Building a Mystery (The Funniest Moment on CNN Today)

[markses]

Shortly after Tom Ridge's bizarre announcement, Wolf Blitzer had some "expert" on to discuss the new (har har) terrorist threats. Wolf, as is usual, was mightily perplexed. You see, these threats were aimed at - ostensibly - "iconic financial institutions," to quote the great wordsmith Tom Ridge. Why, Wolf wondered aloud, brow furrowed and maximum consternation more than apparent, would the terrorists be after "capitalist" targets. Yes, boys and girls - Mr. Blitzer, the uber-educated spokesman of the conventional wisdom, used the term "capitalist."

It is, no doubt, a great wonder to all that the prime targets of al Qaeda should be the very gears and mechanisms of global capital. To all, that is, who haven't been paying attention. We have basically three factions in the world today:

1) The global capitalists: They are little more than a snazzy new version of the 19th century imperialists; they are raping and pillaging the earth, but with better rhetoric about their mission civilatrice and less steady boundaries as regards race. They thereby manage to avoid the label of imperialists, a tag we usually associate with all the forces of old Europe. A plague on the surface of the planet they are nonetheless - however much you might like your car, your house, and your snazzy new plasma screen. We are hurtling, in their midst, towards cataclysm. In this group we find the "capitalist" financial organs, the Hollywood stars, the urban yuppies, with their Whole Foods, the SUV drivers, the cool haircut kids, the Singaporean chip merchants, Kofi Annan and George Bush Senior, Bill Clinton, Cher, Silvio Berlusconi, Tony Blair, all the kiddies from the OC, and - God bless 'im - Richard Cheney.

2) The fundamentalists: In this group we find both the resentful souls of America and the plotters of the al Qaeda. Yes, both. The Christians here who react with vehement moralizing are little different than the al Qaeda when it comes to the global shifts occuring in our midst. The thumpers and flag wavers and suicide bombers all have the same message: SLOW DOWN!!! I'M LOSING MY STEADY GROUND! I'M LOSING MY RELIGION!!! They seek solid ground as group one wrests their simple lives from their control - outsourcing and Iraq wars, flows of finance capital and women's rights: all these movements strip from these populations their steady hold on the Real. In response, abortion clinic bombings and World Trade Center bombings: they bomb everything associated with the flows of capital and bodies, since their onluy hope is to stabilize stabilize - for God's sake STABILIZE!!!! They kill anything that moves, because they fear movement above all else. In this group is Osama bin Laden and Jerry Falwell, George W. Bush and Ralph Nader, all the old school anti-globalization activists and all the small town moralizers and reactionaries. These people have no future, but they'll go down with maximum violence; they will plague us all, as it were, even to roaring.

3) The globalizers: This group wants to globalize the mechanisms of conscience as well as capital; most smart "anti-globalization" people have moved from category 2) to this category over the last several years. This is the smallest group of all, which is sad, since it is the only group that can sketch out a livable future for humanity on Earth. Is there a drumbeat, a faint calling? Is there a humming, a steady movement? We'll have to see. At this time, group 1) and 2) are locked in ferocious battle all across the surface of the Earth, all across its atmosphere and airwaves, its sea routes and land routes and - God help us - air routes.

So when Wolf Blitzer asks, perplexed, why the al Qaeda would attack the institutions of capitalism, we can be forgiven for not taking him seriously. He must know. He must know. Right?

[trumad]

1. 1234 who do we appreciate ... al Qaeda al Qaeda go al Qaeda

true heros of the unfortuantes, attacking the uhhh uber Capitalist who want to destroy the world... :eyes:

[markses]

3. How you got that out of my post, I'll never understand

I distinctly placed al Qaeda in the most terrifying group, Group #2. Either you can't read very well, or you are being dishonest. Either way, you owe me an apology (though I'm sure I'll get the usual fuck you). Severeal of my friends and neighbors were MURDERED by al Qaeda on Serptember 11, and I was almost killed by them on that day as well. I have no love for those fuckers. Moreover, my post is very clear on what I think about al Qaeda. You owe me a fucking apology, and you are a lazy fucking reader.

[RummyTheDummy]

7. This post makes perfect sense

"Severeal of my friends and neighbors were MURDERED by al Qaeda on Serptember 11, and I was almost killed by them on that day as well."

This, assuming it's legit, would explain why you're so fucking bitter. Or have you always been so surly?

On edit: The orignal post, while rambling and incoherent, proves you have a spectacular grasp of the obvious. Bravo!

[markses]

9. How am I bitter?

I present an analysis, and trumad accuses me of supporting al Qaeda! If you wouldn't get angry when someone, despite your own words, publically accuses you of supporting al Qaeda, then bitterness is the least of your problems. As for it being legit, I'll stand on it. I can give you the names of those who were killed in a PM if you like, and I'll also give you a detailed description of my whereabouts and actions in Lower Manhattan that day.

But again, I think I have the right to be angry when trumad accuses me of supporting al Qaeda, even though i explicitly condemn them in the post he is responding to. That's a grave insult in any circumstance, as I'm sure you'll agree. Unless you like being accused of supporting al Qaeda?

[trumad]

8. OK... I read it twice... Does that make me less lazy?

World BAD! World BAD! World BAD! hence that's why al queda attacks. Now keep in mind, I read your piece twice so don't call me lazy again.

[markses]

11. Hmmm

Nice try turning that around. I guess I won't get an apology for the worst insult imaginable, despite the clear evidence that the insult was unwarranted. I certainly won't apologize to you for being a lazy reader, which you were in your first post. I'm glad the second reading (that is, less laziness and snap judgments) has cured you of your worst insult, so I guess I'll deal with the objection here more reasonably.

M7y point is not "World BAD! hence that's why al queda attacks," though a nice little simplistic aphorism you have there. That said, al Qaeda is a symptom of global changes, and that can hardly be denied. Does this mean capitalism CAUSED (i.e., "hence") 19 hijackers to fly their planes into the WTC? No. But the ravages of global capital are obviously a condition for the emergence and operation of something like al Qaeda. A condition is not a direct cause. But it is a necessary element. That said, I do not think the world is bad, but I do not think global capitalism is rosy and cheery (all smiles and sunshine) either, and I think it does produce unlivable condition, and we do have to deal with what emerges from those conditions. I, quite frankly, do not understand your incredible hostility on this thread - first accusing me of being an al Qaeda supporter, then further accusing me of trying to excuse their actions. My post does neither. It is an attempt at an analysis of several forces shaping (conditioning, but not directly or singularly causing) world events. If you disagree with the analysis, argue against it. Your childish insults are just that, childish and perhaps - worse - stupid.

[trumad]

17. Oh come on!

accusing you of being an al Qaeda supporter means that I would have to er accuse you of being an al Qaeda supporter! Find that quote up there and I'll buy you a beer. What I am saying is you slamming capitalism and and al Qaeda in the same thread makes it sound like they both deserve what they get.

[markses]

18. Um...Who do we appreciate...al Qaeda?

That is a pretty clear implication, dodge it as you will. As for what people "deserve," my post said absolutely nothing on this topic. It was an analysis, not a apportionment of blame or penalty.

[trumad]

21. That was sarcasm

and if you really think that I accused you of being a Osama sympathizer, then I apologize. My point again is.... You highlight to evils in your post and when it comes to 9/11, I only see one. MHOP

[markses]

23. Well I think your wrong on that

Which opinion does not imply support for al Qaeda, nor absolute condemnation of global networks.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

15. Are you POSITIVE that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks on 911?...

What if it was a fucking group wanting to use fucking Al Qaeda as a fucking scapegoat to create the fucking reason for attacking certain fucking countries in the fucking Middle East?

What if that fucking group was fucking located right here in fucking America? What if the fucking group was also part of the same fucking group that fucking masterminded the fucking Coup of fucking December 2000?

Just fucking asking...is that fucking okay with you?

And fucking hey...how come fucking Osama initially fucking denied any fucking part in the attacks?

[markses]

16. I believe they were

Sorry about all the fuckings. I get a bit steamed when people accuse me of rah-rah-ing murderers, and I am a vulgar New Yawkah, after all.

[salin]

24. if it is any consolation

I knew what you meant - and thought it a good analysis. Rather than causal - a description of an inevitable cycle (growing more dynamic and thus potentially cataclysmic) of action and reaction and reaction and reaction...

And I am with you I believe al qeada is real and struck at us. I do think there was some LIHOP (mostly of the gross negligence level - that bordered in the not paying attention because it was too inconvenient to do so... had to get that energy policy afterall... with some arrogance smattered in... if there is a strike it could never happen on our soil - and if it happens elsewhere (like the cole) we can use it... But I don't think that they knew or even allowed themselves to conceive that the action would happen here. And not perceiving that - was gross (criminal) negligence.)

[markses]

26. That's where I am

Gross incompetence bordering on criminal negligence. The Bush Administration before 9/11 was just as Richard Clarke has described it: frozen in amber. the biggest foreign policy bit was the Chinese plane crisis - typical Cold war lunacy in a world that had changed completely. They were selling missile defense, and missile defense isn't sold with terror networks, but with nation state enemies like China. More red meat for the base. I'll never understand how they turned their worst act of negligence into a positive. I'll tell you this, on the days immediately after 9/11, the people I was around in NYC were mightily pissed at Bush for the incompetence. It was a kind of mania or pathology that caused people to support these idiots that let this catastrophe happen on their watch.

[Windtalker]

19. You really are

a sack...

[NightOwwl]

2. You just provided me with a great response

to anyone believing the validity of the terra threats.

Comment: We need Bush to protect us from the terror attacks!
My response: Are you referring to Tim Ridge's bizarre announcement?

Comment: A vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorists.
My response: Are you referring to Tim Ridge's bizarre announcements?

Comment: America is in great danger!
My response: Are you referring to Tom Ridge's bizarre announcement?

Great post by the way.

[Terran]

4. He actually said that?

What, is playing to all the five year olds at home watching? What does he think the WTC was, ferchrissakes?

[AlCzervik]

5. you have many interesting points

When i first hear the "Potential" target list i immediately though....do these targets do business with the Saudi's? I believe that Citibank does alot of business with them.

[IronLionZion]

31. Citibank doesn't just do business with the Saudis

The whole fucking Citigroup is controlled by Saudi princes!

It's good financial sense to have them incorporated in Delaware and good PR to have white American faces to put on their annual report.

[sandnsea]

6. Isolation, Interdependence, Integration

Which is more or less what you've described. Clinton has been hammering away on this for quite a while now. Here's a quote, if you can find one of his speeches in the last year, they're very good. Israel/Palestine are interdependent. Whether good or bad, the outcome of each group depends on the actions of the other. The solution is integration and we have to move in that direction.

"All of human history is a story of increasing contact. We move from isolation to interdependence to integration to an environment of shared benefits and responsibilities and values. Right now, globally, we have interdependence. We are struggling to get the integration that most of you want to lead the world in that direction. Our job is to move the world from interdependence to an integrated environment with shared benefits and responsibilities."

[VOX]

10. They hate us for our "iconic financial institutions."

Or whatever the fear-du-jour is that's being spooned out over the RW media.

Bullshit.

[Cats Against Frist]

12. I'm having a hard time with this thread

My best assessment is that they hate us for letting our corporate-based foreign policy de-stabilize them, oppress them, set them up with ruthless, corrupt leaders and keep them from being in control of their own destiny.

How does this NOT involve financial institutions and multinational corporations?

Of course it is stupid to adhere to "they just hate us," but I don't know why, since our foreign policy is basically one arm of the corporocracy, it is unreasonable to believe they wish to destabilize our economy.

[Cats Against Frist]

13. Jiminy Crickets! What's wrong with "whole food?"

I see whole and nonprocessed food as ANTI-capitalist...

[markses]

14. Nothing is "anti-capitalist" : There is no outside to capitalism

You pay money at Whole Foods, people work there, and they are involved in a supply chain of the same. That you get to feel "anti-capitalist" when you shop there is actually part of the great niche marketing tradition.

For the purpose of this post, Whole Foods simply signifies the new way of shopping that is interlinked in global networks. there is nothing necessarily wrong with these networks, but they definitely indicate a rending of traditional mechanisms of production and consumption, plus the emergence of a kind of capitalism focused primarily on making you a particular kind of person (even an anti-capitalist, as long as you use currency for your purchases!). Whole Foods is not WalMart, in other words - an establishment that plays much more into group #2, while still entering into the functions of group #1.

Short answer: Nothing's wrong with Whole Foods. I'm just placing it in a category.

[WoodrowFan]

20. you hate Whole Foods???

just kidding. I liked your original post, Wolf is CLUELESS>

[Cats Against Frist]

29. No

I thought you meant little W whole, little F foods. I don't shop at the chain, I shop at a co-op, but I'm sure it falls into the "capitalist" stuff that you mentioned -- I mean, I give them money for my food, not trade them a home-made sweater for organic beets.


Since I'm in Iowa, right now, I can get a lot of fruits, vegetables, meats, cakes, jellies, etc., from small-scale, independent producers -- but not everything.

I am not in the position to have my own organic farm, but I do hope to be, sometime in the future. But for now, what would be "responsible eating?"

And I was simply defending organic and non-processed food (particularly whole grains) because they ARE anti-capitalist. Obesity and the diet industry suck up billions and billions of dollars.

[markses]

30. I'm was making no comment

on what constitutes "responsible eating." None at all. I'm making a distinction between different kinds of forces. For what it's worth, there are strands of capitalism in Group 3, and that's where I would place the food co-op movement and local organic production. They are certainly to be distinguished from the fast food industry and corporate agriculture. They are no less capitalist for all that. We are all capitalists, and can't NOT be.

[Junkdrawer]

22. Well, "The global capitalists" are NOT discussed enough ...

and there are many "fundamentalists" in the world (although "reactionary" may match your description better), but I think you leave out one big class: The citizens of functioning democracies who want to retain their sovereignty and identity but would like to keep the "global capitalists" under firm control.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

25. Having a 'cool haircut' makes you a 'global capitalist'? OK

:eyes:

[markses]

27. No

But the "cool haircut" people are much more linked up with global networks (of style, consumption, and subjectivity) through which the flows of capital move than are those in Group 2, who distinctly condemn the "excesses" and "superficiality" of the putatively fashionable. That the same "cool" haircuts appear in Milan, Tokyo, Los Angeles, Rio de Janeiro, Johannesburg, New York, and Toronto should be enough to demonstrate this point. Again, I'm not launching a moral condemnation here, so there's no need to get upset. Nobody's judging YOU.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

28. Of course no one is judging me. My haircut is only cool

every couple of hundred years. Certainly not today.