music of today has no anger. Hip hop is an exception, but what it expresses and advocates is not hope. The old saw of art reflects life (musically) tells us that no one is paying attention anymore or gives a rats ass.
We have come from I don't need a weatherman to tell me which way the wind blows to there's an app for that.
probably some of the same things that killed/stifled other ethical and critical thought/response
a good place to start would be the fact that we're conditioned to automatically give credibility and respect to those in power
schooling and media are pretty effective at this
i'd say for the most part americans are shielded from the horrific behavior of their leadership
we don't see the human rights abuses, the war, the murder, the destruction, the mayhem and most importantly the staggering amount of money that it all costs
it's one thing if we actually saw the atrocities, saw the truth, but we can and do claim ignorance don't we?
we tell ourselves that we didn't know, get lost in other distractions, life, work, etc.
however, what really gets our attention though is money
especially if we have to pay out of pocket for something, especially by force (like a tax)
just imagine if the people got taxed and rec'd a bill for the war and had to pay or else
magically people start giving a damn and paying attention when they have to labor/pay for something
politicians know this, that could never stay in power or get re-elected if they couldn't borrow from future generations to pay for the unethical largess
and sadly this form of theft has to be shielded from the masses lest reality sets in
we can always turn a blind eye to the violence, but if it comes directly to us (in the form of an immediate financial obligation) we'd see some folks get hip
probably some of the same things that killed/stifled other ethical and critical thought/response
a good place to start would be the fact that we're conditioned to automatically give credibility and respect to those in power
schooling and media are pretty effective at this
i'd say for the most part americans are shielded from the horrific behavior of their leadership
we don't see the human rights abuses, the war, the murder, the destruction, the mayhem and most importantly the staggering amount of money that it all costs
it's one thing if we actually saw the atrocities, saw the truth, but we can and do claim ignorance don't we?
we tell ourselves that we didn't know, get lost in other distractions, life, work, etc.
however, what really gets our attention though is money
especially if we have to pay out of pocket for something, especially by force (like a tax)
just imagine if the people got taxed and rec'd a bill for the war and had to pay or else
magically people start giving a damn and paying attention when they have to labor/pay for something
politicians know this, that could never stay in power or get re-elected if they couldn't borrow from future generations to pay for the unethical largess
and sadly this form of theft has to be shielded from the masses lest reality sets in
we can always turn a blind eye to the violence, but if it comes directly to us (in the form of an immediate financial obligation) we'd see some folks get hip
And a footnote about partisanship that is somewhat related. The Republicans are faced with a dilemma regarding the erupting IRS scandal. They want nothing more than for the Tea Party to go away just as badly as the Democrats. I think that we will see a tepid response by the Repubs in their desire to dig deep into the IRS scandal as it was helping them just as much as it was helping the Dems.
The R's and D's will circle the wagons together against any threat to the two party system. Bipartisansism means nothing. Its a misleading term that is abused by both sides. What we need to hear and see more of is nonpartisanism.
That may be, but their hatred of Obama and all things Democrat supersedes the thorn in the side the Tea Party represents. Is the Republican response to this story going to be laced with extreme partisanship and demagoguery? You betcha. Is the actual offenses that appear to have taken place very serious and should be met with swift and harsh justice to all those found to have participated? Oh yea, you betcha. Both sides will attempt to twist, distort, paint and cajole what is exactly transpiring to meet their ends and it will just add another layer of sickness upon the American people to the distaste that will already be felt from the infraction itself. In other words, this will go down just like Benghazi. Someone messed up and the two sides have put on their baby outfits and are crying and screaming at the top of their lungs over the mess while the American public just rolls their eyes in disgust.
What No One Wants to Hear About Benghazi Posted By Rep. Ron Paul On May 13, 2013 @ 11:00 pm
Indeed !
And a footnote about partisanship that is somewhat related. The Republicans are faced with a dilemma regarding the erupting IRS scandal. They want nothing more than for the Tea Party to go away just as badly as the Democrats. I think that we will see a tepid response by the Repubs in their desire to dig deep into the IRS scandal as it was helping them just as much as it was helping the Dems.
The R's and D's will circle the wagons together against any threat to the two party system. Bipartisansism means nothing. Its a misleading term that is abused by both sides. What we need to hear and see more of is nonpartisanism.
What No One Wants to Hear About Benghazi Posted By Rep. Ron Paul On May 13, 2013 @ 11:00 pm
Congressional hearings, White House damage control, endless op-eds, accusations, and defensive denials. Controversy over the events in Benghazi last September took center stage in Washington and elsewhere last week. However, the whole discussion is again more of a sideshow. Each side seeks to score political points instead of asking the real questions about the attack on the US facility, which resulted in the death of US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
Republicans smell a political opportunity over evidence that the Administration heavily edited initial intelligence community talking points about the attack to remove or soften anything that might reflect badly on the president or the State Department.
Are we are supposed to be shocked by such behavior? Are we supposed to forget that this kind of whitewashing of facts is standard operating procedure when it comes to the US government?
Democrats in Congress have offered the even less convincing explanation for Benghazi, that somehow the attack occurred due to Republican sponsored cuts in the security budget at facilities overseas. With a one trillion dollar military budget, it is hard to take this seriously.
It appears that the Administration scrubbed initial intelligence reports of references to extremist Islamist involvement in the attacks, preferring to craft a lie that the demonstrations were a spontaneous response to an anti-Islamic video that developed into a full-out attack on the US outpost.
Who can blame he administration for wanting to shift the focus? The Islamic radicals who attacked Benghazi were the same people let loose by the US-led attack on Libya. They were the rebels on whose behalf the US overthrew the Libyan government. Ambassador Stevens was slain by the same Islamic radicals he personally assisted just over one year earlier.
But the Republicans in Congress also want to shift the blame. They supported the Obama Administration’s policy of bombing Libya and overthrowing its government. They also repeated the same manufactured claims that Gaddafi was “killing his own people” and was about to commit mass genocide if he were not stopped. Republicans want to draw attention to the President’s editing talking points in hopes no one will notice that if the attack on Libya they supported had not taken place, Ambassador Stevens would be alive today.
Neither side wants to talk about the real lesson of Benghazi: interventionism always carries with it unintended consequences. The US attack on Libya led to the unleashing of Islamist radicals in Libya. These radicals have destroyed the country, murdered thousands, and killed the US ambassador. Some of these then turned their attention to Mali which required another intervention by the US and France.
Previously secure weapons in Libya flooded the region after the US attack, with many of them going to Islamist radicals who make up the majority of those fighting to overthrow the government in Syria. The US government has intervened in the Syrian conflict on behalf of the same rebels it assisted in the Libya conflict, likely helping with the weapons transfers. With word out that these rebels are mostly affiliated with al Qaeda, the US is now intervening to persuade some factions of the Syrian rebels to kill other factions before completing the task of ousting the Syrian government. It is the dizzying cycle of interventionism.
The real lesson of Benghazi will not be learned because neither Republicans nor Democrats want to hear it. But it is our interventionist foreign policy and its unintended consequences that have created these problems, including the attack and murder of Ambassador Stevens. The disputed talking points and White House whitewashing are just a sideshow.
(...) The way in which "America's soul is totally poisoned" is evident in virtually every debate over US policies of militarism. Over the weekend, several pro-war national security "experts" argued: "I'd pay closer attention to critics of drone strikes if they explained their recommended alternative." This is a commonly heard defense of Obama's drone assaults: I support drones - despite how they constantly kill innocent adults and children - because the alternative, "boots on the ground", is worse.
Those who argue this are literally incapable even of conceiving of an alternative in which the US stops killing anyone and everyone it wants in the world. They operate on the assumption that US violence is and should be inevitable, and the only cognizable debate is which weapon the US should use to carry out this killing (drones or "boots on the ground"?). Even though they have no idea who the US government is killing, they assume, with literally no evidence or basis, that those being killed are "terrorists" who want to attack the US and that therefore they - and anyone close to them - must be killed first. As Jonathan Schwarz noted on Sunday, they have literally embraced the same mindset as the Terrorists they claim to loathe: we must use violence and killing, even if it means we kill innocents, because we simply cannot conceive of any alternative.
Never once do they stop and wonder: why are there so many people in the world who want to attack the US? Never once do they do what King so bravely and rather subversively urged: "the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence" is it "helps us to see the enemy's point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves". King explained: "from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition." King thus urged the nation to "understand the arguments of those who are called enemy."
Adhering to King's prescription - "understanding the arguments of those who are called enemy" - would clearly reveal the obvious "alternative" to Obama's global assassination program: namely, ceasing the endless violence that is what drives so many people to want to bring violence to the US in return, combined with prosecutions of the handful of people who possess both the intent and capability to attack the US.
Arguing that "we must drone-bomb people in order to stop terrorism" is the equivalent of arguing that "we must continue to smoke cigarettes in order to stop lung cancer". As ample evidence proves, the so-called "solution" to Terrorism - endless violence and killing - is actually its primary cause. As the Yemeni blogger Noon Arabia put it this weekend after a series of multiple drones strikes on her country: "For those arguing effectiveness of drones, let me explain: civilians killed => animosity towards US = Qaeda members increase = Vicious !"
King made the same argument about Communists: that western militarism is not a solution to that ideology but is precisely what drives people to embrace it. He quoted a Vietnamese Buddhist leader who wrote that "each day the war goes on the hatred increases in the heart of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct"; that "the Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies"; and that "Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat." That Buddhist leader, quoted King, warned that "the image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism." (...)
Every war - particularly protracted ones like the "War on Terror" - demands sustained dehumanization campaigns against the targets of the violence. Few populations will tolerate continuous killings if they have to confront the humanity of those who are being killed. The humanity of the victims must be hidden and denied. That's the only way this constant extinguishing of life by their government can be justified or at least ignored. That was the key point made in the extraordinarily brave speech given by then-MSNBC reporter Ashleigh Banfield in 2003 after she returned from Iraq, before she was demoted and then fired: that US media coverage of US violence is designed to conceal the identity and fate of its victims.
The violence and rights abridgments of the Bush and Obama administrations have been applied almost exclusively to Muslims. It is, therefore, Muslims who have been systematically dehumanized. Americans virtually never hear about the Muslims killed by their government's violence. They're never profiled. The New York Times doesn't put powerful graphics showing their names and ages on its front page. Their funerals are never covered. President Obama never delivers teary sermons about how these Muslim children "had their entire lives ahead of them - birthdays, graduations, weddings, kids of their own." That's what dehumanization is: their humanity is disappeared so that we don't have to face it.
But this dehumanization is about more than simply hiding and thus denying the personhood of Muslim victims of US violence. It is worse than that: it is based on the implicit, and sometimes overtly stated, premise that Muslims generally, even those guilty of nothing, deserve what the US does to them, or are at least presumed to carry blame.
Well, that's what war is. Look what we did to the Japanese-Americans during WWII. We continue to promote racism in this country, and imo Fox News is hugely complicit in this.
Only the white children get memorialized. 125 non-white (mostly, I am assuming) children have been murdered in Chicago this year, where is their memorial?
