It's shaping up to be a banner year for the weapons industry. And that's saying a lot, to say the least.
In a continuation of their role reversal with the French, the Germans are either "letting them" go at Mali, or "leaving them" there (on their own). Leave it to a big-Cred soCialist not to blink when sending in the warm jets. Francois Hollande, LBJ salutes you.
But not so fast. Apparently Germany's top dogs' & cats' discomfort with their press' syntactical ambiguity brought them out of their bunkers and into focus.
They will not be leaving the frogs in the lurch. Not that they were gonna. And the best news is that what's bad for Islamism is also good for business. You can put stock in it.
And while America leaves everybody all the way down-and-out to its beloved Hollygooders to tweet the absurdity of neo-nativist gun obsession and the untoward influence of the NRA and small-arms manufacturers, Bo Rama 2.zorro is having a stellar January, even before his re-swearing on Honest Abe's bible. Can I buy stock in drones? And will they be green? I just love techtalk.
Thank you, come again.
Though I'm not sure of its linguistic origins, "I keep coming back to (something)" would seem to imply that one keeps getting away from it, as well. Or it could be that sometimes shit just lays low for a while, to remain relatively unnoticed after comin' 'round the bend and rolling down hill.
Hardcore antiwar activists of yore haven't forgot Eisenhower's outgoing military-industral-complex speech on live TV, and though they've passed it on to those who keep coming back to it, it is significant that the warning turned out to mark the redoubling of the three-initialization of the White House more than it was a warning shot heard round the world. JFK, LBJ, & the CIA may not have saluted the former general-president, but they sure took his cue.
I hafta admit to rolling my mind's eye at least once when someone's referenced the Ike-MIC address. But it really does remain relevant and, when you consider the bottom line, exponentially so. That's what I am trying to get back to here: The only freedom they're fighting for over there is the freedom to fight itself, to pile the stakes higher, and that, above all else, is what contributes to this consistently reconsecrated culture of violence.
The Law of Likelihood
I do wonder how many gamers would step away forever from their gaming consoles if it were suddenly revealed that simultaneous to the BLAMS on the screen, they'd actually been maiming and killing in meat-space. My guess is that those who kept right on at it would do so firstly out of sheer boredom, slightly more than a sense of patriotic duty, with affected violent impulse or a desensitization thereto coming in at a very distant third. The same goes for the motivation to shoot up a college campus or kiddy kindergarten. What else is there to do? Be all that you can be or nothing at all.
It shouldn't be surprising that there are those who wanna maintain a right to buy and keep sundry shooting devices at home, even unchecked and unbalanced on their hips. And it's reasonable to expect that there are those who fear them. But does the latter group realize that the former group makes up the lion's share of the troops and their ideology? Are they aware that when Golden Globes are given to those big- and smallscreen representations of heroes of the national security state (and standing ovations to former presidents of nuance) that they are admiringly ogling and cheering the same people who mock their mamsy-pamsy ways while leading them around by their nanny-state noses?
If anyone needed guns to protect themselves from tyranny, it'd be the ones who've never held them in the first place, yet the wackos with the guns don't stand a Chinaman's chance against their chain of command, and anyone possessing the biggest guns with anywhere near a correspondingly big brain will rise to a position where they, too, might profit enough from all this human sacrifice financially that they could build a shield between themselves and those who, proverbially, shouldn't have the guns in the first place.
But like the coming of the next messiah, the American example abroad foreshadows hope domestically, irrespective of the legal status of its citizenry's privately-owned big or small shooters, no matter the degree and location of the weaponry's ultimate concentration.
There is hope for Americans who worry they'll be caught under the appendage of dominionist domestic despotism; or invalidated under the martial warrant of west-wingers; or surrounded by armed radical separatists; or bound by combatant crony capitalists.
One day, they, perhaps you, might vie for the beneficence of humanitarian arms manufacturers, and a network authorized to organize the interveneering.
In a continuation of their role reversal with the French, the Germans are either "letting them" go at Mali, or "leaving them" there (on their own). Leave it to a big-Cred soCialist not to blink when sending in the warm jets. Francois Hollande, LBJ salutes you.
But not so fast. Apparently Germany's top dogs' & cats' discomfort with their press' syntactical ambiguity brought them out of their bunkers and into focus.
They will not be leaving the frogs in the lurch. Not that they were gonna. And the best news is that what's bad for Islamism is also good for business. You can put stock in it.
And while America leaves everybody all the way down-and-out to its beloved Hollygooders to tweet the absurdity of neo-nativist gun obsession and the untoward influence of the NRA and small-arms manufacturers, Bo Rama 2.zorro is having a stellar January, even before his re-swearing on Honest Abe's bible. Can I buy stock in drones? And will they be green? I just love techtalk.
Thank you, come again.
Though I'm not sure of its linguistic origins, "I keep coming back to (something)" would seem to imply that one keeps getting away from it, as well. Or it could be that sometimes shit just lays low for a while, to remain relatively unnoticed after comin' 'round the bend and rolling down hill.
Hardcore antiwar activists of yore haven't forgot Eisenhower's outgoing military-industral-complex speech on live TV, and though they've passed it on to those who keep coming back to it, it is significant that the warning turned out to mark the redoubling of the three-initialization of the White House more than it was a warning shot heard round the world. JFK, LBJ, & the CIA may not have saluted the former general-president, but they sure took his cue.
I hafta admit to rolling my mind's eye at least once when someone's referenced the Ike-MIC address. But it really does remain relevant and, when you consider the bottom line, exponentially so. That's what I am trying to get back to here: The only freedom they're fighting for over there is the freedom to fight itself, to pile the stakes higher, and that, above all else, is what contributes to this consistently reconsecrated culture of violence.
The Law of Likelihood
I do wonder how many gamers would step away forever from their gaming consoles if it were suddenly revealed that simultaneous to the BLAMS on the screen, they'd actually been maiming and killing in meat-space. My guess is that those who kept right on at it would do so firstly out of sheer boredom, slightly more than a sense of patriotic duty, with affected violent impulse or a desensitization thereto coming in at a very distant third. The same goes for the motivation to shoot up a college campus or kiddy kindergarten. What else is there to do? Be all that you can be or nothing at all.
It shouldn't be surprising that there are those who wanna maintain a right to buy and keep sundry shooting devices at home, even unchecked and unbalanced on their hips. And it's reasonable to expect that there are those who fear them. But does the latter group realize that the former group makes up the lion's share of the troops and their ideology? Are they aware that when Golden Globes are given to those big- and smallscreen representations of heroes of the national security state (and standing ovations to former presidents of nuance) that they are admiringly ogling and cheering the same people who mock their mamsy-pamsy ways while leading them around by their nanny-state noses?
If anyone needed guns to protect themselves from tyranny, it'd be the ones who've never held them in the first place, yet the wackos with the guns don't stand a Chinaman's chance against their chain of command, and anyone possessing the biggest guns with anywhere near a correspondingly big brain will rise to a position where they, too, might profit enough from all this human sacrifice financially that they could build a shield between themselves and those who, proverbially, shouldn't have the guns in the first place.
But like the coming of the next messiah, the American example abroad foreshadows hope domestically, irrespective of the legal status of its citizenry's privately-owned big or small shooters, no matter the degree and location of the weaponry's ultimate concentration.
There is hope for Americans who worry they'll be caught under the appendage of dominionist domestic despotism; or invalidated under the martial warrant of west-wingers; or surrounded by armed radical separatists; or bound by combatant crony capitalists.
One day, they, perhaps you, might vie for the beneficence of humanitarian arms manufacturers, and a network authorized to organize the interveneering.
