Iraq and 9/11 WTF???

Tonight George Bush layed out the latest justification for the Iraq war. No more mention of the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein was poised to unleash on the US or hand over to Al Quada.

No, it's about fighting the 9/11 terrorists. He made no less than nine references to 9/11 and Osama bin Laden, neither of which had any connection to Iraq, and whose current connection is vague at best.

It has been said that if you repeat a lie enough times, people will believe it. Tonight it is the link between 9/11 and Iraq. While no one in the Bush administration ever explicitly said that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11, it was strongly implied in the rhetoric.

And the process continues tonight. He speaks of terrorists terrorists terrorists, as if everyone you can call a terrorist is a member of one big terrorist family. Terrorists attacked New York City and Washington. Terrorists are exploding car bombs in Baghdad - one and the same. There were at least four references to terrorists as dehumanized murdering monsters.

Creating democracy in the Middle East is a noble cause, but must we build democracy on a bed of lies?

What should be more frightening to us than "terrorists" in Iraq is how sucessfully Bush is using peoples anger and fear from 9/11 to persue his policy of remaking the Middle East in his own image.

Just Like Adolf Hitler

This week, Jon Stewart of the Daily Show did one of his most poingnat segments ever, about politicians and media personalities, both liberal and conservative, who innapropriately compare people they disagree with to Hitler.

This should be required viewing by all thinking people.

Red State Stupidity

Yesterday, Joel Connelly of the Seattle P.I. wrote the following in his column:

"Whenever Fox News shows footage of Iraq, it is labeled 'War on Terror.' They tell troops that they're protecting the homeland. They justify the war in Iraq as self-defense. They evoke fear of further attacks here. Fear evokes a strict-father understanding of the world, which favors the conservative way of thinking."

Boos and hisses have greeted such justifications of the Iraq war at public forums in Seattle. The Emerald City voted 75 percent for John Kerry in November.

On a quick trip back to a battleground state wedding last fall, however, I heard the Bush position resonate among fellow guests. Several, while disagreeing with the president on social issues, identified him as the man who would keep terrorism away from America's shores. Pollsters labeled them "security moms." They helped decide the election.

Do they really believe that other men who have been President or have come close to that office would welcome terrorists into our country with open arms, or would have not done just as good of a job at protecting us from them?

Also, yesterday the House passed a proposal for a anti-flag burning Constitutional Amendment, as if we were facing a real threat from flag burning protesters.

Folks, there is a reason why Congress doesn't pass a law against flag "desecration." It is unconstitutional! Since they proper way of dosposing of a worn out American flag is to ceremonially burn it, it's not the act thay are banning, it is the message behind the act, and any ban on a message being conveyed violates the First Amendment. So the only way to ban flag burning is to amend the Constitution to scale back First Amendment Freedoms.

What planet do these people live on?

History shaking events

My sister-in-law worte in her blog:

I realize that the two major time markers in my life are awareness of aids and the world trade center yuck. Both are events that stirred up enough fear to change the worlds I touched forever. Try as I might I can't think of anything that is as powerful a force with a positive motivator...

I do try to pay more attention to the positives, and I *do* believe that great events have happenned in my life.

My thoughts run more along the theory that there are only two motivators: fear and love. You have lots of sub-motivators (e.g. greed, agape, need for stability), but they all can really be brought down into these two catagories.

If AIDS made my world afraid of intimacy at its heart and the WTC thing made us afraid of exposure - and thereby freedom - where is the major change that was brought on by a 'love' motivation. You could even say that our child-centered society is often motivated by the love of our children. However, I would argue that much of that motivation is actually from fear of being found out as the not-perfect parent.

I've got a couple other time markers in my life: The JFK assassination (I was too young to be aware of it at the time, but it was a 9/11-magnitude event for the people who do recall it), Watergate, and a few others. The only positive event of this scale in my lifetime was the Apollo 11 Moon landing. Just like on 9/11, every living person who had access to a TV stopped whatever they were doing to watch the live images. They even rolled out TVs at Disneyland and inside Las Vegas casinos. At the time, it seemed that science and technology would be the unifying force that would bring the world together and solve all of mankind’s woes.

Now, 35 years later, science and technology have advanced, but they have failed to improve human nature. "Islamic Extremism" is the new Communism threat used by the forces of hate and fear to encroach on civil liberties and justify wars and fat government contracts for the friends of government officials. But when I look around, there really is a lot of positive energy in the world, but it seems to be very difficult the positive to capture peoples' attention like the negative can.

Michael Jackson

Yes, I know this isn't a weighty issue what affects all of our lives but here it goes.

I don't really know if MJ was really guilty or not. I didn't follow the trial very closely, but here's what I have to say about it...

A guilty verdict is supposed to mean that the defendent is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Not beyond any possible doubt, but beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that if there is a reasonable explanation that explains the evidence where the defendent is not guilty, this is the explanation the jury is supposed to accept.

Now a 40-something man who has preteen boys over for sleepovers is certainly unusual, but that doesn't prove that Jackson had sex with them. Our dog sleeps in our bed sometimes, but that doesn't mean we practice beastiality.

So it all comes down to he said/he said. And of course there may be a fanancial/blackmail incentive. Without DNA or other proof, then is there really evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

The New Man Emerging?

According to a news story on Yahoo, a new kind of man is emerging:

Move over Rambo, you're cramping new man's style -- PARIS (AFP)

Macho man is an endangered species, with today's male more likely to opt for a pink flowered shirt and swingers' clubs than the traditional role as family super-hero, fashion industry insiders say.

A study along these lines led by French marketing and style consultants Nelly Rodi was unveiled to Fashion Group International during a seminar Tuesday on future strategy for the fashion industry in Europe.

"The masculine ideal is being completely modified. All the traditional male values of authority, infallibility, virility and strength are being completely overturned," said Pierre Francois Le Louet, the agency's managing director.

Instead today's males are turning more towards "creativity, sensitivity and multiplicity," as seen already in recent seasons on the catwalks of Paris and Milan.Arnold Schwarznegger and Sylvester Stallone are being replaced by the 21st-century man who "no longer wants to be the family super-hero", but instead has the guts to be himself, to test his own limits.

"We are watching the birth of a hybrid man. ... Why not put on a pink-flowered shirt and try out a partner-swapping club?" asked Le Louet, stressing that the study had focused on men aged between 20 and 35.Sociologists and other experts spent three months analyzing some 150 magazines and books and 146 Internet sites, as well as interviewing a dozen experts from Europe, the United States and China.

The traditional man still exists in China, Le Louet said, and "is not ready to go". But in Europe and the United States, a new species is emerging, apparently unafraid of anything.

"He is looking for a more radical affirmation of who he is, and wants to test out all the barbarity of modern life" including in the sexual domain, said Le Louet, adding that Reebok with its "I am what I am" campaign had perfectly tapped into this current trend.

The emergence of this new male beast who wants to look and feel good, and who will also have an impact on the role of women, presages a new potentially lucrative market for the European fashion industry.

"All those labels which have adapted to this freedom of expression are on the up, all those which are too rigid will suffer in the future," Le Louet said, pointing to the growing success of sports and casual wear manufacturers.

Europe's economic downturn and stiff competition from China have left the industry -- which accounts for 7.0 percent of employment across the European Union or some 2.7 million jobs with an annual turnover of 230 billion euros --
in the doldrums.

The EU has already stepped in with new initiatives and with an aid package to support small and medium enterprises, particularly in the field of technical textiles.But the search for new markets is also driving research to profile the new European consumer -- the theme of the debate held by Fashion Group, which unites some 6,000 fashion industry professionals.

The answer is not simple, as culture and changing demographics make it hard to pin down the typical European, especially with the growing population of elderly.

But even though society is changing, Jean-Pierre Fourcat, a director with consultants Sociovision specialising in discerning social trends, believes there are some common threads.

"There is an increasing desire for people to be in charge of their own lives, and an intolerance for any lack of autonomy," he told the debate.

"We are also moving into a different situation. We no longer need what we are used to, rather we need what is new. But a motorway without any signs is total panic. So we need some beacons ... and we need a little bit of fun."

Today's consumer wants to feel pampered, but also to be able to take time out, feel good and feel alive. "We have to help people to create their own look.

And we absolutely must help people to dream, and if we help people to dream perhaps the world will be a little bit better," he said.

Observations:

The fashion world is a world unto itself. Every year a small group of designers decide among themselves what the look is going to be and parade that look in fashion shows. Clothes based on these designs may show up in department stores, but they may or may not catch on with real people.

A good example of this was in the late 1980s when fashion designers declared that short skirts in womens officewear to be the current look. But real women didn't want that, and headlines like "Women reject today's fashions" appearded in the media. This sounds like an oxymoron, like "nobody buys bestsellers," but in clothing, this can happen.

The yahoo article actually contains some references to men truly being themselves rahter than slaves to fashion & popular culture:

Arnold Schwarznegger and Sylvester Stallone are being replaced by the 21st-century man who "no longer wants to be the family super-hero", but instead has the guts to be himself, to test his own limits...

... in Europe and the United States, a new species is emerging, apparently unafraid of anything."

He is looking for a more radical affirmation of who he is, and wants to test out all the barbarity of modern life" including in the sexual domain, said Le Louet, adding that Reebok with its "I am what I am" campaign had perfectly tapped into this current trend.

However, I've noticed that people attracted to counter-culture fashion statements, (goth, hemp smoker, etc.) believe that they are rejecting conformaty and being individuals, but what they are really doing is choosing an alternate conformity.

As for myself, I'm more into wearing what is comfortable & appropriate for the activity than what the latest fashions are. But I am OK with those those who want to make bolder statements with their clothing. But those choices should come from within, not by taking cues from fashion magazines or what the people you perceive as "the cool people" are wearing.