»
Archives
»
Corner Pub #2
»
Jackass: The Culture
| Corner Pub #2 |
|
Jackass: The Culture |
|
|
allan Senior Member
since 2000-04-09
Posts 620On the road 
|
WARNING! 'All nations are advised that the coming war takes place under strictly controlled conditions. Under no account should any other nation try this first-strike policy which is reserved exclusively for the use of world superpowers. Strictly NOT to be tried in your own neighbourhood.' -ö- Watch as human shields explode into bloody fragments as a cruise missile impacts in slo-mo! Get to see onlookers spontaneously vomit six feet at the site of the carnage! You‘ll be screaming in your seats! See five million born-agains roar in moral pleasure as buildings explode in mountains of death and destruction! Cheer as cluster bombs explode and rip hundreds of passers by to shreds! You‘ll feel SO patriotic! All the thrills, spills and hair-raising slaughter you‘ve come to expect from your regular crew of crazy cowboys! Revel in the endless replays of delightful collateral damage digitally enhanced for your viewing pleasure! It‘s to die for! Certificate ‚R‘ at an abbatoir near you! [This message has been edited by allan (03-03-2003 03:47 AM).] |
||
| © Copyright 2003 Allan Tierney - All Rights Reserved | |||
Marge Tindal 
since 1999-11-06
Posts 42384Florida's Foreverly Shores |
quote:... or not~ |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
A clever play on the long recognised phenomenon that pain can be classed as, and be marketed as, entertainment. Man has always been fascinated with the misfortunes, especially painful ones, that befall others, slapstick comedy is based entirely on this fascination, depictions of acts of war however are generally used to reinforce the notion that pain in any guise is a bad thing. Which is probably why this piece works on at least one level, it forces the reader to face up to the irony that one type of pain and misfortune is classed as hilarious entertainment while another has traditionally been presented as a sombre reminder of why inflicting pain is no laughing matter. |
||
|
allan Senior Member
since 2000-04-09
Posts 620On the road |
This was inspired by a week of 'Jackass' programs we had on MTV here last week. It struck me that the US government attitude and many fervently "Christian" posters on the net had some similarities to the wild men in 'Jackass'. A kind of "Who cares what the result is, I'm gonna do this because I'm crazy enough' attitude. The main difference between the two though is that the guys on 'Jackass' are essentially fun-loving crazies while those who are war-mongers within the US population are filled with a combination of hatred and arrant stupidity. The sight from Europe of those who seem to be salivating at the prospect of war and who are hungering to see death and destruction wreaked on anybody so long as they are Arab is a pretty sickening and disgusting sight from Europe I can tell you. Bush, and particularly, Rumsfeld, have decided to dispense with the usual diplomatic niceties and get down to the level of insults. Okay, but that cuts both ways. Americans are now going to hear what we REALLY think of THEM, their foreign policies and cultural exports. What's good for the goose is good for the gander... I'm sure the American government will say it's just more jealousy of your freedoms. But did anyone REALLY believe this line the first time around? There are many many Americans who are against the culture of ignorance and spite that I talk about here. I sincerely hope they will take the earliest opportunity of removing Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and the others who are promoting hatred from the back office at the earliest opportunity. The embarrassment of these people will live on for quite some time, but eventually we WILL begin to respect the American people as a decent people again. [This message has been edited by allan (03-03-2003 04:19 AM).] |
||
|
allan Senior Member
since 2000-04-09
Posts 620On the road |
The following is the text of John Brady Kiesling's letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. Mr. Kiesling is a career diplomat who has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan. Dear Mr. Secretary: I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal. It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer. The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America’s most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security. The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo? We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead. We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials. Has “oderint dum metuant” really become our motto? I urge you to listen to America’s friends around the world. Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong international system, with the U.S. and EU in close partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet? Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America’s ability to defend its interests. I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Nah, I don't want to watch that show. I prefer to see the reruns of the towers of the World Trade Center falling down, you know the one that shows the bodies jumping out of windows from a hundred stories up. I prefer to see replays of the Arabs in Palestine and Baghdad dancing in the streets as the news was spread and American flags burned. Now THAT was entertainment!! It's on the nostalgia channel since it happened such a long time ago. Word has it a sequel may be in the works..... |
||
|
allan Senior Member
since 2000-04-09
Posts 620On the road |
Is this what we will see from now on from Americans? "Whatever we do is okay because we are justified." Well, please remember that others have suffered long years of suffering through terrorism before yourselves. The British fought the IRA for years and thousands of innocent men women and children died during that time. The IRA (with massive funding from the U.S. via NORAID) exploded several devastating bombs in the heart of London and several other cities during that time. As awful as 9-11 was and there is no denying that, watch out that you as a country don't end up becoming that which you fight. Slaughter in the name of democracy, peace and protection is still slaughter, no matter how much you justify it. [This message has been edited by allan (03-04-2003 04:13 AM).] |
||
|
BlueEyes Member
since 2002-08-30
Posts 152TX, USA |
oh I see....we just sit back and let it happen again, right? Okay - fair enough. But then I want YOU to explain to my 2-year old cousin why she won't ever see her mother again after the WTC Attacks - and then YOU can explain to her why it happened again...another time another place - because the USA decided they would just let this one go.... As much as I am against war and losing another innocent life - whether it is Arab or American - a life is a life - you think we should just sit on our hands and let them do it to us again? Sorry, pal |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Slaughter???? That's the word you use in your description? My mistake. I shouldn't be involved in this thread. I thought you were something you're not. Have a good life.. |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
BlueEyes quote: I’m not sure that the best way to fight terrorism is to start a war. Don’t you think there’s some validity to the argument that after Desert Storm II America will be more likely to be the victims of a terrorist act and not less likely? quote: I think this falls into the “you’re either with us or against us” category of logic, the inference being there are only two possible options. In this case those options are total war or total inaction, no other choice is permitted or entertained, isn’t that possibly a little short sighted? |
||
|
allan Senior Member
since 2000-04-09
Posts 620On the road |
Blue Eyes, many of those who lost relatives and friends on 9-11 have spoken up against the perpetuation of violence and death which present U.S. government policies will bring. The answer is not more violence and the snuffing out of even greater numbers of innocent lives. Those innocents who will be killed by American bombs and missiles in Iraq will be just as dead as those killed on 9-11 or by Hussein at Halabja. There ARE strong effective policies which could be taken to control and disarm Iraq. (By the way, Iraq seems not to have had anything to do with 9-11.) The policies to preserve peace and disarm Iraq which are being forwarded by France, Germany, Russia and China would mean that Saddam could be controlled and his war-machine dismantled. These policies would not bring about the end of even one more innocent life. I can understand the fear in the hearts of Americans and their desire to do whatever is necessary to attack the unseen sources of that fear. But attacking whatever easy target that exists just because it is visible and without just cause is not morally acceptable and will only bring the justification for more violence against the United States at a later date. You will in effect compound your fears, rather than by taking an ethical and strong stand which the rest of the world can agree with, deal with the sources of them. We all wanted to support you after 9-11 and we saw that the sources of terrorism did have to be dealt with. The present policies of your government seem to us to exascerbate the situation rather than improve it. I wonder that it is not possible to see that mass death of civilians in the Middle East will not bring about the peace you long for. Are the dangers for your people not clear in taking this action? Now all the support we wanted to give you after 9-11 has evaporated due to Bush and the fear he is generating across the world. We believe he is acting on hidden agendas in a wildly irresponsible manner and does not seem to care that he is actively risking countless lives to pursue these. We in Europe have suffered from terrorism for decades, Britain in particular by the IRA terrorists who were partly funded from the U.S. through fundraising by NORAID (Northern Ireland Aid). We have learned that there are no easy answers. Of course you must be as effective as humanly possible in limiting the activity and success of terrorism, but you must also be very careful not to act just like them - if you do this you lose your credibility and only confirm their prejudices and add to their support. You must also investigate WHY they do what they do, what are the misguided reasons and what if any credible grievances, if any, lie under that. If you don't do this you blind yourself. Taking a simple "destroy evil" stance has been shown to be severely limited. It may seem to work for years before you find there is a 9-11 or lesser event. The access to significant weapons of destruction is getting easier all the time. A coalition of countries working effectively to combat will only be built by consensus. Bull-headed arrogance for selfish national interests (as we see it) will not build that consensus. You may not agree with our view on Bush but I hope you will understand that our views are based on our honest assessment of his actions. In the marches demonstrating against U.S. government policies on Iraq recently there were people from every possible walk of life. They were not young radicals. In fact the majority were on the first demonstration of their lives. There were hundreds of families, many many senior citizens and veterans many in wheelchairs. There were people of all kinds and all nationalities. We were united in wanting to tell Mr Bush that we abhor his war-mongering and his putting the people of the world at risk for reasons of national self-interest. This IS our view and no amount of head-shaking or patronizing remarks can reduce the honest passion which the people of Europe feel. (This includes by the way some of the nations who's government signed the article of support for the present U.S. policy on Iraq - by the latest polls 75% of the population of Spain and 80% of the population of Hungary are totally against this policy.) [This message has been edited by allan (03-05-2003 07:41 AM).] |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
