The End of Hope
Following up on the last post, I notice a common theme. Woven through a lot of conspiracy theories seems to be the idea that if the powers that be are shamelessly profiting from something, this is an indication that they caused it. This is what is referred to as inductive logic, one is going from a set of specifics and making a general case. And while inductive logic is a good way to brainstorm and generate theories, it isn’t proof in any way. No matter how shamefully, illegally, and comprehensively the USA government profits off of 9/11 or Global Warming … that isn’t proof that they caused either one.
Moving right along, the west showed its hand in the confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program. They proposed that Iran send its Uranium abroad for processing into fuel rods for nuclear power plants, thus ensuring that none of it was used for making bombs. The Iranians rejected the plan, and the USA is calling for sanctions and further confrontation. I mean, it was a reasonable offer, right?
No, it wasn’t. What the main stream press isn’t mentioning, is that the Iranians raised an obvious objection, if they ship their valuable Uranium ore to another country, what assurance do they have that they will ever get fuel rods back? The answer of course is … none. And anyone being even remotely honest can see that this is a very powerful objection. Furthermore, and again the so called media is silent, the Iranians made a counter offer. They offered to trade their Uranium for the equivalent in fuel rods simultaneously. Um, the USA rejected this offer out of hand. If the purpose of the confrontation with Iran is to ensure they use their nuclear power for peaceful purposes, this was a perfectly reasonable suggestion. Sadly, American bullying is our foreign policy now. Has been for a long time actually. Even more sadly, most of our “educated” population falls for the propaganda spewing forth from the White House and the main stream media as if it were fact.
And while we are on the topic of the White House and propaganda, Obama’s performance when he was given the Nobel Peace Prize. The mind, formerly boggled, reels uncontrollably. I guess Mr Obama figured if he could convince the majority of American voters that he was some sort of progressive who would change Bush’s policies, it would be easy to convince the world that War is Peace? I mean, the sight of the president of the USA accepting a Peace Prize and then burbling about how his colonial wars are “moral” and “justified” was creepy to terrifying. Hate to say it, but comparisons to Hitler aren’t as off the wall as I once thought, at least in regards to Obama’s propensity for violence and the claim that somehow violence will lead to peace and prosperity. There’s no chance that Obama will become a dictator of course, but as a poster boy for the war machine that is running the USA, he’s found his calling.
It’s sad, but the USA seems to have become addicted to war. We’ve always been a war-like country, but under Bush and now Obama we seem to have morphed into a country where permanent war is the norm, and all international problems can be solved by the application of force. I mean, there was always a faction that believed that, it’s pretty much our legacy from World War Two. There used to be an opposition to that, but lately whatever voices for peace there are in the USA are muted and fractured. It’s been pointed out that Obama’s greatest accomplishment may have been to destroy any realistic chance of opposition to the policy of permanent war. Obama was a Trojan Horse, and the liberals enthusiastically hauled him into their camp … and have now been eviscerated from within. There is zero chance now that the Democratic party will move back toward being a true opposition party, for all practical purposes the Democrats are nowjust another wing of the Republican party.
And no, a third party won’t fix things. The system is so completely rigged to keep third party candidates from getting any real traction that the idea is absurd. And the Supreme Court is about to rule that corporations can donate to politicians any way they please, though granted it’s not like they have been seriously hampered by efforts to keep their money out of politics. If the Supreme Court rules as some people fear they will, any and all corporations will be able to donate money to political campaigns … including foreign corporations. Yes, we will be giving countries like China and Saudi Arabia the chance to participate in American politics the good old fashioned way, by buying American politicians.
I knew the Obama presidency was going to be interesting, I just had no idea how interesting. And not the good kind of interesting. Sigh. Have a great weekend everyone.
(The above image is claimed as Fair Use under US copyright law. It’s not being used for profit, it is central to illustrating the post, and its use here in no way interferes with the copyright holder’s commercial use of the image. Credit and Copyright: The Jerusalem Post. It’s a dove. It’s dead. It’s in a back man’s hands. I will leave the gentle reader to come to their own conclusions from there as to why I used this picture to illustrate this post.)
Doug's Darkworld 
“No matter how shamefully, illegally, and comprehensively the USA government profits off of 9/11 or Global Warming … that isn’t proof that they caused either one.”
Huh, smoke doesn’t always mean fire I guess……
As for Iran, I did not know that we rejected trading them the fuel rods.
Kinda sad, it’s their country after all….
Peace
Pyrodin123321
December 11, 2009 at 12:30 pm
“Huh, smoke doesn’t always mean fire”…too narrow and simplistic of a view, step back and look at the logic or lack their of.
A) fire departments exist to fight fire
B) the firemen make a profit and living off fighting the fires
C) therefore the firemen must be the ones who start the fires since they directly profit from them.
Or
A) You’re grandmother will leave you 1 million dollars when she dies.
B) you’re grandmother dies
C) you must have killed you’re grandmother because you directly profited from her death.
Absurd example but they illustrates the faulty logic. Just because the firemen profit off the fires doesn’t mean they go around starting fires and just because you profit off granny’s death doesn’t mean you killed her. While those are both posibilities thier are many more logical explanations, maybe granny just got old, you would need much more evidence in both cases to come to a Conclusion.
Just because the US gov’t and defense industry took advantage of 9/11 and profited does not automatically mean they caused it. You have to stack up the evidence and make a judgment, but to simply jump from A to B therefore C is far to simplistic.
I didn’t know about the Iranian counter offer either, Doug do you have a link to the article (or I could just get off my lazy butt and Google it). If true I agree with Pyrodin, very sad.
Josh V
December 12, 2009 at 1:20 pm
never mind Doug, just found an article about the Iranian counter offer on yahoo of all places while I was checking my mail. In it they said In addition to swapping the uranium directly for rods (instead of waiting for Russia or whomever to process the uranium at their convenience) they also only wanted to do partial shipments. the US slant is that its unacceptable because their would still be enough uranium in Iran to make a bomb and insist that Iran turn over all the uranium at one time. I think those are both fair points, seems to me the next logical step in negotiations would be for Iran to agree to turn over all the uranium at one time, but in exchange for completed fuel rods, not the promise of them in the future. Seems rational, who wants to bet it won’t play out that way?
Josh V
December 12, 2009 at 1:53 pm
“too narrow and simplistic of a view, step back and look at the logic or lack their of”
; )
Well I think YOUR logic is a little “fuzzy” pal…
fire departments exist to fight fire
B) the firemen make a profit and living off fighting the fires
C) therefore the firemen (“MAY BE”)must be the ones who start the fires since they directly profit from them.
Firemen with nothing to do may well have a motive to start fires in order to keep their jobs, no it isn’t proof but it is a definite possibility and should be investigated if there are a lot of fires. Same goes for the grandma theroy, no not proof but for sure a possibility to keep in mind….
Peace
Pyrodin123321
December 13, 2009 at 8:04 pm
What I found extremely interesting about Obama’s inauguration is how much it resembled a Madonna concert. The whole thing resembled a great hollywood show to boost people’s morale. It was obv. right there and then that there’s something huge behind him, something that has a very distinguished plan, something that coordinates everything very carefully and by using every trick of entertainment industry.
I think Obama is a very bright individual, but I don’t think it’s an individual who governs the country. I doubt that individual really has anything to do with the whole thing. Just a conclusion out of hints I guess.
But then all this talk doesn’t really lead anywhere, since no one really knows a true power of an individual. No one tought us to be an individual. We are a just a single part of a society, a link. So we act like one, unfortunately.
I watched an amazing film recently called Bronson. I think it really grasped the subject of a power of an individual. But you know, it came naturally to him, he was talented so to speak. Most of us are not, that’s all.
iraoksman
December 18, 2009 at 3:14 am