Why The Law Is In Shambles

Boy, talk about a timely article. Our new mayor is urging us to vote for Home Rule. Here is a portion of my letter to him dated 11-12-05.

Friday night I asked you to convince me that Home Rule is a good thing. I also mentioned that I (and I suppose others) feel only at the local level is my voice heard.

For years I have written letters to our representatives only to receive token responses. This is not necessarily due to their lack of interest, but a fact of life in a day when even the ordinary office worker receives up to one hundred daily contacts by mail, email, fax, phone and personal contact. I wonder if it is even possible to govern at a time when speed and volume of communication seem to continually increase.

While “special interest groups” are demeaned by the media, it often seems to be the only way to be effective or at least recognized. (I recently heard 47% of the lobbyists for foreign companies and countries are OUR former elected representatives. Most of us have less representation.)

Dear whattheheck:

In what city does the mayor encourage home rule--DC?

Hold the cheese - There is no cure for the Spoiled.  If people don’t vote, don’t blame the system, blame the real culprits - everyone who does not vote - shake your finger, throw your purse - get in their face. 

Now there is a lot of tossing the hot crumpets around here.

I think if social democracy was really the author’s cure, he’d have a nice link to his book on this Internet and I would be reading it right now instead of making some useless wiseguy remarks.  I believe the web could handle one extra page - he could even Blog it - but, alas, that is no way to get anything accomplished.  But what do I know?  I would publish a book, too, if I were smart enough.. on Social Democracy about uneducated people who don’t vote & getting the educated vote to buy it and read it - hmmm… where is that water trough.. or park.. the dog can’t use the street & keep it on the leash.

Final remark - and then I must get on with my nonsense elsewhere - “We’ve already got 6 billion people and we have the greenhouse effect and global warming. I think that if social democracy doesn’t survive as a model for treating each other [well], for regulating economic growth, for not having these huge, horrendous side effects, the planet is not going to survive.” Let me see - there is something sandwiched in there - oh, I see, regulating economic growth.  That is such a small topic, such an easy idea to grasp and offer solutions for, I guess I am in the dark - everyone must just read that and think it is like eating a cheese sandwich, why not? 

However, in my view of systems, regulating economic growth is a tremendous subject.  Huge! And it is all contained in three words… now, I won’t leave without putting my slice of cake on the table to be shoved back into my face when someone else reads this, but… to regulate economic growth, how about this:  the tax code is where all magic happens:  give slight-to-medium tax breaks which make it financially advantageous to be married instead of the penalizing and fix that home mortgage interest deduction - the federal government is subsidizing homeowners & the poorest of us rent.. these real solutions solve of all this jibbly-goosh talk in this interview.  And you got it free.

All right, I’m out.  Pie me.

Does elitist judicial rule correspond to enlightened despotism?  I hope so.

I think we have an even more fundamental problem than what Tom Geoghegan is outlining in “Why the law is a shambles”, but they are close relatives.

We live with a set of myths — There is: “We are a nation of laws and all are equal in the eyes of the law.” But even more basic: “We have a representative form of government — every vote counts.” BUT, there may be no paper trail.

I look around and see people far worse off than I am (solidly middle class). The 30% in New Orleans who were living below the poverty line are a extreme example.  But we do have something very basic in common. We in the fact do not have political representation.

We are increasingly becoming a society divided by economic class. The broad middle class, which has been the backbone of the U.S. economy, is slipping down. As it does, those who have been below middle are falling even further. As the author stated they, “...see themselves not as citizens, but as victims, so there’s less civic trust, more people dropping out of the system.”

As “...one of (those who) is still trying to participate in the political process, holding on to these old civic values...” I am continually disappointed in the choices we have as candidates. There has been so little difference on economic issues that only the (D) or (R) next to the name on TV distinguishes the players.

Spending is up and we get tax breaks for the wealthy and benefit cuts for the rest.

The Washington crowd is closely aligned with the interests of the largest business managers. Corporations and politicians say, “Globalization is inevitable and will be good for consumers.” But, The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 is primarily a way to give business a tax break on foreign earnings. There are no jobs guaranteed in the U.S. (We can retrain.) Corporations and politicians control their own salaries and benefits - by serving on the committees which decide for themselves and each other.

There is an old joke about the guy who says, “I used to be a liberal, but now I’m much more conservative.” Reply, “Oh, you got mugged.”

Perhaps a parallel is, I used to be conservative, but now I’m more liberal“ Oh, your pension got stolen.”

Just as Congress has spent Social Security and Medicare, so have companies spent our pensions. Government “oversight” has consisted of a recently ordered investigation by the SEC into the $31 billion pension deficit at GM.

Proposed solutions: Cut Soc. Sec & Medicare benefits. Reimburse defunct pensions at about 66%. “Special Guest” status at a sub-minimum wage. (What is less than lowest?)

How can a union gain clout against a labor pool working at pennies per hour?

With all due respect to Mr.Geoghegan,I cannot abide by or condone “social"anything.In my view,a “social liberal"is a de-facto communist,thereby a “social conservative"is a de-facto fascist.The word"social"is in fact a catchword for all things collectivist.In my view,collectivism is the cancer that is consuming our"society".

A good point was made in this article however.Mr. Geoghegan stated that the United States Senate caused much of the grief that we suffer today. In my opinion,this is totally correct.Before that ill fated constitutional amendment(16th or 17th,I’m not sure which),a Senators’ first loyalty was to his home state(rather than the federal heirarchy).Ever since then,we have been truly and totally screwed.

We must return to the individualistic principles proscribed by our venerable forefathers.The Constitution of the United States is the greatest document ever drafted this side of the Bible,all we have to do is obey it.(and step on the snakes that subvert it)

WhatTheHeck if you but had the understanding of what goes on beyond the US borders.............What a loss you are to the movement for a better world.  There is hope for you yet, when you can write so well about things you do understand.  Truly you know things are not right, but you don’t know how wrong they are, or what is the connecting factor and why we others are becoming more in number and in “Emphasis”. 

Are we all really sharing in a collective insanity, which is overtaking more and more people, who are blaming fewer and fewer for things being wrong?  Or could sensible, conservative people, who are not slow, but slow to change, merely be hanging on against all good sense to a comfortable illusion?

Oz is going the same way, in regard to our economy.  Our once strong workers rights and feisty but not unneccessary Unions are being eroded to an incredible degree.  Rabbit and others could not imagine a few years ago that we’d be standing where we are now, with the virtual abolition of Unions.  They have certainly had their teeth pulled, and a very big stick given the employers.  The only way the unions can show any strength in an issue, will mean facing legal actions, and almost certainly violent state response.

Employers, and small business generally have it hard too, due largely to masses of new taxes and things as well as the sorts of costs like fuel, transport, raw materials etc.  The ned result is many small businesses often make less than their emplyees by the end of the year.

The only ones who seem to be doing well, are the big corporations and banks who are posting record profits, year after year.

That includes our formally state owned telephone carrier, of course.

Every time a state owned enterprise starts showing a profit the government sells it off if it can get away with it, and then they waste the short term profits on the next election porbarrelling exercise at best.  At worst no one knows what they do with the money.

The Law is in a shambles, because it is no longer sacrosanct, and hasn’t been for a long time with big corporations.  The idea of law is usually to protect the people from each other I think.  The corporations see the law as at worst an impediment, to be overcome, or at best an opportunity.  They will undermine and subvert the law if it is for profit.  They will take advantage of “loopholes” wherever and if possible they will interfere with the process of law making for their own ends. 

Obviously this can only result in an imperfect legal system, one in which there will be many holes and apparently insane provisions.  Such a system no matter how fine its roots and how noble its mottos, will no longer be a friend of the people, or their protector, but more likely their oppressor.

The Tool of Their Oppressor.  How else?  Guns and gas chambers come later, first the laws have to be put in place.

Rabbit,

I find it interesting that your economic experience parallels that here in the U.S. — greed is apparently so inherent in the human makeup that it is universally adopted by those in power.

My opinion of unions is they have been similar to corporations. When they were at their peak power here they worked less and demanded more. The corporate execs often gave in rather than injure their stock prices.

To use the U.S. auto industry as an example: I bought a new car in 1973 which I thought was the worst piece of junk ever possible. Then in 1979 they proved they could do worse — rattles, leaks, erratic engine performance, yet the workers from top to bottom continued to get raises and benefit increases.  I have owned six VWs since. Our current one is a 1991 and I still love it!

Except for local service unions which have yet to gain strength (Wal-Mart watch out) there is little unions can do with the over supply of global labor. I wouldn’t mind so much if the foreign workers weren’t also getting the shaft.

There must be constant vigilance to maintain the balance of power — individual versus group, labor vs management, state vs private, nation vs nation. The U.N. which many of us once thought would take care of the latter, seems not immune to the same defects.

Years ago I read, Brave New World (1931) and Brave New World Revisited (1958?) and am continually amazed at how much Huxley foresaw.

There is a specific thread on Wal-Mart, I thought we were agreed the budding union initiatives were doomed from the look of that scenario there.  Was WTH on that thread?  Forget the name.

Rabbit has never been a union person.  A short while after University he worked in the mines and was in a union, the biggest.  At the time we enjoyed exceptional conditions and wages.  The mining companies were not poor.  Rabbit’s father was the Company Secretary of one of the mining companies, and there was more than enoughmoney to keep the shareholders at bay, and millions, in the early eighties slated away into offshre accounts for a select few scum.  Intimately related to the then State Premier, (Like a Governor) Richard Court.  Their father was premier too in his day.  Charles Court.

The point is that everybody was making money. People were looked after and the begginnings of OSH was being dealt with in a sane and sensible fashion.

The Unions were a bit of a pain from time to time.  rabbit was a contractor, a few years later, and on occassion ran his vehicle through Union Picket lines, to enter a minesite to fix the Photocopier or typewriters in the office or something.

All in good fun.  rabbit was fixing the photocopier of the the local union leaders the day before, while they were also picketing the site, so Rabbit called them hypocritical pricks and ran through their silly barricade.  they moved it out of the way for Rabbit to, leave after he fixed the machine.

Yes the unions can go overboard.  But they are invariably reacting to at least as serious an overreach of power as the employers, specifically the big corporations. Rabbit believes that small business can get along fine with employers and unions shouldn’t be a problem as a rule.  The big corporations exist solely for their own, inhuman benefit, and unions become extreme in contrast.  But to get rid of the unions, is as dangerous at least as getting rid of the employers.  The two need the other for balance if either are to exist without bringing down the house.

The one is Fascism, the other Communism.

We are not in times of balance.  Now imbalance is the rule.  We are not poised between an endless but relatively stable give and take, collective bargaining versus economic might,.  We are eliminating the voice of the one party, in favour of the other, and thus we are entering an age of Fascism.

I forget, have you read 1984?  It is as important as Brave New World.  Haven’t read revisited.  Huxley seems more and more optimistic to my way of thinking. 

I think Orwell knew something.

the Un too is the same thing.  Not perfect, but there is study somewhere I’ll find it, which is out and shows that two thirds of the UNs actions have resulted in peaceful solutions.

That isn’t so bad an average...................................Rabbit said nothing ...................................he is thinking something........................................he didn’t say it.........

The problem begins if you expect too much of these things. 

human affairs are too complex for any one organisation to be able to solve everything.  Nevertheless it is exactly such a Unilateral Organisation the NWO has in mind.  It is some insane idea of well, Big Brother.  It is like the bastards are using Orwells book as an instruction manual.

I don’t believe I ever read 1984 — was there a movie? I think saw one years ago. I have read many references to the book, but can’t recall really reading it. I must put it on my list.

A world under one organization would surely be the end of individualism and time to colonize space.

At last we have a topic on which we are in sync.

Locally our small companies are faced with the need to layoff people who have been loyal, hardworking employees and are more like family. I have heard a number of very sad stories in recent years from friends. One local manufavturer has taken no salary for two years to be able to keep more people on.  Picture a major corporation doing that!

Wal-Mart thread: Yes I have been there. The following is a comment I sent yesterday in response to an editorial which was very pro Wal-Mart. It is from my own experience with a client whose packaging I designed in the mid 1980s.

It actually took about a decade and the screws were made in several countries over that time — Taiwan, Singapore, India and others — I simplified it a bit.
-----------------

The Wal-Martitis pandemic:

Here’s how they work it....
Wal-Mart has demanded lower prices from suppliers for years. A fastener manufacturer No.2) beats the current supplier (No.1) by one-quarter of a cent per package of screws by producing them in Mexico.  Wal-Mart switches.

Supplier No.1 fires his U.S. workers and opens a plant in China — he now undercuts No.2, etc.

The former employees at both No.1 and No.2 are working for less per hour and without benefits at… That’s RIGHT!  Wal-Mart!

Since they make so much less they have no choice but to shop at… Yup, Wal-Mart!

We’re all getting screwed!
(Except, of course, the top brass including… Wal-Mart!)
---------------------------------

In our paper today is a report that since 1999 the average worker’s pay has dropped 12% in our area. When you add inflation at around 2% to 3% it is not surprising people are becoming restless.

Rabbit too has known plenty of employers and farmers too by the way, whose wives have to work just to help support the family, while the business is going through a tough time.  Five years later the business is still struggling and they are forced to listen to dickheads like the prime minister talk about how splendidly small business is doing under his leadership.

Rabbit went to a small business seminar someyears ago, which turned out to be a thinly disguised Liberal Party platform.  Rabbit started asking some rather hard questions of the member of parliament they had addressing us, and the meeting ended up in chaos.  Rabbit was really pissed off at being tricked into attending this gig with a con of it being OUR chance to talk to them.  All it was to be was them snowballing us.  Not bloody likey with Rabbit in the front Row.

The economic pressures are the most likely thing to get people restless, and if the new Patriot Act being considered is any indication, it is expected that many more people are going to get much more restless in the enar future.

Things are not good economically, all unbalanced.  We are none of us on any road to recovery, this seems to be a moving sidewalk, going one way only.

Our district is represented by a Congressman who campaigned on the promise to quit after three, two-year terms. Guess what — By then he was chairman of the small committee and decided he owed it to US to stay.

He has done a GREAT job — since he has been there we have many small businesses — the problem is they used to be BIGGER businesses. He is totally committed to the idea that globalization is good for us. Our district exports have increased 84%.

His export numbers are due however, to the fact we are now exporting to customers which used to be here. General Electric, General Motors, Electro-Motive Division, Avery-Dennison Label Co. and many more.

The problem is he believes the the economic “experts” who are using textbook examples which do not reflect the present situation. I think some truly believe their data (imagination is not a math characteristic) but others are just scamming. Globalization has not made it into the books yet.

This relates to the main topic of this thread in that we are being LEGALLY robbed of our jobs, our pensions and our national future.

Legislation, accounting practices and government data are stacked against the average citizen. The ratio of public servants to public blood-suckers is looking worse all the time.

The net result at grassroots — political cynicism. People know how much they have lost and how much the wealthy are gaining off of them.

WTH there is no way a sane and sensible person cannot see what you are describing.  The situation here is vastly similar.  What differences existed between our two labour markets and economic thinking have dissappeared over the last dozen years, especially the last few years.  The description of the process is popularly referred to as Americanisation.  It is not a complimentary term.  When Protesters and some dissenting politicians talk about Oz being americanised, they don’t mean it to give a warm feeling in the tummies of all who hear it.  We are suffering the same losses of some essential industries and even many governmnet services are being contracted out, in order to make government seem smaller.  In the end what we are getting is a more and more heavily populated bureacratic government, where once many of thoase number did actual work for the country, government services, for which we payed our taxes.  Now we are paying more and more taxes, and getting back increasingly low standards or none at all from private companies who have often been formed out of a free or subsidised gift of once public owned utilities and resources.  We eventually end up paying these private companies directly, at least some of the cost, and the savings we supposedly made in government spending?  They don’t materialise.  Any money gets used up pating the ever increasing number of office staff, bureacrats.  Mrs rabbit is one, She works for finacial section of State government.  She is one of many whose job is increasingly involved with overseeing the contractors.  Inm her case indirectly via auditing the cities and town councils, but obviously they too are contracting out more and more.  This was one of the things upon which Rabbit was yelling about a few years ago when we lived in a country town and the old Rabbit went and ran for council.  There was a lot more politics than normal for town elections in Oz, but a group of us, basically challenged the big corporation which “owned “ the Shire, a Timber Mining Company.  Bunnings.  They pulled out all stops and managed to beat us in all the usual ways.  Crooked polling.  All sorts of Multiple voting rights allocated to the Company of Bunnings due to all their land holdings, most of which is rented at a nominal fee from the Shire any way.  Tis gave them many thousands of votes.  All lodged by the CEO of Bunnings, who bypassed the queue and went straight into the polling booth at about lunchtime, cast his two and a half thousand extra votes, and went home.

We actually got very respectable results, but yet lost by a few thousand votes.  Six of us were beaten, the only one who got in was a local small timber miller, a neighbor and friend of the Rabbit and he ran for our district in Middlesex.  Rabbit could as easily have won that but since I was better known in town for having had an office machines service business for several years, we decided to throw Rabbit into the town, the hardest against the Company.  That one candidate eventually resigned he was completely marginalised in the council and was so disgusted with the slime that was going on.

WTH Rabbit has had plenty of first hand experience of how closely big business is involved with all levels of politics and how even a goodly number of de3cent people will be able to wrest any power away from these well entrenched conspiracies.  Rabbit can find no better word to refer to the problem as a unit.  They are lesser and larger conspiracies, many interlocking and many pyramidal in influence.  But they are private arrangements involving the undermining of public interests, in secret and for the benfit of a select few.  It could be called corruption and it is, but it is the ultimate corruption.  The entire system has become corrupt from the top down, or the bottom up.  The laws which should be ours for us, are theres for them.  The Nation’s treasure, it resources and it’s environment all should be ours and the only business governments should be in is making the most of all those things for the PEOPLE.  but the corporations have usurped our governments.  The apparent result to us, is increasingly disconnected government, and we experience the government primarily through the LAW.

The experience of the LAW for citizens who have come into conflict with it, is of a FASCIST MONSTER.  An unfeeling, inhuman leviathon where the slow speed of the process is contrasted with the speed of learning that ecry thing you ever learned about honesty and truth are of no consequence.  The way to win is money.  If you have enough, you can pay your way through to a reasonable outcome.  If you do not have money, brains are very useful.  If you have a good education and upbringing, you might have a chance.  If you lack all of these things, you are fucked, unless of course, you blame the thing or person the sytem has nominated as the enemoy of the day.  drugs are good.  Rape or bash someone, or steal and claim you were on drugs, or you did it for money for drugs, that will see some understanding from the court.  drugs must be demonised, but some poor misunderstood victim of drugs who was unable to help himself, poor thing give him a little slap or send him to the nice new drug courts where for saying the mantra and declaring Drugs bad, you get a probation thing.  Do Not say it was alcohol.  If you do bad things while under the influence of alcohol, and blame the booze, they will really go to town on you.

Don’t give the booze a bad name is the message here.
Blame everything on drugs and of course we understand.

That is the law being used to alter public opinion, is it not?

About the only thing any different in what you say here is regarding alcohol. Until someone is actually killed by a drunk we have been conditioned to treat it as an “illness” — that way the individual does not need to feel bad about himself.

I guess about the only “conservative” thing I have left is my staunch belief in individual responsibility. It is a virtue which must be taught. I would hate to try to raise young children in today’s “feel good about yourself no matter what” world.

It is sad to read about the people who started our country and pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor and then look at what is acceptable behavior today.

There is nothing intrinsically “conservative” about individual responsibility.

What for example do you think is the BASIS of Anarcho-Socialism?

Asa for the alcohol thing, of course that is the same here.  We are of course sympathetic to the alcohol affected but, the “Criminal Act” under the influence of alcohol, is considered to be exacerbated by the fact that one was drinking.  The same criiminal act, while under the influence of Drugs, if one claims that the drugs are your excuse especially, is treated relatively mildly.

I believe this has the two fold purpose of demonising drugs and encouraging offenders to claim the drugs as an excuse which further feeds the demon, and the demonisation.

Overall such strategies are what Rabbit has previously referred to as wedge tactics, the process of making various groups of society blame each other for their woes, so that the whole of society is kept too fragmented to get their acts together and realise the real source of their problems, the government, and it’s tame media.

It seems to me that,society in general naturally seeks the path of least resistance.It really is alot easier to blame an individual’s crimes and misdemeanors on some innocuous substance or object,rather than looking seriously into the mirror,and facing one’s own shortcomings.Ban guns,ban drugs,ban pornography.The list is getting longer on a daily basis.Something is terribly amiss in our"Land of the Free”.

Rabbit thinks it is the labels WTH.  They are half the problem.

If we you did not automatically make many assumptions about Rabbit, based upon recognising him as LEFTY, I think productive communication would be easier.  There is a certain wall which comes down as soon as we recognise “The Opposition” .  Everyone does it to some degree, perhaps more so if one is locked into such a Left/Right paradigm. 

I like to think that I am not.  In truth Rabbit is not typical of the “archetypal” left oriented, any more than you are of the right, but then Rabbit was aware of this from months ago.

Thus various assumptions we make about each other are based purely upon the label we have consciously or subconsciously assigned to the other as well as our self.

Of course there are lots of “Archetypal” right wing, conservative types, and there may be equally as many of the “Archetypal” left.  This Rabbit is inclined to doubt however.  The left has never been a coherant group.  It has always been, and is best defined as the opposition to the machine. 

The right is more concerned with building the machine, to actually assemble something complex, which is the aim, never mind that the goal seems to be unification, centralisation, the result is an increasingly complex machine.  This requires co-operation, a group view.

This is the reason that I think it is quite easy to make assumptions about a conservative whilst it is virtually impossible to make any assumptions about the left.  Naturally this doesn’t stop the right from doing so, but it is the reason the right seldom wins an argument with the left, by the time the right has realised the other is not quite what they thought, the other has dealt with the right from the generic understanding of the issues and attitude inherant in conservative thinking.  If in fact you are moving away from what you percieve as your conservatism, maybe you were never really one after all?  Rabbit has before maintained that while the external expressions of beliefs and ideas may change over time, the inner person, the light, remains essentially the same.  You are you.  Once you thought you were a conservative.  Now you feel you are less conservative.  Maybe it is not you that has changed, maybe the label has become re-defined over time, such that it no longer appeals to the inner light which is you.

Equally so, the left is a changing force, with a different kind of leftist more in evidence now than for example when Communism was on everybody’s lips.

It seems that the Neo-con agenda is in essence a socialist one which is being recognised by more and more conservatives, did you not say so at some point also?

The left is largely aware of this too, and Neo-conism is also being called more and more, Neo-socialism.  Yet these people are the ultimate expression of a conservative party too.  Where are the old labels to be applied, and to what ends?

By the way, since we have this thread to ourselves, and for the sake of Rabbit curiosity, I have a question, which you are welcome to ignore. Has WTH noticed enough of Jay Cline, to have a good picture of how he behaves?  Rabbit cannot help but wonder if you have noticed the mental dishonesty, avoidance and pompous hubris?  This is fascinating to Rabbit, because while you both hold many views the same, you are either capable of making a relatively sound argument for maintaining you position, or of bowing out gracefully.  While Rabbit has wacked you repeatedly he has long since recognised the reason and honesty which you own.  Does Jay seem more reasonable because he holds many of the same views?  or is it as obvious to you he does no service to any cause he espouses?

Just wondering and it is not Rabbit’s intention to use your words against him, it will not be repeated by Rabbit and Jay won’t read this, he reads nothing, I’m sure.

Dr D

The same attitudes and reactions are common to Rabbit’s countrymen.  It is similar all over the world.  This is why the NWO is able to deal with the various populations using very similar tactics.  The tactics of confusion, division and fear mongering, are working like a charm on the Mainstream, such that all people everywhere are watching their freedoms and privacy and rights being eroded without more than token resistance.

People are so predictable, in groups.

And...............Doctor D

The ban on dissent which is being enacted there as well as here.  Rather than face the criticism of government which such as we are making, the choice is to ban our dissent.  The laws being enacted here now will stop most truth being disseminated in the media, if it is critical of the government or various other pet NWO projects.

Rabbit’s questions/conclusions about WTH’s beliefs…

I think Jay Cline’s comments and mine are differences in personal expression or minor differences of opinion.  No two people will agree totally on issues. I value his opinions as well as yours.

(Just an observation: I don’t know if it was intentional, but the “wedge” tactic you mentioned (divide and conquer) is what you were doing in asking for my criticism of Jay’s arguments.)

I still think I am as conservative as ever — except for my religious views. (A different topic, but one which caused considerable personal trauma thirty years ago.) As with the Churchill comment a while back, IMO, it is the group which has changed the classification.

You said, “...I think it is quite easy to make assumptions about a conservative whilst it is virtually impossible to make any assumptions about the left.”

It is inherent for a “believer” to think one’s own views unassailable and the opposing view simplistic. As for seldom winning an argument — Them what make the rules always “win.” In my view the only “winning” to come from any of these discussions is the winning of respect for a genuinely held difference of opinion.

Rabbit says, “There is nothing intrinsically “conservative” about individual responsibility.”

It is if one believes it to have been a trait which was viewed as of intrinsic importance and seems to be in danger of losing that status. It seems to me in general the term liberal expects more group responsibility. Government health care, retirement plans, day care, gun control, seat belt laws, book banning— the idea that “THEY ought to do something about IT.”

The label “liberal” seldom liberates around here, but the “conservative” are certainly not conserving things I view as important.

and...“What for example do you think is the BASIS of Anarcho-Socialism?”

I’m not sure what it is. It seems to have as many definitions as Neo-Con.  Once again the label thing. To me “socialism” is Big Government as in Great Britain. We in the U.S. have been moving that way during my entire lifetime and I oppose it in nearly all aspects. As for the “Anarcho” part, I assume it is declaring opposition to whatever form of current government is in vogue.

Nazi’s went under the guise of national socialist. Likewise the Soviet Union. The Reds perverted the idea of communism and the Nazis perverted everything they touched.

I believe people should take care of their own needs whenever able. There are no guarantees in life only aspirations. This in no way absolves anyone from caring for others individually or corporately, but when it is shifted to government it is nearly always screwed up by inefficiencies, mismanagement or outright thievery.

Americans have come to believe the government owes us health care, a happy carefree retirement, and a lot of other things which most of us can do for ourselves.

I would rather (and did) give a large portion to help the less fortunate than have my taxes increased and let Washington decide who should get it. Now I have less to give and more people are in need due to socialist programs run by politicians.

I look at British social/economic history as a pretty close forecast of our future — not a happy thought.

The left/right, liberal/conservative labels have been perverted — when carried to extreme both seek power to control the individual.

No as Rabbit said, he was interested in whether or not you could recognise the poverty of Jays argument.  Having specifically stated it was not intended for Jay, and Rabbit would not have said more, thus it is a long bow to draw by describing this as wedge tactics.  Maybe if there had been issues in which the thee of us were involved, which there have not, or maybe if he were in this thread, which he is not.

Besides which Rabbit does not seek to divide and conquer, but to separate the sheep from the goats, for the good of both.  Those who strive to undermine our society via wedge tactics, do so by deceit.  All Rabbit does is about truth, learning it, sharing it, disseminating it.

It is of particular importance because there is an active effort by disinformation agents to “control the information flow”. It is likely that you do not know this, and will thus argue.  Please read the following article, it is just one Rabbit found today, but he will find a couple of reports about tens of millions of dollars going into Internet propaganda.  You will see the point of this when you get about three quarters into the article.  Rabbit hopes you will be mature enough to realise the information is accurate, the source, James Bamford who is a well known journalist and the fact that it is reported by Rense is not an issue.  The article is sourced in all its impoprtant claims, and there is nothing secret in it.

A search can easily be done to confirm who Bamford is and also the details about Rendon. 
Natalie, was probably employed in the final
anaysis by .Rendon.

You say the following;
It is inherent for a “believer” to think one’s own views unassailable and the opposing view simplistic. As for seldom winning an argument — Them what make the rules always “win.” In my view the only “winning” to come from any of these discussions is the winning of respect for a genuinely held difference of opinion.

Rabbit emphatically refutes this.  The above description may well be the view of someone who is holding out in their opinions in the way some do, against all reason and logic.  as for thinking one’s own views unnassailable once again you are missing the most crucial difference between what could be described as the two opposing camps on this and many such sites.  Rabbit and others like him, hold their views from having developed them via genuine reasearch.  We do not all have the same views about things, our opinions often vary and considerably more than what yours do.  However, where we differ is in the way in which we have attained those views.  Having ‘evolved’ from similar positions as yourselves at some time in our lives, we have bit by bit, had to reconsider many of our opinions in light of a very different world view to what the “Average”, supposedly informed but really misinformed public.

This is invariably very obvious in the inevitable disagreements which arise.  We may hold different opinions, but we in this camp, have VERY similar views about the facts which have led us to those opinions.  This is the crucial difference and you are going to have to face it one of these days.  The arguments which arise between us, in our camp, are about details, facts sometimes, and we always manage to establish which are the truth and usually one or both then revises their ideas, a bit, often it makes little difference to our overall opinions, but sometimes it does.  None from your camp, have ever done any such thing.  It is a rare occassion if ever there was one, where any of you gave way on anything.  You truly do consider your views unnassailable and Jay and Scorpy do as well.  This is why you argue beyond all reason, and you cannot merely claim that we do the saem thing, that would be dishonest, or thoughtless.  You are always talking about ideas and opinions, and these cannot be proven it is true, but you try to apply the same rules to Facts, and that is nothing but cowardice, denial, because FACTS are able to be established, that is what distinguishes them.  we have been through this before, and it is academis, the on;ly thing necessary to do, and it proves that academic point along the way, is act on it.  Facts, are not proof of an opinion, on their own, which is why one fact may even be discounted due to another fact.

For example The NYT prints a story by a journalist who says that Iraq has WMDs and she has talked to the source, and high ranking intelligence officials claim it is credible. 

This story is supposedly reporting facts.  Now at the time the above story was circulating, in 2003, it was being reported by people like you, anmd it still is by many, as a proof that there were WMDs.  It really was one of the main things which convinced many to attack Iraq.  A small handful of things reported as facts in a few MSM news sources, is enough to convince most people that something is true.

At the time, there was reports from people like Wilson, and others who had been directly involved which disproving some claims, and who had information about the nature of the INC which was known by Rabbit and many others in 2003 to be an enclave of criminals and controlled by the CIA.  We were called conspiracy theorists and traitors and yet we had actual reports, REAL PEOPLE, NOT ANONYMOUS GOVERNMENT SOURCES, who were on the ground, and telling the truth, verifiable truth.  Now it did not take long for the truth to become known to many more, but it is too late.  Yet nobody can deny that the INC was lying, criminals and controlled by the CIA.  That is the truth WTH, and the above article tells it, but is not in itself the proof. The proof of any part of that story which you wish to argue, is able to be established, that is what a good reporter does, he does not make unverifiable claims, using anonymous sources and crap.  Now that is not proving anything except that these things happened.  If they did and are true, then whatever opinion you then care to have about it is OK with Rabbit, you will be accorded respect for those and you may be in a position to alter Rabbit’s opinion on something or at least broaden his understanding.

If however you choose to maintain the opinion you have, despite the fact that the facts upon which you first formed that opinion have proven false, then you are not worthy of respect, you are indeed treating your own ideas as unnassailable and you are mistaken if you think that is a normal and healthy human reaction. 

Rabbit has often said, you have not had a chance to hear many of his opinions, and that is true, because mostly he is labouring to get you to face some facts.  They are not things which he is seeking to discuss, they are things which he has verified for himself, and this is why it is imperative that you do check what Rabbit is saying, and challenge facts, with counterfacts, or explain why something is wrong at least locially.  Of course Rabbit could be mistaken, but it is a measure of Rabbit’s nature that he doesn’t accept things as fact lightly.  It is possible that Rabbit may accept things on faith sometimes, because they fit something previously established.  But if anything conflicts with what Rabbit knows, he sets out to establish what is the truth.  This can mean that Rabbit holds his opinion on some matters, pending further evidence, information. 

This is a far cry from being told something which conflicts with your beliefs and disgregarding it for that reason.  You have repeatedly justified such mental laziness, and it is still one of the oddest things to experience when faced with an obviously intelligent and sensible person who yet resorts tactics of mental denial.  Rabbit has never disregarded anything you have said, if it was wrong to Rabbit, he tells you why he thinks this is, and usually it is because you think something happened, because you have seen it widely reported.  You seem to have evolved away from comprehending factual as opposed to conjectural stories.  this is what has been sought for a long time, anmd the process is incredibly well described in 1984.  You should read it WTH, it may shift your paradigm. It is a very disturbing book.  Rabbit re-read it recently and was quite shocked, horrified even, it is almost like the instruction book for this world we are finding ourselves in.

So yes the rules are reasoned and logical debate, honest debate, if one makes a claim on fact, then it should be verified.  If another is able to show that fact is false, then that is the end of it.  Merely attacking the source when the source is not the issue, without considering the facts presented is a tactic of denial.  For example, to claim that the story about Rendon was meaningless, since it is reported by rense, is utter mental whoredom.  To reply instead that after having done a search you find that no such person as Rendon exists, or that he has never given an intervisew, or that some other details, of consequence, is provably wrong, then you have made an intelligent and respectable response.  It may be enough to negate the use of that article, it may force Rabbit to seek confirmation of certain details in turn.  Rabbit would never be disrespectful to someone who did this much at least, until at least as in Natty’s case, it becomes obvious that someone is dissembling and nitpicking while ignoring the crucial points, which are not in question. 

Those are not arbitrarily set rules WTH, they are universally recognised and even those who don’t follow them say they do.

There are different ways of dealing with this.  Some donate money to charities, and thus purchase a measure of satisfaction.  Many just live on and suffer some anquish that others are suffering.  Liberals don’t necessarily do more to help the suffering they just have more anguish about it sometimes.  Some of us, and rabbit hopes he is one, are trying to indentify the critical factors which are creating some of the worst of the suffering and applying what resources we have to changing the underlying fault.  It is distressingly obvious afetr a whiloe that the problems mostly come back to the same thing, a very well entrenched and powerful group of players who have been working at world domination for generations.  Once one knows this one can examone world events from two perspectives, their immediate historical context, but often more sinisterly the overall strategy.  This is why while the EU is something which Rabbit can seen much good coming from, and not least because it is going to put the brakes on US hegemony, he also knows that the EU is bringing us even closer to the NWO ideal which is being aimed for by the elite.

If you think that the elite is creating this NWO for the benefit of ordinary mortals, even ones in rich countries like you and Rabbit, then you have not been paying much attention these last few years. 

The same goes for the UN.  Rabbit and others look to it to try and keep the US from going much more berserk, but that doesn’t blind rabbit to the fact that this is exactly what the elite have planned.  Eventually the UN is probably going to invade the USA, many of you will be glad and welcome them.  the thing which we know is that this was the idea all along.  Bush was always meant to fuck everything up, wreck the military and trash the economy.  This way the only country who could have stood up against a group taking world dominance, is being neutralised.  Also the stage has to be set for the next president, Hillary Clinton.  She will be able to have babies roasted on the spit for breakfast by the time she is in power, and nobody will say anything bad, because after Dubya, (and you ain’t seen nuthin yet, he’s not finished), anything will seem good. 

Now if it looks like freedom and rights are lagging a bit under Bush, wait till this reptillian soul takes the reigns.

Rabbit just lost a chunk of post.  Won’t go through it all again.  Just the folowing which was important. 

Anarcho-socialism
A term which broadly refers to anarchism (social) and anarchism (mutualist). Most anarcho-socialists deem the term redundant, however, and prefer to be called “anarchists,” not “anarcho-socialists.” This is because they believe that the only true anarchy is socialist, and the only true socialism is anarchic. However, it remains a useful term, because it distinguishes them from others who, right or wrong, also consider themselves anarchists and socialists: for example, anarcho-capitalists and social democrats.
Anarchism (mutualist)
“A proposed socialist economic system calling for businesses to be owned and controlled by employees, not private capitalist individuals. These businesses would then compete on the free market, without a central government.” (2)
Anarchism (social)
“A proposed classless, stateless socialist society of directly democratic self-governing communities and workplaces freely united in a confederation by a system of mandated, recallable delegates. Decisions flow from the bottom up and are based upon intensive discussion by those affected by them. Production is for use, not profit, and the community owns and workers control the means of production. Anarchists think that direct democracy within voluntary associations and the abolition of wage slavery is the best way to maximize individual liberty. Also known as libertarian socialism or libertarian communism.” (3)

Anacho-Socialism.

2001 economic piece.

Written two days before 911, it is remarkably prescient.

Wish I was Dick Cheney!

Rabbit,

I can’t resist —

“What was that middle part again?”

from — A Fish Called Wanda.

Huh Huh

Yes, I don’t blame you, It’s one of the reasons I didn’t re-post the lost bit, what’s the point, nobody is going to read all this.

Rabbit is kicking his old blog into gear to take up the slack when he feels the urge to verbosity coming on.  It was mostly good though.............................^^...............................

Rabbit,

There is ALWAYS such a disinformation effort going on and always will be. This is why I am reluctant to accept nearly all “news” as truth. What better way to misinform than through the internet? You cannot see the person, hear the voice, never really know if the information has been altered or not — AND it travels the world immediately.

I do not accept internet information as verification or genuine research. IMO you are too willing to do so and too trusting.  How do you know these are “real people” as you say?  How do you know what you are reading was written by the person whose name is with it?

I could take some of your many comments, change the general meaning here and there and attribute them to you — only a small percentage of people would take the trouble to check it out with you. Even if they did they would not know if your comments were: 1.) factual 2.) distorted 3.) from a reliable source, or a whole spectrum of other possibilities without backtracking each.
------------
Anarchism (mutualist)
“A proposed socialist economic system calling for businesses to be owned and controlled by employees, not private capitalist individuals. These businesses would then compete on the free market, without a central government.”

I don’t know about Australia, but people are free to do this here in the U.S.  Off hand I can only think of a couple of companies which are employee owned — Woodman’s, a grocery store chain and United Parcel Service (delivery).

You may be able to get a group together and do this also. But, there would be no guarantee that the same human failings would not surface. Greed, fraud, theft or whatever could still be a problem. With no central government there would be no judicial system or police.  Certainly there would be disagreements to settle and behavior to control. I guess you would just be free to lynch the bastards. A lot more efficient and less costly. (More Satisfying I expect.)

Soon there would be a call from the masses to create a system to deal with these problems — this is how society was developed and I expect would do so again.
----------------
Anarchism (social)
“A proposed classless, stateless socialist society of directly democratic self-governing communities and workplaces freely united in a confederation by a system of mandated, recallable delegates. Decisions flow from the bottom up and are based upon intensive discussion by those affected by them. Production is for use, not profit, and the community owns and workers control the means of production. Anarchists think that direct democracy within voluntary associations and the abolition of wage slavery is the best way to maximize individual liberty. Also known as libertarian socialism or libertarian communism.”

Classless? For how long? The energetic, industrious, imaginative people would soon tire of doing the most work and feel justified in more rewards.  The laziest, less intelligent, or just plain ornery would grab all they could with the least effort.

Self-governing? Oh, like “...of the people, by the people, and for the people...”??? Been there, done that.
“...mandated by reliable delegates.” Any mandate will require enforcement — we’re back to setting up a system of laws again.

What you have here is the basis for reinventing the “wheel” of government —

One of the major needs would be to, “...provide for the common defense.” Someone, somewhere, would soon discover this group of industrious workers and the goods they were producing and decide to take them and their goods instead of having to work.

Dream on.

What we need are more people like this author who want to fix what we now have.

WTH, one takes responsibility for one’s own mind, and uses the tolls which our technology and God gave you, and find the truth.  There is nothing else to say, you are always harping on about the unprovability of things, I’m sorry you are in all important respects wrong, you have had more than enough proof of the issues we have gone through, most of them anyway, and if you cannot accept it, fine, but you know, and I know, you have not seriously looked at anything.  If you had you cou;ld not keep falling back to this very lazy mental “losers limp”.

You are being so craven WTH, the fact is that I always do multiple checks on things, I don’t accept just one source as “proof” of anything.  You always come up with this trashy excuse, a generality in answer to specifics.  Apply this example to the issues, do not say such genral things when I have repeatedly “Proven” things, and shown these things to be FACTS.

Give an example of anything of significance which i have sought to prove, if all you can do is say what you are, as an excuse to avoid the specifics, how on earth do you expect to be taken seriously.  There are books to, matey, and Rabbit as well as others on this site reads them to.  There is plenty of reliable and verifiable information in the world, just because you don’t think so, that doesn’t delete others’ knowledge, the only thing you are saying is that your own knowledge is based upoin very shakey ground.  Considering Rabbit and others here, have clearly read ten to maybe hundreds of times as much information as you, we’ve obviously read all you have and much more besides.  For one with your obvious limited and admitted inability to be sure about anything, it is a puzzle that you would tell such as Rabbit and others who are able to make a coherant argument, based upon Facts, as defined by “Real People” in the real world, not “Disney Americans”.  We still have all our faculties, and we are able to analise things critically and this also allows us to predict things with some accuracy.  Like for example when you were cheerleading the attack on Iraq, speciifically to protect yourseves from WMDs, and Rabbit with others told you there was no evidence of WMDs in Iraq, but you chose to believe it, with a lot less evidence than you have been given before you finally decided not to believe it anymore.  Now you try to kid yourself that you had other reasons, but we are not stupid WTH, we did not gettaken in, you did.  Who are you to talk about discerning truth my friend?

When some news sources said that people were shooting at rescue helicopters in New Orleans, you jumped on the bandwagon and many like you, yet Rabbit and others said they didn’t believe it, and once again, our more considered view proved to be the right one.  Who are you trying to tell how to discern truth in media reports?

When the media reported Muslim Riots in France, did you accept this at face value?  Scorpy and Jay did of course, Rabbit and others refused to believe this since we are better informed about France and Europe generally for that matter, also less gullible and more circumspect.  All the things you like to pretend you are, but you are not. 

You are actually very easily convinced so long as the right buttons are pushed. Povided something fits your preconceptions, you accept it out of hand.  If it does not then you will resist it in every way imaginable, in as craven and pathetic a way as the saddest troll, you are not a troll of course, Rbbit knows this, but you lower yourself to the level in an effort to avoid facing facts which jar your preconceptions.  You are an interesting case study to Rabbit, it is like seeing someone under a spell.

The official story about 911 has never made any sense from day one, almost half the world saw that in the first couple of hours.  Since then the outcry over what happened and the amount of evidence which has been collated has given a muc more sinister picture. One which has historical precedents after all, one which can be intuited by even the half awake just by looking objectively at things and asking the age oild question, who gains?

Rabbit and others actually have the research of truth, down to a fairly effective process, and it is being demonstrated around you constantly WTH, sorry if it is all going over your head.  As for the sharing of opinions Rabbit enjoys doing this with you.  When it comes to learning anything new, you are a closed book, and a generically thin one at that.  With the right information your opinions are sensible and considered.  With the wrong information you are as daft as Jay and twice as stubborn.

Rabbit says,

“When some news sources said that people were shooting at rescue helicopters in New Orleans, you jumped on the bandwagon and many like you, yet Rabbit and others said they didn’t believe it, and once again, our more considered view proved to be the right one.”

And your disbelief at the time was based on what?

-----------------------------
“When the media reported Muslim Riots in France, did you accept this at face value?  Scorpy and Jay did of course, Rabbit and others refused to believe this since we are better informed about France and Europe generally for that matter, also less gullible and more circumspect.”

So, Are you saying there were no riots in France? There were rioters, but they were not Muslim? 

Also based on what?
-----------------------------
In the past, but only selectively lately, I have read your many internet “proofs” and found them mostly convincing if someone is already anti-Bush, anti-American, anti-capitalist, etc.  The idea that many different sources express similar ideas is not in and of itself “proof.”

You still seem to think I care if you take me seriously — I do not. Believe what you will. As I have said several times before, whatever conclusions we may draw or how many on the internet chat groups ultimately agree — no one will change a governmental policy.

“Like for example when you were cheerleading the attack on Iraq, speciifically to protect yourseves from WMDs, and Rabbit with others told you there was no evidence of WMDs in Iraq, but you chose to believe it, with a lot less evidence than you have been given before you finally decided not to believe it anymore.”

The above is an example of you attributing beliefs to me which are inaccurate. I had never even heard of either the website or the magazine “In These Times” until earlier this year, so you it is doubtful you could have any idea of my “cheerleading” at the time or my existance. (Of course, unless you care to go back and check my earliest entry into these discussions, you will not know if what I am now claiming is true.)

“...with a lot less evidence than you have been given before you finally decided not to believe it anymore.”

I have NEVER said I believe there were no WMD. What I believe is they have not been found. There may be nons, but it is not possible to prove they are NOT there. It is a large sandbox and a relatively large quantity of chemical or biological material could be hidden in an extremely small space.  As far as I am concerned it is an open question. It is not like looking in the cupboard and seeing it is empty. I would have favored ridding the world of Saddam with or without WMD — we should have done it in 1991.

You also concluded that I read less than you. You have no legitimate basis to have an opinion on how much I read.  Another false conclusion.  Like I said you are too easily satisfied. When you are older you may find things less certain.  Try relying a bit less on intuitiveness — it is a dangerous habit.

I suspect other assertions and evidence you offer for other issues may be faulty also. If this is true of you, it follows that some (or all) of the internet information you are taking as true may be mistaken as well, or even deliberate misinformation by others who have something to gain.
-----------------

My views on the definition of Anarcho-Socialism: 1.) Changed your mind 2.) Got lost on the web 3.) Are causing you to write a long reply after carefully considering their logic.

And your disbelief at the time was based on what?

Circumspectio..........., no actual eyewitness reports and even at the outset some contradictory reports.  The point is I din’t accept it out of hand. I did not even disbelieve WTH, I just did not commit myself and argued that it did not seem likely.  You did, and you are therefore the gullible one.

So, Are you saying there were no riots in France? There were rioters, but they were not Muslim?

Um................Are you saying you still don’t know?  The only place Muslim Rioters was reported, was in America, for your information, everybody else was told that it is young unemployed, mostly immigrants.  The most fundamentalist Muslim group in France immediately issued a Fatwa against Muslims taking part in the violence, it was not and is not Muslim you silly fellow.

Do these sound like Muslim Fundmenatlists to you?

WTh This is a thoughtful and thorough treatment, but just so you can feel more confident, Rabbit will list a number of other sources, to help you see that there is indeed truth and proof of it. 

Remember Rabbit as a discerning person, never did accept the first reports of Muslim intifada in France, though that was the first couple of days spin thanks to the US controlled media.  that was soon corrected elsewhere, just like the fact that it was not Muslim Fundamentalists who did the Bali Bombing.  These are actually fairly well reported in the free world.

Few articles. Commentary

Enough?

The idea that many different sources express similar ideas is not in and of itself “proof.”

Never said it was, but that by examining and comparing differenet sources and checking others further if necessary, it is able to be done.  The proof is in the pudding.

Government policy is affected by people, when enough of them demand change it has an effect, or and this is more to the point WTH, maybe sometimes people have to share things, and organise and go around their governments.  Why do you limit everything to merely changing the government?  Maybe we have much bigger ambitions than that.  as for the fact that you cannot and do not change or grow, (much), Rabbit has warned you before about extrapolating your own limits onto others.  Rabbit meets people on a weekly basis who have recently altered their opinions after learning about truth on the internet.  Just because you don’t see any results is hardly surprising, you are down in the ditch.  Hopefully one day you will join us and you’ll feel like you are winning again.

As for denying what t you said, you miss the point.  Rabbit did not mean we had discussed these things, but since your views are generic it was possible to guess them and this is what Rabbit did.  You have refferred to the non-existent WMD’s before though and indicated as you do in the very next sentence anyway that you did believe it. 

better still you still do.  You are among the last remaining few who do believe there was WMDs WTH, because even the admin has given up trying to pretend that.  More importantly, “ALL” the so-called evidence which was used to con the world before the invasion of IRAQ, has proven to be false.  That isn’t speculation WTH, it is not discounted in anything but a few diehard supporters, even the cheerleaders have moved on and given up that game.  The fact that you still suspect there might have been WMDs is the best proof I could ask for that you will believe anything which supports you preconceptions, even some unverifiable reports in the news, and when the FACT of those reports having been false is presented, all the evidence, witnesses and records, minutes etc, show the whole shebang was lies, you can’t change your views, because to do so would conflict with your sense of rightness.  God forbid you should ever admit you were wrong.  Ever heard of Hubris WTH?

You claim to have read sources selectively, you have not yet given any source anything but this generic group treatment, if you had the gumption to say which source and which fact is the problem then perhaps Rabbit could clarify it.  Instead as said you pull this stunt.  No way Jose.  You actually talk as if Rabbit has given “THE” source and that is all he has to go on.  You don’t know what a search engine is do you?  You don’t know how to read urls to see if it is a news site, and government one or just a thread.  You don’t know how to use the internet WTH do you?  Rabbit has before noticed how you seem to think the thing is some sort of magic.  It is just information.  Of course it is not real, in that you can’t hold it, but just like pictures and books and magazines, it does reflect the real world.  It may be that you are confused and overwhelmed by the twenty first century.

Facing a broad minded, international community like this is no way for an insulated all American boy to reduce confusion unless he is open minded as well, truly seeking knowledge rather than just whatever it is you are seeking.

Funny when you say this:
not possible to prove they are NOT there

That is exactly what the US was demanding Hussein did, and also now with Iran.  Everyone keeps telling you this, and it is the reason you are actuallu supposed to prove they are there or it’s justa lie.  You cannot escape the fact that Bush and the junta said the WMDs were there and they had proof.  They did not have proof, and that is now proven.  Therefore to say they had proof was a lie, and it was a lie which caused the invasion of a sovereign nation, and the deaths of thousands of US troops.

Pretty simple stuff for most people you’d think, but not for a soul in denial, as we know.

As I have effectively pointed out above WTH, it is you who is too easily convinced of things on a selective basis.  Rabbit is a lot more careful about what he says he knows.  All that is neceesary to convince Rabbit of something is to give good reason, all it takes for you to be convinced of something is that it doesn’t collide with your delusions.

You are the one whose acceptance of media reports has shown a gullible quality, not Rabbit, and you have not yet detailed a single Fact which collides with anything Rabbit has said, so please stop revising history… It is actually quite easy to see how much you have written, your references and quotes, are quite indicsative of a certain limited but as said generic quality.  Your failure to recognise many very well known historical facts, which have come to alter much of what was once believed, shows a dearth of wider study.  That has nothing to do withy intuition WTH, it is called observation.

Considering the fact that Rabbit has not been so gullible to believe many of the silly propganda stories WTH has, it is not for him to talk of age and wisdom.

When you have a firmer grasp on reality, and can recognise that you are not living in a hollywood script, that there are not really many bad guys out there, you are the only bad guys on a global scale, then you might start to gain wisdom of your own.  Rabbit will be sure to let you know the first sign of it you display. 

One last time. You are the one with the unfounded beliefs, no sources whatsoever and no specific challenge to anything Rabbit has posted.  Rabbit has established sources for what he believes and you have not dicredited any one of the facts, you don’t even go after the actual source, just the sources as a group and many of them are no more tha links to MSM articles.  You are not kidding anyone, you are chicken.

One last link, it’s the full bottle on the Weapons that weren’t

WTH, you have only just read a few pages definition of Anarcho-socialism, you are making a few rather invalid points, do you seriously want rabbit to address these?  If you are seriously trying to better understand before attacking the concept, Rabbit will gladly do so.

Classless? For how long? The energetic, industrious, imaginative people would soon tire of doing the most work and feel justified in more rewards.  The laziest, less intelligent, or just plain ornery would grab all they could with the least effort.

All of the above is rubbish.  Class cannot exist where no privelages are derived from it.  AS removes the privelages pertaining to class.  Privelages, and comforts infrastructure, what one gets from the society is commensurate with what one puts in.  If the society is poorly run, then less benefits will accrue to those who participate, so the overall success and productivity will suffer.  All will be reliant upon each other and yet upon themselves in a much more fundamental way than is now the case. 

You are using the failure of the current system to predict a result of a new system which eliminates your old systemic injustices like this.  This is invalid.  the employees control the workplace, they make the money, they do it for themselves and for their community.  each does what he can, we find out niche and we apply ourself.  The society will pay back whatever market forces dictate.  This is the true path to the sort of society you dream of, it cannot be achieved for all the reasons you know of within the present system.  Those who do not contribute, the lazy, the dishonest will not benefit, since unless they contribute something, even if it is being an honoured relative whom extended family support out of familial duty, or love, will have to find another community.  Or suffer on the periphery of the one they are failing to shere equally in.  Rabbit is certain that individual communities, many of them would set up their own systems of welfare for feeding and supporting the sick and elderly, no doubt normal charity also will find outlet. 

The mani thing is nobody is easily able to obtain advantage by trickery, cheating or lying in order to obtain power over others’ productivity and thuis make one million dollars out of one mans work while paying him a pitiful thousand for example for the job.  Entrepreneurs are needed, but not those who deal in percentages..  Having been a primary prducer before in several industries, I have seen how small cost and profits at the primary end are quickly bumped up by middle men who typically serve NO purpose except to act as middle men.  The end retailer doesn’t see much of a profit in the end either because the now high price, is mostly his buying price.  It is not the primary producers costs which are decideing most of the factors of inflation, even his spriralling costs are but a fraction of the end price of things once the middle men have adjusted the price to the market.

Self-governing? Oh, like “...of the people, by the people, and for the people...”??? Been there, done that.
“...mandated by reliable delegates.” Any mandate will require enforcement — we’re back to setting up a system of laws again.

What you have here is the basis for reinventing the “wheel” of government —

One of the major needs would be to, “...provide for the common defense.” Someone, somewhere, would soon discover this group of industrious workers and the goods they were producing and decide to take them and their goods instead of having to work.

You are not even close to comprehending how AS would work, and this proves it.  There is nothing but the principle of democracy in common with the present form of government and AS. 

united in a confederation by a system of mandated, recallable delegates. Decisions flow from the bottom up and are based upon intensive discussion by those affected by them.

Not reliable, recallable, if they don’t perform, the people will recall them, no way the delegates can misbehave.  Note there are no political parties, so the delegates only have one loyalty.  To their constituency.

This is not a re-invention of the wheel of government.  How shallow can you get.  The historical fact is that this may be the forerunner of all systems of democratic government.  Not important. It is a general idea yet completely revolutionary because it is yet to be applied, it is simply not allowed anywhere in the modern world.  It is probably the system of government that will see Mankind rise up from the ahses of the fire which is hardly yet lit. 

This is a bottom up system, it is party less and it is transparent.  It involves the absolute minimum of government, and the maximum return for effort for everybody as well as ultimate freedom, to live in a society of ones own making, one where one felt a part of and where things are not taken for granted.

Where does WTH get the idea that this AS society would be so silly as to have no form of defense?  For a start they would not be likely to have the sort of problems you envisage.  the only nation these days which is likely and does attack other countries for profit is the USA, did you think the rest of us were going to follow your example?  We are waiting for you wankers to cut it out actually.  In the meantime, there is nothing stopping the AS republic for example, from having a military.  There are no hard and fats rules here.  Rabbit would be inclined to have a Federal body, which was responsible for carrying out the major infrastructural projects like water, elcetricity, defence etc.  The natural resources which are currently given to Big Corporations to profit off, would belong to the state, the people, and these would be managed for the nations needs, including the environmental considerations.  Any profit derived from these is what pays for the national projects. 

No room for any nasty big greedy and souless corporations.  We can do everything we ever did technologicaly, but by the people for the people.  Not by the people, for the elite.  This is the complete opposite of the Elite’s plans for us all, and the battle is on now for the future.  People don’t matter much in this world controlled increasingly by corporations WTH, in case you had not noticed it.  In an AS world people matter ultimately and corporations have no place.

Rabbit asks, “Do these sound like Muslim fundimentalists to you?”

From the article: “Sylla, Sossa, Karim, Rachid, Mounir and Samir are the names they give.”

My first impression is they are not Swedish.

Sounds like they may be Muslim.

From the article: “There are many reasons for the violence. “Because we hate, because we’re mad, because we’ve had it up to here,” said Rachid, parka hood up against the cold. “Look around you. This place is shit, it’s a dump. We have nothing here. There’s nothing for us.”

Sounds like they are not happy.

From the article: “...France’s outbreak of rolling urban violence, which has lasted 12 nights and in which nearly 6,000 cars have gone up in flames, dozens of schools, community centres and shops have been wrecked...”

If true, I’d say they are extremists.
--------------------------
Ok, I read these and others you included — I will address the above specifically and then some general impressions.
--------------------------

I don’t know if they are religious. (any brand) It is not possible to tell from this commentary. I doubt if the people whose property they trashed even care what religion they are .  They are obviously angry and striking out at what is at hand. The names given sound like they are possibly of Muslim decent. (90% are Arabs there) If I were a recruiter for a Muslim cause, I would see them as fertile ground.  This is all I can determine here.

What I do notice in these references is: Several are from the Guardian or have a Guardian connection. The Guardian is opposed to the war, so the direction of the commentary is no surprise.

Even if they were from several different papers, I would not know whether they have any personal agenda. Do they believe what they are writing? Are they writing what the boss wants to hear in order to curry favor? Were the writers the ones who interviewed the individuals quoted?  Could they be receiving payment from pro-Muslim factions to write what they did? The list is endless.

As for blogs — they are totally unreliable.
-----------------------------

Some other sources in the articles:

From the article: “According to the French intelligence services...”

— Information from any government of any country is suspect for the above stated reasons and a good many more.

From the article: “In the USA, religious fundamentalists who strive for a return to the 1950s and a society where everyone - women, blacks, whites, children - knew their place now wield unprecedented influence.”

— Not so much as the media would have you think. They are getting a lot of attention because of Bush’s expressed beliefs, but Jimmy Carter was a fundy and we survived him. (although he still won’t shut up)

From the article: “Now, these gangs are for the most part burning their own neighborhoods and seem little interested in extending the rampage to more fashionable areas.”

— We had the same thing in the black ghettos in the 60s. It will likely happen again here since big government programs have been ineffective.

From the article: John F. Kennedy famously said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

— I can accept this — seems reasonable and logical and always did.
------------------------
It was apparent Saddam used WMD on Iran and later on Iraqi Kurds. But, if you think that I think there are NO WMD, you are mistaken. I have no proof there are and no proof there are not. Therefore...I DO NOT KNOW!

It is not a choice of believe or disbelieve, but admitting there are things we cannot know for certain.  It never mattered to me whether there were or were not WMD still in Iraq.

WTH, many people and institutions are opposed to the war, that does not make them unreliable.  For cying out loud man, I used the Main stream reference, and you tell me it isn’t reliable because it opposes the war?  Listen to yourself.

The article VERY clearly illustrates that the youth are not religious extremists, thgey articulate frustration and anger, do you realise they have unemployment up to 40% in some of their areas?  How far do you have to stretch something to make a religious fundamentalist case out of it?  You bloody dummy, can’t you people ever get it through yoiur heads, that religious fundamnetalists do not have to be “uncovered” they make themselves and their views known, and the youths in that article are clearly not religious fundamentalists.  There are no reports of religious fundamenalist violence from France, there never were and you are nitpicking an article which shows this.  How about you find a credible report of religious violence in the French problems, or face up to the fact that there is none.  As for nitpicking a couple of articles, so how many reports will be enough to establish that there uis no religious violence.

You find one good one, just one, the Rabbit posted one of thirty he could have used. 

As usual WTH your last few lines show you are ultimataely too lazy mentally to expand your small horizons.  There are plenty of things we can know for certain.  You seem quite certain about a number of things which never had more than long since DISCREDITED lies to support them.  No actual solid reports or evidence, just hearsay then.

You are facing facts on a daily basis which challenge the small comfortable world you have built in your mind, but you cannot, will not ever look at any of them.  You resort always to the same cop-out excuse, your losers limp, that nothing can be known for certain.  You only apply that to the things which you don’t want to face.  If it is part of your preconceptions, you accept it out of hand, just ;like the WMDs in Iraq.  You are so desperate to keep that illusion alive that you have even failed to notice that not even the Administration is pretending that they were there anymore.  The game is up and they’ve had to accept that.  I’m sorry if it has escaped your notice but although they are trying to concentrate on attacking the people who told the truth, they are not, and cannot deny they lied.  That’s in the bag, WTH, and you are a sad case to still be holding onto it.  Truly, GWB has stopped telling that lie, and you are still believing it.  Rabbit and others already know, better than you do, every single piece of “so-called” evidence which was presented to “PROVE” that Iraq had WMDs.  You cannot cite a single detail or source is my bet, not one, the only thing you ever had was TV and Newspaper reports with general details of claims made by Powell, Bush, Rice and others.  We as said have far more than this.  We can show you the reports which were referred to and the pictures and documents.  We can also show why they don’t make any case at all, and we could a couple of years ago.  Now these things are ALL discredited, fully outed as being forged, and falsified, and even the agencies and Bush himself knew all this at the appropriate times.  That’s not something you can debate you clown, yet it is akll you can and will do.  You will come back with how it cannot be known, .......

Of course you are right and Rabbit is wrong, WTH. 

Bush never lied, Iraq was a Terrorist threat and now it is a budding democracy.  The Iraqis wanted America to SAVE them and they are just happier every day for you.  America does not torture anybody and even if they did, they deserved it.  That is why America does not need to belong to any Human Rights treaties.  They are for nations like the rest of the world who need American guidance in these things.  Of course the US economy is doing fine and things have never looked rosier.  AND of course the ALREADY HIGH EDUCATIONAL standards of American Schools is just going up all the time. 

You are right WTH and Rabbit is wrong.  Just because Rabbit seeks the most reliable, ie: closest to the source, information to decide things, and WTH uses the TV news, does not mean Rabbit would know anything which WTH does not. 

Since Rabbit has to reconsider things in his understanding regularly and WTH has never had to think about anything new since he was a boy, it is no wonder WTH is so scornful of Rabbit’s mind. 

I’m sorry WTH, Rabbit can simply not waste any further time with you.  It is obvious that you are a moron, which is a pity.  I think hidstorically it is too late for you to awaken, all the prophesies talk about how the hearts of those who have turned away will be turned to stone such that they will not see the error of their ways.  Something like that, and it does seem remarkably as if something really weird is happening to close minds off the way yours is.  It is with sorrow that Rabbit says this.  He knows you cannot take this seriously, which is not a problem for Rabbit, he has his eyes open and while he is caught up in the same world as you, he can at least see what is coming. 

Basically, Rabbit is begginning to tire of endless debate about the validity of information, by intellectually challenged folk who seem incapable of following a simple logical train of thought, of equating Facts to their viewpoints, or telling the two apart.  People for whom a seeking of truth is not only not sought, it is actively resisted, to the exclusion of all reason.  This makes even those few rare moments of coherant discussion seem wasted when faced with the stubborn denial when your ideas are challenged.  I don’t do the same, instead I ask for more information to show that something you say which I don’t believe is true.  I don’t attack your sources, because you don’t give me any, I would not anyway, mostly I think attacking the source is pointless, if it is the facts which are in question.

You still think I would change your ideas when I seek only to ensure that the facts are correct.  Then we can decide if they are relevant.

You use a supposed fact to support the invasion of Iraq.  Rabbit challenges the fact and for any normal person, proves it is wrong.  You then claim that the truth cannot be known.  Well sunshine, what makes you think the FACT was worth quoting as support for your ideas then? 

If you cannot even defend the FACT against serious research, not anything, just say, “Nothing can be known for sure”, well then your ideas are pretty crummy, I’d say.

Does it seem a bit surreal to anybody else, that this utterly whimsical response is supposed to be supporting attacking and destroying a sovereign Nation?

Rabbit can provide lots of information, to support the contention that there never were any WMDs, Iraq was no sort of threat to the USA, except via selling their OIL outside US control.  He can show also that the number of civilian deaths in Iraq is enormous, and that Banned weapons of war, immoral weapons, and tactics are being used to subjugate a people who neither need nor want US troops in their country.  Rabbit can and has shown that he can support these things with the FACTS, presented via many reputable sources and he can defend them, against any who would try. 

Rabbit will not accept that the argument you present has any merit.  you have used unverified, actively questioned facts to support your views.  You have misconstrued various historical events, deliberately or without knowing better, and refused to verify them when questioned, merely referring to the great nothing can truly be known excuse.  well that also negates all your own views as being based upon unknowns and imaginings, which is after all what Rabbit has maintained from the start.  As for what and how Rabbit and others know what they know, be assured that the strange unsureness you describe is not as familiar to us as it is to you.  true Rabbit and others are less prone to commit ourselves on matters than you, but that is because we like to be sure about what we believe, if it is important, before acting.

For example, you think it is a good idea to attack someone if they cannot prove they don’t have hidden weapons.

Rabbit thinks it is not a good idea to attack someone, even if you have seen that they have a hidden weapon and that they appear likely to use it.  Rabbit would however prepare himself and be more than likely one step ahead of the other if and when he decides to get freaky with the weapon.

That you cannot ever be sure someone might not produce a weapon and attack you, is part of life WTH.  You cannot go around shooting everone before they shoot you, just in case.  That is madness and it isn’t very brave.  It is the way bullies behave, but let Rabbit be the first to tell you, bullies always come down hard.  It is not necessarliy the group or the big one who brings the bully down either, it can as easily be a little guy, like Venezuala for example, who stands up to the bully, calls his bluff.

Of course it is always the same too. The bully could avoid his down fall by going around the little guy who stands in his way, but that is not in the nature of the bully.  He charges headlong into the defiant weeny one, and gets trashed surprisingly easily.  It is the old David and Goliath thing.  Many myths have their reasons.

Some of the thinhs in your head are real, some of them have gone way beyond their use by date.  Rabbit is so glad that he is who he is, for in you he recognises “There but for the grace of God go I”.  No offence.  Enjoy your life as much as you are able, for as long as you can.  Good luck.

Rabbit says…

“WTH, many people and institutions are opposed to the war, that does not make them unreliable.  For cying out loud man, I used the Main stream reference, and you tell me it isn’t reliable because it opposes the war?”

Ah, but neither does it make it “reliable”.

---------------------
“The article VERY clearly illustrates that the youth are not religious extremists, thgey articulate frustration and anger, do you realise they have unemployment up to 40% in some of their areas?”

Being frustrated, angered, and unemployed does not eliminate the possibility of being a religious extremist, or a potential religious extremist — can’t YOU see that?

(If we are going to resort to name calling you can have yours back.)

YOU bloody dummy, can’t YOU get it through your head?  You are obviously frustrated and angry — this neither makes you a religious extremist, nor does it absolve you of the possibility.

---------------------
It appears we have at least one thing in common…

It is futile and boring for us to continue any further discussion on what constitutes “proof”.  Unless we can apply the same ground rules of validity specifics are useless. You continually ASSUME my positions and rant against them. It is true to form that you are willing to assume “proof” drawn from unproven or unproveable sources, if they fit your ideas.

I’ve had a wonderful discussion....

but this wasn’t it.

---------------------
FOR THE RECORD: (Just in case there is anyone paying attention)

RABBIT CLAIMED: “You don’t know what a search engine is do you?  You don’t know how to read urls to see if it is a news site, and government one or just a thread.  You don’t know how to use the internet WTH do you?  Rabbit has before noticed how you seem to think the thing is some sort of magic.”

REALITY: Nonsense, I have been doing this for years — and it is not only not magic — it is not a truly reliable source for many things. I suggest that with your propensity of acceptance you had better be more careful or it could cost you dearly.
-------------------

RABBIT CLAIMED: I am gullible enough to accept media reports at face value. He stated this with regard to WMD and shooting at helicopters in New Orleans —

REALITY: He should know by now that I do just the opposite — I rarely “accept” any form of media reporting as gospel, especially the internet which is so manipulable.

-------------------
RABBIT CLAIMED: “Like for example when you were cheerleading the attack on Iraq, speciifically to protect yourseves from WMDs, and Rabbit with others told you there was no evidence of WMDs in Iraq, but you chose to believe it, with a lot less evidence than you have been given before you finally decided not to believe it anymore.”

REALITY: I have never claimed there are WMD or are not WMD in Iraq — just that they could still be undiscovered.

While I heard the reports of shooting at helicopters, I never took it at face value. (It was possible, but we know media people are in a report first—check later mode.)

FURTHERMORE: I had never even heard of either this website or the magazine “In These Times” until earlier this year, so it is doubtful he could have any idea of my “cheerleading” at the time or my existence.
---------------
Other false attributions which he have made on my behalf:
(He seems much better at ranting than reading and retaining.)

We have a good economy. 

The quality of U.S. education is high.

--------------------------------------------------
Go for it, Rabid Rabbit…
Today the internet — tomorrow the world — the ultimate mind control.

But, as you said Rabbit, “It is just information.”

Well, information by itself is not knowledge and the SAME “information” from MANY sources does not make it MORE reliable.
-----------------------------------

“I refuse to believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.” — Thomas Carlyle

Ah, but neither does it make it “reliable

It appears we have at least one thing in common…

None of this constitutes more than the losers limp again., “Nothing can be known.” It is obvious you avoid the parts of Rabbit’s post which show thids argument to be spurious.

<>i>REALITY: Nonsense, I have been doing this for years — and it is not only not magic — it is not a truly reliable source for many things. I suggest that with your propensity of acceptance you had better be more careful or it could cost you dearly</i>

Maybe you have been but not in support of any of your delusions about the world.  We have seen no evidence that you can find or recognicse a reliable rsource.  that means reliable for the specific infornmation sought.  If you can do this, you have yet to show it, so Rabbit will stick to his assumption for now.  As for a propensity for gullibility, dear lad, above this very post are several examples, which are recorded for all posterity which show beliefs you rapidly ingested and refuse to release even when not even the original sourcves mainatin the