I support our troops; what choice do I have? November 26, 2007
Posted by extradocument in Propaganda.Tags: America, conspiracy, gulf war, progaganda, support our troops
2 comments
Imagine this, your best friend, the one you’ve known forever, walked up to you and asked, “Do you support the troops in Iraq?” Now, you have two different options, you can say, “Yes, I do.” or, you can say “No, I don’t.” Seems rather simple? So which would you reply?
Lets look again at this question, just for giggles. The phrase “Support our troops” is one that is practically part of our lives now; you can see bumper stickers on cars, or banners in the city, all sporting this simple saying, symbolic of all that we stand for. It’s chanted by nationalists, and held as a marker for your place in society, if you support our troops, you’re definitely a true American. This mantra of all things good stands for pride in one’s country, love of peace and the protection of our sacred democracy, through democracy our rights, and of course through rights, the government that supports us in our daily doings.
Ever notice how it works like that? Agreeing to “support our troops” is like an unspoken oath that puts your motives in line with those of America, and more importantly, it’s government; but what if you don’t agree with all of America’s motives? Can you go out and say, “No, I don’t support our troops”? you might imagine the responses you’d get. Nobody can go out and “disagree” with Nationalism, nobody can go out and say, no to the protection of Democracy, if you were to do that then you must be a communist, or worse yet; one of those folks from Al-Qaeda, a terrorist! There is no way you can “Not support our troops”, even the people against our war on terror aren’t willing to say they don’t support our troops. These nay-sayers, the people who oppose our current president, and the war end up making meager excuses such as this; “Well, I’m against the war, but I guess I do support the troops…” There is no way on earth to not be forced in to this logic, and it’s become about as redundant as, in the words of Noam Chomsky, “…if somebody asks you, Do you support the people in Iowa? Can you say, Yes, I support them, or No, I don’t support them? It’s not even a question. It doesn’t mean anything.” (Noam Chomsky Media Control 25) So what are the motives behind this little phrase of ours? Well, heres where it started.
Operation Desert Storm, or the Gulf war was one of the first wars that the average citizen could experience. With new news networks such as CNN having charismatic news anchors
talk about things like war, and violence, there was a need for your attention to be drawn away from the negative. Many horrible things would be broadcast through your T.V. set, missiles lighting the sky as they streak screaming at their target’s, bullets eating through buildings, and sinking their teeth in to young men, young men ready to give anything for their belief in a better world, and for your protection. These were young people, facing what was now realized by the public as a very very bad thing!
It was this point that the government knew what they had to do. Smart people that they are, they jumped and started using the slogan “Support our troops” to boost morale, and let people focus on something other than the negative; if people care so much about the soldiers, they’ll be fine! Soon nobody wants to be the odd one out, and we get tonnes of folks practically willing to die for this notion of supporting our troops, a successful diversion created by our government.
Now, I don’t want to go all “loose-change” on you, and I appreciate a conspiracy as much as the next person, but really; why would we need a phrase like this? It’s a phrase that embodies a set of ideals, and those are used to keep the masses of the public, us, at home occupied in our mindset that we’re making a difference, while all the big guns on capitol hill make the “real decisions”. If we aren’t looking as to why we’ve just invaded a foreign country, but instead worrying about the people who are doing our dirty work, then the elitists have won, and the propaganda is a success! Everybody is happy, the politicians can go back to their work, and we all feel good about ourselves for worrying.
As a final note, I do support the people on our front lines fighting, it’s brave of them to drop their lives and go place themselves in danger, but what if we can get them out of danger? What if we can throw away the “necessary illusions” that have been pulled in front of our eyes? Then we can finally get to work ending this conflict, and going back to contributing in a meaningful way to society, as opposed to shouting “nationalistic mantras” and not really looking to see whats going on a little farther ahead.
A Quick Question November 25, 2007
Posted by extradocument in Philosophy.Tags: 6th sense, awareness, Descartes, Philosophy, random
3 comments
Recently, I’ve been in a war with myself, and some of those around me; not a physical war, but you could consider it a spiritual one. This war doesn’t exist outside the bounds of it’s battles, there is no downtime, because if there isn’t a battle, the war doesn’t exist. This war is one of our existence.
Now, it’s not fighting for our existence against some other-worldly being, but it’s a war to prove our existence, and it’s funneled around some questions that can make you think.
1. If you were born without senses (i.e. touch, smell, sight, taste, and hearing) then how would you find the grounds to prove you exist?
Seems like a simple enough question, you could use the classic statement by Rene Descartes; “I think, therefore I am.” which was used as his grounds of his existence, to which he moved on to solve this and that and become the “father of modern philosophy”.
Descartes’ premise for this search for a proof of existence began with his belief that the senses lied to you, and therefore could not be trusted. This works well with a person who has no senses, because it leaves no way for them to lie to you, it also however gives their non-existence new meaning, perhaps them not-lying to you is itself an oxymoron, and is a lie of it’s own.
Next we come to Descartes’ firm belief that he does indeed “think”. Now, of the people I have asked, and most likely of you too, everybody thinks in a language, generally their primary language of use, for example, as an English speaker, when I think to myself, I think in English, whereas a fried who speaks Chinese in his personal life is inclined to think mostly in Mandarin. This leaves way to wondering if it is possible to think, if you have gained no language skills. That is to say, since language depends on the experiences of your life, especially the auditory components, if you never experienced anything (through lack of senses from birth) can you think? And through connection, can you justify an existence?
My next all-seeing question, comes from the first and is as follows:
2. If you were to lose your senses after having established them previously (through age) how would you now justify your existence?
Most commonly, the justification I get for this would be “you don’t” a wholly pittyful excuse for avoiding the question, and avoiding my incessant moaning about life. I do, however, feel a need that this is answered, for if you can’t experience anything, what justifies your purpose, and existence? Descartes’ basis of “I think therefore I am” now fits in quite well so this part of my question is very closely linked to answering the first, and when considered by itself, seems wholly useless. Nonetheless, it’s useful to bring up the assumption that after a prolonged period of time, we still experience thought. If for instance, there is no need for something, we can forget of it, take a physical trait for example, tails. According to the Darwinian theory of evolution, and the removal of uneeded “wind-dings” our bodies created but no longer have a use for, our tails eventually were dismissed; as a species, there was no longer a need, so we could do without them. The same may fit along with though, if you have no experiences, or reason to think, then who is to say that thought is needed? And, if you give up on the need for thought, and stop thinking all together, then by Descartes’ reasoning, you may not exist, for you are missing a vital part of his thesis.
Lastly my questions end with a final one, that again follows:
3. If our senses can be removed, or deceive us, and that a single senses can’t be wholly experienced with the other senses we are capable of, how do we know if we have lost a sense that has never been acquired in the first place?
That is to say, if you never had a sense of sight, how would you know you don’t have it? People could tell you about it yes, or you might perceive another person’s reaction, but that still won’t give you full sense of knowing you lost a sense. To give an example, someone who dosen’t like tacos, could be told that they “don’t know what they’re missing” but could that be perceived as you not having a 6th sense that is solely used to experience tacos? Most likely not, and this does a fairly sound job of giving an example about “incomplete perception” as I have called it.
Hopefully, one day, I can stop troubling myself and get to think of something else, like whether or not it’s really worth it to eat taco’s, but for now, I can continue to ask myself the question of whether or not we can ever justify our existence.
Namesake of a New Blog November 25, 2007
Posted by extradocument in Uncategorized.Tags: , Argument, DBQ, First, History, Student
2 comments
Yeah, I know it’s another new blog, why care about this one, there are thousands of blogs made each day!
To answer that, I’ll tell you about a class I’ve taken, AP World History. When it’s required write a Document Based Question, (an essay that requires the writer to interpret a set of primary documents, also known as a DBQ), it is imperative to always ask for an extra document to help strengthen an argument you make. When a set of documents given to you are all from a common source, such as members of the government, then your essay will not take in to account a complete view of your given topic. For example I used to following to ask for an extra document on a DBQ asking to compare the view of technology in Han China and Ancient Rome.
“Each of these documents were written by a court or district official, and it would be helpful to have a document from either an artisan, talking about what necessitated the need for a new technology, or from a laborer, describing how the a technology has benefited their work.”
This is just one example, but it order for any argument to be properly justified, you must have the view of another person incorporated; if you do not account for everybody your argument is very likely flawed.
Thats where I come in, amidst a sea of other blogs, I hope to insert my humble opinion, and serve as that Extra Document. The thing about these Documents is that they’re often just not there, it’s not so common is history to find a literate peasant in the 13th century, one who can write and also uses that skill to talk about things such as the one that historians want. As a student, and one that doesn’t like to follow with all the other “main stream culture”, that kids often are pressured in to at a students age, I can provide that Extra Document, the one that you need to fulfill your argument for life; for without the view of every person incorporated, your argument, and thus your perception, is very often flawed.
