Our leaders

Do you remember the good old days before the war (the last one in Iraq), when the argument usually went like that:

I don’t know if Saddam has WMDs, but Blair and Bush tell me so, and if I’m left to choose between trusting them and Saddam, I choose Bush &Co.

Now at the time I actually regarded it as a rather clever argument, because when counter-arguing you were always in danger of appraising Saddam, or alternatively claiming that our western leaders, were even more ruthless, unscrupulous politicians clinging to power.

However if you reconsider it today, that is about exactly the conclusion one has to end up with. You can’t trust a genuinely democratic elected Prime-minister any more than a pseudo-elected/appointed president (who unfortunately will become properly elected soon) or a straight dictator. Our leaders are outright liars, who will claim to have evidence for something that only exists in their own imagination and when it finally turns out they were wrong, others (in this particular case the secret services – at least it hit someone, who isn’t completely innocent) will get the blame. But if you compare that to Saddam it isn’t really any different.

The only positive view of this issue is that, I do still believe that they seriously believed that S. had the WMDs they claimed he had. But that only means they were unable to distinguish between reality and their own personal world-views. I guess that’s what you call ‘fundamentalism’. Because I believe something, I can send other people to die for it.

Sounds somehow familiar, doesn’t it?

After all its good to know we aren’t any better then our alleged enemies!

How naive is the west?

According to Peter Hain, Al Quaida got a new idea and is now "focusing" on the parliament.
Sorry but we are officially at war with this organisation for three years now, to honestly believe that, they just started to think about attacking Whitehall, is accusing Al Quaida of such incompetence, that they would hardly be worth fighting against.
If you fight someone, usually the normal thing to do is to expect, whomever you are fighting against, to strike back. And a symbolical attack on Britain’s medieval parliament is about the first things you should expect.
But than it was also fairly predictable that occupying a foreign country, without even thinking about its future would not lead to a prosperous and stable country. But apparently wishful thinking in politics is fairly common in the west, after all we still believe in the ridiculous idea of markets being the best way to sort absolutely everything, from environmental problems to a just educational system.
From this point of view, it is actually pretty pathetic, how little Al Quaida has been able to do. At least one major attack within the west per year should be within the capacity of any serious terrorist organisation.
But maybe we're lucky, and the leading class of the opponent is even worse than ours.

Our roots lie on the street

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cambridgeshire/3661972.stm
I can't see what all the fuss is about.
Firstly, I think it looks good, and far more importantly it is an integral part of modern day knowledge. Why does anyone describe it as vandalism? If people draw artpieces on the street that's all right, but if we do the same with knowledge this doesn't count, does it?
And in any case it is by far one of the more creative outcome of a students night out.
Alcohol and education - and science end up on the road!

American conservatives, religiouse or not?

Hey I just found a new version of American conservatism. The radical secular individualists, or however you want to name this.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3647 (and other articles around)
go have a look at them it's amazing.
I haven't yet figured out how they officially explain American imperialism, but certainly not as divine right of the godly inspired. I guess they simply don't believe in the need to justify the behaviour of the strong.
'the strong do whatever they have the power to do and the weak have to accept, what they have to accept'
This ancient Greek definition of the international realm seem to justify the underlying need to bombard Iranian mosques, as they are defined as the enemy. Interestingly together with socialism (see:http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=215) which might also explain how exactly Russia ended up in this list of the enemy called 'militant Islam' - even though that would imply that she is still socialistic.
But then I guess you can’t expect too much of an open worldview from the political right in any case. I do what I want, and any kind of pseudo-rational potpourri of arguments will do to justify it. It's a lovely world we're in.

Hell, why can't programmers come up with some logical naming?
Why on earth is fff white and ttt black? I spend an hour trying to figure out how to change my layout, and still feel fairly lost.

Can anyone please explain how to change the background colour of the right bottom side-box.

I'm feeling so ignorant, when working on a computer. I guess the last Indian in the amazons rainforest has a better understanding of program-language than me.
Anyway I' not really feeling like I gonna write anything nice right now, so I spare you my misery. Not that I'm really feeling bad but I hate it when things don't work the way I want them to.
Next time I post before I actually try to change anything on the layout.

Here we go

Now, let's see what I can do. After spending months reading the mental orgasms of others lets masturbate myself. Interestingly this doesn't really work the same way. While it is easy to comment on what others wrote, it is a lot harder to come up with something by myself - my god, does this mean I'm an intellectual voyeur. I need others, if only to argue with them. There isn't much point of having a theoretical argument.

I mean, I could simply write some controversial statement and hope that someone reads it and is terribly insulted or angry.

How about Terrorism is the logic consequence of the policy of the west!

Or acting collectively is more natural to humans than acting in individual self-interest
(this one might be interesting because I haven't yet thought of the line of my argument, so you might stand a chance! uc I'm not too modest)

Or finally religion is the virtue of the weak and stupid (Now this must provoke some reaction - come one my conservative friends, stand up for your believes)

So that should have provided some opening and while I try to figure out how to get a decent layout, I hope some fish gets into my net!!!