Bin Laden is Dead and We are Celebrating ?

[phloem]

Snark is appropriate when confronted by such absurdity as the budding OBL deather conspiracy. It is not rational and rational discourse is an utter waste of time when dealing with such ridiculous crap. It's like putting lipstick on a pig - does no good and pisses off the pig. Progressives need to lighten up and learn make more fun of the bullshit around us. And that includes "progressive" bullshit like 911 trutherism. Oy. Y'all are so fracking grim that sympathetic people tune you out. And I say that as one who got his start as a ban-the-bomber in 1960. Never met anyone with less of a sense of humor than a Stalinist, and there were a fair number of them in the peace movement in those days. LSD did those asshats in. But I digress.

PS: I'll grant you that the Moon landing remark was a bit of a cheap shot.

I'm not one to jump on conspiracy bandwagons, but your casual dismissal also doesn't sit well with me. From what you wrote, people are better off just accepting the government, military, corporate, and media version of events, and moving on to the next charade of lies, deception, and distortion. Do you really think the government has told the truth about bin Laden's death? Moreover, some relatively clear-headed, professionally experienced individuals have questioned the government's version of the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, and most of the objections raised to those questions or hypotheses sound a lot like yours: you're idiots, and we need to move on. Laws were broken (e.g., the Bush administration) but "I don't believe in looking back, we need to look forward" (Obama paraphrased).

What part of truth frightens you, and why must you malign and ridicule others who aren't yet convinced of the "official" versions of events? Do you not think the future of any society wouldn't be better served knowing the full truth about those events? Or, is moving into a future obscured by past injustice and crime just fine with you? I assert you can't heal, "move on," and create sounder relationships without full acknowledgement of the truth. Burying the truth in lies and justifications is really what pisses off the pig. You yourself sound a lot like a Bible-thumping fundamentalist to me! Just take the word of ... well, who exactly?

[Star Man]

Phloem, your response is brilliant. Incisive. Many citizens today live in a dream-state, unconscious, in a trance facilitated by the media and transmitted by "talking heads" and pundits and mavens. Here's a comment I made to a thread today about horror movies that accurately describes the trance most citizens live in. Snarkiness is a symptom of trance.

"I get my horror from reading the news. Flesh-eating zombies in the U.S. Congress feed off the middle class and the poor. The Republican Party and the Tea Party are slashers every bit as evil as Freddy Kruger. The U.S.A.F. Predator drones and Hellfire missiles are serial killers. The media are brain-eating monsters. The billionaire Koch brothers and their ilk are alien invaders subjugating America. The system in its entirety is a murdering Transformer that has converted a progressive ideal, the humanitarian democratic nation, America, into a death machine that kills with impunity and without justice throughout the world. In this horror movie, the killer is hidden and the lighting is so bad its difficult to see it. The bodies lie everywhere: Twisted, shattered children, wedding parties blasted, whales starving, whole ecosystems oil-befouled, massive Texas-sized garbage patches in the middle of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

"Horror movies are the way the collective unconscious presents us with the horror of the reality we live that we may perhaps wake up and fix it."

[phloem]

Star Man,
and thank you for aptly illustrating that what for so many in this country passes as "normal" is nothing less than utter insanity. No need for the details here, but the abhorrence I have for the malevolence perpetrated "in our names" is an ongoing bludgeoning mess of a horror movie. Those who pass for "leaders" yet continue to lobby for, legislate, and vote to fund such outright crimes against humanity are beyond contempt, with no shred of humanity or compassion left whatsoever. Killing bin Laden accomplished nothing in the way of ascending from the depths of depravity that pass for American foreign (and domestic) policy.

[battindown]

Chanting "USA" and displaying joy over the death of any other human being is not something that is anything about which we should be proud. Frankly, it is disgusting. I'm not saying that the world is not better off without certain evil people who use misuse religion to justify killing others. We have enough examples right here in our nation.

Speaking of hate speech, it is time for all of us to become much more respectful of Christians. Bashing Christians is no less mean spirited than calling any other religious group by obnoxious names. For some reason West County has become increasingly hostile to the beliefs and presence of followers of Jesus. This is not PC. As for my friends who are fond of using "Jesus Christ" as an explicative, try substituting it with "Yahweh".

You yourself sound a lot like a Bible-thumping fundamentalist to me!

[David8]

Goodness gracious Rich, I'm really surprised you would have such a compliant view - is that really what you think, or are you just trying to provoke us? Just curious: on what basis do you form your beliefs that the official story about OBL is true or mostly so - what sources of information specifically, and how do you evaluate them?

I seem to think others have shown us many provocative things better than my ranting could, so I'll post a few more links for the curious and serious student.

"The Power Of Nightmares"

Short Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbkvz4hezmU
The Power of Nightmares Part 1-Baby it's Cold Outside: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5lByw7kvS0
The Power of Nightmares Part 2 - The Phantom Victory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ai6LhnW4Oa8
The Power of Nightmares Part 3 - The Shadows in the Cave: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HvzR8w1z2g

Adam Curtis is an amazing documentary film-maker, who made the fairly well known BBC docu-series "The Century of The Self", about the impact of advertising on us, and it's roots in Edward Bernaise, a nephew of Freud who basically invented the modern science of propaganda. I recommend it highly. But in this context, he created another 3 part docu-series called "The Power Of Nightmares" about the modern history of the use of fabricated fearful bogeymen as tools of political control. (complete with Brian Eno in the soundtrack) It is a masterpiece.

[Glia]

How about if we bash and disrespect all types of superstition equally?

...
Speaking of hate speech, it is time for all of us to become much more respectful of Christians. Bashing Christians is no less mean spirited than calling any other religious group by obnoxious names. For some reason West County has become increasingly hostile to the beliefs and presence of followers of Jesus. This is not PC. As for my friends who are fond of using "Jesus Christ" as an explicative, try substituting it with "Yahweh".

You yourself sound a lot like a Bible-thumping fundamentalist to me!

[battindown]

How about if we bash and disrespect all types of superstition equally?

We realize you are deliberately being crass, offensive and intolerant. Perhaps you would benefit from reading Joseph Campbell's works on myths.

[phloem]

Chanting "USA" and displaying joy over the death of any other human being is not something that is anything about which we should be proud. Frankly, it is disgusting. I'm not saying that the world is not better off without certain evil people who use misuse religion to justify killing others. We have enough examples right here in our nation.

Speaking of hate speech, it is time for all of us to become much more respectful of Christians. Bashing Christians is no less mean spirited than calling any other religious group by obnoxious names. For some reason West County has become increasingly hostile to the beliefs and presence of followers of Jesus. This is not PC. As for my friends who are fond of using "Jesus Christ" as an explicative, try substituting it with "Yahweh".

You yourself sound a lot like a Bible-thumping fundamentalist to me!

Battindown - offending religious beliefs was not what I had in mind, but since you jumped to the conclusion that I was referring to "Christians," how is chiding others for basing their beliefs on faith (such as those in denial who trust government and media versions of reality), or on myths created thousands of years ago, "hate speech"? Moreover, who are you to decide who is truly Christian? I don't necessarily have a belief in the son of god, but many people who likewise refute the myths perpetuated through religious dogma live far more exemplary lives of compassion, love, respect, and kindness than do many of those who profess to be "followers" of Jesus Christ. Or haven't you been paying attention to national politics for the last few decades, what with so-called christians having no problem sentencing people to death, whether by bomb or lethal injection? Perhaps you should review Joseph Campbell before insulting others with your insinuations of hatred and bigotry, or your presumption that you know better than others the foundations of love, respect, and tolerance.

[Glia]

No buddy, I'm just pointing out the truth and offering an equal-treatment politically correct alternative.

Every culture has myth and superstition. Most cultures do not realize that they are operating per myth and superstition. They are quick to dismiss or belittle the myth/superstition of other cultures, they refuse to recognize, much less acknowledge and examine, their own.

Here's a current example:
When the news of the San Francisco ballot initiative to ban male genital mutilation (circumcision) on minors was announced earlier this month, there was quite a lot of discussion, including on this board, about how male circumcision could not possibly be compared to female genital mutilation. After all, different body parts are cut! FGM removes more stuff! FGM is done to control women's sexual pleasure while circumcision is done for... um.... er.... cleanliness! FGM is done by black people in Africa in mud huts, while circumcision is done by white people in North America on the dining room table or in a hospital, depending on whether it is ritual or medicalized mutilation! They use scissors and knives, while we use a fancy clamp designed by mohels in the early 1900s and a scalpel... and sometimes scissors.
The truth is, female genital mutilation and male circumcision both have all the hallmarks of genital mutilation cultural traditions. Not coincidentally, they both come from the same part of the world (Africa and the Middle East) and similar cultures (patriarchical desert god warrior variety). While we are quick to decry and outlaw FGM, we cannot face the truth of our own male genital mutilation tradition, much less outlaw it as it should have been long ago.

If you want the whole story on the similarities between FGM and male circumcision, read this:
https://www.nocirc.org/symposia/third/hanny3.html

Yes, I am being intolerant. From what I've seen of our culture's myth and superstition, especially the patriarchical/dominator Abrahamic ones that are still unfortunately with us, they have caused nothing but death, destruction, suffering, and ruined lives. It's the fundamental cause of the entire binLaden scenario. Why should I tolerate that?

We realize you are deliberately being crass, offensive and intolerant. Perhaps you would benefit from reading Joseph Campbell's works on myths.

[Dixon]

I am celebrating the fact that I voted for a liar, and another puppet of the aristocracy...I'm embarrassed I even bothered to vote for him.

During the Presidential campaign I tried to reason with my liberal friends, right here on Wacco, pointing out the danger signs. I reminded them that they'd had such high hopes for Clinton who turned out to be just another shill for the ruling class, and now they had the same starry-eyed hopes about Obama. Mostly I received disrespect as a result. People seemed to see me as some kind of terrible cynic, instead of a realist. Now that Obama's fucked the world over in several different ways, some of you who voted for him against my advice are starting to come around. Most are still making excuses for him, saying the GOP forced him to do this or that and bla bla bla, but occasionally someone says "Damn, I voted for Obama and he too turned out to be corrupt." I salute you for your honesty, Nico.

[AllorrahBe]

Personally, I enjoy a snark attack every once in a while... keeps my attention focused!

oh sure We can.

[jbox]

It is unfortunate when snarkiness is substituted for rationality, because it discourages an open-minded examination of issues, especially issues where the truth appears to be hidden. We on the Progressive end of the American political spectrum cannot afford snarkiness, and sadly it is so often used as a weapon by the Conservative factions. America's involvement in the Middle East, Afghanistan, and Pakistan is fraught with duplicity and secrecy. If we follow the money, it is not complicated to unravel the basic plot: Create an enemy in an impoverished country, invade, and use the invasion and the created enemy as a justification for seizing ever more of the Gross National Product, all the while decreasing freedoms here in America. Snarkiness will not serve us well if we are ever to free ourselves from the yoke of corporatocratic exploitation.

So, polite snarkiness by you is OK, though?

[Star Man]

So, polite snarkiness by you is OK, though?

Hello, Jbox,

I read and re-read my comment and I just don't see the "polite snarkiness" you refer to. If you can help me, please do so. Thanks in advance. Starman

[jbox]

Hello, Jbox,

I read and re-read my comment and I just don't see the "polite snarkiness" you refer to. If you can help me, please do so. Thanks in advance. Starman

Oh, I guess your view of American foreign policy as one huge conspiracy by the neocons and the Trilateral Commission seems politely snarky to me, though it really is the Stalinist model. Remember that progressive leader? And to think that Obama is totally going along with it well, what can I say? I've been accused of being snarky on this site, BTW and I regard it as a badge of honor. You're welcome in arrears.

[Star Man]

Oh, I guess your view of American foreign policy as one huge conspiracy by the neocons and the Trilateral Commission seems politely snarky to me, though it really is the Stalinist model. Remember that progressive leader? And to think that Obama is totally going along with it well, what can I say? I've been accused of being snarky on this site, BTW and I regard it as a badge of honor. You're welcome in arrears.

JBox,

Thanks for the clarification. I regard my point of view as accurate, not snarky. However, the neocons and the Trilateral Commission are only a part of the corporatocracy. The corporatocracy is not a conspiracy, it's an overt, easily observable operation. Some of its actions are conspiratorial and covert, but the plan itself is there for all to see. It's a simple as this: At the end of Eisenhower's presidency the military budget was about $400 billion per year. At the end of the Vietnam invasion it was $800 billion. When the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan are added in to the direct budget and the indirect costs are included, the amount we spend today is about $1.2 Trillion. It's as plain as the numbers.

[podfish]

... I regard my point of view as accurate, not snarky. ....

as do all of God's other misguided children, I'm sure. Maybe it's unfair of me but there's something about the combination of what sounds to me like psych jargon and worldview, with a smattering of conspiracy claims, that seems kinda silly. I suppose, since you've apparently been immersed in it as a career for decades, it's unavoidable. I suppose my own career colors my writing too.

But quotes like "Thoughts like these become more difficult to think when our animal instincts cloud our cognitions, and that is precisely what the powerful count on." "Many citizens today live in a dream-state, unconscious, in a trance facilitated by the media" and some of the comments you've made (on other threads) that imply that the readers here aren't able to think clearly on their own bug the hell out of me. I don't know why more people don't find that aspect of pop psych more infuriating - I guess because most people assume they're on the side of those who see through the traps that are affecting the other poor souls. It's unfortunately a real common trend in public discussions. It attempts to infantilize the other party's point of view by denying that they control their own thoughts.

Lumping in the Trilateral Commission, the Builderbergers, or who else knows what highly-organized boogiemen there are out there in with what Eisenhower described as "the military-industrial complex" seems unnecessary. Simple self-interest on the parts of readily visible organizations explains what's happening just fine. I bet that whoever's -really- behind the Trilateral Commission is just using Bush, etc as puppets anyway... it's probably just a front.

[Barry]

...
But quotes like "Thoughts like these become more difficult to think when our animal instincts cloud our cognitions, and that is precisely what the powerful count on." "Many citizens today live in a dream-state, unconscious, in a trance facilitated by the media" and some of the comments you've made (on other threads) that imply that the readers here aren't able to think clearly on their own bug the hell out of me. I don't know why more people don't find that aspect of pop psych more infuriating - I guess because most people assume they're on the side of those who see through the traps that are affecting the other poor souls. It's unfortunately a real common trend in public discussions. It attempts to infantilize the other party's point of view by denying that they control their own thoughts.
...

Sure seems to me that large parts of the "right" are driven by fear, an animal instinct (and greed, which is related to fear). I'm sure the "liberal media" is both willingly and unwillingly contributes to spinning their own webs of reality as well, most of which is not that much dissimilar to the "right".

Many, many people are less sophisticated consumers of news than we are. And I know there's many webs of trance/unreality that I fall prey to.

I'm with Starman on this.

[David8]

as do all of God's other misguided children, I'm sure. Not everyone who has an informed opinion they are confident of is misguided...... .

EXACTLY - just follow the money and you'll see who is doing the most controlling - the round table groups are for the most part the instruments of power, not the source of it. I don't think you are really so far apart after all...

[podfish]

intelligent caring people like most folks on wacco slip into flame wars

?? sorry, saying "Jane, you ignorant slut" is starting a flame war. Just like not every opinion is as informed as its owner might hope, not every objection is as gentle as some might want. There's a long tradition of mild insults in political discourse. The brits have been great at it - we need more of it here. YMMV. As to whether psychology is "as real as anything in world events" I beg to differ. See some of Dixon's other threads for ideas about what's real. Neither economics or psychology are yet valid sciences. That's not to say that such disciplines have nothing to offer, but I find that people use principles from both (damn, I spelled principals wrong a few posts ago and it still bugs me) in inappropriate settings. SM has (not so much here, but on another thread) used pop psych jargon and attitudes to dismiss the points of views of others, and I find that (to use the language poorly myself) an attempt to deflect the argument, and far more disrespectful than a straightforward insult.
There's an admittedly subtle difference between pointing out how people can be caught in flawed thinking and dismissing them altogether as automatons being controlled by outside forces. I don't in the least believe that people are often rational or analytical - but it's a cheesy way to explain away why people don't seem to understand what's being done to them. Maybe I use that approach myself sometimes; that doesn't make it a particularly strong argument.

I don't think you are really so far apart after all...

maybe not on a political spectrum. But there's a huge difference between seeing our situation caused by emergent behavior of a bunch of individuals and being driven by malevelent and organized cabals. Depending on which is true different actions need to be taken if you want to improve the future. Sure, maybe that will turn out to be the case. It sure seems more satisfying to many people to seem so. I just don't see compelling evidence that it's true. Sagan's law - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - applies here. If an ant colony can self-organize then Wall Street 'crooks' can destroy our economy without coordinated overlords too.

[podfish]

intelligent caring people like most folks on wacco slip into flame wars

?? sorry, saying "Jane, you ignorant slut" is starting a flame war. Just like not every opinion is as informed as its owner might hope, not every objection is as gentle as some might want. There's a long tradition of mild insults in political discourse. The brits have been great at it - we need more of it here. YMMV. As to whether psychology is "as real as anything in world events" I beg to differ. See some of Dixon's other threads for ideas about what's real. Neither economics or psychology are yet valid sciences. That's not to say that such disciplines have nothing to offer, but I find that people use principles from both (damn, I spelled principals wrong a few posts ago and it still bugs me) in inappropriate settings. SM has (not so much here, but on another thread) used pop psych jargon and attitudes to dismiss the points of views of others, and I find that (to use the language poorly myself) an attempt to deflect the argument, and far more disrespectful than a straightforward insult.
There's an admittedly subtle difference between pointing out how people can be caught in flawed thinking and dismissing them altogether as automatons being controlled by outside forces. I don't in the least believe that people are often rational or analytical - but it's a cheesy way to explain away why people don't seem to understand what's being done to them. Maybe I use that approach myself sometimes; that doesn't make it a particularly strong argument.

I don't think you are really so far apart after all...

maybe not on a political spectrum. But there's a huge difference between seeing our situation caused by emergent behavior of a bunch of individuals and being driven by malevolent and organized cabals. Depending on which is true different actions need to be taken if you want to improve the future. Sure, maybe that will turn out to be the case. It sure seems more satisfying to many people to think so. I just don't see compelling evidence that it's true. Sagan's law - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - applies here. If an ant colony can self-organize then Wall Street 'crooks' can destroy our economy without coordinated overlords too.

[Star Man]

Psychology today is evidence-based, meaning it is an empirical science that measures its outcomes with well-researched, established assessment tools.

To assert that psychology is not a valid science is just plain foolish. I want to be clear, Podfish, that I believe what you say is foolish, I am not saying you are a foolish person. I am sure you are well-meaning and want the best for America.

What intrigues me is what threatens you and a few others on Wacco so much about the idea that human behavior could be motivated by unresolved childhood issues? I wonder too what you find so threatening about the idea that an American corporatocracy exists that manipulates public opinion for its own benefit? Please respond to these two questions. Please try not to attack me for asking them. Thanks in advance.

[phloem]

"If an ant colony can self-organize then Wall Street 'crooks' can destroy our economy without coordinated overlords too."

Your analogies are amusing and thought-provoking, if not quite apt. Yes, ant colonies are amazingly "self-organized," through hormonal and other chemical communication, the queen blinding the workers and warriors in the colony with "science." Perhaps the unifying chemistry of Wall Street (and many other "colonies" of capitalism) is greed - overlords aren't really necessary when the unifying principle is never questioned by the workers and warriors.

One weak point in the analogy is that humans, unlike ants, make conscious decisions. Such decisions include colluding to defraud the public (aka, the consumer). At some point, competition, legal or otherwise, renders the need for "overlords" moot - the greed demands alignment, playing by rules, illegal or not. Power, intractably linked to greed, drives decisions to arm the world beyond all reason -- are those decisions not made by a select group of individuals? What about fiscal and monetary policy? "Free" trade agreements? Do you think these decisions are made at random? I'd guess that lust for money and power (greed), in western culture, is as effective an overlord as any group of people could be. I don't see anything inappropriate about lumping those who know no master other than greed together as co-conspirators.

[podfish]

Psychology today is evidence-based, meaning it is an empirical science that measures its outcomes with well-researched, established assessment tools.

To assert that psychology is not a valid science is just plain foolish. I want to be clear, Podfish, that I believe what you say is foolish, I am not saying you are a foolish person. I am sure you are well-meaning and want the best for America.

What intrigues me is what threatens you and a few others on Wacco so much about the idea that human behavior could be motivated by unresolved childhood issues? I wonder too what you find so threatening about the idea that an American corporatocracy exists that manipulates public opinion for its own benefit? Please respond to these two questions. Please try not to attack me for asking them. Thanks in advance.

I can't tell whether that's an example of the drollest sense of humour I've seen for a while or not... I hope it is. To respond in kind: it's true, psychology - and for that matter economics - are rapidly becoming more rigorous as the years go by. I don't deny there can be some value in its study, though it's a lot more faddish than I like to see. But I'm puzzled why you seem to see that idea as a personal threat, to the point where you seem afraid I'll attack you for expressing it?? I'm wondering if you and those others who see conspiracies everywhere are influence by unresolved adolescent issues with a threatening adult world?? And why do you insist on projecting this fear on those of us expressing ideas that differ from yours? What prevents you from seeing that fear or some other submerged emotional factor from the past has little or nothing to do with the ideas I have?? Why constrain the options like that?

[David8]

Just like not every opinion is as informed as its owner might hope, not every objection is as gentle as some might want.....

As much as I roll my eyes at his ranting obnoxious style, I have to recommend Alex Jones documentaries as providing provocative food for thought on these topics - he's great at connecting dots - and even if he gets some of it wrong, he presents a compelling analysis that has me convinced on a number of broad strokes. Just use the discernment watching him that you would with anything else. I recommend:

The Fall Of The Republic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU
The Obama Deception: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw

Better still, and more uplifting - watch some David Icke:

David Icke - The Big Picture -16 Feb 2011: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnG8DhULTGs

And if you have not yet - PLEASE watch at least some of "The Power Of Nightmares" links posted above - this is very credible and illuminating to the specific "war on terror" context.

[Star Man]

What prevents you from seeing that fear or some other submerged emotional factor from the past has little or nothing to do with the ideas I have??

Podfish, I asked the question "what threatens you about the idea that human behavior could be motivated by unresolved childhood issues?" and you respond by asking what prevents me from seeing that past fear has nothing to do with the ideas you have? You have not responded directly to my question. Clearly, you have an opinion that fear has nothing to do with your ideas. So, I get it: your indirect answer to my question appears to be that what threatens you about the idea that human behavior could be motivated by unresolved childhood issues is that you hold the opinion that fear has nothing to do with your ideation.

Let me clarify why I hold the belief I do. A wealth of empirical research has verified that the emotional state a person is in affects the content of that person's thinking. When an angry state is induced in a subject, for example, that subject's thoughts will be measurably different from controls. Same with fear. I do not have an opinion on this matter, I have an empirically supported belief.

Podfish, I do not fear that you will attack me for my empirically supported belief. I asked you politely not to attack me, because I am hoping to have a rational discussion based on empirically supported data.

You also wrote "I can't tell whether that's an example of the drollest sense of humour I've seen for a while or not... I hope it is. To respond in kind...." The word "droll" means "quaintly amusing" or "surprising." I am struggling to see how my statement of fact that psychology is an empirical, evidence-based science could be considered quaintly amusing or even surprising. That seems odd, but what seems even odder is that you go on to say you will "respond in kind." So, apparently your assertion that "fear or some other submerged emotional factor from the past has little or nothing to do with the ideas I have" was intended to be droll, as in quaintly amusing. I agree with you completely, Podfish. Your assertion that fear from the past has nothing to do with your ideas is indeed quaintly amusing.

[podfish]

q.e.d.