connecting*the*dots

I highly doubt Ron Paul or Chuck Hagel will make it through the Republican primaries, but if one of them were to represent the GOP, I’d have a bunch to think about.

And Dave is right; what’s with the protective, uber-patriotic attitude projected by Wolf Blitzer? Who is he pandering to? Are there really Americans out there that still think that US foreign policy over the past 50 years — particularly policy regarding the Middle East — didn’t in the very least contribute to a perfect storm of blowback on 9/11?

It must be a comfy place to own a world view where the US government operates around the world (and at home) with pure, egalitarian intent.

UPDATE: Ron Paul was asking great questions regarding Iraq prior to Shock and Awe. (h/t to Doc Searls)

(originally uploaded by slight clutter)

From the handling of Katrina to the Sean Bell shooting, it’s a safe bet to say that if Martin Luther King Jr. were alive today, he’d still be a busy man. Now, what if he were here and once again dipped into the part of his ministry that really scared the FBI and US government — his take on US foreign policy?

What do you think his perspective would be on the Iraq occupation? Personally speaking, I don’t think he’d acquiesce to it fitting neatly within the context of the War on Terror.

From “Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence,” a speech delivered on April 4th, 1967 at a meeting of Clergy and Laity Concerned at Riverside Church in New York City… with a few alterations:

I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other choice. I join with you in this meeting because I am in deepest agreement with the aims and work of the organization which has brought us together: Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Iraq. The recent statement of your executive committee are the sentiments of my own heart and I found myself in full accord when I read its opening lines: “A time comes when silence is betrayal.” That time has come for us in relation to Iraq.

The truth of these words is beyond doubt but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government’s policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one’s own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover when the issues at hand seem as perplexed as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty; but we must move on.

Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak. And we must rejoice as well, for surely this is the first time in our nation’s history that a significant number of its religious leaders have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm dissent based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history. Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movement well and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us.

Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Iraq, many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns this query has often loomed large and loud: Why are you speaking about war, Dr. King? Why are you joining the voices of dissent? Peace and civil rights don’t mix, they say. Aren’t you hurting the cause of your people, they ask? And when I hear them, though I often understand the source of their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have not really known me, my commitment or my calling. Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live.

In the light of such tragic misunderstandings, I deem it of signal importance to try to state clearly, and I trust concisely, why I believe that the path from Dexter Avenue Baptist Church — the church in Montgomery, Alabama, where I began my pastorate — leads clearly to this sanctuary tonight.

I come to this platform tonight to make a passionate plea to my beloved nation. This speech is not addressed to Baghdad or to the insurgents. It is not addressed to Iran or to Syria.

Nor is it an attempt to overlook the ambiguity of the total situation and the need for a collective solution to the tragedy of Iraq. Neither is it an attempt to make the Sadr loyalists or the Sunni insurgents paragons of virtue, nor to overlook the role they can play in a successful resolution of the problem. While they both may have justifiable reason to be suspicious of the good faith of the United States, life and history give eloquent testimony to the fact that conflicts are never resolved without trustful give and take on both sides.

Tonight, however, I wish not to speak with Baghdad and the insurgents, but rather to my fellow Americans, who, with me, bear the greatest responsibility in ending a conflict that has exacted a heavy price on both continents.

[…]

Listen to the complete, original speech.

(originally uploaded by UsokChoe)

Newsweek
Mao & Stalin, Osama & Saddam
By Fareed Zakaria

[…]

I’m not sure the president actually believes in the transnational threat of a “Shiite crescent.” If he does, why would he have invaded Iraq and handed it over to another group of Shiite extremists? (The parties that rule Iraq — and whose militias are killing people — are conservative, religious Shiites, often with ties to Iran.) In fact, Iraqi Shiites are different from Iranian Shiites. They have separate national agendas and interests. To conflate them into one group, and then to toss in Sunni Arab extremists as comrades in arms, is bad policy. The world of Islam is extremely diverse. We should recognize and act on this diversity — between Shiites and Sunnis, Persians and Arabs, Asians and Middle Easterners — and most especially between moderates and radicals. But instead the White House is lumping Chechen separatists in Russia, Pakistani-backed militants in India, Shiite politicians in Iraq and Sunni jihadists in Egypt all together as one worldwide movement. This is, of course, exactly what Osama bin Laden has argued all along. But why is Bush making bin Laden’s case?

Why? Well, it’s not because Bush is the fucking village idiot. Baudelaire was probably a lot closer to the truth of the matter with this timeless quote:

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.

Bush is making bin Laden’s case because he’s fulfilling the neo-conservative agenda: a destabilized middle-east to fuel our military industrial complex and position the US as a long-term player in the struggle for natural resources.

In order for all of that to happen and continue on into the unforeseen future, the PNAC cronies needed a larger than life enemy to scare the living shit out of we, the people.

And 9/11 fell into their laps.

Bush isn’t a failed president; he’s a successful neo-con lapdog.

(via Yahoo!)

Why I started my Chomsky indulgence with Understanding Power and not this digestible gem I’ll never know.

Uncle Sam is a brilliant pocket reference of Noam Chomsky’s world view, specifically his unflinching criticism of US foreign policy. His genius with linguistics provides him the means to absolutely tear apart the propaganda surrounding isms, bringing the conversation and arguments back to the table of reality. By comparing declassified government files, public policy and geopolitical events occurring between the early 1940’s to 1992, Chomsky cuts directly through the posturing of the US to frame cause and effect in the struggle for global power.

The man is fearless. He critically deconstructs policy from within the sovereign US to expose the post-WWII new world order policies of US planners — clearly describing how the Third World has been shaped to remain the peasant working class via neo-Nazi techniques of torture and intimidation, satisfying the needs of the US investor class.

His arguments are completely lucid and relevant in today’s world, even though it was published in the early nineties. Want an example? Keep an eye on the US propaganda regarding the “left-wing rhetoric” of Hugo Chavez. The BBC is already picking up the US talking points of Venezuela elections being rigged. Chomsky describes these US tactics in detail.

Chomsky’s take on US indoctrination of its citizens to contributing productively to pure capitalism is classic, as he tackles complicit participants from the mainstream media to academia. Just as stinging is his perspective on the marginalization of 80% of our population, which reminded me a bit of the 5% Nation, but without the optimism.

Here’s a section about the US in a Rent-A-Thug role (remember, this was written during the original Gulf War conflict with George H.W. Bush in charge):

[…]

“In any confrontation, each participant tries to shift the battle to a domain in which it’s most likely to succeed. You want to lead with your strength, play your strong card. The strong card of the United States is force—so if we can establish the principle that force rules the world, that’s a victory for us. If, on the other hand, a conflict is settled through peaceful means, that benefits us less, because our rivals are just as good or better in that domain.

Diplomacy is a particularly unwelcome option, unless it’s pursued under the gun. The US has very little popular support for its goals in the Third World. This isn’t surprising, since it’s trying to impose structures of domination and exploitation. A diplomatic settlement is bound to respond, at least to some degree, to the interests of the other participants in the negotiation, and that’s a problem when your positions aren’t very popular.

As a result, negotiations are something the US commonly tries to avoid. Contrary to much propaganda, that has been true in Southeast Asia, the Middle East and Central America for many years.

Against this background, it’s natural that the Bush administration should regard military force as a major policy instrument, preferring it to sanctions and diplomacy (as in the Gulf crisis). But since the US now lacks the economic base to impose “order and stability� in the Third World, it must rely on others to pay for the exercise—a necessary one, it’s widely assumed, since someone must ensure a proper respect for the masters. The flow of profits from Gulf oil production helps, but Japan and German-led continental Europe must also pay their share as the US adopts the “mercenary role,� following the advice of the international business press.

The financial editor of the conservative Chicago Tribune has been stressing these themes with particular clarity (William Neikirk, “We are the World’s Guardian Angelsâ€? 9/9/90) We must be “willing mercenaries,â€? paid for our ample services by our rivals, using our “monopoly powerâ€? in the “security marketâ€? to maintain “our control over the world economic system.â€? We should run a global protection racket, he advises, selling “protectionâ€? to other wealthy powers who will pay us a “war premium.”

This is Chicago, where the words are understood: if someone bothers you, you call on the Mafia to break their bones. And if you fall behind in your premium, your health may suffer too.

To be sure, the use of force to control the Third World is only a last resort. The IMF is a more cost-effective instrument than the Marines and the CIA if it can do the job. But the “iron fist� must be poised in the background, available when needed.

Our rent-a-thug role also causes suffering at home. All of the successful industrial powers have relied on the state to protect and enhance powerful domestic economic interests, to direct public resources to the needs of investors, and so on—one reason why they are successful. Since 1950, the US has pursued these ends largely through the Pentagon System (including NASA and the Department of Energy, which produces nuclear weapons). By now we are locked into these devices for maintaining electronics, computers and high-tech industry generally.

Reaganite military Keynesian excesses added further problems. The transfer of resources to wealthy minorities and other government policies led to a vast wave of financial manipulations and a consumption binge. But there was little in the way of productive investment, and the country was saddled with huge debts: government, corporate, household and the calculable debt of unmet social needs as the society drifts towards a Third World pattern, with islands of great wealth and privilege in a sea of misery and suffering.

When a state is committed to such policies, it must somehow find a way to divert the population, to keep them from seeing what’s happening around them. There are not many ways to do this. The standard ones are to inspire fear of terrible enemies about to overwhelm us, and awe for our grand leaders who rescue us from disaster in the nick of time.

That has been the pattern right through the 1980’s, requiring no little ingenuity as the standard device, the Soviet threat, became harder to take seriously. So the threat to our existence has been Qaddafi and his hordes of international terrorists, Grenada and its ominous air base, Sandinistas marching on Texas, Hispanic narcotraffickers led by the arch-maniac Noriega, and crazed Arabs generally. Most recently it’s Saddam Hussein, after he committed his sole crime—the crime of disobedience—in August 1990. It has become more necessary to recognize what has always been true: that the prime enemy is the Third World, which threatens to get “out of control.�

These are not laws of nature. The processes, and the institutions that engender them, could be changed. But that will require cultural, social and institutional changes of no little movement, including democratic structures that go far beyond periodic selection of representatives of the business world to manage domestic and international affairs.”

[…]

Exactly.

Okay, I’m off to read Cluetrain again. I call this “gray matter iteration.” ;-)

I’m An American

At one time in my life, I would even say that I was blindly proud and patriotic.

I grew up watching The Lone Ranger and John Wayne movies on WOR re-runs on Saturday afternoons. My neighborhood was full of sprawling lawns and happy families. The American dream, right?

Well, eventually I grew up, realizing that things aren’t always what they seem to be.

Over the years, I’ve become exposed to a cross-section of people with varied backgrounds, perspectives and experiences. These breadcrumbs of my travels — mixed in with my own experiences — have made me realize the truth of what being a citizen of this most powerful nation entails:

The benefits of our common goodness, as well as the baggage of our wrongful intent, is what we must continue to evolve towards enlightenment, otherwise, such power can go unchecked.

Historically, American’s dedication to the creation of democratic institutions, producing innovative life-altering government and laws, as well as products, services, medicines, the internet; all have been inspirations to other nations on the face of this planet.

Unfortunately, the DNA of our mafia-style history of murder, slavery and unchecked capitalism has seeped into most of these democratic institutions, whether it be through industrial lobbyists, foreign policy or corporate conglomerates and deregulation.

9/11 changed a lot for me.

I was living in Park Slope, Brooklyn on September 11, 2001. After the attack, my outwardly-facing patriotism far exceeded my formative peek. I shopped for hours, in sold-out stores, looking for a flag to place in my father’s car window. I mean, those were my neighbors, my countrymen that perished in a blink of an eye or worse, over hours leading up to a leap out of a 85th storey window.

But during the months leading up to the Iraq Occupation, my perspective of this nation — more specifically, this administration — went straight into the shitter. My belief in our government and our constitutional processes came to a screeching halt.

I pulled a 180.

The Flip

There’s a reason my blog has its current palette and why I refuse to buy any more blue or red clothes. It’s that sickly, deep with me. Our country hasn’t been a democracy since the end of WWII. Our leaders are heading into the 50th year of a post-WWII plan to create a New World Order.

• Why do you think the Third World can’t evolve out of its poverty ridden, corrupt, AIDS infested, pushover status?
• Why do you think we continue to run rough-shot in Latin America?
• Why do you think we invaded Vietnam?
• Why do you think we’re in Iraq?

A Conversation From “Network”

Arthur Jensen: [to Howard] They say I can sell anything; I’d like to try to sell something to you.

Arthur Jensen: It is the international system of currency which determines the vitality of life on this planet. THAT is the natural order of things today. THAT is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today. And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature. And YOU WILL ATONE. Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale? You get up on your little 21-inch screen and howl about America, and democracy. There is no America; there is no democracy. There is only IBM, and ITT, and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today.

Arthur Jensen: You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won’t have it. Is that clear? You think you’ve merely stopped a business deal? That is not the case. The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back. It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity. It is ecological balance. You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations; there are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems; one vast, interwoven, interacting, multivaried, multinational dominion of dollars.

Arthur Jensen: The world is a business, Mr. Beale; it has been since man crawled out of the slime. Our children will live, Mr. Beale, to see that perfect world in which there’s no war or famine, oppression or brutality - one vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock - all necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused. And I have chosen you, Mr. Beale, to preach this evangelic.

Howard Beale: Why me?

Arthur Jensen: Because you’re on television, dummy. Sixty million people watch you every night of the week, Monday through Friday.

Howard Beale: I have seen the face of God.

Arthur Jensen: You just might be right, Mr. Beale.

Any of that sound familiar? Up until the past few weeks, I had my doubts that we’d *ever* regain the potential of our great Republic… And then Patrick Fitzgerald finally spoke… And then the Democrats grew a pair. Something happened to me…

I became somewhat optimistic again.

This is my current mental model regarding the state of our nation. We’re pragmatically moving in the right direction.

• The blogosphere is holding corruption accountable
• The mainstream media is beginning to do their jobs
• Discourse is rampant
• Indictments are being served
• Technologists are decentralizing media more and more with each passing day

We’re slowly moving towards democracy, slowly moving towards our common Republic… but we still need to take it up a notch.

• We need to remove ourselves from Iraq
• We need to start developing progressive solutions to our issues of poverty, education, health care and foreign policy
• We need to create alternate forms of fuel
• We need to feel comfortable in that uneasy role of rapid change and evolution
• We need to hold the hands of corporate America in order to break down the old business models of the 20th century, and help instill collaborative, open business models that leverage the best aspects of capitalism, the best aspects of innovation, the best aspects of humanity
• We need to become global citizens

We need to be we, indivisible to the utmost degree.

I’m really trying to walk this walk… hard. Are you?

Until we’re all there, I’ll continue rooting for the Jets and the Suns, eating Pumpkin Pie and Broccoli and washing it down with an OJ and Lime juice smoothie. Why you ask?

Because I’m an American.

Every time this commercial airs, I want to kick in my television.

It’s driving me absolutely crazy. This is a perfect example of what’s wrong with America, or better put, how corporate America brainwashes our population. Instead of me describing the spot, take a look at the storyboard and the spot itself.

How blatant is this messaging? The guy uses a university branded card to help him get through college, a business card for his first job, an Amazon card "scores" his girlfriend and bridges him over to his wife on a honeymoon with a Continental card. As he places his wife on the bed, she turns into their baby and a Disney card slips into his wallet. The spot ends with him fishing with the grandkids, as an AARP card falls into place.

On top of it all, that guy from Five for Fighting drops a ridiculously pathetic verse to coat Americana over the presentation:

I’m twenty-two for a moment
And she feels better than ever
And we’re on fire
Making our way back from Mars
I’m thirty-three for a moment
I’m still the man, but you see I’m a they
A kid on the way
A family on my mind
Half time goes by
Suddenly you’re wise
Another blink of an eye
Sixty-seven is gone
The sun is getting high
We’re moving on…

So, why do you think this country is so deep in debt, with the average citizen carrying $26,000 on their shoulders. Why do you think the West is perceived as materialistic and a bastion against anything indigenous?

Big corporations, banks and government have been running this game for years, and it doesn’t stop at our borders. As the stakes are raised internationally, credit cards and advertising are replaced by economic hitmen, driving up costs for foreign governments to modernize infrastructure in our never ending search for natural resources and empire building. We know that, say, a Venezuela can’t pay us (oops, I mean the World Bank) back, so once we (oops, I mean global contractors like Haliburton) entrench them in debt, we trade debt relief for a gun to the political forehead of each country. It’s simply corporate growth at any cost:

• The American citizen’s natural resources = hard earned money; once stolen, it adds to corporate and banking wealth, while reducing our ability to choose our own
  "productive" paths to fit our personal needs
• Foreign natural resources = sovereign earth resources; once stolen, it adds to
  corporate and bank wealth, reducing sovereign independence by erasing debt as a political chess piece

Did you see the Bush/Blair African debt reduction press conference the other day?

It’s all such a shell game.

It was around 1989 that I read Six Days of the Condor — a perfect story for an 18 year-old, chock full of deceit, murder, paranoia, sex, intrigue, spies. For some reason — possibly my attention span at the time — the end of the book threw me for a loop. So tonight, I kicked back with my Netflix choice of the week and watched the film adaptation: Three Days of the Condor.

Three words: Rent. it. now.

It was made 28 years ago, yet the plot line has come to life in eerie fashion over the last few years. I don’t want to ruin the movie for you, so if you are going to rent it, don’t read on.

Condor (played by Robert Redford) is a spy, and per chance, misses a hit on his office that leaves the entire office of seven dead. After some brilliant screenwriting, we come to find out that one of his previous reports, sent off to Langley as usual, hit a nerve within a secret faction of the CIA that just happened to be playing war games concerning the overthrow of an unstable regime in the Middle East in order to gain control of oil reserves.

Sure, the US has been meddling with numerous foreign spots over the past 50 years to keep a stranglehold on power, but shivers the size of nine inch nails traveled down my spine just the same.

The rogue CIA unit ordered the execution of the entire office after reading Condor’s spot-on investigative report, so he does the only thing he can and goes on the run to plan his next step. After outwitting numerous suits over the course of the film, he ends up confronting the CIA Director directly in front of the New York Times office in Manhattan.

After a quick verbal sparring over the morality of what our government was doing, Condor tells the Director that the story is out and the Times will be publishing it all. The film ends with the CIA Director asking Condor,

“What if they don’t print it, then where will you go?”

Redford’s face drops a bit as the last frame freezes on him.

Does Our Press Get Squeezed?

Forget the uncanny plot line that syncs up with the recent activity in Iraq (and the wild coincidence of the main NYC CIA office being in the WTC) all together. It’s eerie to see this on film, but I’m more interested with the final jab.

I often wonder how free our press really is. Our government has indoctrinated us to speak so harshly against media practices around the world, especially during the eighties and in the midst the cold war (when I was an impressionable teenager). The old “look, over there!” trick has done the trick to build a sycophantic capitalist society of productive worker bees.

Here’s something to ponder: Did you know that congress is on the verge of passing unprecedented legislation, allowing media entities to merge with minimal limitations? Can you imagine what this could mean in an Orwellian novel? Or in this capitalist society where an individual, like Bill Gates, has more wealth than the bottom 45 percent of American households combined?

Less and less competitive news media = a singular perspective.

• Advertising revenue begins to drive editorial premise and journalistic objectivity.
• Agendas are set and met.
• A top down, targeted media push (via news, marketing, advertising, programming, etc.) becomes the mainstay of communication operations.

Our society has evolved from watching the news on TV at 6 and 11 (1970’s) to digesting news 24 hours a day on TV, radio, and the internet (1990’s) to having access to thousands of individual perspectives blasting on blogs (present). So with all of this newfound access we should feel both informed and empowered, right?

To quote Mel Gibson from Conspiracy Theory, “That’s what they want us to think.”

For even the most advanced netizen, information technology is still a hindrance when trying to decipher noise from news, and fiction from fact. Simple to use, individually operated publishing channels are now available to the masses through blogging, but the reach to the majority is minimal at best as they’re presented in a non-digestible ecosystem.

I can easily imagine the power structure in this country thinking:

Let the kids play with their toys — be it bloggers broadcasting opinions based on theory or fact — no one will be able to tell the difference. No one will ever connect the dots even if they do find “truth.” The sheer amount of posts and opinions projected outwards will make all opinions null and void.

Our organized, top-down messaging is so strong via advertising, marketing, media, etc., that the bottom-up representation of the people will become lost in the noise of the the mainstream media, as well as in it’s own scattered presentation.

We’ll then use their information as data to feed our strategic messaging.

Americans have turned into thought veal over the past twenty-years. We’ve been tenderized perfectly to be devoured oh-so-nicely in an economic system that is set up to succeed only if the masses over-consume everything from food to entertainment to material goods to political punditry.

This is the boogie man that lives under my bed. I step on his throat when getting up each morning.

I came across an extremely well written article in Newsweek which eloquently supports my stance on US foreign policy (i.e. we’re now bullies and have thrown diplomacy to the wind).

On so many levels, Fareed Zakaria illuminates the wrong turns America has made under the present administration, which has practically ostracized us from both the majority of citizens and governments of the world. Our “go it alone” attitude can be justified simply through our standing as the lone superpower in the world, but in flexing such an option, Zakaria argues that not only do we create a poor perception of ourselves, but our actions contradict the positions of the democratic states we are supposedly attempting to support.

An example: Need an air-base in Turkey? Just bribe the government with billions of dollars of support to make it happen, but as a “democracy,” the Turkish government is actually trying to represent the will of it’s people — an overwhelming 90% of which are against the war in Iraq.

It’s schizophrenic at best.

I’m not doing Zakaria justice, read the article. We’re in a very tenuous position in world history.

Who the fuck is George Bush to urge Americans to call members of Congress to back a war with Iraq if UN policy isn’t put into effect soon enough?

Who and what defines soon enough… his approval rating?

The questions that surround the impetus and timing on going to war are outstanding to say the least. Bush seems to want to do daddy proud and finish the job over there, but of course it’s not that simple; I’m sure there are billions of dollars and a heap of control at stake.

This preemptive charge by W is a bit frightening… make that terrifying.

In ‘81, Israel took out a nuclear plant in Iraq supposedly being used to develop nuclear weapon material in a preemptive strike. The United States and the UN chastised Israel for the attack, though Israel might have been justified in attacking due to their proximity to Iraq, as they would probably be the likely first target if that capability ever came to pass.

What’s our excuse?

We’re now charging into Baghdad to take out Saddam, guns blazing down side streets and into bunkers. If Bush really wanted to be pro-active regarding the threat of terrorism, wouldn’t it make sense to curb our own actions around the world instead of inflaming them?

Forget justification, our intelligence is so limited, we don’t even know where the chemical weapons are (the ones that we helped develop), or if there are any even remaining.

And how are we going to find Saddam?

Our guys are going to think every Arab with a thick mustache and a cowboy hat is Saddam, shooting first and asking questions later. If Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction, he’ll be riding one bareback to Jerusalem like Major Kong in Dr. Strangelove while we’re searching for him in every downtown bazaar.

A lot of Americans will die in this invasion… and scores more civilians. I really hope we know what we’re doing, but unfortunately, Bush isn’t a beacon of reassurance.

I wish I could just write a pearl script that would automatically update his damn approval rating. I bet it’d give the UN at least six more months to complete their inspections.

the world has changed.
no shit, glad you’ve woken up.
we don’t all drink from the same fountain
or even from the same cup
but if the music’s right
and the air is clear
why confuse the good times
with political matters
we fear
nothing.
at all…
because "no fear" is a fucking brand
manufactured for morons
living in a testosterone dreamland
yeah, we’re all now awake
we now have an enemy to curse and blame
but do we really understand why
"they" burn our flag and name?
no.
but who cares?
we’ll bomb ‘em till they quit.
yeah that’s a solid tactic
a top five rotation hit
now all the brands are buzzing
pulling at our patriotic strings
the marketing is subtle
yet sick and deafening
"united" is just that
ready to serve you across the land
and since they’re so "united"
they want us to go lend a helping hand
because, you see, they’re "with us"
and not just a part of our verbal psyche
but what if their name was continental?
or fuddruckers?
or nike?
brand opportunity
awareness at an all time high
higher than they used to go
when consumers weren’t afraid to fly
so come on out and support ‘em
get the business back on track
while you’re at it buy a rolex
shit, get a new cadillac
because money is all that matters
to a society built on exploitation
i wonder what "those people" would say
if we opened up actual lines of communication?
yeah right…
too late…
it’s all about annihilation.