Converge

I think any worries about behavior are going to be directed at the Holligans and Fascist leauges rioting rather than the Iranian soccer team deploying Nuclear weapons during a game.

Wonder Showzen

Yeah JJEC. The best thing to do is nothing. Just wait. Someone else is doing it or will do it. So we dont have the worry. we can consume, sleep, and play music.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0411061foot1.html APRIL 11--A Drug Enforcement Administration agent who stars in a popular online video that shows him shooting himself in the foot during a weapons demonstration for Florida children is suing over the tape's release, claiming that his career has been crippled and he's become a laughingstock due to the embarrassing clip's distribution. Lee Paige, 45, blames the video's release on DEA officials in an April 7 federal lawsuit filed against the U.S. government. A copy of the pro se complaint by Paige, a DEA agent since 1990, can be found below. According to the lawsuit, Paige was making a "drug education presentation" in April 2004 to a Florida youth group when his firearm (a Glock .40) accidentally discharged. The shooting occurred moments after Paige told the children that he was the only person in the room professional enough to carry the weapon. The accident was filmed by an audience member, and the tape, Paige claims, was turned over to the DEA. The drug agency subsequently "improperly, illegally, willfully and/or intentionally" allowed the tape to be disseminated. As a result, Paige--pictured above in a still from the video--has been the "target of jokes, derision, ridicule, and disparaging comments" directed at him in restaurants, grocery stores, and airports. Paige, who writes that he was "once regarded as one of the best undercover agents, if not the best, in the DEA," points to the clip's recent airing on popular television shows and via the Internet as the reason he can no longer work undercover. He also notes that he is no longer "permitted or able to give educational motivational speeches and presentations."

So i just caught a long distance number on my phone, and i generally don't answer the phone around here cause i hate telemarketers. but. it was the agency i applied through calling pack. i now have a job interview regarding getting shot in Afghanistan!

My screen name is indeed taken from the band of the same name. i was racking my brain trying to come up with a name and looked at my playlist. i was listening to the song "Shallow breathing/i abstain" and figured 'converge' is as good as anything else! Are you a fan?

Muttersometaxicab: Thanks for the recomendations! Post exams i'll try and tackle a few of the books. Summer time is my big reading season and im looking for some books to add to the list! i couldn't agree more with you on Palahunick, although to say hes not as great as half the world thinks he is often leads to me getting chirped by my friends. I can understand how he might be seen as profound during the teen angst years, but once you've moved on and picked up a few more well developed authors its hard to enjoy his work! I had plans to read Queer this summer, and really wouldn't mind getting his entire catalouge of books. I enjoy anything hes written, and love most of the stuff by the group he ran with (Kerouac, Ginsberg). Have you read anything by Ethan Hawke? Ash Wednesday was great. and although i havent read "the hottest state" yet, my friend wanted to break up with his girlfriend when he finished it just so he could go through the same torment as the character in book....

Well said Doc! Garsk: I think Al-Q fights for all of Islam (only not all of Islam. Its like a self elected militant representation because we know that all of Islam does not support Al-Q) I think it is important to remember the destabalization of nations and funding by the U.S. was on a far different level. The Communists were sending arms and support to communist nations in conflict. The U.S. were funding, providing arms, or organizing coups against democratically elected groups. On further consideration im sure the communists were doing the same same same but Communism is dead and stopped it. the U.S. are still living it and have to be held accountable to their past. 1979-Iran 1979-1980- Jamaica- Financial destabalization of Government of Michael Manley (with propaganda and demonstrations to shut down elections) 1979- Military aid to rebel forces and conservative mullahs to overthrow the government (aborted upon soviet intervention) 1979- Seychelles (destabalization of France Albert Renes government. 1980- continued aid to Afghanistan rebels 1980- grenada Mercenary coup overthrow of government of Maurice Bishop 1990-Dominican- financial support to overthrow Olivier Seraphim in elections 1980- Guyana- Assasination of Walter Rodeny (opposition leader) 1980-1984. Nicarauga ......to name a few As for your question i think without saying "this might sound racist" you could have asked that question no problem. Its a completley rational thought. I don't know any answers to it. But i am now curious. I am also curious to know what is destabalizing them? The common line among neo-cons is that Islam is inherently poor and we should cristianize them before they can live stable...but who knows what they smoke/snort/drink.

I watched it for the first time this weekend. Immediatly following the Loop. I found them to both be identical except one main character is a slacker, the other is an executive. Same old same old. As a matter of fact, i was so stoned that i didnt notice the change between the two and got so confused. "What? Why isn't he working for the airline anymore? hes living in a garage? what happened to the party animal friend!?!" As far as im concerend they can cancel them both! (or the one mega same show i discovered)

Survivor by Palahunik is his best in my opinion. Sadly i read it first and found the rest of his stuff to be pretty lame. But i did love survivor. Right now im doing my spring ritual of reading William S. Burroughs: Junky followed by Naked Lunch (for the 2nd year in a row...i dont know why) Has anyone read "Battle Royale"? Its a Japaneese writer...i can't spell his name and i've lent the book out. Lord of the Flies-esq...only ultra violent and ultra crazy. Some of the stuff gets tangled in translation, but i found it entertaining!

Timmy's is now hiring in Kandahar. http://www.cfpsa.com/en/services/hr/pubjob..._e.asp?job=2437 Pay looks alright....

Do you not care about other conflicks in the world? or do you just dont like the United States? I was trying to keep the topic to Afghanistan and Iraq, so it is possible to see how someone could see that as not Liking the U.S. as there is plent to list about their errors. But in short, No i do not "dislike" the states. its just luck (if i can use that word) that the U.S. happens to be on the aggresive end of a variety of conflicts worth world interest. i do pay attention to them other conflicts...but have to admit thats a weird question.

-Iraq's funding of PLA and other groups in Palestine who kill innocent people and the U.S's funding of the Isreali military that uses gun ships to shoot and kill innocent people in Refugee camps... Im out for the weekend, if this conversation is still running when im home i've got plenty to say about the U.S funding wars But, to go to the main point: the involvment of Canadian troops in Afgahnistan frees up U.S. troops so they can be deployed in Iraq. Canada may think we are free from blood on our hands, but we are just as involved in this war(s) as the U.S. who we openly critisize. \ Have a good weeekend!

and what is the difference between the "terroists" acting in vengence of their fallen kin and us acting in defence of ours? Im aware of the reasons for conflict, just trying to highlight the fact that we are doing 10000x more damage than they have yet looking at ourselves as noble. There is no difference between Canadian troops carrying out targeted assasinations and Al-Q crashing an airplane into a building except for the spin coverage that allows the imperialist white forces the support of the oblivious populus and the ill founded feeling of pride for making the world a 'safer place'

dropping Iraq, the fact still remains.

There is clearly a difference between targeting a countries military abilites and office buildings, but you don't seem to understand this. First, lets not make this personalized. your making judgments on my understanding... Thank god the fatalities abroad are all militant fighters. *Phew* "What you are saying is that we should allow terrorists to remain in Afghanistan and sit idly watching the show while thousands of people die, who's only crime was living in a populated city in a country ran by republican jackasses. When someone murders thousands of people for no apparent reason we should do nothing about it. Think about it, please." Or we could sit idly by watching thousands of people die whos only crime was sharing the national borders with a dictarorship or group of terrorists? and we should send troops to aid their slaughter? "someone murders thousands of people for no apparent reason" for no apparent what? Out of nowhere, emerging from a complete vaccum a group of guys got together and decided to fly some planes into a building? Double check on that, there are apparent and clearly stated reasons. Much more clearly than our (we are stopping terrorists.....giving freedom, these people need democracy.....allowing human dignity......love) shifting reasons.

"However, if you let terrorists and such governments like this remain, then someday it may be a nuclear bomb exploding in NYC or London or Toronto, killing hundreds of thousands." or... if you let terrorist western governments reign there will be invading armies built up and deployed, bombs blowing up in Tikrit, Baghdad or Al Falujah...Hundreds of thousands will be killed. Not racist? then whats the difference between us attacking someone who offends our way of living when compared to those who attack us for offending theirs? the only real difference is that we've attacked them endlessly while the civilian populations all but cheers them on while they've only managed to attack us once. We are defending ourself by destroying them, we are good a mighty. They are evil for defending themselves. Dirty terrorists.

The U.S. was attacked by "al-Qaueda" Not Afghanistan, Not Iraq. So there are 100,000 deaths that needen't happen. The Taliban supported Al-Quaeda...Who has the U.S. supported!? As for the WMD's used to justify the invasion, how is it not racist that U.S (only nation to deploy nuclear weapons on a nation state in conflict) France, Russia and Israel are allowed to keep nuclear arms, but at the slightest hint of a threat the U.S. invades Iraq and is now gearing up for Iran.... "And if someone attacks you, you fight back" its this eye for an eye attitude that had the U.S. Attacked in the first place...and has endless U.S. soldiers attacked again day in and out. Illegally occupying a soverign nation is not how to provide security regardless of the oath you take. As for how it is racist (perhaps not the best word to use for a description .ethnocentrically inclined maybe?) 2 nations have suffered for the deaths of 2000 people. Inflicted by 17 people. Not states. The U.S. paints an entire grouping of people with a single swath of paint regardless and crushes those who oppose by labelling people fighting an invading nation as insurgents and rebels... And the institutionalized racism isn't just in the U.S. foreign policy it can be seen reflected directly in the laws and policies at home. I guess the White man has a better spin machine letting us feel better about those hethans who must be straightened out. How dare they oppose our invasion!

That is a very Ethnocentric way of looking at things. "The Taliban funded and gave safe haven to a terrorist group intent on the genocide of Americans and Jews." True. And with a wonderful track record of 5000 killed they should indeed be stopped. How about the western track record in the middle east? Iraq 100,000+? Afghanistan ???? If any regime needs to be stablaized and stopped from killing its Western Regimes. This constant installment of "stable west friendly" regimes is what leads to Anti-West sentiment and groups like the Taliban gaining power. By supporting the deployment of our troops as active soldiers in the "war on terror" we are only stiring things up and indavertently asking for trouble. Its like fighting a war on jelousy (as david cross says) or, perhaps the best look at what we are helping to do with interventions in the middle east... Its like getting stung by a bee. Getting really mad at the bee. Taking a baseball bat and smashing the bees nest and pissing off all the bees. The middle east needs stability. but western nations also need a little reflexivity and the ability to realize the hypocritical nature of killing countless "soft targets" to prevent another 2000 of a civilians from dying. how does the math work on that? 2000 white people = 100,000 brown people? Hardly. Pull the troops out of the racist war.

i will definatly look into that book. Sadly (or thankfully) the strike ended so im going to have to relegate it to the Summer holidays! but i will indeed check it out. As for the "humour" part in it... i find the whole explanation as to how we dont twist democracy for our own good to be humourous....hopefully that is what you intended. if not, let me know as i have a variety of alternative opinions to what you said!

For me the reason i would take an interest in Afghanistan comes mainly with my age. During the Yugoslavian conflict i was 10 or 11...so i wasn't quite so politically minded. I don't doubt there was critiscism, but again, due to my age @ the time i can't really say. As for currently active troops in the region i think this can be directly related to Canada's roles in Afghanistan and Haiti.... Because we dont hear about it, we dont talk about it. With the current conflict in Afghanistan there is a whirlwind of coverage around it, thus giving people a look into things. Haiti does not have the same coverage despite the position of Canadian citizens performing gortesque subordindations of the 'democracy' we are helping to implement abroad. And, we dont hear about Yugoslavia either...at least on the networks i check. It is increasingly difficult to understand the world we live in when information is left out of news coverage in favour of lame pet tricks and heart warming stories about lemondae stands....while we do have access to more information than anyone in the world, one could spend their entire day in search of information.... As for avoiding Yugoslavia because they have formed a democracy i hardly see that as the reason. As we have done in Haiti and the Americans many times throughout the world, we use and abuse 'democracy' to best fit our needs. Wether it is to implement one, assit in a coup, or financially back guriella forces to bring one down the term democracy is just toyed with the reap our own benifits with little care for the people it affects. *thanks for bringing up the Yugoslav. conflict... i) SPOT on fantastic for a project im working on ii) what i dont know could fill an ocean so now i will make the effort to understand the issue. Just because i was young when it occured doesn't mean im unaffected! THANKS Again!

I agree 100% with Encarf, but would hasten to add "so what if our leaving helps the taliban" What is the difference between a war ravished nation with a traditional government and a war ravished nation with a U.S. Installed puppet government? Neither one nor the other is for the peoples benefit. Just because you've been indoctrinated to believe that we are helping the world by destabalizing other nations doesnt make it any better. Our remaining in Afghanistan is for no other reasons than imperial ambitions and to dilute yourself to think "we are helping" is absurd. While the individiual soliders may see themselves as helping, and there is no question internationally supplied aid does help the innocent victims of war, the initial intentions of the invasion were not to help them out. So why should it be debated? Because the reasons we were deployed are not in line with the popular view of Canadian involvment. We can cover our ears and chant "we are helping we are helping we are helping" all we want...it doesnt negate the fact we are fighting as a direct wing of American Imperialst pursuit.

First and foremost, i think the whole thing is absurd. Im happy to see a shift in the news to start covering the issue, but i really think people still keep their happy consciousnes about the whole issue without realizing what it entails. i) there is no peacekeeping going on in Afghanistan. Peacekeeping implies UN Sanctioning, a step the U.S. Skipped while "bringing peace and democracy" to Afghanistan. ii) we are able to sit at home and shame the U.S. for fighting a war in Iraq, when clearly our engagment in Afghanistan was a means of freeing up troops so the U.S. could deploy them in Iraq. Horray for Harper for going over there and commiting our troops. Fine. But lets have a realistic debate about the issue before he tells the world WE are in it for the long run. Harper, Martin, whoever has us over there, where was the democratic debate by our house representatives? I'm opposed to the whole concept. the only slight redemption this engagment has in my eyes is that people may start to open their eyes and say "where else are these pure Canadian love giving peace people active" realize we are supporting destablization of Haiti, and get active instead of passivley loving Canada for all its unreported shame!

I have 2 tix for the sold out March 21st show @ the Phoenix....the day after Oasis in TO. Anybody love them more than me and want to buy them? I should go as they were a gift....maybe i'll take borntohula so he can see how much fun it is to hang out with pretentious hype mongering rock snobs that listen to shitty music with pretty hair cuts....cause i dont want to suffer it alone!

I have indeed seen Outfoxed. I found it @ HMV one day for 10 bucks and picked it up and i could be the best random find ever. The CBC put together a little news piece simular to it as well. They had Al Franken on it making fun of Bill O'Reiley and Ann Coulter (Who got pissed off at the interviewer...then argued that Canada sent troops to Vietnam to support the U.S.) and the Doctoral Candidate that O'Reiley went off on... it was pretty much identical with the exception of Ann coulter's little frig up about 'nam!