Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Ain't it the truth?I feel sorry for those in America that are stumbling into the 21st century, into a world they don't really know. We are seeing historic change today- Asia is regaining its historical significance, and the US is retreating to a relative position of about 100 years ago, when it was one of several significant industrial powers, rather than the single power. This is going to be hard to take for many who fear and misunderstand such change.
Note: Though I question many things in my writing, none of it is meant as disrespect towards our current or fallen soldiers. If anything, I believe their sacrifice is a mis-allocation of some of the best and brightest minds of my generation. I simply think those brains could be better put to use elsewhere rather than as bullet-holders, and if we are going to put them on the battlefield, we better be damn sure that's the right thing to do.
July 4th has recently passed, and although we certainly reserve holidays like Memorial Day to honor our troops, Independence Day also is an enormous tribute to our forces abroad. As I sat watching my hometown's annual parade, soldiers with rifles and flags marched by, Huey helicopters flew over, and the people to get the biggest cheers were certainly the veterans, old and new. However, I couldn't help but wonder if these people really were fighting in my name, in the name of the people around me.
As I thought deeper about this whole question, I decided to take the war in Afghanistan as an example. Originally, this war was started in order to take revenge against Al Qaeda and find Bin Laden. This particular, early part of the mission was maybe fighting for "me", or most of the "me"'s who wanted to fight back after a direct attack on our soil. Nonetheless, now we are in a deep, complicated process of nation-building, with little to no way out. So are the American soldiers firing at young Afghan Taliban soldiers, or accidentally blowing up a few children here and there actually fighting for MY personal freedom? MY liberty? I'm not so sure.
So then who are our soldiers fighting and dying for? The Afghan people? That seems to be the only logical alternative, as the official mission of the U.S. military is to improve the Afghan way of life by getting rid of the Taliban and establishing better infrastructure. Though how many of them truly want us there, or feel they are safer in the long-term with all sorts of mechanized death flying over their heads every day? We have made such great strides in the economic and social infrastructure of Afghanistan, but I fail to give credit to the bombs or bullets for that progress.
How about a third alternative? Perhaps the U.S. military is fighting for America's interests abroad. Sure, we might say that we are trying to protect the liberties of other nations and establish democratic governments, but maybe there are underlying motives. I would be the last to bring up the tired old "oil" theory, but there are many complex issues in the Middle East or North Africa that a regional U.S. military presence can effect.
As I thought about these different perspectives, each seemed to tumble back upon one another. Some of these theories are certainly viable, but none seemed to fit the bigger picture for me. I think in many cases, through a number of books I've read of first-hand accounts of soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan, these soldiers simply fight for brotherhood, for the "man in the foxhole next to them", to use a famous quote. Their struggles as a unit are seen as a rite of passage, a way of proving oneself as a man and a human being in general. For the more troubled youths, it is a way of learning obedience, and loyalty, and of obtaining a deep friendship with your fellow soldiers. As one come so close to death on the battlefield every day, one matures at a pace one's fellow 20-some-year-old's couldn't imagine. Thus, if anything, these motives seem surprisingly selfish, using a very serious conflict for relatively non-serious personal psychological gain.
Overall, the motivation behind joining the military is far too varied and complex to explain in one particular theory. However, it seems to me that very few soldiers are concerned with the politics of their actual mission, and the consequences of their failures, or even the consequences of their successes. Rather, they obey orders, and fight to their dying breath and the breath of the man next to them until they are told they can return to their families. They return to our country, and we praise them for fighting for us. I regret to say it, but I cannot say a single soldier is fighting for ME personally. I respect their sacrifice as only one who greatly regrets it could, but I cannot support their mission. I hope one day we can find a way to provide to the young, great minds of our generation a way of gaining the same ideals that the military life provides, while avoiding the blood sport that currently accompanies it.
I'm getting the picture here Mr S, and it is not a pretty one. There you sit in your armed camp, guns protecting you from the inferior coloured folks, the commies and liberals, who would do you harm if given half a chance. Meanwhile, those at the apex of the capitalist food chain reap ever more benefit, for ever fewer citizens, and no doubt chuckle as they feed various rigth wing think tanks, media outlets, and other instutitions in order to keep alive the assorted racist, classist, and mystical nonsense that that is useful for them, but disaster for the average citizen.
Without the application of critical thinking, and an understanding of the scientific method, and a general sense of the sweep of history and the changes it has brought, one is open to all manner of manipulation. Does God favor America? Possible to believe for someone with little education, and less interest in exploring the world of ideas. Them darkies won't never learn? Also possible to believe, for those who distain intellectual pursuits.
I feel sorry for those in America that are stumbling into the 21st century, into a world they don't really know. We are seeing historic change today- Asia is regaining its historical significance, and the US is retreating to a relative position of about 100 years ago, when it was one of several significant industrial powers, rather than the single power. This is going to be hard to take for many who fear and misunderstand such change.
Do you not also base your opinions on the same thing? We all are influenced by such things, and form our views through hear-say, books, education, experiences, whatever. I'm no different from you, and like you said I cannot assume you know what you're talking about and you can't assume I don't know what I'm talking about, or vice versa. We're just different.
I'm aware of Obama and Oprah being the exceptions to the rule, and in that lies the problem. I still think biologically, psychologically, black people, Asians, whoever are capable of anything. However, we do not all necessarily receive the same opportunities, and that is where the differences often lie.
I think it's completely untrue that nobody lives a rural, underdeveloped lifestyle by choice; that is a huge generalization. I have no doubt that there are many tribes where if we started giving them Ipads and cars they would tell us to get the hell out and leave them be. Some people would argue that these tribes simply haven't been exposed to the luxuries of life, and thus don't know any better than their primitive ways. But how about the homeless people on the streets of San Francisco, where I now live? They know what they could have if they applied themselves, but they choose that nomadic, homeless lifestyle. These people aren't so incapable of intelligent thought that they don't know what they're missing out on.
Once again, as I said before IQ is not the golden determination of intelligence, and I refuse to use those tests as a way to judge between different races. Those tests have all sorts of strange questions, ones that people in the ghetto or who live certain lifestyles around the world might not understand or have the same answers that a person in a developed society would have. A villager may know how to skin a rabbit, while I do not. I may know how to use a library database, while they do not. That doesn't reflect intelligence.
I do not believe it was right to spit on the soldiers who returned, though I would appreciate if you didn't single out the Bay Area and San Francisco as a bunch of disrespectful piles of garbage. Nor should you ever, ever include me in a group that would spit on or disrespect a single human being on this Earth. Frankly, you don't know me, as I don't know you. This is where I've grown up, and though there are some extreme views we are often very respectful and intelligent. I don't care if you disagree with liberal viewpoints, that's perfectly fine, as I disagree with some too, but you have to show them respect, as they have to show you respect. Calling them "liberhoids" or "libbies" and all that junk is completely unproductive. (Not saying you do this, but many people posting do.)
That being said, let's not pretend there were not great atrocities committed by our troops. Let's also never forget the crimes committed by the North Vietnamese, Viet Cong, and Khmer Rouge. I'm aware of the story of boat people, as I grew up with their children. They came to America because America OFFERED to take them in in order to gain sympathy for the U.S. government's operations in Vietnam. America had specific programs aimed at bringing over Vietnamese refugees, spreading them all throughout the country.
How different are they really though? Ho Chi Minh's followers? They felt they could solve problems with violence, as do we. Are we to judge right and wrong in Vietnam by who committed MORE atrocities? Hypothetically, if our troops committed 20% of civilian deaths (a random number) and the Viet Cong committed 80%, are we really on the moral high ground? I think the Vietnamese villagers wouldn't want either one of us there and just want to be left alone.
We're all the same. We are all victims of this ideology that this world will be a better place if we just kill the right people. Personally, I actually liked Ho Chi Minh, as a leader anyways, not necessarily his actions or the nefarious killings of his followers and such. The man just wanted independence in Vietnam, and a unified Vietnam. I agree with the ends, not so much the means. All in all, the Diem regime in South Vietnam supported by the U.S. government was no better though. They did things just as bad as the North Vietnamese.
And Trayvon Martin is a whole other story, but he was just a young kid caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm not jumping on that bandwagon of support for him, but I do feel that Zimmerman was guilty of SOME crime. I just do not feel rioting and breaking windows is the right way of expressing my feelings. However, some people in this world know no other way of making their voices heard, and resort to things like that to get attention. Terrorists are the same way. We must not condone the rioters in Oakland and elsewhere, but try to understand them, just as we must try to understand all crime in this world and the underlying factors.
Obviously I have been around much longer than you, and have obviously read and studied a much more diverse body of information than you have. I have a much better understanding how the system works in the liberal controlled world. The major media is virtually all controlled by leftist liberals. They edit what is seen on the news, what is printed not only in the press, but what is placed in all the textbooks that are placed in most puplic schools, such as they are in CA. The liberal progressives will crow about how diverse they are, but conservative and Christian viewpoints or leadship are not hardly tolerated.
I try to hold all people of all groups to the same standards, even if I know some won't attain it. I don't give a free pass to Conservative Christian leader just because I like where he is coming from. As you should, by your admission of thinking someone like Ho Chi Mihn is "likable." If neo-communism is your religion, it requires much faith, like all the other religions. I would bet the limited information you have on Uncle Ho is from the far-Left. Really, if you are so hot about not being biased, you should judge Richard Nixon to the same moral standard as Uncle Ho. You judge a person's righteousness on his actioins and behavior. Giving communists a free pass is just what the liberal intelligentsia has been doing for 90 years. Anyway, because President Nixon didn't do any of the following makes him less savage, and a better person:
The terror had its real beginning when Red dictator Ho Chi Minh consolidated his power in the North. More than a year before his 1954 victory over the French, he launched a savage campaign against his own people. In virtually every North Vietnamese village, strong-arm squads assembled the populace to witness the “confessions” of landowners. As time went on, businessmen, intellectuals, school teachers, civic leaders — all who represented a potential source of future opposition — were also rounded up and forced to “confess” to “errors of thought.” There followed public “trials,” conviction and, in many cases, execution. People were shot, beheaded, beaten to death; some were tied up, thrown into open graves and covered with stones until they were crushed to death, Ho has renewed his terror in North Vietnam periodically. Between 50,000 and 100,000 are believed to have died in these blood-baths — in a coldly calculated effort to discipline the party and the masses. To be sure, few who escape Ho’s terror now seem likely to tempt his wrath. During the 1950s, however, he had to quell some sizeable uprisings in North Vietnam — most notably one that occurred in early November 1956, in the An province, which included Ho’s birthplace village of Nam Dan. So heavily had he taxed the region that the inhabitants finally banded together and refused to meet his price. Ho sent troops to collect, and then sent in an army division, shooting. About 6,000 unarmed villagers were killed. The survivors scattered, some escaping to the South. The slaughter went largely unnoticed by a world then preoccupied with the Soviet Union’s rape of Hungary
The Blood-Red Hands of Ho Chi Minh
North Vietnam’s treatment of American airmen shot down and captured over North Vietnam was a subject of controversy and concern throughout the Vietnam War. From the very beginning of the war, North Vietnam’s stated position was that American prisoners captured in North Vietnam were “war criminals” who had committed crimes against the North Vietnamese people in the course of an illegal war of aggression and that therefore the American prisoners were not entitled to the privileges and rights granted to prisoners of war (POW) under the terms of the Geneva Convention. The North Vietnamese refused to provide the International Red Cross with the names of Americans who were being held prisoner in North Vietnam and did not allow regular inspection visits by the International Red Cross to ensure that the prisoners were being treated properly in accordance with the terms of the 1947 Geneva Convention on POWs.
e-Dossier No. 30 - Treatment of American POWs in North Vietnam | Wilson Center
I won't even cover the volumes of atrocities Mr. Stalin did, but our leftist media and leaders liked him so much better than Hitler, that almost all the savagery he ordered has been swept up under the rug.
Like Lenin, do you say, "The ends justify the means?"
Try not to ignore the diplomatic nature with which I place my comments. That is, I do not present anything as fact, and I admit I, as well as others, have my biases and that even if I do like SOME things about Ho Chi Minh, not whoever the hell "Uncle Ho" is, I do not agree with the violence. I am simply, like you said, holding everyone, and that includes the U.S., to the same standard. I am not some naive child who couldn't possibly know anything about the world. I have very, very much to learn, but I do not see Ho Chi Minh as a hero in the same way I don't see John F. Kennedy as a hero, or most presidents for that matter. They have some good ideas, and some bad ideas; their commonality is that they all believe committing violent acts in order to achieve peace, which I fundamentally disagree with.
Though I would hope that countries would respect things like the Geneva Convention, those laws on human rights and the rules of war only apply to signatories. I personally do not know whether Hanoi signed on to the treaty, but I seriously doubt a territory that few recognized as a sovereign, functioning area would be able to sign onto such a document. If you want to talk about morality, the United States never signed the Geneva Accord that prohibits indiscriminate bombing of an urban population. Thus, it is each country's decision how they want to handle prisoner's of war and rules of war. Though the United States indeed treats our prisoners quite well in our current wars (mostly), during Vietnam I have no doubt we crossed the line a number of different times.
My personal views on POWs are that it's silly to provide rules as to how they're treated. That may sound offensive to some of you, but what I mean is this. I HOPE they're treated humanely and kept in good condition. But realistically, why would our enemy logically care if they treat theire ENEMY well? This is war, and if in Vietnam we can just burn the hell out of half their country with Napalm, chemicals, and landmines, I think they can rough up some prisoners. Once again; same standard.
It seems to me you are too paranoid about liberal control of media outlets. For instance, CNN and MSNBC are quite liberal, especially MSNBC. However, Fox is notoriously more conservative, and many, MANY, people watch all of those networks. So I see no liberal bias, and if there is, that's more just a genuine social change than a bunch of "libs" behind the scenes pulling the strings; seems a bit elaborate. Once again, I'm not a liberal, and do not wish for you to lump me into that category, nor into a category with democrats.
For the record, I think Stalin was much worse than Hitler. If not just by the numbers (he killed millions more than Hitler), he was also hugely paranoid and committed incredible atrocities against his own people. I do not mean to say that you are wrong about your particular points, but you must not lump people into the same categories. There are very few absolute truths in this world, or absolute falsehoods. Not all liberals believe that Stalin was a good guy (in fact I've never met one).
And no, the ends do not justify the means. I was simply saying that I AGREE with the ends and disagree with the means. Thus, I meant just the opposite.
I'm curious though as to your dislike towards Communists. Is it because of the dictatorships you have witnessed throughout the years that "claim" they follow such an ideology, or is it the teachings themselves? I am not completely well-versed in the theory, but Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Stalin, etc. did not take their horrible actions directly out of the Karl Marx handbook as far as I know.
Try not to brag so much about your own accomplishments; a little humility goes a long way. I do not deny you have been around longer, or that you have probably done a lot of reading. But we often state opinions here, some backed up by facts and others backed up by bias. Thus, I would appreciate if you just state it plainly and avoid talking down to me or others. People don't particularly enjoy being belittled.
Note: Though I question many things in my writing, none of it is meant as disrespect towards our current or fallen soldiers. If anything, I believe their sacrifice is a mis-allocation of some of the best and brightest minds of my generation. I simply think those brains could be better put to use elsewhere rather than as bullet-holders, and if we are going to put them on the battlefield, we better be damn sure that's the right thing to do.
July 4th has recently passed, and although we certainly reserve holidays like Memorial Day to honor our troops, Independence Day also is an enormous tribute to our forces abroad. As I sat watching my hometown's annual parade, soldiers with rifles and flags marched by, Huey helicopters flew over, and the people to get the biggest cheers were certainly the veterans, old and new. However, I couldn't help but wonder if these people really were fighting in my name, in the name of the people around me.
As I thought deeper about this whole question, I decided to take the war in Afghanistan as an example. Originally, this war was started in order to take revenge against Al Qaeda and find Bin Laden. This particular, early part of the mission was maybe fighting for "me", or most of the "me"'s who wanted to fight back after a direct attack on our soil. Nonetheless, now we are in a deep, complicated process of nation-building, with little to no way out. So are the American soldiers firing at young Afghan Taliban soldiers, or accidentally blowing up a few children here and there actually fighting for MY personal freedom? MY liberty? I'm not so sure.
So then who are our soldiers fighting and dying for? The Afghan people? That seems to be the only logical alternative, as the official mission of the U.S. military is to improve the Afghan way of life by getting rid of the Taliban and establishing better infrastructure. Though how many of them truly want us there, or feel they are safer in the long-term with all sorts of mechanized death flying over their heads every day? We have made such great strides in the economic and social infrastructure of Afghanistan, but I fail to give credit to the bombs or bullets for that progress.
How about a third alternative? Perhaps the U.S. military is fighting for America's interests abroad. Sure, we might say that we are trying to protect the liberties of other nations and establish democratic governments, but maybe there are underlying motives. I would be the last to bring up the tired old "oil" theory, but there are many complex issues in the Middle East or North Africa that a regional U.S. military presence can effect.
As I thought about these different perspectives, each seemed to tumble back upon one another. Some of these theories are certainly viable, but none seemed to fit the bigger picture for me. I think in many cases, through a number of books I've read of first-hand accounts of soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan, these soldiers simply fight for brotherhood, for the "man in the foxhole next to them", to use a famous quote. Their struggles as a unit are seen as a rite of passage, a way of proving oneself as a man and a human being in general. For the more troubled youths, it is a way of learning obedience, and loyalty, and of obtaining a deep friendship with your fellow soldiers. As one come so close to death on the battlefield every day, one matures at a pace one's fellow 20-some-year-old's couldn't imagine. Thus, if anything, these motives seem surprisingly selfish, using a very serious conflict for relatively non-serious personal psychological gain.
Overall, the motivation behind joining the military is far too varied and complex to explain in one particular theory. However, it seems to me that very few soldiers are concerned with the politics of their actual mission, and the consequences of their failures, or even the consequences of their successes. Rather, they obey orders, and fight to their dying breath and the breath of the man next to them until they are told they can return to their families. They return to our country, and we praise them for fighting for us. I regret to say it, but I cannot say a single soldier is fighting for ME personally. I respect their sacrifice as only one who greatly regrets it could, but I cannot support their mission. I hope one day we can find a way to provide to the young, great minds of our generation a way of gaining the same ideals that the military life provides, while avoiding the blood sport that currently accompanies it.
unlike a lot of other posters arounf here,you sense soemthing is wrong with our country and are starting to wake up abaout this.
thats exactly what our military is doing,fighting for americas interests abroad trying to take over the nations of other countries in their phony war on terror,thats what most the world rightfully hates us and americans as well rightfully so because the american sheeple arent doing anything about it and are allowing it to go on.whats the LAMESTREAM media is not reporting is how the american soldiers have been using innocent women and children as target practice shooting them when they are just going out there to try and rescue innocents and give tme first aid attention who were shot just for walking the streets. soldiers have come forward and confessed this but you dont here a peep about this from the LAMESTREAM media.it gets covered up.
I appreciate the positive feedback to my writing. That being said I do not believe our soldiers use people as target practice; that's unfair to them and completely untrue. There ARE incidents of soldiers killing civilians (on purpose. it happens quite a bit "on accident" in bombings and the like I'm sure), but they are generally well trained and those instances are the exceptions to the rule. I do agree with much of what you said, I would just be careful about making accusations about the "average" soldier.
I think you are not able to judge rightly how brainwashed and conditioned soldiers are by their governments. Nor do I think you can judge how irrational people can become under stress -- especially prolonged stress....I do not believe our soldiers use people as target practice; that's unfair to them and completely untrue. There ARE incidents of soldiers killing civilians (on purpose....
I'm getting the picture here Mr S, and it is not a pretty one. There you sit in your armed camp, guns protecting you from the inferior coloured folks, the commies and liberals, who would do you harm if given half a chance. Meanwhile, those at the apex of the capitalist food chain reap ever more benefit, for ever fewer citizens, and no doubt chuckle as they feed various rigth wing think tanks, media outlets, and other instutitions in order to keep alive the assorted racist, classist, and mystical nonsense that that is useful for them, but disaster for the average citizen.
Without the application of critical thinking, and an understanding of the scientific method, and a general sense of the sweep of history and the changes it has brought, one is open to all manner of manipulation. Does God favor America? Possible to believe for someone with little education, and less interest in exploring the world of ideas. Them darkies won't never learn? Also possible to believe, for those who distain intellectual pursuits.
I feel sorry for those in America that are stumbling into the 21st century, into a world they don't really know. We are seeing historic change today- Asia is regaining its historical significance, and the US is retreating to a relative position of about 100 years ago, when it was one of several significant industrial powers, rather than the single power. This is going to be hard to take for many who fear and misunderstand such change.
I'm not much of a racist. Just this morning I helped fix up 5 Blacks, 4 Hispanic kids, 1 Asian and only 1 White. Wouldn't be able to do much holed up in bunker. Certainly wouldn't pay the bills.
[
I'm for better understanding people and their problems so they can be better served. Since I belive in "fairness" I don't support liberalist or communistic ideas like income redistribution,
[
affirmative action (racist as it comes), unlimited welfare or weak criminal laws. The liberal would rather see 1,000 career criminals set free to do 1,000 more crimes, than see one career criminal get wrongly punished for one of the few crimes he didn't get away with.
[
I'm a capitalist, not a communist. Individuals are given the opportunity to rise or fall based on their own actions. People are not just ants on some classless anthill.
[
My impression of you is like one of those NKVD/KGB types who suspects anyone and everyone that their paranoid and ruthless leaders suspect of not holding the party line. You would make an excellent teacher at a commie re-education camp. In the mean time you can think up another program to keep crime lower in Canada other than the failed gun buyback program.
I appreciate the positive feedback to my writing. That being said I do not believe our soldiers use people as target practice; that's unfair to them and completely untrue. There ARE incidents of soldiers killing civilians (on purpose. it happens quite a bit "on accident" in bombings and the like I'm sure), but they are generally well trained and those instances are the exceptions to the rule. I do agree with much of what you said, I would just be careful about making accusations about the "average" soldier.
[sarcasm]
Oh no, actually we do this all the time. It is SOP when we are in theatre to fire a few rounds at the nearest child to make sure that our barrel is properly clean and our weapon is sighted in. And if a child is not available, a grandmother works just as well (but less challenging because they are larger and move slower).
We are also eagerly preparing for the day we can do this right inside the US. Like when the President gives the word, and we can throw away that pesky Constitution and start taking away peoples guns in home invasions prior to the UN arriving in force to take over the government.
[/sarcasm]
And the really sad thing is, there are people who actually believe what I just wrote.
Haha yeah I mean it's funny on the one hand but on the other hand it's a pretty serious misconception. Like I said, incidents happen but to think this is how the average soldier operates is pretty ludicrous, and insulting to the average soldier's integrity.
Haha yeah I mean it's funny on the one hand but on the other hand it's a pretty serious misconception. Like I said, incidents happen but to think this is how the average soldier operates is pretty ludicrous, and insulting to the average soldier's integrity.
Those are generally people who are so politically biased that they would not know a neutral thought if it smacked them upside the head with a sledge hammer. Either they are Far Left and see the military as butchers and murderers who eat children. Or they are Far Right and see the military as mindless minions of The State who will blindly follow any orders given, including taking away their guns and turning control of the country over to the UN, ZOG, or whatever boogieman their diseased mind imagines.
The reality is that those in the military are generally just like anybody else for the most part. Neither better or worse, we simply made the choice to serve our country for 3+ years.
Who chooses to respect a President regardless of his actions? I certainly do not. A President either earns respect or he shouldn't be so regarded.I agree. Although I fundamentally disagree with the military, I hold absolutely nothing against soldiers themselves and greatly respect their sacrifice. Similar to how you choose to respect the president regardless of his actions, I think it's important to show the troops the same respect.
Even if we are to assume statistics is a pure enough study to determine definite inherited racial traits, what is the point in making such a discovery? Just so we can tell a Black man, "Hey, no matter what you do, no matter how you were raised, you're always going to be not QUITE as good as me intellectually."? I once again stress that I see no reason to even conduct such studies. Maybe I'm missing the point, but what is your personal reasoning that such research is important, other than to establish a racial superiority complex? I don't see how it will aid in human progression, human unity, human love, or human understanding. It will only divide us.
Also just out of curiosity, I'm no expert on the Asian economies, but what about the Chinese psyche itself allowed China and Singapore to progress faster, as opposed to other social or international factors?
You obviously want less human understanding. You do not support doing any real IQ testing, probably because you already know what the results will be, and maybe because you have no new ideas on how to let all the people in the world live up to their true potentials.
I'm a runner. Does it bother me and every other non-Black person who runs that we are genetically inferior to Blacks? Blacks dominate virturally all running and jumping events. Even with the very best training, nutrition or even illegal suppliments, we have really no chance of winning against their best. Based on your logic, there should be no reason for any of us to compete. It doesn't bother me. I'll keep going just the same.
In the same way with intelligence tests. East Asians generally do better than anyone else on them. So what? Good for them. I guess all the descrimination they took working on the railroads and being put into concentration camps during WW2 was easy enough to overcome. Each person that does the best on SAT or ACT tests deserves the best slots in college. That is true fairness.
The problem in education lies in the abuse of the system when the feds stick there noses into it and money is to be made off the deal. Of course I believe ALL K-12 education should be ran and taxed all by the local communities. Period. In public schools now, more money is given when better test scores are achieved. When 98% of the school is Black there is going to be a statistical impossiblilty that they are going to score better against the more White/Asian/Hispanic/etc. schools. Teachers and prinicipals have been caught cheating. Priming the students and changing test scores. This abuse hurts the students more than anyone.
I'm getting the picture here Mr S, and it is not a pretty one. There you sit in your armed camp, guns protecting you from the inferior coloured folks, the commies and liberals, who would do you harm if given half a chance. Meanwhile, those at the apex of the capitalist food chain reap ever more benefit, for ever fewer citizens, and no doubt chuckle as they feed various rigth wing think tanks, media outlets, and other instutitions in order to keep alive the assorted racist, classist, and mystical nonsense that that is useful for them, but disaster for the average citizen.
Without the application of critical thinking, and an understanding of the scientific method, and a general sense of the sweep of history and the changes it has brought, one is open to all manner of manipulation. Does God favor America? Possible to believe for someone with little education, and less interest in exploring the world of ideas. Them darkies won't never learn? Also possible to believe, for those who distain intellectual pursuits.
I feel sorry for those in America that are stumbling into the 21st century, into a world they don't really know. We are seeing historic change today- Asia is regaining its historical significance, and the US is retreating to a relative position of about 100 years ago, when it was one of several significant industrial powers, rather than the single power. This is going to be hard to take for many who fear and misunderstand such change.
I'm not much of a racist. Just this morning I helped fix up 5 Blacks, 4 Hispanic kids, 1 Asian and only 1 White. Wouldn't be able to do much holed up in bunker. Certainly wouldn't pay the bills.
Fixed them up? Are you a doctor? What did you do for these inferior humans?
Then you don't believe in fairness. The reasons income is distributed as it is are complex, and in many cases have little or nothing to do with personal attributes or effort. Furthermore, ethical or not, economic well being in the modern world rests on goverment regulation of the economy, and interventions in the market place. All accept this today, except for the right wing in America. Does this tell you something?
Hyperbole. In fact, the US has some of the most draconian laws in the world, including some reprehensible nations. They haven't worked.
[
I'm a capitalist, not a communist. Individuals are given the opportunity to rise or fall based on their own actions. People are not just ants on some classless anthill.
You haven't keep up with your reading Mr S. Social mobility, that is, the movement of individual through the socioeconomic strata of their societies (famously celebrated in the US) is in fact higher now in places like (small s socialist) Europe, for all their troubles. The US is becoming an ever more classist and divided society, with extreme polarization of wealth. Increasingly, people rise and fall, as you put it, by merit of who they know, who their parents were, and how much money they start with.
[
My impression of you is like one of those NKVD/KGB types who suspects anyone and everyone that their paranoid and ruthless leaders suspect of not holding the party line. You would make an excellent teacher at a commie re-education camp. In the mean time you can think up another program to keep crime lower in Canada other than the failed gun buyback program.
Thanks for endorsing my teaching abilities. I'm not sure what you mean by the gun buyback program. Rifles and shotguns here are (controversially) legal under some strict guidelines, handguns are virtually unknown, outside of police, military, and certain security roles.
You obviously want less human understanding. You do not support doing any real IQ testing, probably because you already know what the results will be, and maybe because you have no new ideas on how to let all the people in the world live up to their true potentials.
I'm a runner. Does it bother me and every other non-Black person who runs that we are genetically inferior to Blacks? Blacks dominate virturally all running and jumping events. Even with the very best training, nutrition or even illegal suppliments, we have really no chance of winning against their best. Based on your logic, there should be no reason for any of us to compete. It doesn't bother me. I'll keep going just the same.
In the same way with intelligence tests. East Asians generally do better than anyone else on them. So what? Good for them. I guess all the descrimination they took working on the railroads and being put into concentration camps during WW2 was easy enough to overcome. Each person that does the best on SAT or ACT tests deserves the best slots in college. That is true fairness.
The problem in education lies in the abuse of the system when the feds stick there noses into it and money is to be made off the deal. Of course I believe ALL K-12 education should be ran and taxed all by the local communities. Period. In public schools now, more money is given when better test scores are achieved. When 98% of the school is Black there is going to be a statistical impossiblilty that they are going to score better against the more White/Asian/Hispanic/etc. schools. Teachers and prinicipals have been caught cheating. Priming the students and changing test scores. This abuse hurts the students more than anyone.
I see no problem with your perspective, in the way you just described it. Why would I ever tell you not to compete if I still fundamentally believe white people can beat black people in a foot race? In terms of IQ though, if people want to think that's a good way of testing people that's fine. However, I fail to see how the results of such testing will allow people to "live up to their true potential". It won't necessarily lessen their potential, but I don't see how that will have a positive impact. I'm not afraid of the results of such testing or something, but I do think the reaction to such testing would be negative.
It's also completely baseless to think I want less human understanding. Once again, I'd appreciate if you didn't randomly accuse me of such a thing after I've practically written books on this site in the past couple weeks on how my main goal in my career is more love and understanding between human beings.
Low test scores, I have to say once more, is not NECESSARILY a reflection on the African American brain not functioning as well as a white or Asian brain. The fact that this testing is what determines funding compounds the problem, in a paradox where schools can't get funding unless they get good scores and they can't get good scores unless they get funding. Education is an investment, an even more serious investment in low-performing ghettos, and funding can't always be based on merit. Otherwise, where is the upward mobility for children? If their schools are being shut down because the Department of Education thinks it's not worth keeping them open due to low test scores, then they could easily turn towards crime, gangs, whatever.
Actually, I'm a haristylist. Me and my gay friends work on all hair types of all peoples. Actually, as a survivalist, I try to keep my personal details classified---like you.
I support the wonderful criminal justice laws as they were before Miranda. I've already said this. Those laws worked. The more liberals laws haven't. Three strikes laws are an improvement, but it is stupid to wharehouse millions of inmates in prison. Hanging the worst, violent felons is the way to go.
Among the other failed ideas on gun control:
Trudeau calls long-gun registry 'a failure' - Canada - CBC News
Who chooses to respect a President regardless of his actions? I certainly do not. A President either earns respect or he shouldn't be so regarded.I agree. Although I fundamentally disagree with the military, I hold absolutely nothing against soldiers themselves and greatly respect their sacrifice. Similar to how you choose to respect the president regardless of his actions, I think it's important to show the troops the same respect.
I respected FDR, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy and Jimmy Carter, because those men respected the Office and conducted it with dignity and with sincere concern for the best interests of the People who elected them. Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and the deceitful faker we have today are a different breed.
It appears the Office of President has become fundamentally corrupted by the influence of an occupying shadow government consisting of super-rich corporatists-- and those who are selected to inhabit that Office are compliant.
Try not to ignore the diplomatic nature with which I place my comments. That is, I do not present anything as fact, and I admit I, as well as others, have my biases and that even if I do like SOME things about Ho Chi Minh, not whoever the hell "Uncle Ho" is, I do not agree with the violence. I am simply, like you said, holding everyone, and that includes the U.S., to the same standard. I am not some naive child who couldn't possibly know anything about the world. I have very, very much to learn, but I do not see Ho Chi Minh as a hero in the same way I don't see John F. Kennedy as a hero, or most presidents for that matter. They have some good ideas, and some bad ideas; their commonality is that they all believe committing violent acts in order to achieve peace, which I fundamentally disagree with.
Though I would hope that countries would respect things like the Geneva Convention, those laws on human rights and the rules of war only apply to signatories. I personally do not know whether Hanoi signed on to the treaty, but I seriously doubt a territory that few recognized as a sovereign, functioning area would be able to sign onto such a document. If you want to talk about morality, the United States never signed the Geneva Accord that prohibits indiscriminate bombing of an urban population. Thus, it is each country's decision how they want to handle prisoner's of war and rules of war. Though the United States indeed treats our prisoners quite well in our current wars (mostly), during Vietnam I have no doubt we crossed the line a number of different times.
My personal views on POWs are that it's silly to provide rules as to how they're treated. That may sound offensive to some of you, but what I mean is this. I HOPE they're treated humanely and kept in good condition. But realistically, why would our enemy logically care if they treat theire ENEMY well? This is war, and if in Vietnam we can just burn the hell out of half their country with Napalm, chemicals, and landmines, I think they can rough up some prisoners. Once again; same standard.
It seems to me you are too paranoid about liberal control of media outlets. For instance, CNN and MSNBC are quite liberal, especially MSNBC. However, Fox is notoriously more conservative, and many, MANY, people watch all of those networks. So I see no liberal bias, and if there is, that's more just a genuine social change than a bunch of "libs" behind the scenes pulling the strings; seems a bit elaborate. Once again, I'm not a liberal, and do not wish for you to lump me into that category, nor into a category with democrats.
For the record, I think Stalin was much worse than Hitler. If not just by the numbers (he killed millions more than Hitler), he was also hugely paranoid and committed incredible atrocities against his own people. I do not mean to say that you are wrong about your particular points, but you must not lump people into the same categories. There are very few absolute truths in this world, or absolute falsehoods. Not all liberals believe that Stalin was a good guy (in fact I've never met one).
And no, the ends do not justify the means. I was simply saying that I AGREE with the ends and disagree with the means. Thus, I meant just the opposite.
I'm curious though as to your dislike towards Communists. Is it because of the dictatorships you have witnessed throughout the years that "claim" they follow such an ideology, or is it the teachings themselves? I am not completely well-versed in the theory, but Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Stalin, etc. did not take their horrible actions directly out of the Karl Marx handbook as far as I know.
Try not to brag so much about your own accomplishments; a little humility goes a long way. I do not deny you have been around longer, or that you have probably done a lot of reading. But we often state opinions here, some backed up by facts and others backed up by bias. Thus, I would appreciate if you just state it plainly and avoid talking down to me or others. People don't particularly enjoy being belittled.
Saying fantastic things such as liking Ho Chi Mihn in a military forum will get you unwanted attention, but you come off as a very fair minded person.
Remeber watching the Wizard of Oz when the Wizard said, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain?" That is the same thing the major media is telling you today. I have been looking behind the curtain for awhile now. Here is a basic summary of who controlls what you see and think:
Comcast owns NBC, Telemundo, E Entertainment, Versus, 14 television stations, Universal Pictures, and Hulu. Disney holdings include 10 television stations, 277 radio stations, ABC, ESPN, A&E, the History Channel, Lifetime, Discover magazine, Bassmaster magazine, Hyperion publishing, Touchstone Pictures, Pixar Animation, and Miramax Film Corp. Viacom owns 10 television stations, The Movie Channel, Comedy Central, BET, Nickelodeon, TV Land, MTV, VH1, and Paramount Pictures. CBS owns 30 TV stations, Smithsonian Channel, Showtime, The Movie Channel and Paramount Network Television. News Corp. owns 27 television stations, the Fox Network and Fox News Channel, FX, National Geographic Channel, The Wall Street Journal, TV Guide, the New York Post, DirecTV, the publisher HarperCollins, film production company Twentieth Century Fox and the social networking website MySpace. Time Warner owns HBO, CNN, the Cartoon Network, Warner Bros. Time magazine, Turner Broadcasting and DC Comics.
Currently, six major companies control most of the media in our country. The FCC could decide to relax media ownership rules, which would allow further consolidation and put decisions about what kinds of programming and news Americans receive in even fewer hands.
- See more at: Facts On Media In America: Did You Know? - Common Cause
Facts On Media In America: Did You Know? - Common Cause
Now look at the people throwing the levers, the top descision makers: Viacom: Summer Redstone, Comcast: Brian Roberts, Time Warner: Jeff Bewkes, Disney: Robert Iger, and News Corp: Rubert Murdoch. Only Newscorp's Murdoch is a conservative or Christian. He is half-Jewish and joked, "I'm a Christian, but my wife is a Catholic." In all but Newscorp, Conservative Christians can be found in only tiny, token numbers among the directors, board memebers or controlling shareholders. All the other media giants have not a single conservative Christian in charge of any national new agency, movie studio or large cable channel. Zero.
As far as wartime atrocities go, the leftists in the big media giants have no interest in equal justice. All the atrocities committed by North Koreas, North Vietmanese and especially the Soviet Union will never be brought to attention. In WW2 only the Japs, the Germans and the anyone conscripted to serve under the Axis have ever been convicted of war crimes. Russians POW's imprisioned by the Germans and sent to their deaths in the salt mines after Stalin got his hands on them don't count. Not a single Allied soldier, American, British, Soviet or anyone else has even been held accountable for any of the legion of war crimes committed. This is called "Victor's Justice."
Try not to ignore the diplomatic nature with which I place my comments. That is, I do not present anything as fact, and I admit I, as well as others, have my biases and that even if I do like SOME things about Ho Chi Minh, not whoever the hell "Uncle Ho" is, I do not agree with the violence. I am simply, like you said, holding everyone, and that includes the U.S., to the same standard. I am not some naive child who couldn't possibly know anything about the world. I have very, very much to learn, but I do not see Ho Chi Minh as a hero in the same way I don't see John F. Kennedy as a hero, or most presidents for that matter. They have some good ideas, and some bad ideas; their commonality is that they all believe committing violent acts in order to achieve peace, which I fundamentally disagree with.
Though I would hope that countries would respect things like the Geneva Convention, those laws on human rights and the rules of war only apply to signatories. I personally do not know whether Hanoi signed on to the treaty, but I seriously doubt a territory that few recognized as a sovereign, functioning area would be able to sign onto such a document. If you want to talk about morality, the United States never signed the Geneva Accord that prohibits indiscriminate bombing of an urban population. Thus, it is each country's decision how they want to handle prisoner's of war and rules of war. Though the United States indeed treats our prisoners quite well in our current wars (mostly), during Vietnam I have no doubt we crossed the line a number of different times.
My personal views on POWs are that it's silly to provide rules as to how they're treated. That may sound offensive to some of you, but what I mean is this. I HOPE they're treated humanely and kept in good condition. But realistically, why would our enemy logically care if they treat theire ENEMY well? This is war, and if in Vietnam we can just burn the hell out of half their country with Napalm, chemicals, and landmines, I think they can rough up some prisoners. Once again; same standard.
It seems to me you are too paranoid about liberal control of media outlets. For instance, CNN and MSNBC are quite liberal, especially MSNBC. However, Fox is notoriously more conservative, and many, MANY, people watch all of those networks. So I see no liberal bias, and if there is, that's more just a genuine social change than a bunch of "libs" behind the scenes pulling the strings; seems a bit elaborate. Once again, I'm not a liberal, and do not wish for you to lump me into that category, nor into a category with democrats.
For the record, I think Stalin was much worse than Hitler. If not just by the numbers (he killed millions more than Hitler), he was also hugely paranoid and committed incredible atrocities against his own people. I do not mean to say that you are wrong about your particular points, but you must not lump people into the same categories. There are very few absolute truths in this world, or absolute falsehoods. Not all liberals believe that Stalin was a good guy (in fact I've never met one).
And no, the ends do not justify the means. I was simply saying that I AGREE with the ends and disagree with the means. Thus, I meant just the opposite.
I'm curious though as to your dislike towards Communists. Is it because of the dictatorships you have witnessed throughout the years that "claim" they follow such an ideology, or is it the teachings themselves? I am not completely well-versed in the theory, but Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Stalin, etc. did not take their horrible actions directly out of the Karl Marx handbook as far as I know.
Try not to brag so much about your own accomplishments; a little humility goes a long way. I do not deny you have been around longer, or that you have probably done a lot of reading. But we often state opinions here, some backed up by facts and others backed up by bias. Thus, I would appreciate if you just state it plainly and avoid talking down to me or others. People don't particularly enjoy being belittled.
Saying fantastic things such as liking Ho Chi Mihn in a military forum will get you unwanted attention, but you come off as a very fair minded person.
Remeber watching the Wizard of Oz when the Wizard said, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain?" That is the same thing the major media is telling you today. I have been looking behind the curtain for awhile now. Here is a basic summary of who controlls what you see and think:
Comcast owns NBC, Telemundo, E Entertainment, Versus, 14 television stations, Universal Pictures, and Hulu. Disney holdings include 10 television stations, 277 radio stations, ABC, ESPN, A&E, the History Channel, Lifetime, Discover magazine, Bassmaster magazine, Hyperion publishing, Touchstone Pictures, Pixar Animation, and Miramax Film Corp. Viacom owns 10 television stations, The Movie Channel, Comedy Central, BET, Nickelodeon, TV Land, MTV, VH1, and Paramount Pictures. CBS owns 30 TV stations, Smithsonian Channel, Showtime, The Movie Channel and Paramount Network Television. News Corp. owns 27 television stations, the Fox Network and Fox News Channel, FX, National Geographic Channel, The Wall Street Journal, TV Guide, the New York Post, DirecTV, the publisher HarperCollins, film production company Twentieth Century Fox and the social networking website MySpace. Time Warner owns HBO, CNN, the Cartoon Network, Warner Bros. Time magazine, Turner Broadcasting and DC Comics.
Currently, six major companies control most of the media in our country. The FCC could decide to relax media ownership rules, which would allow further consolidation and put decisions about what kinds of programming and news Americans receive in even fewer hands.
- See more at: Facts On Media In America: Did You Know? - Common Cause
Facts On Media In America: Did You Know? - Common Cause
Now look at the people throwing the levers, the top descision makers: Viacom: Summer Redstone, Comcast: Brian Roberts, Time Warner: Jeff Bewkes, Disney: Robert Iger, and News Corp: Rubert Murdoch. Only Newscorp's Murdoch is a conservative or Christian. He is half-Jewish and joked, "I'm a Christian, but my wife is a Catholic." In all but Newscorp, Conservative Christians can be found in only tiny, token numbers among the directors, board memebers or controlling shareholders. All the other media giants have not a single conservative Christian in charge of any national new agency, movie studio or large cable channel. Zero.
As far as wartime atrocities go, the leftists in the big media giants have no interest in equal justice. All the atrocities committed by North Koreas, North Vietmanese and especially the Soviet Union will never be brought to attention. In WW2 only the Japs, the Germans and the anyone conscripted to serve under the Axis have ever been convicted of war crimes. Russians POW's imprisioned by the Germans and sent to their deaths in the salt mines after Stalin got his hands on them don't count. Not a single Allied soldier, American, British, Soviet or anyone else has even been held accountable for any of the legion of war crimes committed. This is called "Victor's Justice."
Ah, finally a point we can definitely agree on (your last paragraph, that is). I agree that both sides must be held equally accountable for their crimes. Sadly, I seriously the books on Vietnam or WWII will ever be brought out again; people like to forget.
In terms of my very slight liking of Ho Chi Minh, I have no problem saying controversial things in a forum where people will disagree with me. I've watched many interviews with him, and as I've stated before he had good intentions (whatever that counts for). He seemed like a true man of the people, never dressing in suits and always dressing like a rural peasant, in sandals and the like. Things like that are what I admire, not the killings. I think it's hard to judge a man without talking to him though. That is, I wish I could have interviewed him in person and asked him, "Hey, what's up with the mass murders?" and just get a straight answer from him.
I know all those companies are owned by umbrella companies. It's the same way at the supermarket. That goes for BOTH sides of the coin though; liberal or conservative. We are fed information by all perspectives. Well, mainly the ones with the most money.
The usual military imbecility and corruption.There is an old saying in the military, it goes "Respect the rank if not the man".
Hah!! And the Officer Class of the US military are corrupt, time-serving, back-stabbers!!But most civilians operate on little more then a mob mentality, and I really do not expect much better from most civilians to be honest.
