September 15, 2007 March against the War Machine

I am currently scouring YouTube and other sites for news on the protests in DC this week. The usual suspects with regards to our typical "infotainment" channels have covered the march as little as possible, and of course as biased as possible. I love how the Faux News states there were only 5,000 protesters. If you look at videos of the actual march, you will see that it is a physical impossibility for there to have been only 5,000 people marching. Mass Rally and March, 1 of 2 and Mass rally and March 2 of 2. By many counts of protesters who were there, the numbers are rising as high as 500,000. I don't know if thats true or not, but the pictures are pretty darn impressive.

Thank the Gods for YouTube. If you just watched the news you'd think there were all of 1,000 anti-war protesters and bazillions of pro-war protesters. Which, by the way, were sorely outnumbered by some counts of 100 - 1 or more. You can see how sparse the pro-war mongers the "Flock of seagulls" Gathering of Eagles were in this video here. There are what? Two or three of them spread out every three to five feet along the fence? Wow. Great turn out guys. Then you look at an entire width of a street jam packed with anti-war protesters as far as the eye can see....ahhh! What a sight to behold.

Another interesting note of interest if you look at this video ANSWER arrests you will notice something odd. Not only are there protesters as far as the eye can see, but while the police are arresting them, they are saying you "must disband". What? Really? A legal protest must disband? No, they weren't attempting to silence a protest there. You will also note that when more "vigorous" arrests were made, the police would form circles around the arresting officers so that A) they blocked the view of the cameras, and B) the peaceful protesters wouldn't be inspired to knock that flimsy excuse for a barrier down, and take over the capital.

I was rather disappointed that the latter didn't happen. There were enough protesters to take on the police; mace, tear gas, rubber bullets and all. I guess they wanted to keep it peaceful though. Civil disobedience as it were is done a particular way and rioting over the police just isn't in the protester's handbook. Oh well. Perhaps us more violent Anarchist types need to get together in mass numbers, unannounced so that coward Bush doesn't have enough time to run away to Camp David to avoid all the "unpleasantness" of the protests and calls for HIS impeachment, like he did on Saturday. I bet Cheney was hiding under a bed somewhere with wet underpants.

More to come on this subject folks, more to come as more filters on to the ever more popular internet. Please note, the photo shown in this post is not from the Sept. 15th protest. It was just so nifty and summed up the idea behind it all so well, I felt I must post it.

The End of Democracy as We Know It.

The whole "Bin Laden" issue is surrounded by mystery and conspiracy theory. It should be addressed however, because I think that some thought about the role(s) of our government, terrorists and everyone in between affects us locally, nationally and globally. Lets take a little trip on a hypothetical logic train, shall we?

Lets say, just for poo and giggles, that America has wanted to expand or exert control over most of the world, or at the very least the world's most influential countries for monetary gain, political propriety and paramountcy. Lets also say, for example, that some of the more influential countries or areas that need to be dominated by our country include south America and the Middle East, for the natural resources which are so valuable to modern day society. Because areas like South America had little in the way of development and financial stability, gaining political alliances and control was as simple as offering them the modern world on a platter. The Middle East however, is a slightly tougher customer. Generally speaking, most of the areas in the Middle East have their own money. If they wanted to develop into an ultra modern world, they would. So the promise of a better land through large loans with high interest rates that aren't likely to be paid back isn't really a great offer. Tact and foreign relations are the way to go. Manipulation of foreign governance and support of less than desirable leaders help maintain political alliances, and eventually (hopefully) the ascertainment of political control of said region. As noted by and discussed by Informed Comment.


When all else fails, war is the result. But We the People don't buy into a war without just cause. (OK, to be fair, most of us don't buy into a war sans justification). Therefore, justifications must be made. Enter the terrorist attacks of September 11th. Engineered by the fundamentalist group in Jihad, al-Qaida and leader Osama Bin Laden. Everyone was terrified (also grieving, broken and any number of other earnest and normal emotions). But terror was the word of the day. Terror was the motivator. We were so terrified in fact, that we began giving up our rights almost immediately. So let's say, hypothetically of course, that our government had ties with Bin Laden and his terrorist cells. Connections with the CIA perhaps. Lets just say that for a shot in the dark, our great president appoint - I mean elect - needed a reason to invade the oil rich regions of the Middle East. His guys know this little group, they've worked with them before and use him for propagandist material whenever it suits them. Like the new tape set to be released soon. Convenient timing? Perhaps, but it always seems so convenient, doesn't it?

Back to reality our hypothetical situation, Lets say, again just for fun, that our President was called upon to continue the legacy of hard work to gain political and economical control over the world. The globalization, or New World Order was left in his capable hands, a legacy of his father to be finished by the son*. Bush Jr, AKA "Dubya" being the dolt that he is, was unable to maintain control over anything, much less over foreign governments. What more could be expected of a man who has bankrupted every company he's touched? A key part in taking over the world, as it were, is maintaining political manipulation to gain, keep and control the support of the people. Popular opinion must be held in the highest of regards, a failure in public relations equals political devastation for all entities. Bush Jr. had a rocky start as president. Between questions as to the validity of his election, and rumors about him brushing off presidential duties in lieu of lavish vacations, his popular support started dwindling just about the time as his inauguration.

However, Dubya had the support of the people just shortly after the Twin Towers fell. Not just from our own country, but sympathies from around the world came rolling in like thunder on a hot summer day. There's nothing like a "[...]common enemy to unite us." As brilliantly pointed out by National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. It didn't take long however, for his popularity to slide down the proverbial drain once again. More questions came about his vacation habit when he should have been looking at National Security alerts and international threats by terrorists. Even more questions came about the event itself, the man Osama Bin Laden, and how the president handled the tragedy. The probe into Iraq as both a hotbed of al-Qaida activity and Saddam having weapons of mass destruction were thinly veiled attempts at a justification for war.

What would the logical, hypothetical reaction be to such a public relations nightmare? The Patriot Act, of course! Let's monitor our citizens, find out what they're really saying. It was passed in 2001, granting our law enforcement the right to tap phone lines and monitor internet usage. The next great thought from the Bush administration was to slip the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal year 2007 in 2006, section 1042. That is, the use of martial law, at Bush's discretion. Martial law is a frightening thing, and has been limited in its use by Congress for that very reason. This new law, passed in 2006 overturns the 1878 law Posse Comitatus, which prohibits the use of regular military inside US borders. The Intellegence Daily has a wonderful article about this law.

With these new laws in place the hypothetical scenario of a New World Order is looking like its back under control of the government. But wait! The people of the United States have really begun to wake up to the lies in record numbers, and is screaming for impeachment at best - and to have the president and vice president charged with war crimes at worst. Well, our government can't have that, now can it? Five years after the start of the war, on or around the anniversary of that tragic day, September 11th, 2001, surfaces our old friend, Osama Bin Laden.

The usual means of popular opinion control have thus far failed our incompetent president, so terror and confusion is all they have left to use against the citizens of the United States, in a last ditch attempt to keep us in line. The reasons for going into Iraq, and now Iran have become so convoluted over the years that no one really knows why we went in the first place. Was it to stop terrorism and bring Bin Laden to justice? Was it to stop a dictator bent on using [imaginary] weapons of mass destruction? Was it to bring al-Qaida, the all encompassing evil group from taking over the Middle East? Some say yes to one, but not the others. Some say yes to all, and some maintain that we are still there fighting al-Qaida who are still somehow keeping a large stronghold over the Middle East. This last bit of theory is widely debated. A.J. Rossmillier has some thoughts about that on AMERICAblog. As does Andrew Tilghman as posted at Washington Monthly Back to the theory of world domination, what purpose would this new tape and new threats serve? Control. Bin Laden, whether alive, dead or comatose doesn't really matter to our government, and never really has. His face, and its connection to terror and tragedy serves up the much needed fear entree to solidify our reasons to maintain a war. The threat of a "special gift" is enough to rattle the boots of the most staunch Pro-Superior-Fire-Power-American. Of course, another purpose for an attack would be to enact the martial law already put into place.

Our rights are being restricted in this administration faster than the last century of congressional overrides. Martial law would be the nail in the coffin for Americans. But at least the Bush and Cronie critics would be silenced and prevented from using their rights of redress and even to overthrow a corrupt government if need be. The government that has total control over the military with no regard for laws and Constitutional rights, wins. Or so they think. History has proven otherwise in that regard.

Lets get on this logic train and ride it like its stolen, a recap. American government is corrupt and desires control of the world. It uses money, power and military force to get most of what it needs to attain power. Bush administration loses control of domestic and foreign manipulations, works with known terrorist to create a State of fear and panic, also justifies the invasion of stubborn country. The government again loses control of popular opinion domestically and globally, creates Patriot Act and overturns Posse Comitatus law. The government again creates a video of terror and possible new threat to US citizens from terrorists which will allow for the actual use of martial law, to control citizens. Dos that about sum it up?

Remember, this is all just hypothetical folks. If I were to speak to the president however I would ask him one question. "To what ends Mr. President, to what ends?

*Although the climb to global power and corporotacracy started long before Bush Sr. was president, This fact should be noted.

"Leading up to the first Gulf War, on September 11, 1990, President Bush addressing a joint session of Congress stated: "Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective — a New World Order — can emerge: a new era"[15]

With these words President Bush gave the order to start the military action which would later be known as the Gulf War."

The fact that the attack on the Twin Towers happened exactly 11 years to the day of the initial attack on the Middle East by our Government does not go unnoticed. In fact, the bombings of Iraq had never really stopped from the Gulf War to the Iraq War.

Stupid doesn't begin to explan it.

I've been keeping tabs on one of those pro-war pro-Bush groups that have their panties in a twist because the nation is screaming for peace and impeachment. I just can't stand it anymore. The mindset ranges from scary brainwashed Hitler's youth SS soldiers to just plain stooopid. If you know what I mean.

The rational behind their actions and words and justifications make no sense at all. Its clear that they have little knowledge of history outside of the US, or perhaps just an extremely limited historical and political viewpoint because no one bothered to teach them anything that might make America sound like a bad place, at any point in time. Or perhaps, much like the far right wing fundamentalist religious groups, they've got some wires loose somewhere and are incapable of understanding anything they haven't already been force fed by people of a like mind.

Whatever their problem is, its a problem. There is a difference in my opinion between supporting the current administration, the war, or whatever political view point one has - and quite another to go on a witch hunt for anyone who disagrees with you so you can have a "moonbat bashing party".

Of course, as time moves forward, and more and more people become discontented with the president, the administration, the war and everything in between, the more these right wing conservatives for violence feel the need to resort to typical ad hominem abusives to try and cripple the voices of the rest of the country. This tactic is not a new one, and was written about quite skillfully by Jack Hitt in an essay called "The Marketplace of Ideas"

"The one tactic that has yielded the best results though, is to enfeeble entire arguments by destroying the reputation of the most prominent person making them. The fallacy of the ad hominem argument has been around since before classical rhetoricians named it, but this administration has made it a mainstay of contemporary politics. Al Gore is now commonly known to have boasted that he "invented the internet," even though those words were artfully put in his mouth. By the exact same tactic, John Kerry went from Vietnam hero to wartime opportunist, while Howard Dean was branded mentally unbalanced on teh basis of a single phoneme. After Paul O'Neill published his tell-all book, allegations of treason began to float, claiming that documents he took with him were classified (they weren't). John Murtha is being described as "dotty." When Bill O'Reilly hears an argument he can't answer, he calls the person "kooky" and then announces he will not engage the position precisely because the speaker is nuts. [essay cont's...]"

These arguments are precisely what bother me so much when I read the message board forums and articles, and particularly the blog pages of those involved with these groups. It bothers me, but it also makes me laugh. The idea that they can't come up with anything better than a tired old "commie" insult, or some machismo war cry similar to a gorilla in heat tickles me to no end.

On the other hand, this is how hate groups are started. The sheer paranoia that oozes from these people about the "evil lefties" (those being anyone who doesn't agree lock-step with their positions). The comical rants about communism, socialism, anarchy and the group that really gets their goat, the black bloc, are made even funnier because the person ranting on about it is such an alarmist that they've gotten themselves all confused about who's who and what's what.

With confusion like that, no wonder they support a president like Bush. They have the same mentality. And I don't mean in a political sense.

Also, it should be noted that most (not all) of the members in said group have some sort of connection with a hard-line Christian church. They are conservative to a fault, intolerant to the extreme, and scared out of their minds. They don't like Gays, Liberals, Democrats, Pagans, Muslims, foreigners...basically anyone.

These are the type of people that would travel to a foreign country (OK, I'm pushing it here, I don't think many of them would actually want to travel outside of their blessed United States) and refuse to even try to speak the native language. Why? Because American is better. So everyone should speak American English. Thats is to say, even the type of English spoken abroad (you know, people with the "funny accents") isn't good enough. You gotta speak English! The way we do it here in America y'all!

Then there is the pro war aspect that bothers me. It isn't laughable, not even for a moment. I'm neither pro-war nor anti-war on general terms. I'm anti-this war. But generally speaking I can see that there is a time and place for war. I'm definitely not a "peacenik" by any stretch of the imagination. But I'm also not gung ho about war, should we get into one (that is justifiable).

Its not a football game, we're not standing in a stadium with beer and pretzels rooting for the home team to bomb the shit out of the other team. People are dying, on both sides. People who have nothing to do with the war in the first place. Civilians who get caught in the middle of some horrific war zone...

I certainly don't start rooting for another war before the first one is even done with yet, as some of the pro-war folks are doing. Its eerily Orwellian. Bin Laden is the enemy. Al Quieda is the enemy. Hussein is the enemy. Iraq is the enemy. Iran is the enemy.

I'm sorry, who are we fighting again, and whats the reason this time?

Back to the groups of people who disturb me...The other part that I simply don't get is these people hook up with law enforcement act like goody two shoes, but as soon as the police tur their back, they're assaulting people. And usually women, young girls, or old ladies.

Oh wait, how dumb am I? That makes perfect sense. Law enforcement has enough inherent problems that teaming up with groups like this seems so natural. Like perfectly matched dance partners. I'd wager a bet that these folks could get on with their assault right in front of the police, and the anti-war protester would be the one to get arrested for it anyway.

The blind nationalistic pride that tows he party line so well is abundant in these groups - so abundant in fact that it makes one wonder if they aren't being urged on quietly by our government, if not outright supported by it. All while the other groups are being hit with fines on a daily basis for organizing rallies.

“When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” Sinclair Lewis - corrected because I royally messed up the quote.

Sure sounds like the current administration and its ardent followers to me.