An Image Problem

[patriot]

Guantanamo officials are working on plans to provide a courtroom, a prison and an execution chamber. Some 680 detainees from 42 countries are in Guantanamo, categorized as unlawful combatants by the U.S. government. It has refused demands from human rights organizations to recognize them as prisoners of war. They have no constitutional rights as non-U.S. citizens being held outside U.S. territory, and none have been formally charged or allowed access to attorneys.

How can a superpower acting like a 3rd rate banana republic?

[@PLUGO]

Guantanamo is a sad situation 4 sure...

did they ever get around to releasing the 12-16 year old boys they had detained there?
I remember amnesty Intl' was demanding they do so but the topic sort of fell off the radar before before i could find out if thouse kids where actually released.

[patriot]

AP Tallies 3,240 Civilian Deaths in Iraq during a month of war. The count is still fragmentary, and the complete toll — if it is ever tallied — is sure to be significantly higher. So is US better than Saddam?

In the mean time, the Americans are cajoling other nations for immunity from the International Crimial Court.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by patriot
AP Tallies 3,240 Civilian Deaths in Iraq during a month of war. The count is still fragmentary, and the complete toll — if it is ever tallied — is sure to be significantly higher. So is US better than Saddam?

Depends what your standards are. If your standards are "less death", then quite clearly and dramatically: yes. Surely you know that. You must simply have different standards for what "better" is. What are these standards?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Design Sifu
The overarching problem seems to be supernationalism but what could there be to balance out such a drive?

Supernationalism's only opponent in conservatism. It's allready a fundamental principle of liberal policy.

The rampant supernationalists now don't worry about addressing liberals, since they're allready on task. The path to unhindered success for them is to sway conservatives. And that's exactly what the neocons are doing: point their efforts at conservatives to win them over, claim to be rightists to inherit the next generation automatically, and engender leftist critique of rightism to undermine the previous rightist powerbase so that it can be replaced.

public opinion?

The problem with public opinion is that it's manufactured.

You can't control beliefs by eliminating free speech, because this creates a "lack" and mankind doesn't tolerate "lacks"; "lacks" induce a desire to be filled - that is proactive, the very opposite of control. Proactive-ism is stopped, seemingly paradoxically, by providing a situation that allready seems to have an implication of action: by providing "fullness" rather than "lack".

And this is what is done to control: you simply provide a "fullness" which lacks meaning (has no relation to reality). People are happy spending all their time and energy around this "fullness", as it appeals to their desire not to have a "lack."

As a concrete example, Wolfowitz is happy to give people the "meaningless fullness" of his comment "Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil." Everyone's energy gets wrapped up in that, they feel active and full; thus there is no desire, as desire is allready satiated. The desire is directed at "Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil" as a construct which has no meaning whatsoever. Does he mind that it's negative press? No... "there's no such thing as negative advertising" is true well beyond it's explicit scope.

The only solution to this is to induce a public opinion which is not constructed in this fashion. However, it's not ever likely to happen because such a stance is one of "lack", in other words, it is anxiety-producing (by generating an unsatiated desire). It's a "lack" because it requires giving up the "fullness" which the construction gives you; of giving up desire which immediately has it's satisfaction, and thus produces reward rather than anxiety to the personality.

This is how manipulation works. Everyone agrees there is manipulation, but they seem to think it's very simple and straightforward. 'Wolfowitz lies and is evil; that is the essence of the manipulation.' What kind of manipulation would that be? A successful manipulation does not exist in the space of the manipulators actions; this is the difference between manipulation and coercion. A successfull manipulation exists entirely within the space of the manipulatee. That is the very definition of manipulation: not that someone else is lacking, but that your actions are chosen for you (in other words, your desire and it's satisfaction, "fullness" is given to you). The conclusion from this is that it's entirely within our own power to stop being manipulated.

Returning to the above, I am not interested in having everyone recognize that supernationalism should be opposed (while that is my personal belief); rather, I'm interested in people recognizing what supernationalism is; so as to allow for a true discussion of it (discussion here not just in the overt sense; but in the more broad sense of cultural evolution).

So long as, just as a single example chosen as it relates to supernationalism, anti-globalists honestly believe they're anti-globalist (and people observing them believe likewise), there is no possibility of discussion (again, ****ingly, in the broad sense). There is alot of energy spend in pseudo-discussion, but it's all just meaningless noise, as it's energy directed at things which have no meaningfull existance (ie. the same thing described above wrt "fullness").

Bringing it back to popular topics here, it's the same issue with Bush. If I say something like "Bush is a traditional conservative and thus is opposed to establishing long-term power in Iraq", instead of exciting the "thought-objects" relating to different approaches to supernationalism and such, it excites the "empty" "thought-objects" which the above-mentioned cultural construction has supplied for us in order to subvert our discussion (again in the broad sense). As an example, if I reply with that phrase to a post criticising Bush, I am likely to be taken as "pro-Bush"... even though I could just as easily follow that phrase with "... which is why he's providing criminally little support to reconstruction, and should be brought to war crime tribunal for his negligence." That phrase itself is neither pro- not anti-, but meant simply as an observation of reality: as a basis by which we can agree and discuss the resulting pros and cons, as well as what interventions we could make to change the situation, and so on. Notably, that Bush is a traditional conservative (as an example, whether or not you agree that he is) has, necessarily both good and bad points.

This, in itself, is another strong motivator that keeps people firmly attached to the empty cultural constructrs. It is "lack"-inducing to recognize that the same object can be both bad and good. It induces a lack insofar as you identify with that object if it is good (introjection) but abhor it if it is bad (projection). But an object that is both bad and good is either introjected and hated (which is an attack against the ego itself) or projected and desired (which induces anxiety from un-satiated desire). More importantly, it is constantly hovering between those extremes: the very source of existential angst.

But, insofar as all discussion is "argument from foundation", until we can agree upon a description of reality as both good and bad, we can have no discussion (again in the broad sense). This means we cannot assess what interventions we can make, and we are effectively subverted as acting beings in a society. We are manipulated.

Whew.

conversely much of the anti-Clinton sentiment I recall hinged on the making War durring a sex scandel tact.

Really? The criticism of Clinton I'm familiar with concerns his raising of taxes, his raising of military funding, his increasing of troop movements, his reversal of his campaign promises, and his unilateral, preemptive supernationalism, to name a few things...

BTW, the "sex scandal" is a fairly obvious, but still reasonable, example of exactly culture manufacturing "meaningless fullness."

certainly one isn't better than the other. however it make for an interesting reflection of our cultural values... or the image there of

As a return of this sentiment: what interests me as a reflection of political and cultural values is that people, for whatever reason, do not recognize these criticisms of Clinton.

Perhaps that fairly obvious "meaningless fullness" worked quite well here.

[@PLUGO]

Just a little evangelism there chris?

Seriously, very thought proviking post

As for that "sex Scandel tact" bit, well you pretty much cracked open what I was loosely pondering wrt "Manufactored Public Opinion"

of all the things Clinton did or didn't do... the majority of remarks ment to dis' him seem to hinge on his sex scandel.

Speaking broadstroked off-the-cuff vernacular here...

[WinterPalm]

Guantanamo bay is owned by the americans. I would think that makes it a part of america and therefore american soil. Doesn't that mean the soldier should be protected by the consitution?
Clearly Cuba would not let americans in if it actually belonged to Cuba, right? Or am I being stupid in arriving at these facts?
However, I think that holding children prison is still a horrible thing as is torture, holding people against their will without access to an atorney or whatever and not telling people why they are being held, those are simple human rights violations that Saddam and Ladin and the other boogeymen have commited and had their countries sterilized for. The US should maybe live up to its own standards.

[Laughing Cow]

One question:
Clinton dipped his wick into office ink so to speak.

How about JFK??

From what I hear and read in the news it appears that he also partook of the same activity, as I am pretty sure did a few other presidents.

Cheers.