Make this my home page
More buttons
Best of the Day
Page
From The Terraces- by Jay Nair
Video
Did You Know?
Blog
Life as TV by Phoebe Vidler
Game
Zero Punctuation: Dragon Age: Origins
Art
Four Guys - The Beatles
Cool tools
Hot links

Super Mario Flash Game Restyled for Obama

Dadaist deconstruction of new media, as a flash game.
Everything you need to know about microscopic water bears
News for nerds
For lovers of the Green Fairy
Stories and art from Australia's Yolgnu people
Australia's best science fiction author
Did the earth just move?
Don't discount journalism
Novelist and comic book legend's homepage
Museum of science fiction, utopia and extraordinary journeys
Developing tech to get the internet to its full potential
Free Culture, Open Government, Liberty
Online Buddhist meditation
Reducing harm from drug use
That Was No Small War in Georgia -- It Was the Beginning of the End of the American Empire

The war in Georgia will be remembered as the place where the American Empire fell on its face. By Mark Ames

Tskhinvali, South Ossetia -- On the sunny afternoon of August 14, a Russian army colonel named Igor Konashenko is standing triumphantly at a street corner at the northern edge of Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, his forearm bandaged from a minor battle injury. The spot marks the furthest point of the Georgian army's advance before it was summarily crushed by the Russians a few days earlier. "Twelve Georgian battalions invaded Tskhinvali, backed by columns of tanks, armored personal carriers, jets, and helicopters," he says, happily waving at the wreckage, craters, and bombed-out buildings around us. "You see how well they fought, with all their great American training -- they abandoned their tanks in the heat of the battle and fled."

Konashenko pulls a green compass out of his shirt pocket and opens it. It's a U.S. military model. "This is a little trophy -- a gift from one of my soldiers," he says. "Everything that the Georgians left behind, I mean everything, was American. All the guns, grenades, uniforms, boots, food rations -- they just left it all. Our boys stuffed themselves on the food," he adds slyly. "It was tasty." The booty, according to Konashenko, also included 65 intact tanks outfitted with the latest NATO and American (as well as Israeli) technology.

Technically, we are standing within the borders of Georgia, which over the last five years has gone from being an ally to the United States to a neocon proxy regime. But there are no Georgians to be seen in this breakaway region -- not unless you count the bloated corpses still lying in the dirt roads. Most of the 70,000 or so people who live in South Ossetia never liked the idea of being part of Georgia. During the violent land scramble that occurred after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the South Ossetians found themselves cut off from their ethnic kin in North Ossetia, which remained part of Russia. The Russians, who've had a small peacekeeping force here since 1992, managed to keep the brewing conflicts on ice for the last 15 years. But in the meantime, the positions of everyone involved hardened. The Georgians weren't happy about the idea of losing a big chunk of territory. The Ossetians, an ethnic Persian tribe, were more adamant than ever about joining Russia, their traditional ally and protector.

The tense but relatively stable situation blew up late in the evening of August 7, when on the order of president Mikheil Saakashvili, Georgia's army swept into South Ossetia, leveling much of Tskhinvali and surrounding villages and sending some 30,000 refugees fleeing north into Russia. Within hours, Russia's de facto czar Vladimir Putin counterattacked -- some say he'd set a trap -- and by the end of that long weekend the Georgians were in panicked retreat. The Russian army then pushed straight through South Ossetia and deep into Georgia proper, halting less than an hour's drive from Saakashvili's luxurious palace. All around me is evidence of a rout. A Georgian T-72 tank turret is wedged into the side of a local university building, projecting from the concrete like a cookie pressed into ice cream. Fifty yards away you can see the remains of the vehicle that the orphaned turret originally was part of: just a few charred parts around a hole in the street, and a section of tread lying flat on the sidewalk. Russian tanks now patrol the city unopposed, each one as loud as an Einstrzende Neubauten concert, clouding the air with leaded exhaust as they rumble past us.

But listening to Colonel Konashenko, it becomes clear to me that I'm looking at more than just the smoldering remains of battle in an obscure regional war: This spot is ground zero for an epic historical shift. The dead tanks are American-upgraded, as are the spent 40mm grenade shells that one spetznaz soldier shows me. The bloated bodies on the ground are American-trained Georgian soldiers who have been stripped of their American-issue uniforms. And yet, there is no American cavalry on the way. For years now, everyone from Pat Buchanan to hybrid-powered hippies have been warning that America would suddenly find itself on a historical downslope from having been too reckless, too profligate, and too arrogant as an unopposed superpower. Even decent patriotic folk were starting to worry that America was suffering from a classic case of Celebrity Personality Disorder, becoming a nation of Tom Cruise party-dicks dancing in our socks over every corner and every culture in the world, lip-synching about freedom as we plunged headfirst into as much risky business as we could mismanage. And now, bleeding money from endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we're a sick giant hooked on ever-pricier doses of oil paid for with a currency few people want anymore. In the history books of the future, I would wager that this very spot in Tskhinvali will be remembered as both the geographic highwater mark of the American empire, and the place where it all started to fall apart.

I first visited Georgia in 2002 to cover the arrival of American military advisers. At the time, the American empire was riding high. A decade after the Soviet Union's collapse, Russia seemed to be devolving into an anarchic and corrupt failed state, while the U.S. just kept getting stronger. Within months of President George W. Bush's swearing-in, Time ran a column boasting that America didn't need to accommodate Russia anymore because it had become "the dominant power in the world, more dominant than any since Rome." That same year we invaded Afghanistan without breaking a sweat. The New York Times magazine proclaimed: "The American Empire: Get Used to It." A new word, hyperpower, was being used to describe our history-warping supremacy.

The military advisers were dispatched to Georgia ostensibly to train that country's forces to fight local Al Qaeda cells, which everyone knew didn't exist. In reality, we were training them for key imperial outsourcing duties. Georgia would do for the American Empire what Mumbai call centers did for Delta Airlines: deliver greater returns at a fraction of the cost. They became a flagship franchise of America Inc. It made sense for the Georgians, too: Their erratic and occasionally violent neighbor Russia wouldn't fuck with them, because fucking with them would be fucking with us -- and nobody would dare to do that.

The imperial masterminds who fixated on Georgia as an outsourcing project must have figured we'd score a two-fer by simultaneously winning strategic control of the untapped oil in the region and also managing to stick a giant bug up the raw southern rim of our decrepit old rival Russia.

To enact this plan, America deftly organized and orchestrated the so-called Rose Revolution, which I witnessed in Tblisi in 2003. Saakkashvili's predecessor, Eduard Shevardnadze, was judged unreliable, so in a multilayered soft putsch that used every lever of influence at our disposal, the U.S. replaced him with Saakashvili, a Columbia-educated hothead who speaks perfect neocon. In the Western media, the Rose Revolution was portrayed as 1776 redux (starring Saakashvili as George Washington with a permanent five o'clock shadow). A more perfect vassal for George W. Bush's foreign policy could not have been found than "Misha," as he is fondly known. He stacked his cabinet with young right-wing fanatics, and made sure he had a coterie of mountain-biking American advisers with him at all times. This crew included John McCain's chief foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann, whom Misha paid more than $1 million in lobbying fees.

This project in Georgia was just a high-profile example of a broader Bush strategy. All around Russia's southern border, America laid claim to former Soviet domains. After 9/11, Putin infuriated many of his army commanders and security chiefs by agreeing to let the U.S. set up bases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan for the Afghan invasion. Once the Taliban was removed from power, America decided that it felt like staying. After all, who was going stop us? Given the sorry state of their affairs, the Russians certainly weren't. So by 2002, Putin was stuck with American pie dripping down his cadaverous bloodless face. But after years in which Russia rebuilt itself on the back of soaring commodity prices (today it's the world's largest producer of oil), our advantages in global power politics have started to tilt Putin's way. Slowly and quietly he got American forces thrown out of Uzbekistan and all but sidelined in Kyrgyzstan. And then, here in Georgia, he seized the opportunity to really hammer home his point.

During my visit to Georgia in 2003, if someone had told me that in five years American military advisers would be hightailing it from their main base in Vasiani to avoid getting slaughtered by advancing Russian forces, I would have slapped him with a rubber chicken for insulting my intelligence. Yet there they were: gasping for air in the lobby of the Tblisi Sheraton, insisting off the record that the conflict was all the Georgians' fault, not theirs.

Why Misha decided to attack is still a mystery. He claims he was forced to level Tskhinvali to preempt a Russian invasion, but that doesn't make military sense, and has since been debunked by both Georgians and OSCE monitors on the ground; others believe that he struck because, with Bush on his way out, he thought this would be his last chance to regain control of South Ossetia. Another theory popular among journalists and pundits is that the notoriously "hotheaded" (some would say "mentally unstable") Saakashvili was suckered into his doomed invasion by a clever Russian ruse, part of Putin's plan to punish the West for recognizing Kosovo and other crimes of imperial insensitivity. Personally, I'd vote for number two. (Putin has offered an alternative hypothesis: that Misha intentionally sparked a war in order to boost John McCain's prospects in the U.S. election.) Prior to the offensive of August 7, Georgians cut off Russian television and Internet sites in South Ossetia, then rained Grad rockets and artillery on the capital and surrounding villages. The early-hours blitz was, as one Ossetian told me the day before, "shock and awe." At least half the population fled into Russia. People I spoke to in the refugee camps, mostly women, were still in a daze -- they told of fleeing their burning villages under fire, of Georgians raping and murdering, of grenades thrown into civilian bomb shelters, of tanks running over children. (It was impossible to corroborate these individual stories, as is generally the case in trying to sift fact from inflamed rumor in refugee camps.)

Reliable casualty counts for the broader conflict are still all but impossible to get, but as of late August the Russians admit having lost 64 soldiers, and the Georgians a combined 215 soldiers and civilians. In both cases, the real number is probably much higher. On the civilian front, Ossetian sources claim that 1,500 were killed in the Georgian assault -- Putin called it a "genocide" -- but many Westerners dismiss that figure.

Privately, however, American advisers and defeated Georgian commanders admit to "total defeat." Indeed, Arkady Ostrovsky of the Economist, a British reporter who has long been close to Saakashvili, told me that on the day of the cease-fire, the Georgian leader spoke of shooting himself, and was only dissuaded when word came of a supportive statement by Condi Rice. "It was sad to watch," Ostrovsky told me. "I should have been more critical of Saakashvili back when it might have counted. A lot of us should have."

That's exactly the kind of full-spectrum smackdown the Russians were aiming for. And Konashenko wants us all to see it, so he offers to take me and some other reporters to the city of Gori in occupied Georgia. Russia seized control of the city at the end of hostilities, essentially cutting its foe in two and leaving it exposed to Vladimir Putin's whims. "We'll show you Gori -- the city is spotless," Konashenko says cheerfully. "We could have destroyed it, but we didn't. Of course, there's a little bit of damage here and there"

The next morning, I head toward Georgia in the back of a Russian army truck, winding through the countryside of South Ossetia. Many villages have been burned and completely leveled. In the minority ethnic- Georgian communities, the sour odor of death hangs in the air, as those who survived the Ossetians' reprisal attacks had little time to bury their dead friends and relatives.

When we arrive in Gori, the locals seem unnerved by our presence. They shy away as aggressive reporters point cameras and pursue them along the cobblestone streets for a quote. At first, some say that they are grateful that the Russian forces are there to protect them from marauding Ossetian and Chechen irregulars, who had swept through parts of Georgia murdering civilians and looting homes before the Russians arrived. After a half hour, the Georgians we talk with get used to our presence. A few summon the nerve to quietly pull me aside and whisper things like, "Are the Russians ever going to leave?" and "We don't have any information here. Is this going to be Russian territory forever?"

In Gori's vast central square there is shattered glass on the sidewalks, but as Konashenko promised, the city is largely intact. It is also starkly empty, as if a virus or neutron bomb had wiped out the civilian population. Most of the city's inhabitants have long since fled to Tblisi, along with the soldiers.

As we hop out of the army trucks, one of the Russian commanders points to a limp banner flying at half-mast over the polished-granite administration building on the far side of the square, "You see?" he says. "The Georgian flag is still flying. This is Georgian territory -- we're not annexing it like the media says." This kind of boast, conquering a country and then making a big noble show of respecting its sovereignty, was something that had once been reserved for America's forces. How quickly history has turned here.

The other Western journalists fan out for some atrocity hunting, digging for signs that the Russians might have dropped a cluster bomb or massacred civilians. The foreign-desk editors back home have been demanding proof of Russian evil, after largely ignoring Georgia's war crimes in South Ossetia. It's a sordid business, but the reporters are just following orders.

After an hour in the 90-degree heat, I head over to the city's central square, where I stumble across a stunning spectacle: dozens of Russian soldiers doing a funky-chicken victory dance in the Georgian end zone. They're clowning around euphorically, shooting souvenir photos of each other in front of the administration building and the statue of Stalin (Gori's most famous native son) while their commanders lean back and laugh. I approach Lieutenant Colonel Andrei Bobrun, assistant commander of the Russian land forces' North Caucasus Military District -- the roughest neighborhood in Western Eurasia -- and ask him how he feels now, as a victorious military leader in a proxy war with America.

"I have never been so proud of Russia -- magnificent Russia!" Bobrun crows, an AK strapped over his shoulder. "For twenty years we just talked and talked, blabbed and blabbed, complained and complained. But we did nothing, while America ran wild and took everything it could. Twenty years of empty talk. Now Russia is back. And you see how great Russia is. Look around you -- we're not trying to annex this land. What the fuck do I need Georgia for? Russia could keep this, but what for? Hell, we could conquer the whole world if we wanted to. That's a fact. It was Russia that saved Europe from Genghis Khan. Russia could have taken India and the Middle East. We could take anything -- we took Alaska, we took California. There is nothing that Russia could not take, and now the world is being reminded again."

"Why did you give California back?" I asked. It has always baffled me why a country would abandon prime coastal real estate for the frozen swamps of Siberia -- I always assumed it was because the Russians were ashamed when they found themselves holding onto a chunk of this planet as perfect as California: like B-list nerds who successfully crash a Vanity Fair Oscar party, but within minutes of their little triumph, skulk out of the tent out of sheer embarrassment, knowing they never belonged there in the first place.

"We gave it all back because we don't need it," Borisov boasted, puffing out his chest. "Russia has enough land, what the hell do we need more for. But if others want to start something, this is what will happen. Russia is back, and I am so proud."

As the day wore on, the Kremlin press pool organizers finally rounded us up, and we headed back again along the same victory trail. It was on this second visit to ruins of Tskhinvali, as dusk approached and the violence seemed to already acquire a kind of abstract tone, that I started to realize that I was looking at something much bigger than the current debate about Russian aggression or who was more guilty of what -- pulling the camera much farther back on this scene, I understood that I was looking at the first ruins of America's imperial decline. It's not an easy thing to spot. It took years after the real collapse for Russians to finally accept that awful reality, and to adjust accordingly, first by retrenching, not overplaying an empty hand, slowly building up without making any loud noises while America ran wild around the world bankrupting itself and bleeding dry.

And now it's over for us. That's clear on the ground. But it will be years before America's political elite even begins to grasp this fact. In the meantime, Russia is drunk on its victory and the possibilities that it might imply, sending its recently-independent neighbors into a kind of frenzied animal panic. Experience has taught them that it's moments like these when Russia's near abroad becomes, once again, a blood-soaked doormat in the violent epochal shifts -- history never stopped here, it just froze up for a decade or so. And now it's thawing, bringing with it the familiar stench of bloated bodies, burned rubble, and the sour sweat of Russian infantry.

We have entered a dangerous moment in history -- America in decline is reacting hysterically, woofing and screeching and throwing a tantrum, desperate to prove that it still has teeth. Which it does -- but not in the old dominant way that America wants or believes itself to be. History shows that it's at this moment, tipping into decline and humiliation, when the worst decisions are made, so idiotically destructive that they'll make the Iraq campaign look like a mere training exercise fender-bender by comparison.

Russia, meanwhile, is as high as a Hollywood speedballer from its victory. Putting the two together in the same room -- speedballing Russia and violently bad-tripping America -- is a recipe for serious disaster. If we're lucky, we'll survive the humiliating decline and settle into the new reality without causing too much damage to ourselves or the rest of the world. But when that awful moment arrives where the cognitive dissonance snaps hard, it will be an epic struggle to come to our senses in time to prevent the William Kristols, Max Boots and Robert Kagans from leading us into a nuclear holocaust which, they will assure us, we can win against Russia, thanks to our technological superiority. If only we have the will, they'll tell us, we can win once and for all.

View the pageGo back to previous pageLeave some feedbackPrint this pageEmail link to friendsBookmark in del.icio.usAdd to Stumble ThisAdd to your favourite bookmarksDigg this article

Tags

 

Related Stories

   
Next
So the very unknown Belgian PM Herman van Rompuy, has been elected as EU President- taking up a position that could be instrumental in the future of the region and global international relations in general.

Only a day later, on the opposite and non-EU side of Europe, Russian and Ukrainian officials met, with Putin announcing that he would be easing gas supply terms to a neighbour that is crucial for Russia's European pipelines. 

Is it too cynical to think this isn't it a coincidence? 

Is it unreasonable to think that as Putin spins a tighter trade web with Former Soviet Republics that this could be his attempt to stand tall and unthreatened by a stronger EU?

Find out about our Widget

Feedback

7 jul

The HomepageDAILY community likes to co-create both content and process. What are you thinking right now about what we do and how we do it? Tell us about the news, videos and stories and anything else you see on HPD. What you like, what you don't like, what you'd like to see in future. Recommend a website, video or article; send us pix, new stories - share it with us and by so doing you are giving us permission to share it with the world.

Leave Feedback here

 *********************************

 Re: Commoditisation of aboriginal art

dear jack do you know anything about the history of Aboriginal 'art'??? Your speculation seems based on complete ignorance of the fact that Aboriginal art was invented for white buyers - the Aborigines themselves having survived 40,000 years without needing to give their lore and laws, myths and legends and rules for survival in a hostile climate any permanent form. It was only our attempts to assimilate them into our 'society' that drove the link to canvas - though the money we paid for their art was a nice bonus, and shouldn't be ignored as a continuing motive for painting. cheers - jeremy

 *********************************

 Re: Farmers and ETS

Thank you for your commentary about farmers in a world of changing climate. Here in the Pacific NW we are not as aware of it as some other places. Our Transition Town group hosted author William Catton last night, who wrote a prophetic book called "Overshoot" back in 1980. During the discussion, a local fish biologist pointed out that of all industries, farmers are the only ones constantly limited by nature. The rest of the world ( with a few exceptions like fishermen or foresters) really do not seem to make their living in a world of limited by forces beyond their control--- or so they imagine. There is a fundamental sanity in these other ways of life that our culture is unwilling to hear. It runs away from the voice of limitation. I think farmers have a lot to teach the world. We always thought there was something wholesome about farming and I think this is exactly it; a lack of hubris. How many slaps in the face will it take before people come to their senses? - Anna Willis

 *********************************

 Re: Turning Chinese

Obama is just a puppet of the Corporate elites.He has not recinded the Patriot Act,Bushes' presidential orders nor habius corpus.Presently ,we have corporate facism. - Ross

 *********************************

 Re: Why Won't God Heal Amputees?

it seems that your whole point and discussion is aimed at christianity. what you state is pretty thought provoking and maybe true but one thing that i have to say is that maybe the whole religion thing has just been corrupted by people and that maybe god does exist.... nomatter all the scientific bull that you and other people can come up with, there are still things that you and scientist just cant explain. ie youe exsistance and the fact that you as a human have suchbrain capacity to do what you do today, and why there is such an order in nature "ofcoures humans always fuck up the order" everything on earth is one complex puzzle that works and you and everyone found it working. not only earth but even beyond to space and shit. now you can say that all this came from a bang and what ever but even if you believe that, what created the platform for that bang and why this place and stuff. just too many things dont add up to just say there is no god. and i think most of these motherfuckers miss the point of this religious shit anyway. because god is not a religion but a spiritual bond. dont be fooled by sensationalism and think that god does not exist cos he does. at least for me. the only problem with this now is that humans have sensationalised everything to make thier shit the best and in part have missed the whole point of god. every human bieng needs something to hold on to. even you and weather it is the image of god that people have painted or not is irrelevent. there is something that you believe in.. you might not go to church and get on your knees but its just part of human nature to associate yourself with something. it could be a superstition or eating chocolate coated roaches whatever you like fact is some things are just bigger than our rational. hope to get a responce from you - esco

*********************************

Re: Safran sure to offend, but who cares?

It is an interesting question to pursue "And, is there a ratio that exists where the amount of people offended compared to those that weren't makes something objectively racist?" I suppose the most right answer to whether something is racist or not can only come about democratically. By asking people if they find it racist. Even then (in this currently impossible world where people who want to vote on everything) who gets to vote? Hopefully I do. How do I cast my vote? At the moment I abstain. - Joshua Genner

 *********************************

Re: The Pointless Question of "What is Art?"

You're article serves as a blatant example of people's lack of knowledge/interest in the contemporary art scene. Some of the most profound and revealing conversations stem from dicussions of art, politics and religion so why label them taboo subject matter? why not let the idiots add in their artistic two cents, because who knows what could happen? a change of opinion... an education... a flash of interest? Perhaps you and your friends to venture down to the COFA 09 annual exhibit and see some 200 fresh sydney artists emerge onto the art scene, unless it's too boring/inane. - Kara

*********************************

Re: The Pointless Question of "What is Art?"

I dare say the question is not pointless but rather is made pointless by overcomplications of academia and peripherals of market and status, in which Sean appears to have gotten bogged down notwithstanding the word limit. One of the things we do know about art for a fact is that we humans appear to have always had it around from the caves (who can forget the fetching bison from Alta Mira!) So the issue is cutting through the baggage of history as old as humanity to get back to the fundamentals. It took me about 35 years of research but does not take 100 words. It is this: "Art is something that is designed to communicate thoughts and feelings and to influence our thoughts and feeling through one or more of our senses."(25 words) Since we have space, a rider: "The particular art form is qualified by the particular senses involved in production and reception of that communication. If Sound then Music, If body then Dance. If we use eyes to perceive colour and shape we call it Visual art." How you work the item in question is the matter of objectivity after all some of us eat fruit raw and others make jam. If you choose to make art an investment go for it, if you choose to make it a status symbol you won't be the first. However, in my book, art is really the best at being art and in the immortal words of one Oscar Wilde, for any other purpose "All art is quite useless" - Valerie (Co-incidental author of "Why Art? The Pocket Art Expert)
*********************************

Re: John Safran ready for when skit hits the fan

The only aspect of "multiculturalism" we (or any western society)have accepted, revolves around food: sweet and sour chicken or donner kebab..nothing else is relevent, interesting or in anyway beneficial to us. The Cronulla riots were seen as well overdue by most people abroad, we should be proud of standing up to and rejecting ethnic gangs from our pure shores - "Peter Piper"

*********************************

Re: Brassed off about creationism- by Andy Coghlan

This is why we need change in Texas and why I'm running for State Board of Education. - Rebecca Bell-Metereau (www.voterebecca.com)

*********************************

Re: The Rape Tunnel

It astonishes and intrigues me this 'shock art' Being a over zealous muscled ex con looking for love, where could one find Richard Whitehursts hole?

*********************************

Re: ETS Voted Down: Rudd Proves Himself An Evil Genius

Nice to see such an insightful article, despite the snide comments.. Did you read the Quarterly Essay by Guy Pearse in writing the first 5 paragraphs- not that that's a bad thing really. Nice of you to widen your vision beyond the road ahead and take in some history- but I would add one thing- that as it stands (in the senate, especially with Steve Fielding) we won't have a real, meaningful ETS passed. The bummer is that even with a double dissolution election and the resultant simultaneous sitting of both houses of parliament (which as you point out, the greens/minor parties and labor would benefit from) would still not change the ETS from it's current configuration- not unless the Greens tripled their vote. Silly that it all came down to labor preferences to a little known party led by a little know bloke named Steve Fielding and Family First- not that that should be the reason we're in this predicament... - Shaun Lambert

*********************************

Re: Evil Capitalists

In response to the "100 Words" on Psychotic Capitalism: The statement, "only psychotics fail to distinguish right from wrong," has a semantic problem. What makes a person psychotic is the inability to recognize that, theoretically, actions or behavior can be right and wrong. A psychologically normal person can do this by age 5. But well- intentioned people constantly disagree about which actions are right and wrong in particular situations. This evening my husband and I re- watched "Zeitgeist--- Addendum" on youtube. We had to restrain ourselves from a festival of paranoia, anger and frustration at what appears to be an evil plot to enslave us all, to bleed us like pods in The Matrix. I cannot argue against the idea that Capitalism--- looked at as a planetary movement--- seems heartlessly destructive, yet there is no single person or even group of Illuminati to blame --- we are willing participants in this plot to rule the world, exploit the human race, rape Mother Earth. All of us are not psychotic, rather we are doing what seems right, and we are following norms set by our culture and community. I personally do my best to support those lawmakers who help us define right at wrong at the transpersonal level--- where this kind of crime being committed, with vast and ultimately very personal consequences. Indeed people can be stupider and meaner in groups than singly --- but whatever the right word is for that, it is not psychotic. Our real problem is that we seem incapable of seeing consequences beyond the local and immediate, we are selfish and shortsighted. But the writer is right: stupid, mean, selfish, shortsighted --- these terms trivialize the unfathomable crimes of Capitalists and their sheep-like dupes. - Anna Willis

*********************************

Re: Ethics Implicit?

There is one place where ethics is not "implicit everywhere" and that is television and the media generally - the only ethic is win the audience. This is the toxic environment "informing" students. - Terry McGee

*********************************

Re: Australia's Swine Flu vaccination plan

The word "pandemic" has absolutely nothing to do with a deadly disease taking over the planet. The definition of "Pandemic" is simply about the SPREAD of a disease. Any disease. It could be a relatively harmless disease like the Swine Flu, to maybe a more harmful type (like normal seasonal influenza). Nothing to do with how bad or how good it is to your health ... just how WIDESPREAD it is. That is the interpretation of "Pandemic". A word that is nothing to be scared about, but just a measure of the SPREAD of any disease (harmful or relatively harmless) around the globe. The original "Spanish Flu" in 1819 killed 50 to 100 million people worldwide. Swine Flu deaths to date? 2,800 or so. Compare this to up to 500,000 deaths worldwide from our ongoing "Seasonal Flu". People need to see things in perspective. Swine Flu is a mild flu. No need for risky & possibly dangerous vaccinations. No need to be scared. In fact NO NEED TO DO ANYTHING. Just stay cool and take whatever vitamins & health supplements that are appropriate. Good luck & stay informed. - Tim
 
*********************************

Re: Kabul-shit

A nice puncture of the ADF's mad illusions. Shooting civvies in another land used to be called murder, now we pretend its nation building. It must have struck a chord. General Jim Molan, the butcher of Fallujah, who used white phosphorous & put snipers on hospital rooftops, raves in today's SMH about staying true to the mission. What is it with these guys? Untold deaths in Iraq, bombs still exploding, millions of refugees ... and this guy thinks he's a genius. - Tina G

*********************************

Re: Why we shouldn't care about he loneliness of the University Liberal

While you have managed to approach, with a complete lack of understanding and sensitivity, the complaints of the many people who feel alienated by the overtly leftist university agenda, I also think that you have failed to address the concerns of an increasingly disenfranchised leftist populace. The article was concerning the Left Handed bigots, not the personal politics of either of the 4 people mentioned. Their concern was not with, as you pointlessly attacked, their political beliefs, but rather with their freedom to express their beliefs and how they were treated on campus because of them. I write this as a disenfranchised leftist. Apparently, freedom of speech on campus somehow took a backseat to the far left's bigotry, however well intentioned they thought it was originally. I'm not right; I'm not left. But fuck anybody that tries to censure me and revoke my right to freedom of speech, merely for believing in a political party. Anyone that thinks that's OK, well simply look up the definition of fascist. - I Swing My Vote

*********************************
12 sep
10 aug
More feedback...
© 2007-2008 homePageDAILY - All rights reserved * Terms of Use * Privacy Policy * Advertising Information * Media Kit * Contact Us