russell jones

That would be difficult to do, unless they did it while he was alive, since he was burned at the stake.

One of the most balanced and thoughtful "food future" article I've come across in a long time. The future starts with us... the food consumer. http://motherjones.com/environment/2009/02/spoiled-organic-and-local-so-2008 Important point made here: "And for all our focus on the cost of moving food, transportation accounts for barely one-tenth of a food product's greenhouse gas emissions. Far more significant is how the food was produced—its so-called resource intensity. Certain foods, like meat and cheese, suck up so many resources regardless of where they're produced (a pound of conventional grain-fed beef requires nearly a gallon of fuel and 5,169 gallons of water) that you can shrink your footprint far more by changing what you eat, rather than where the food came from. According to a 2008 report from Carnegie Mellon University, going meat- and dairyless one day a week is more environmentally beneficial than eating locally every single day." What you eat is as important as where your food comes from. Factory farming is here to stay, but we could do better. Yeah, I know, it's from Mother Jones, but give it a chance.

This is funny... I had "Pragmatic" listed as my political view on Facebook for many months. Now it says "taking care of my own business," in other words, there are far better qualified people than myself to worry about policy.

Not a hack job at all... he refused to answer straightforward questions about his well publicized views. I don't think he is a racist, but he needs to be forthcoming no matter how it makes him look to others.

Your best post ever casek. :)

I'll go out on a limb and say that conspiracy theories are addictive. Believing in a conspiracy theory gives one power to understand the world, and that must be very pleasurable. It's like coke. Then the conspiracy theorist gets with a whole group of people who believe the same things on the Internet, a coffee shop or the anarchist collective tea party meeting, whatever, and they are surrounded by a bunch of other addicts that can add more fuel to the fire. A collective addiction is automatically harder to break, because everyone around them is doing it, so they say "why should I?" Take all of this with a grain of salt and discuss.

I disagree yum, I think many of the conspiracy theorists are intelligent and creative but lack critical thought and intellectual rigor. Conspiracy theories are simply more interesting than the truth, usually. In a way, the truth is simpler than the fantasy, especially in regards to 9/11. The truth has been open and shut for a long time, but the fantasy changes with the whims and whimsy of the conspiracy theorists.

Paul wouldn't be able to accomplish anything, because he would find few friends in Congress. The only things he could do would involve executive orders, which he would be reticent to use, and pull troops out of foreign theaters, which is fine by me.

I don't know what you are trying to say about Obama and Paul... considering Obama had one huge goal accomplished within a year of taking office.

Zig, I'm still waiting for that specific argument from the film so that we can look at it critically.

I started one yesterday, then got a phone call from my girl. :) I'll get back to this in a little while when I have more time.

Any sources for this?

How about this Zig, refer to a specific argument made in the film, tell us where in the movie it is, and we'll respond to it, point by point.

Christo, Frankie, thanks for communicating exactly what I think about the situation. Saves me the time in doing it!

and this

first smoke of the day... wondering why every woman in my life is bat-shit crazy

Just to clarify... totally biased opinion. Doesn't really belong in this thread... just something mulling about in my head. More an anecdotal intuition than anything.

definitely... :p

This

we are trying to have a legitimate discussion about the New World Order, but the film has very little to contribute to it.

Christo, in one of your posts you asked "is this even a bad thing?" Good point, I was thinking the same thing. Multilateral agreements to solve global problems like AGW and energy could be beneficial. They lack authority to punish, but they get governments and businesses moving in some good directions.

To respond to the first part, about having an open mind. I think I have an open mind to any view that is supported by facts and clear arguments. I see very little in Invisible Empire other than out of context quotes and connections between facts, quotes and historical events that are questionable at best, totally incomprehensible and muddled at worst. As far as the Kevin Smith quote, maybe my sarcasm meter is broken, but even from the quote that you have posted here, it is clear that Smith is mocking it, while acknowledging its power to persuade by overwhelming the viewer. I also have a bullshit meter, so stringing a bunch of unrelated shit together that sounds suspicious does not make a good argument for me. With Zbigniew Brzezinski, I was barely paying attention by the time he appeared in the video, but what he had to say seemed legit. I didn't see how his statements supported the overall thesis of the film, which is that a small group of conspirators want to create a one world government based on a collective society. By the way, Brzezinski endorsed Barack Obama for president. Thanks Christo for responding to the articles Casek posted. Don't really have the time to do so myself.

I don't even know where to start here Zig. I have seen no evidence that Time Magazine supported Hitler, only that they recognized he was the most important political figure 1938. The Ayatollah Khomeini was Man of the Year in 1979. Was he part of the NWO somehow? To your first point, the film seems to be making the argument that the purpose of the New World Order is collectivism. I don't see how that is the case, or even how that would be beneficial to powerful business and political leaders. If anything, the New World Order promotes capitalism by putting pressure on the Third World to liberalize their economies, and eliminating trade barriers. Even these movements are only marginally successful. Most of the mechanisms and organizations in the movie seemed to be designed to sell us shit, not to collectivize the populace. As far secret societies being the primary element of political change in the world, I think you are placing too much faith in the ability of small groups to control huge mechanisms that cannot be influenced but not controlled. Is it possible that small groups could have the kind of influence implied in the film? Sure, I would just have to throw out the idea that conflict has been a huge force in history. I don't think I can do that.

I'm sorry Casek, but I fail to see how what you posted makes me wrong.

It's even sillier than Michael Moore... at least Moore shuts up sometimes and relates personal anecdotes that have real meaning between his poor arguments. I hope they're making money... I can respect that in a warped way.