What a sight! This infinitely proceeding division of society into the most manifold races opposed to one another by petty antipathies, uneasy consciences, and brutal mediocrity, and which, precisely because of their reciprocal ambiguous and distrustful attitude, are all, without exception although with various formalities, treated by their rulers as conceded existences. And they must recognize and acknowledge as a concession of heaven the very fact that they are mastered, ruled, possessed! K Marx, Critique of Philosophy of Right
Well, I'm not going to get too far into it here, since it's not my role to live vicariously through politicians, be it criticism or adulation. It's already happening. One by one, Obama's election year promises are being hastily revoked. There's not enough in the budget for middle class tax relief. Hilary Clinton is completely out of the picture, a conclusive signal Obama has no intentions about health care reform. And on other issues like science, the war, etc., all the little asterices and cracks in Obama's rhetoric are starting to tear open.
Meanwhile, Harry Reid is interviewed by CNN, and with all his Democratic majorities he's still bowing down before the might of the Republicans. Anyone who thinks he's just being craven and not sporting for the same agenda as the Republicans needs to learn a bit about reading between the lines.
And people are thinking he's going to end the war and start FDR-era public works projects? HA! It took millions of angry protesters and thousands of active communists to convince FDR to do that. What makes you think it's happening today? There's a price to pay for ignoring history my friends.
But I'm not looking to convince anybody. At this point, I'm just laying the groundwork for the proof of my prophetic nature. We'll see what happens.
When Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 160 years ago, it was out of an understanding that the revolutions Europe had seen did not bring about the freedom they promised. Instead it produced a new society divided between a new master class and working class, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, with a dynamic not unlike nobleman and serf or master and slave.
But this new dynamic was locked in a new system, capitalism, whose sole motive for production was profit. He scientifically worked out that this dynamic would lead to new contradictions and crises, market crashes, financial collapse, the inability to sell products to an impoverished population. This would lead humanity to a new crux where only the working class could overthrow society and establish socialism, where a working class government can direct the economy.
The absence of a working class movement makes capitalism no less likely to crash. The difference is, with the financial industry firmly straddling the planet, we're seeing a banker's socialism, with government doling out profits to the banks in an organized fashion.
The differences between this and Roosevelt's New Deal are a good case study. Roosevelt passed this legislation not just to resolve the depression, he did this at a time when the working class was pushing for revolution. So he passed all sorts of legislation to appease worker's most pressing issues - social security, labor organization, public jobs programs, etc. Today, without that kind of social pressure, it's all going straight to the banks.
So when Marx says communism is the riddle of history solved, and I heartily agree with him, this is what he's talking about - one way or another, capitalism cannot stand and something must be born out of the collapse. The health or deformity of this birth is up to us.
"Capital becomes more bloodthirsty the more blood it sucks." - K Marx
One needs to understand this maxim not as a piece of propaganda, but a law of social dynamics, much like universal gravitation or the theory of relativity are laws of physics. Then one can see the future progression of our society as clear as daylight.
And if we apply this rule to the last eight years of economic progression in this country, and we can cut through all the BS moralizing about how bankers were behaving "irresponsibly" and get to the truth of the situation. The fact is, capitalism is running out of profitable areas to exploit. The world's been taken over. The forces of production have been pushed as far as they can go, and although invention will always carry us further (like the internet), it'll be nowhere near the revolutionizing of labor and production that went on through WWII.
So, you have larger and larger amounts of capital chasing fewer and fewer profitable investments. This has been alleviated somewhat by making currency slightly inflationary, which makes zero profit investments inherently better than holding onto cash. But still, the Economist pointed out for a good period of time this decade, real interest rate was negative - meaning it was less than the rate of inflation. So if you kept your money in the bank to earn interest, it would buy less in a year than it buys right now.
Now just connect a couple of dots, and you can see how everybody starts piling their money into real estate and commodities. Why not just buy that item now and hoard it rather than put your money in a bank?
The problem is, when demand changes on anything, and there's no other profitable place for investors to put their money, they start making money on betting that the price will go up. So this little bit of hoarding led to a lot of speculation.
On an institutional level, the eternal goad of the profit motive has led banks to finance this speculative binge, be it real estate or commodities. After all, where else are they going to put their money?
And if the larger banks could see through all this and the inevitable doom on the horizon, the smaller banks couldn't afford to think long term. They had to make money at that moment, they had to do it by being more competitive for the next guy. Which, on a side note, explains the enormous executive pay for such failing companies - they were just getting insurance on a doomed ship.
And Marx said the above about Capital, but at his time he was talking about industrial capital. At least that corresponded to real industry. When Lenin said that all industrial capital was being taken over by finance capital, at least the banks were running real industry. Today, the banks no longer invest in industry, as it's ceased to be as profiable as these get-rich-quick schemes they've invested in. Even GM is finding its financing division more profitable than its manufacturing.
So when Lenin hailed the opening of the 20th century as the stage of finance capital and imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism, we are now seeing the decay of this final stage.
And it's not going to be pretty. The finance industry, like a dying vampire, can only subsist off vast transfusions of cash from the government. And it's not going to trickle down to anybody. Meanwhile, a billion people in the world are now officially starving, a direct consequence of speculation in food prices. That number will increase. And if a federal bailout will revive the world's financial system, it won't result in any real improvement for the human race which subsists under it.
Such economic conditions worldwide are a mirror of the preconditions for the economic collapse in Germany in the 20s. So what we are about to see is a global re-enactment of those catastrophic times.
So, big news day today, and frankly considering all the election season smashmouth it couldn't have been better timed. We've got Hurricane Ike smashing into Houston, Lehman Brothers tanking and looking for a bailout, and the Metrolink train crash, which as of now has resulted in 25 fatalities.
I can't get into the specifics of each, but each screams a gaping problem in this country that quickly relegated all the election circus and gossip to the background. As if some greater cosmic force is forcing politicians to "stick to the subject."
Hurricane Ike could not have been better placed for sheer ironic effect - the conequences of global warming hitting squarely at the heart of its cause - Houston, the middle of the oil industry.
Meanwhile, the Metrolink train crash was yet another reminder of just how neglected our nation's infrastructure really is. Of course they blame it on the driver, who didn't stop at a red light. But you want to tell me that the only thing preventing a train collision is a red light? This kind of obscenity really is a symbol on how little is spent on safety and maintenance in our infrastructure.
But really, the Lehman Brothers symbolizes the most dramatic problem facing our society. We're talking about investment brokerages that are over a hundred years old, whose very reputation is based on solidity and heritage, going belly up. This really says a lot about just how much in crisis our whole economic system is - while so many of these problems are plaguing us all, the "pillars" of our economy can't even keep themselves up.
And that really leads to what our politicians are able to do on all this. And that is nothing. In a capitalist society they are its servants, only rising to power so much as they can lead our armies to war and our banks to greater profits.
There's been a lot of wondering on our end with the whole 911truth.org faction out there, and what to do with the whole theory that the government planned 9/11. After all, I don't think any of us would put it past them. But a friend of mine wrote the following, I think it's worth quoting verbatim:
there are many reasons I don't like it:
1. It's an argument over facts most of us are not equipped to verify. The reality of capitalism is something we experience every day; most facts of the argument against capitalism are not really contested in the same way, but the 9/11 thing is epistemologically problematic. It's all second- and third-hand at least, and heavily speculative.
2. It's really distracting from any class analysis or systematic questions. And even if people came to believe the 9/11 conspiracy, it would not make the argument for changing capitalism. The injustice of world capitalism is essentially irrelevant to it.
3. The implicit severe focus on the several thousand deaths plays into the whole sanctification of the event. There are a lot of things that have happened, even recently, that are worse than 9/11, like the invasion of Iraq itself or the civil war in the Congo, but no one here pays any attention to the moral dimensions of those events. I don't want to contribute to the mood that only American lives are worth something.
4. If people on the left adopt this argument, even fewer people will listen to us. I won't even listen to us anymore.
5. The speaker I was listening to suspected that people who condemn the 9/11 conspiracy may be CIA agents whose mission it is to control all media, even left media. For the above reasons, this accusation only made me muse that if any left position would help the government out, it would be to adopt the 9/11 conspiracy, which would make the left look ridiculous trying to assert claims that it can't prove and which moves the left away from systemic critiques that are proved by everyday experience.
In my February 1st installment, I mentioned why people against the Iraq war were voting for McCain. And if you don't feel like scrolling down, I'll repeat my argument - the Democrats aren't against the war, only the way the Republicans are handling it. So with a McCain nomination, they took away all the arguments the Democrats have made - waste, corruption, and torture.
Now they really are the same on all the other issues that would really matter to people. Once Hillary left the scene, the Democrats could ditch any promise of real health care reform. They are the same on issues like taxes, the economy, and any other issue I can think of that acutally affects working people. And the hope and faith and love stuff, that's just going to convince the converted.
So, with the risk of being called a racist, the only real argument the Democrats had left was that we'd be electing our first black president.
And that was taken away last week with the nomination of Palin as VP.
Of course, this also means that none of what happens in the next couple of months is going to matter. Policy has already been hammered out and decided, the people's concerns are going to go unnoticed for the next couple of years as both candidates will continue the policy of unending war and erosion of our living standards.
And that is what always will happen whenever people put their efforts into these two major parties instead of a party that can actually stick up for working people.
Seems they're responsible for all the world's problems: overpopulation, global warming, declining US influence in the world, totalitarianism, smog, that mole on your left shoulder...
And these Olympics the broadcasters are unleashing both barrels, never failing to mention all the problems and shortcomings of China.
I'd just like to get some facts out. China's GDP is the same as the US, with five times the population. That means its citizens have one fifth the wealth. At 118 incarcerated by 100,000, they have 1/7th the incarceration rate of the United States. Meanwhile, the US, at 780 incarcerated per 100,000, is almost equal to the infamous Soviet Gulag period, where an estimated 823 per 100k are incarcerated.
So, a country that's much poorer is still technically much freer a country.
I know that can be a bit difficult for an average American intellectual to understand. In a country where we're so used to the sanctity of capitalism, domination of the planet, and the absolutely inviolable nature of our laws, it's hard to understand how few options poor countries have.
And when our ultimate goal for the planet is to reduce every sovereign nation into another Iraq, this skeptical perspective must be taken whenever some talking head starts wringing their hands about "human rights."
Now, will everybody please shut up so I can watch my olympics in peace?
So there's this new movie out, IOUSA, a friend of mine just sent me this preview.
Alarmist economic forecasts like these generally raise suspicion on my part. Sure enough he pulls this quote out today from Meet the Press: "The makers of this film have an agenda (apparently shared by the Washington Post) to seriously cut Social Security and Medicare. To advance this agenda, they deliberately deceive the public about the nature of projected budget shortfalls and conceal the fact that the projected crisis is entirely a health care story."
I say these kinds of movies raise suspicion on my part for a couple of reasons. First of all, debt should always be seen as a percentage of income, and as far as I understand it, it's no worse than it was under Reagan/Bush. Second, an inflationary dollar further reduces the cost of debt, which is why debtors historically favor inflation.
Besides, these tricks of economic woe and tightening the belt are nothing new. Pundits, CEOs, and politicians always pass them whenever they try to take away what few things we have left. This is by far the richest country in history, and making believe we don't have enough wealth to go around comfortably is also one of the biggest lies of history.
The water issue in California is a case in point. We keep hearing about future droughts from global warming and how we need to conserve water. An that's definitely an issue. But journalists only whisper hints that cities use a small fraction of state's water supply. Agribusiness not only uses the vast majority of it, it uses much of it on very wasteful crops like rice and alfalfa, which require three yards of water a year. Basically they're subsidized to grow swamp crops in a desert.
So keep these kinds of things in mind in the years to come, as journalists and academics start pointing fingers at "overpopulation", "China", and other scapegoats for people's increasing economic woes.
If I've said it before, it bears repeating. Considering the US's support for bloody dictatorships all over Africa, its "concern" over the fairness of Zimbabwe's elections is hardly about human rights. In a game of imperial tic-tac-toe, this would be "going for the block."
And that's what's really happening here. The US uses the banner of "human rights" to try and get its way around the world, and countries like Russia and China, imperial powers in their own right, are resisting that push. And if you look even deeper, you'll find it ... Zimbabwe is one of China's main trading partners.
Then again, this is what's really fascinating to me about politics. If you read the different actors' comments in this article, they're each spinning this event to their advantage. And there's so much carefully crafted thought behind what everyone says.
Though I ultimately am just sitting here at my computer, like some impotent Cassandra.
So a friend of mine just sent me this interesting map, on the left, that shows the percentage of people's income that goes to gasoline. And we were studying it for a little while. And I realized it looks suspiciously like this other map on the right:
Don't recognize it? It's a map of the 2004 election results and your famous "red state/blue state" cleavage. Of course there's some more subtle divisions, like my friend pointed out that the Chicago suburbs spend less as a percentage than their poorer urban counterparts.
But let's face the basic logic here. All the poor rural suckers who voted for Bush and his oil buddies are now reaping the spoils.
So really, since I'm not running for public office or otherwise pandering to hicks in this country, I can say it. You made your bed, now lie in it.
Of course, one of the benefits of being white in this country is that when you start whining about how capitalism isn't everything you thought it would be, politicians start pandering to you, and so scapegoat Arabs and Jews and other brown people. And why wouldn't they be the issue. I mean, how could an economy in the hands of a few wealthy people where production is only a byproduct of the relentless drive for wealth ever be the reason for price gouging or speculation on our basic necessities? It just doesn't make sense.
I could show a third map with the Civil War division, but that would just be over the top now, wouldn't it.
I now have proof that women with British accents can be bimbos.
But let's start at the beginning. The Daily Show made its name by being on the cutting edge of media against the Iraq War. Now that the opposition has become popular, the realm of fashionable opinion takes over and threatens to drown it in banality.
Enter the Daily Show's interview of Lara Lohan, senior CBS correspondent in Iraq, on Tuesday. This woman wears these opinions much like the clothes and hair that makes her the ideal of beauty. But after a few minutes it became obvious she's missing any actual intellect... the whole interview wound up being a critique about how Americans are numb or don't care about the war. I'm sorry, do you remember that election in 2006? Did you think we might be numb because of just how far that election got us? No, apparently not. It's much easier to talk about how cool your job is and how much you care in front of a camera that broadcasts your pining and thighs to the whole world.
Of course, since she is the standard of beauty (and has no problem flaunting it), there's no way a man of society could dare to ask tough questions that make her think or cry. So instead we hear two people steeped in pretention and status, talking about all the great deeds they've done, wringing their hands about why the world doesn't move according to their wishes.
If that's as far as the show can go these days, I can see why they've been resorting to more and more dick and fart jokes. Not that there's anything wrong with that but you have to admit it would spell the decline of the show.
You can catch the the interview by Clicking here and jumping to 13 minutes into the episode. When they release the interview as a separate module I'll change this link.
So NPR finally came out with it ... on today's Morning Edition they had this to say about high oil and gas prices: "With oil still trading well above $130, some lawmakers think the high prices aren't just about high demand; they think speculators are to blame."
Of course there's so much more going on whenever they surrender a point as simple as this.
But I don't need to speculate about that. Rather, I have two points to make about all this. First of all, it is true that with a finite supply and a growing economy, this rise in oil prices is inevitable. But under capitalism the rise and fall of prices rarely have to do with that. Instead, these so-called "market forces" are always used to justify price gouging, cartel behavior, insider trading, all the methods capitalists use to make the real money in our society.
Second, this business that lawmakers are beefing up a commission to monitor oil futures trading. Wait a minute, what is the SEC, chopped liver? Aren't they supposed be be completely on top all this? The same government that will send the FBI to monitor a guy's high priced 'ho calls is barely monitoring the fate of the nation's energy supply? Really, it's like saying "we need to monitor how mass murderers move around and kill people."
Some say it's because SEC execs have stock in oil companies. Others, because the oil companies have stock in the SEC, if you know what I mean. But this is really capitalism at its essence. Business is not just above the law, it IS the law. So congratulations, you asked for it, now it's time to get what you asked for.
Roman Relic: "So you're saying capitalism is like war?"
Nikko Belic: "Pretty much."
Okay, I've been playing this for quite a few hours now. First of all, the hype about it being violent are pure bullshit. It's not nearly as violent as most of your games coming out lately. I didn't so much as punch a guy until three hours into it, and I got my first gun seven hours into it.
And when you do shoot or beat up someone, there's a point to it in the drama. Really, the bulk of the game is devoted to building relationships and proving your reliability as you learn more about the world around you. Obviously values we don't want to be teaching our children.
I think the criticism is about the reality of the game. It's too real. It has no illusions about the real nature of capitalism, that it's just a gang war on a larger scale, or about how people fit into it. And it's all done with a searing sarcasm that burns oh so deep. It's not a kid's toy, it's classic literature in an interactive format.
Writers take heed - if you want to write something worth reading, take off on the plot of this video game and turn it into a book or screenplay. I wouldn't even be playing this game if it weren't for its literary nature.
You'd think it'd be obvious. You'd think that someone would just take a look around the city, see these huge honking cars and heavy machinery and skyscrapers and plasma TVs, and then compare it with small villages where people do little more than walk around and eat. And they'd realize that if 1000 people in Africa use less oil than 100 people in the US (I'm estimating), population isn't the issue.
And yet, intellectual after intellectual, who is otherwise very intelligent, well read, and understanding of the political forces around him, will repeat the same stupid platitude. There's too many people.
And it does make great scapegoating. Why does the US need to overhaul its use of energy when it can point to India and China and blame everything on them? Hey, China's GDP just passed the US. Nevermind that their GDP sustains five times as many people.
I could rant on about this. But let's just be realistic - there's only one conclusion to make if you agree with overpopulation: time to bring out the death camps. And really, in a way, it's already happening. When the wealthy feel like converting food to gas to fuel their own self-satisfaction, they wind up raising food prices to the point where the poor all over the world starve. So you're starving a hundred people so one guy can drive his SUV. Again, I estimate, but not exaggerate - if we turned all our farmland to produce biodiesel, it would barely put a dent in our fuel needs.
My theory is that this isn't a rational issue. It's an issue that, if we were to address it rationally, would call the very basis of our own lives into question: whether the "American Dream" of a nuclear family, a stable career, and a house in the suburbs is sustainable or desirable. Or what gives us the right to live so much better than the rest of the world, when it's really only military force which gives us that privilege.
Or, as Upton Sinclair put it so well, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
As most of you know, today is May Day, or International Worker's Day. Started in the 1870s, it commemorates the struggle for the 40 hour workweek, vacations, and all the other benefits we enjoy as working people. Labor groups worldwide generally commemorate the day with demonstrations and demands for better working conditions. These days, immigrant groups hold rallies to end the scapegoating of immigrants and improve their working conditions.
But not according to Fox News. According to them, there's no such thing as May Day. There's "Law Day", some obscure holiday begun by Eisenhower to commemorate the rule of law. And they've taken full advantage of this to mock immigrant groups for wanting "amnesty" for illegals on such a holy day of commitment to law and order. They ran much further with it as you can imagine but I don't need to go much further.
So don't forget May Day. Without a labor movement we'd all be working our whole lives for starvation wages.
The ancient theory which proposes that the earth revolves around the sun, and is not the center of the universe, may finally be coming into question by a new cadre of radical scientists.
Dubbing their new hypothesis “intelligent gravitation theory,” scientists like Bob Johnson claim that recent discoveries by Einstein really call into question what is the “center,” and believes that all the seeming mechanical orbits of the planets are an illusion really are intelligently gravitating around the earth.
Their findings have not been accepted with much enthusiasm by the status quo. But Bob Roberts, who has several PhDs in Theologism and Scientifiness from Oral Roberts University, is undeterred. “The reception I’ve been getting is just proof that the scientific community is out of touch and stuck in old ways of thinking,” says Roberts.
Luckily he’s found much popular support both in churches and in the youth. “Children are such innocent clean slates, they don’t care about things like ‘intellectual discipline’ or ‘research.’ They see the stars and sun go around the earth and they know with their hearts that I’m right. And they are the future of this society, and that gives me hope. ”
Along with some powerful backers, he’s helped put his view out with a young bunch of hip teenagers. Kim Johnson, 14, is a blogger out of Cleveland who enthusiastically supports his views. “My teachers told me all this mumbo jumbo about universal gravitation and big bangs, and it just didn’t sit well with me. I want proof, you know? How can you go against something so obvious, that everything revolves around the earth? I see it, it’s real.” Says Kim.
But Bob’s not letting the teenagers do all the dirty work for him. No, he’s tackling some of the most established intellectuals in academia by ridiculing them in TV ads.
“I think if we can break through on this discovery and really open people’s eyes to the idea that the earth really is at the center of everything, it can open our eyes to all sorts of new ideas. Like that the earth is flat, or the moon is actually made of green cheese, or that if you’re really good your body won’t stink when you die.”
It’s always lovely to start the week with some fun news about China’s human rights record and how NPR goes ballistic right on cue, when for years they’ve been touting China’s miraculous status as a trading partner.
I’m referring, of course, to the “protests” surrounding the olympic torch relay that went through London and Paris. The pictures and press betray the fact that it’s only a few people… and never mind the number of countries with far worse abuses, or far more pressing issues, or far greater protests, this one gets the headlines.
The fact is the Olympics are coming, and though the athletes are certainly entertaining, the real competition is between imperial powers as they put out their prize cocks (yes, pun intended… they are sex symbols aren’t they) to duke it out. The winner comes out with more prestige and license to take over the world.
Of course, no cockfight would be complete without the imperial trash talking going on. All of a sudden, we’re concerned with very specific atrocities – Darfur and Tibet – which just happen to be areas in which China has a political interest.
But I sound too cynical. Really, the Olympics are, or can be, a joyous occasion, and so long as you can ignore the nationalism and commercialism, it’s a great opportunity for a worldwide party.
So, without further trash talking of my own, I present to you the Imperial License™ chart:
Gold medals earned*
Imperial license
0-10
Humble negotiations with Cuba
10-20
Let Chavez and Putin have their way with us
20-30
Maintain military bases in Japan, Korea, and Germany.
30-40
Take over key Chinese outposts
40-50
Invade Iran, eliminate Geneva convention from lawbooks
I was watching this clip from the film Zeitgeist on myspace/youtube... the first one is pretty good, it really shows how common the whole Jesus story was throughout ancient times:
But this is only the first part of a whole long movie, which looks like it furthers the whole 9/11 / 2012 / Fed conspiracy theory argument. I was thinking about it, how close it is to what we talk about, and yet so far, and my bone of contention is this:
When we talk about big financial powers and the state, we talk about class society. We talk about how government is at the service of society, and different social groups compete for the helm and mold government to serve their ends. From Rumsfeld to the Fed, there's nothing conspiratorial about this, it's no less conspiratorial than saying our bosses call the shots and we do the work.
But when these guys start going off about the Federal Reserve and the IRS looking to enslave America, it's really the opposite. Society is at the mercy of government - there's no need for wars or prisons to maintain capitalism, the real problem is just greedy and runaway government. You may hear about a few ruling families controlling everything, it's more a phantom of the imagination than any real economic analysis.
What's the interest in these kinds of stories? Basically, in every capitalist society, if not every class society, you have a coterie of well-off right-wing kooks who think their status is so natural, that government doesn't enforce their privilege but only hinders it. Therefore, any government taxation or control is not necessary to hold society together, but a chain on their imagined limitless liberty.
Witness the millionaire who had a standoff with the IRS on his compound because he didn't feel like paying taxes. Really, in this case, is government a curtailment on his freedom or its enforcer? What would happen if the Feds just said "hey, you don't want to pay taxes, fine, we're not protecting your pesonal or property rights. Whoever wants his land, go ahead and take it." Which, frankly, a rational unbiased government would do. I think if the guy were brown and living in the city they wouldn't hesitate to confiscate everything.
A lot of times, when I talk about class society and bourgeoisie and proletariat, I'm confronted with questions like "what/who is the bourgeoisie?" Sometimes it's an innocent question and sometimes it's an accusation that I'm a conspiracy theorist, but it's always a bit difficult to answer. After all, in a world where even a married couple can't understand each other, social science regarding billions of people can only be more confounding.
Well, Tim Rutten gave a good answer to this question last Saturday, in his article "Open mouth, insert cohorts' feet" - not so much in what he wrote but how he wrote it. He explains the tendency of a candidate's supporters to tarnish their overall image. But what he considers tarnishing to Obama is quite telling.
He talks about the minister at Obama's church as "[a certain kind of preacher] who mixes left-wing conspiracy theories, phony Afro-centricism, remnant black power rhetoric and a rag bag of vulgar Third World sympathies in an angry, frequently race-baiting social gospel."
Now I've heard these theories myself, and I'm not one to spout them either, but there is a certain amount of populism involved. These theories, though flawed, are much closer to reality than any reason we got for going to war in Iraq... at the very least. The reality of the church is that it's a social instistution, where people congregate to address their concerns, and preachers have to address them on some level. So it's easier to make looney theories than point the finger at the real source.
But that's not Rutten's problem. He writes: "Obama has demonstrated how well he understands that much of his campaign's appeal is built on an ability to speak about race and social solidarity in a new way, to make change and hope again coincidental in the American political psyche. He knows that nobody will follow you into a new era if they suspect you're carrying the reeking baggage of the old."
What reeking baggage? That the third world is oppressed by the US military? That we trained Osama bin Laden? That poverty is not accidental or incurable? The problem posed is not to try to reason out these issues but how to shove them under the rug. And that is the wellspring of Obama's popularity: His unique ability to pull in key constituencies without actually addressing their real concerns.
You can see this attitude all over the press regarding Obama. But what makes Rutten stand out, in my opinion, is that he's ordinarily quite the outspoken critic of so many of our policies. Here he doesn't simply show some tepid support for Obama as the best of evils. He precisely details what he, as a representative of the bourgeoisie, wants out of him: the same policies as under Bush, but with a nice charismatic face.
Amidst the sturm und drang, the party line remains constant
I'll keep this short. The two noteworthy events were Edwards dropping out of the race, and McCain jumping out ahead with some key wins and endoresements.
So, Edwards first. Paul Krugman had a good article about this, The Edwards Effect. His argument, and I agree completely, is that Edwards' populist campaign is the reason both Hilary and Obama are even saying anything about healthcare or the war.
But I do need to go beyond this and say that it's a normal election strategy. Both parties keep characters like this on the sidelines to attract the party faithful and provide some illusion that the party is actually representative of ordinary people's concerns. Now that Edwards is out, Krugman's concern is what's goign to happen with all the Edwards enthusiasts. I'll take it one step further... expect to see the two remaining candidates pay less and less lip-service to these programs until we're back to our normal levels of voter apathy.
It also explains why Obama is the "popular," "charismatic" candidate. He's charismatic in the sense that he really has shown the least enthusiasm for any popular or anti-war programs. That gets him the enthusiasm of his party, the bureaucracy, business and the media.
Which brings me to our buddy McCain. The LA Times had an op-ed piece "McCain's Doves" about the apparent contradiction between McCain's "ultra-hawk" stance on Iraq, and his appeal to the anti-war vote. It's simple, really: people vote on the issues.
Huh, you say? Bear with me. The fact is, nobody at this point is against the war, in fact they've assured all the right people that they'll carry it on. The difference between them and McCain is that they hide their opinions from the public in code-speak, while McCain is up-front with his support and disagreements with the war.
Meanwhile, he's taken away every argument the Democrats have against the war in Iraq. Remember, Democrats don't oppose the war. They're opposed to the way it's being run, to the embezzlement and corruption, to the chicken-hawks running it. I think they're opposed to torture but I'm not sure. McCain's history solidly overcomes all that.
I know there's a lot of debate out there about who can be charismatic enough to win, thinking people vote for a good looking guy. It's not just condescending, it's also a lot of bull. The people I met who say this are ironically the Obama supporters who won't look past his "image."
So, I repeat, people will take these issues to the polls. If any choice we have is for the war, at least let's vote for a guy who's proven himself not to be an ass about it.
In these election years I tell people that what politicians say is so carefully concocted BS that you really are better off not listening to them at all. It's much better to actually read and listen to people who are actually involved in the ruling echelons of our society - Fed Reserve and other bureaucratic chiefs, Wall Street anaylists, military brass, etc. Of course they also speak in code, but since they're directly involved in running society, they have to speak more concretely than your typical politician.
Robert Gates proved my point in this revealing interview with NPR.
Two points I thought were interesting - first, that he admits Iran is not a military threat, but only poses "significant challenges". He uses other code words to imply that the real issue is not any threat Iran poses to the world, but how much we can threaten to go into Iran and get away with it.
The other point, and Democrats take note, is that he was "was heartened in the debate among the Democratic candidates a few weeks ago," that they all declined to commit to removing US troops from Iraq within their first term.
This has much to do with Obama's stance I talk about below. Of course Democrats have to play to the anti-war sentiment their constituents bring up. But what really makes a Democrat "popular" is how much they reassure the bureaucracy and other ruling echelons that their policies will continue as planned if they take the reins of government.
The irony of this story was that I wasn't planning to write about Obama either. I was actually referred to his speech by a website that was attacking Huckabee for his creationist views... while at the same time fawning over Obama's "goosebump-inducing good" victory speech (see col. 2).
Goosebump-inducing? Either this guy is joking or verily this country's debate has sunk to a new low.
I listened to his speech - the entire speech. First of all, he manages to speak for five full minutes without raising a single material issue. Even then, he makes only passing reference to issues like health care or the war on Iraq. Honestly these politicians get bonus political karma points on some weird scale:
Political credit = cheers*adulation/(issues raised)
As it should be. This is an election year, and the less reference he makes to actual issues, the less bound he is to actually fulfill them.
But wait, there's more. The rest of his speech he devoted to "gridlock", "special interests", and "division" in Washington. Sorry guys, this isn't gridlock about ending the war or division on providing health care to children, or the oil industry's stranglehold on energy policy.
In fact, it's quite the opposite. This is what's called speaking in code. This is the code politicians use to promise corporate interests to end the "gridlock" WE offer to keep them from executing their wars, gutting the health care system for profit, or gutting the rest of the public sphere like Social Security (something Obama's already given signals he's ready to do).
Of course the fact that he can say all this, while Edwards and Kucinich (their agendas are a separate issue) can rail about real issues and still be considered on the fringe, is a testament to the power of America's propaganda machine. As Ari Fleischer put it so well, in politics facts are irrelevant.
And once this election year is over, if all is going to plan and Obama gets elected, this year will be another politically irrelevant year, another year lost falling for bullshit promises while Wall Street gets another tried and true representative to railroad through their agenda.
So a while ago I read this article in the LA Times Opinion section, Ron Paul isn't that Scary, where the author weighs the various demagogues the Republican party is flirting with. I wasn't going to write about this until I heard on the TV today that Ron Paul managed to raise $6 million in one day or something.
Of course, this columnist is a conservative ideologue, meaning he doesn't want anybody running the country who isn't business as usual (with the emphasis on business), but it's still an interesting read. And politics also make strange bedfellows - during these times when people are becoming increasingly militant about issues like Iraq and the economy, I'm as little interested in people turning their energies toward Ron Paul as he is. After all, when Hitler stormed the Reichstag, it wasn't just the communists who were worried, but the representatives running the government.
Because the fact is, Ron Paul, like Mike Huckabee, is a demagogue: their value to the political machine is that they have outsider status and say things people want to hear while having all the right alliances with the establishment that prove they're not going to disturb any of their dealings.
Of course what he says sounds great, he's against empire, but after all, only Nixon could go to China. I could also prove my point that he's for protections for big oil or any number of things he's promised, or groups he's associated with. But it all comes down to this: the war in Iraq, the lack of decent paying jobs or affordable health care, these aren't because we have bad leaders. These are because we live under capitalism, a system that demands constant growth and profit. Since these things are predicated on war and poverty, that is what capitalism demands.
And unless I see someone on TV who says that, and says the real task at hand is to get rid of capitalism, he's just another demagogue.
It's not about freedom of speech, it's about habeas corpus
First, let's get this out of the way - the US is getting ready to invade Iran. I know y'all out there are in deep denial about this, you think there's an actual debate resting in some pretension about human rights or some bullshit, but I think the only debate is whether we'll use nukes or "only" high explosives.
That brings to mind the old maxim that governments prepare for wars first and come up with reasons later. And it's really that which we have to keep in mind when we look at that kangaroo court that was the setting of Ahmedinejad's visit to Columbia.
Because that's what it was really all about. In the classic tradition of passing wars on innocent people, we need to make them look guilty enough to allow us to assuage our own guilty consciences. "Yeah it sucks that we're reducing that country to the stone age. But he's against gays and Jews, so it's okay." Fuck that.
Let's let alone the embarassing introduction that the president gave Ahmedinejad - an insult to any kind of debate and an embarassment to any sentient being. Every question was raised in the order of a carefully crafted accusation. There was no way to answer it without implying his guilt, and trying to reframe the question in the framework of a larger context simply looked like he was dodging the question.
The holocaust issue was classic. Of course I don't know enough to figure out what was his real stance. Nobody knows, and anybody who claims to know is just betraying his own capacity to parrot talking points. What I heard was him questioning whether the holocaust can be used to justify everything Israel does. And like everything else he says, they take it and run with it.
Everything else including his position on nukes. That's another act of treason on reason. He's said time and time again, as have nuclear inspectors, that he only wants nuclear power, it's the right of every nation, and it's easy to inspect to make sure they're not sneaking any weaponry by. After all, you don't exactly hide a nuclear weapons plant in a broom closet. That should have ended the debate, and that's what he said.
Of course, the news outlets went and ran with that and implied that he's looking to build a nuclear bomb and has snubbed the US's patient requests. I would have said that they never went out and lied outright, but even that's not true anymore. Because, well, who's gonna prosecute them? If anything they'll get the presidential medal of freedom.
Well I certainly don't expect to change the world with this little article. I think I just needed to write this to deflect all the shitty "but he hates gays and jews" arguments for bombing, so I don't have to keep repeating myself that I don't want to see the next country in line wiped off the face of the earth. People who don't think are not worthy of my live attention.
This only seems bizarre to those who think that politics and religion in this country simply revolve around such issues as abortion and stem cell research. Yes you have people naive enough to actually be passionate about these issues, and religious leaders in this country bank on that for their support.
But I quote the LA Times on Pat Robertson, who "said the former New York mayor's promises to appoint conservative judges and protect Americans 'from the blood lust of Islamic terrorists' should trump conservatives' concerns about Giuliani's support of abortion rights."
See, when you lookat at what leaders like Pat Robertson say, they are very up front with their agenda: They are also political leaders, shaping the future course of American capitalism (i.e. justifying our next wars) right along with the likes of secular political leaders. So when he comes off with an endorsement of Giuliani, it's an endorsement of the grander political program he stands for - that of using the pretext of terrorism to justify all our next generation of wars.
This is the real role of religion - that while it comes up with pithy issues to rile up the masses in its support, its real agenda is in league with all the butchers and usurers that no rational human being would support. And in return, this agenda keeps religion alive in its undead form for yet another generation, to feast on the mind of man.
And yes, I think this explains why priests rape little boys.
Sometimes when I write these things I wonder why I should even bother. And it's a perfectly valid question - to write about it can pretend the event is significant and unexpected, as if anyone would write about the sun rising or the sky being blue.
But when our collective intellect has decayed to such superstition that we fear the sun won't rise tomorrow or the sky will fall, it's important to write some reminders.
With that in mind, the Senate was questioning Mukasey the last couple weeks on his bid to replace Alberto Gonzales for US Attorney General. And - big surprise - Democrats were "disappointed" that Mukasey wouldn't give a solid answer on being against torture.
Really? I could ask just how many more times are we going to see this same Punch and Judy show where Democrats feign offense at yet another atrocity before "caving in," but I imagine the only ones who still believe the charade are the ones with a vested interest in it.
Because the fact is the Democrats have never actually had a problem with torture, or the imperial juggernaut, or its need to torture all obstacles into submission. Their problem with Gonzales wasn't that he enabled it - after all, that's an Attorney General's job. No, their "problem" was that Gonzales was too partisan a Republican.
Of course, their minions in the media will take it and run with it, and pander to their audience to make it sound like they're against some Republican war agenda.
But anyone who pays attention should know better.
So, to recap, the sun will rise tomorrow morning, the sky will stay in its place, and a couple key populist Democrats will make a hue and cry about Mukasey's lackluster stand on torture before they allow him to be confirmed. I say "allow" you may have a few Democrats vote against him to keep up their image and just pretend that the Republicans are too powerful to stop. After all, they can't seem to play an active role in the imperial agenda.
So after, what, 5-6 years of drilling at the issue, listening to politicians duck it or dance around it, and listening to supporters apologize for them, the issue was finally addressed by the Democrats in their last debate: Would they make a pledge to pull out all troops by 2013? They all refused. Biden, Edwards, Clinton, you name it ... well I'm not sure about Kucinich but the Democrats already said that's not happening, so you can keep up that delusion if you want.
But the fact is, and I know this is very difficult for a lot of people to stomach, that the Democrats are a fraud. They always grandstand being anti-war while keeping it just a pointless discussion of how many troops should be there. But they're committed to the same imperial policy, and they constantly assure the public about it.
And this really sheds some light for all those of you who think that real change takes time. If you think it takes time it's becasue the people running this society aren't interested in it at all. It's just that by eternally stalling they can give the illusion that they're actually interested in your concerns.
So, the change that needs to happen to keep global warming from ending civilization as we know it? Not happening. Changing, let alone reversing, our imperial policy in Iraq? Not happening.
What will be interesting about all this, in the end, is if people keep driving the point home that we want out of Iraq, to the point that they can no longer dodge the issue. Then you will see the monstrous demon called out for its true form.
Biodiesel It's everything that's wrong with capitalism
So apparently it's become a bit of a craze among the liberal left to convert their cars to biodiesel. And, of course, the car companies and energy companies jump on. It's great for them - no need to revamp their engines, come up with new motors, or redesign power plants. Just tweak the internal combustion to burn vegetable oil and you can continue raking in the profits.
There's only one problem. Between farming the biomass required to make biodiesel, and refining it, you're burning more fossil fuels in the process than you're getting out of it. Which basically means that you're doing more to curb global warming by just sticking with your current car than going biodiesel. Of course, there's the issue that with biodiesel, cars will now be demanding food that would otherwise go to people, and that'll mean rising food prices and people will potentially starve so that a few drivers can fuel their own self-satisfaction, but heck nobody with that attitude really notices that anyway.
But I don't want to pick on liberals like these. It's just nigh impossible to get your typical liberal to come to terms with what it'll really take to change society to act in a sustainable fashion.
Because, in the end, it's not people who are a tax on the environment. I've read statistics that said the planet could hold 12 billion people sustainably. And people are pretty good at controlling their own reproduction.
It's all this industry that's affecting the planet. And it's not necessary industry for human sustenance, but purely industry in the service of wealth and profit. And these people form a political bloc of their own, they run the economy and the government, and that's why you'll never see cheap, common sense proposals like tax breaks for wind farms or solar plants in the desert, or even proper urban planning. Even though this is what we need to be looking at to really tackle this challenge.
No. What you hear from politicians and industry are ways of hiding fossil fuels in things like biodiesel or hydrogen cars, which get their hydrogen from converting natural gas. They're not going to bring up simple, inexpensive energy because there aren't billion dollar profits to be made off of it. And they don't want to revamp their factories to produce a different kind of motor, so they'll just come up with "alternatives" that won't hurt their bottom line.
Or if you hear about "smart" urban planning, it's really code words to allow relaxation of zoning laws to allow unlimited development. Or it's an excuse to turn desperate need for real mass transit into a boondoggle of billion dollar contracts.
Of course it's easy for everyone to say "we suck, there's too many off us, we need to kill ourselves off." That's not simply a futile fantasy. If for some reason this does come to pass, I assure you that just like in Iraq, only the innocent will die, and the perpetrators of all this destruction - the ones who need to be stopped - will go on freely doing what they've been doing.
Yeah I'm still here. Just (A) my php forms aren't working so hot and (B) everythings been said. If anything that's happened in the past 6 months isnt completely predictable, well you should write me and well talk.
And I dont have apostrophes because I need to test if theyre a culprit in my php forms.
The thing that frightens me most, after the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting, was all the people I met who thought it would be a good idea if everyone in the university were carrying a gun. It’s simple really – guy shows up in a classroom toting a gun in a threatening manner, everyone pulls out their guns and mows him down, disaster averted.
Well it certainly set me off. Thinking this was just the opinion of a lunatic fringe that has no idea what a University should look like, how a safe and open atmosphere needs to be cultivated so people can freely exchange thoughts and ideas, I kept repeating to others “can you believe people actually think everyone should carry a weapon everywhere they go?” And time and time again, I was met with a pause, then a “what’s wrong with that?”
I was so flummoxed that I went to the local bar – hardly a place to discuss gun restrictions – and drank myself silly. But then, as I went to puke in the toilet, and I fell forward and hit my head on the porcelain, Jesus came to me and explained everything. He explained exactly how if people were armed, everywhere and all the time, the world would be a better place.
And here I present to you, straight from my personal lord and savior Jesus, a list of the top ten spots where people should be able to carry guns to prevent possible attack:
10. The shower. Would Norman Bates have stabbed that poor girl in the shower if she was within arms reach of a 9mm?
9. Political rallies. You never know when a crazy gunman can come in…
8. White House press briefings. In fact, if we did this right, who’d need a secret service?
7. Pre-schools. In fact, the sooner you can teach your infant to carry a gun, the safer they’ll be from predators and childless lesbian baby-snatchers.
6. Those swimmers in Jaws. Nothing like an AK at sea to ward off sharks…
5. Congress. We can both get rid of metal detectors and stop all that liberal backtalk.
4. Parliament. That 12-foot space between parties in Parliament to symbolize the length of a lance? Only a brit could think up that faggoty idea!
3. The boardwalk. I feel so much more comfortable and safe now that everyone’s got a pitbull on a chain, everyone with a gun should be paradise.
2. Work. If everyone carried a gun, nobody would ever go postal.
1. Ban chopsticks – bring guns and stilettos back to the dinner table.
Some other honorable mentions –
Schools. This didn’t make it, because we’ve already got schools where everyone totes a gun, and we know what paradise those places are. I see all the rich families busing their kids to those.
Parks and playgrounds really fall in with the other categories.
Hospitals. We’re closing all those down anyway so it’s not a significant location.
Well it's the classic story of the Pharaoh. The writing on the wall is loud and clear, the signs of a force superior to human governments governing our destiny is out. Global Warming is threatening all civilization, in all our lifetimes, and nothing short of catastrophic change is going to cure this problem.
Did you really think it would end up any other way?
I just wnated to make a really important point about all this. And the LATimes ran a good article that just touched the surface on this: Game Over on Global Warming? They say so more to make a point than as serious public policy, but if everyone stopped driving cars tomorrow, we'd cut carbon emissions by less than 10%. Basically, all y'all driving hybrid cars, well you may be saving some bucks on gas but it's really a delusion to think it's contributing to stopping global warming. It really does more to point out how stuck some people might be in individualistic thinking.
The fact is, it's a matter of public policy. More than public policy, it's a question of how the society is organized. And this society offers no real answers. The only answers we're getting is either unrealistic expectations of people (taking mass transit in LA? Well if we worked 20 hours a week, maybe...), or coming up with really capital/infrastructure intensive plans (such as hydrogen cars) which really seem like more of a conspiracy of contractors to make more billions off the government.
The hard truth is, a society which is based on constant growth, accumulation of wealth, and profit will never be able to live sustainably. And why should it matter? How much energy do you think it would take to make sure everyone simply lived without need? Or to put it in more concrete terms, what if that $500 billion we're spending in Iraq could be used to fund cleaner energy sources?
But even that's not enough. We can no longer afford to have massive cities and massive transportation networks shlepping disposable goods. We could make do very easily without a whole lot of industries. Here's food for thought. What would happen if the seat of US government were Detroit instead of DC? Jersey instead of New York? Basically, what if ordinary people formed a government instead of those whose only goal is to amass greated and greater riches? Such people have plenty of answers to offer, and just need a house and food, instead of billions in luxuries.
This is the level of thinking we would honestly need to save our existence on this planet. And the fact is, it's possible. Even here in LA, mass transit is still successful beyond everyone's expectations. People realize what's at stake and are ready to change their lifestyles.
The only people who aren't on board are the powers in government and industry. But theirs is an order that, like the pharaohs and slaveholders of yesteryear, is coming to an end. That's right. It's going to happen one way or another, whether we do it or the earth takes us into receivership.
"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings.
and whether the latest non-binding resolution for a reduction in forces in Iraq is not enough or too much, or if it is meant to embarass the president or placate the population ..."
Sorry, all the talk about the State of the Union and the Dismantling of Iraq reminded me of this lovely Lewis Carroll poem... you know, where the Walrus and the Carpenter amuse the clams as they're about to eat them. So ordinarily I wouldn't have anything to say.
But I enjoy the State of the Union because it's such a ballet of terms. Especially with the Democrats, who have to make sure they sound like they stand with the people while simultaneously showing their loyalty to the imperial agenda. So with that in mind, there are a couple noteworthy remarks.
First off, Jim Webb. That radical democrat who is actually sacrificing for the country blah blah. In his rebuttal, he outlined the democrats' opposition to "the way the war is being run." Not the war itself, because taking over countries, dismantling them, and plundering their resources is the American way. No, it just needs to be run better. But a friend pointed out that he actually slipped and said "americans are opposed to the war" before correcting himself. Gives a deeper idea of Freudian slips. You know, it's when you say one thing but you mean your son's dying for oil? Sorry, low blow.
The other was Hilary Clinton. That paragon of Democrat thought. She doesn't want to cut the funding for the war but she wants to cut funding for the Iraqi military? Anyone who says that should have their children thrown in prison, and we'll cut off funding for feeding them. And we'll webcast their suffering for the world to see. Oh man that feels good just thinking about it.
Well, Bush called for an increase in troops. And despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth in Washington, despite the obvious conclusion of the election that Americans don’t want the war in Iraq, it looks like Bush will have his way. I could mention the joke my dad told me – back in the Goldwater-Johnson presidential election, they told him that if he voted for Goldwater we’d go to war, and they were right.
But that wouldn’t be my point.
Neither would I be making a point by asking how little we’ve learned about the Democrats in those nearly 40 years since.
My point is to remind people about the real nature of the system we live under, the role the Democrats knowingly play in it, and so to silence all this pointless debate about impeachment or how destructive Bush is to America.
I read this article the other day in the LA Times, titled “The Future’s so Bright?”. The author remarks: “The markets are pricing in tranquility as far as the eye can see. The commentariat begs to differ.”
Why is it that, despite all people’s charges against George Bush, the stock market is so serene? Don’t we have serious problems with poverty, a shrinking middle class, global warming? Hasn’t he so incompetently handled the war and the economy, that’s the reason we elected the Democrats?
That is not only wrong, it is a deliberate falsification to hide the real issue. The truth is simple. War, destruction, devastaion, poverty, these are all part of the normal functioning of capitalism. You want the real reason we’re there? The oil. The real mission in Iraq? Depopulate the country, reduce it to an oil colony, and safely extract the oil to maintain US Full Spectrum Global Dominance.
That’s right. The vampiric essence must be fed a constant supply of virgin blood to maintain its existence.
And all the Democrats are doing is tapping into this rage about our sacrifices, and saying that the reason things are like this is Bush’s incompetence. It’s not – they’re lying.
So what’s the implication of this? You’ll hear a lot of posturing. A lot of insults. A few token gestures which will have no material effect on the economy or the war. Maybe those who are removed from the hallowed halls of power can take a more “militant” stand since what they say doesn’t really have consequences. But they understand what it takes to make capitalism run just like Bush does.
Which is why, with all their posturing, they’ll be running things the same way. And, so long as our opposition to the war involves just standing behind Democrats, Wall Street will remain serene as far as the eye can see.
Media Admits Iraq now a Civil War Happy Thanksgiving, Iraq
Well, proving once again that they tag along with ideas we've held for years already, the major media and politicians are finally admitting it. Iraq has descended into Civil War. I'll spare you all the claptrap about Bush not admitting it, or the debate on whether we can pull out now, or how incompetent this administration is.
Scratch that. Let's talk for a minute about "incompetence," since it's ironic that this "incompetence" has led Iraq down the same road the Native Americans get. Do you really think it's incompetence? I mean, were small-pox infested blankets and the devastation of the bison incompetence? Wasn't it more of a depopulation tactic so the settlers could move in and take over? Do we really think civil war is not an ideal solution in Iraq, where we can wash our hands of Iraqi genocide since our soldiers are no longer as blatantly responsible for it?
Doesn't it seem evident, yet again, that this "incompetence" is the precise kind of policy you would want to enact if you're interested in "downsizing" a country from a sovereign nation into an oil colony? And wouldn't it make more sense that even though everyone is calling Bush "incompetent," nobody is going to impeach him because they're all tagging along the same policy and making Bush the whipping boy?
Not that I am defending Bush. But if you're going to fill the media with your noise, at least call things for what they are and don't pussyfoot with what's really happening.
So, happy Thanksgiving, Iraq. Welcome to American society, welcome to a society that, as Mark Twain himself puts it, "kills them and takes over their land."
And while we're on the topic, how about this Pope making inflammatory remarks toward muslims and then visiting Turkey. Of course, no need to mention the irony that the catholic church, father of religious torture, is accusing other religions of violence. That's like shooting fish in a barrel. But people are worried that his visiting Turkey is like pouring gasoline on the fire? Frankly, if you're interested in slash and burn tactics, I think pouring gasoline on the fire is precisely what you're going to do. And this pope has demonstrated that he's ready to be a shock troop for imperialism well into this century.
First let me say, I'm happy the Democrats not only took over Congress, they did it on a platform of discontent with teh war on Iraq. In that I'm taking a departure from a lot of my more leftist peers. More on that later.
Second, the 'Gays in the Military' quip is referring, of course, to Clinton's victory in '92. Anyone remember that? Let me refresh your memory. Clinton ran on what you would call a centrist populist campaign of middle class tax cut and relief for working Americans. And people voted for him and a democratic congress based on those issues.
Instead, he focussed on "Gays in the Military."
Now before I get charged with homophobia, you need to understand why he did this - to duck his election promises. If you know your masters are big business, and you made promises to your constitutents that you don't expect to keep, what's the best thing to do? Bring up an issue that has no consequences to either side.
So, can we expect this with the new Democratic congress when they take power in January? It's hard to tell. But there are some things we can go by. First, their allegiance to imperial rule not only in history, but in their votes for continued funding of the Iraq War, even after it became obvious that it was based on lies and highly unpopular.
Second, it's how they frame the debate. Rarely is it even hinted that it might be a war for oil, let alone a chess move in a campaign of imperial conquest. No, it's just incompetently done. That's code words, meaning, wink wink, we understand and support the aims of the invasion of Iraq, but you're just not at the stage where you can get away with randomly pointing guns at people.
So, again, before I sound too unfair on the democrats and the people that mobilized behind them, let me repeat that, whether the democrats are just like the republicans or not, this election is a step forward. I think the real issue is, people just aren't aware of how far backwards we've slid. Our choice these days is basically between people who want to rape people in the open, and people that just do it in secret.
And i hate to even use the word of choice, because politics isn't a fast food enterprise. You don't get Jesus, you don't get your fantasies, you get what you organize for. And like I said it before, if you're not willing to stand on a street corner and agitate and organize for a party to the left of the democrats, and build its name as a party can people rely on, and all the other things that entails, sit down, shut up, and be a good democrat.
And believe me, in my 15 years in politics, I haven't met enough people who take me up on that challenge to count.
Hey readers... all what, two of you? I'm looking to update this site a bit. Long story short, do I keep this format or use blogging software? I just downloaded it here. The seeming advantage of blogging software is people can write comments, it's less error prone, everything's professionally programmed.
The disadvantage - other than than it looks like paisley warmed over... is that I only ever get one column, and I can't really modify it, except maybe changing colors.
So... if any of you actually read this, you can either make comments on the website above, or send me an e-mail by going to my new Contact Page. It's in a new form format so you don't need an e-mail account, nor will spammers get to see my e-mail address.
And if anybody knows of a slightly better blogging package that actually allows columns and/or a newspaper style format, let me know. Okay that's it.
So two major articles came out about Iraq this week. The first, a team of epidemiologists that estimates 655,000 Iraqis have been killed as a direct result of the invasion of Iraq. Of course this isn't just Iraqis who were shot or tortured to death. This is also deaths due to things like Cholera because the US never bothered to rebuild basic infrastructure for sanitation.
The other major article - that the Pentagon announced it plans to mainatin current troop levels in Iraq until 2010.
Well, I'd hate to disagree with the peaceniks, but that sounds about right. Meaning, at the rate our military presence in Iraq is killing off the population and turning the survivors against each other, by 2010 the population should be sufficiently decimated by sheer attrition, that we can safely start pumping oil with reduced troop levels.
So yes, by 2010, it will be mission accomplished. We will have depopulated Iraq from a sovereign nation to an oil colony. At this statistic, he's even two years ahead of schedule of the typical insurgency lasting 9 years! And y'all thought Bush was a poor planner. And the estimated 5000+ white trash deaths in the process... shoot that's like spinning cannon fodder into gold!
All that oil, all his... no wonder he says the stakes are high.
At some point, I gotta get that quote where Thomas Paine mentions that if it weren't for the revolutionary storms that hit Europe and the Americas, his pen would have found nothing to write above. Because that's really the situation that any honest writer would find ourselves in today.
Perhaps, we could be generous and point to Kerneshevsky's "What is to be Done?" where the protagonists babble and can't come to any conclusions about the world, only to ask that main question. That would imply that people are really searching to build something... and as we see, over the next twenty years, they do.
That remains to be seen today.
But if we compare building a social movement to gardening, the first thing one must do is clear the field of weeds. And the American political landscape is full of them. Everywhere I go it's the same shit. It all amounts to a whole lot of Anti-Bush rhetoric. And yet, it's more supportive of Bush than you think. It's Bush is incompetent. Bush is power-hungry. Bush is a liar. And for some reason the Democrats can't stand up to him.
Again, I need to explain, not like I've done this enough times already. Bush's administration is executing the new generation of American wars for global supremacy. The Democrats are steadfastly behind that same program. Sure, you may have "liberal democrats" like Kucinich or Conyers. But I'm not talking about individuals. I'm talking about party programs. THE DEMOCRATS ARE COMMITTED TO IMPERIALISM.
And this implies something: all this hand-wringing about how we're losing our democracy? Well, if by democracy you're talking about the ability for us to decide that this nation won't go to war, we never had it. That "clear and present danger" clause about yelling fire in a crowded theater? That was used against a guy passing out pamphlets saying WWI was a war for Wall Street. So that's like saying fire in a crowded theater, except there really is a fire. And it's pointing out the arsonist who started it too. And the arsonist is running the courts. and the jail: Woodrow Wilson had no problems trying and jailing anti-war protesters.
We're no different than Germany... the political forces here would not have a problem sending people to the gas chambers to continue their wars. It's a matter of survival for them.
Should I talk about the fundamentalists? Well, if you realize all Washington and both parties are committed to eternal war, and in order to have eternal war you'll need people dumb enough to support it and hunt down opposition, well now you have an idea why fundamentalism is so politically popular, right? Do you think it's just Bush? Do I really care what even goes on in that head, to wonder if he believes that? Thank God (or not) at least scientists are starting to organize. In their own cute little way. It's a hopeful start - reminiscent of Lenin's quip "we'll win the scientists and engineers over to socialism."
I'm not even going to get started about so many of the leftist organizations that are so pretentious that I feel it a matter of personal pride NOT to join their protests. Like these overgrown college students really think that they can wave their hands and speak the right words and working people will stream out at NOON on THURSDAY. Look, I talk to plenty every day. Living conditions in this country really suck and people (who don't live in the sticks) are pissed - they realize we're back to the time of Dickens. If people would actually do the work to reach out to them, we could do something. Instead I get people asking me why I'm not joining the latest fist-waving catchphrase clusterfuck. Fuck off.
Well that was a bit of a rant. Gotta pump out the shit water before I can spew something worth drinking. My point is this. This is capitalism. This is where it's going - to barbarism. This is where people who actually read and think clearly about these issues have predicted capitalism's trajectory for well over a century. So, in the stoic tradition, it's foolish to sit there and wring your hands and worry about the state of the world or what madness it is. It makes sense, only if you take the time to read about it. Understand that unless we start honestly dedicating ourselves to a revolutionary kind of society, there's no point in discussing or getting involved in anything else.
And for God sakes (or not), READ.
Oh yeah. And don't bother sending me mail here. This website addy has been overtaken by the spam hordes.
Sorry guys, had technical difficulties for a while there. More good stuff to come - including a poll: Do I switch my main blog to blogspot, where you'd be able to comment on it, or do I keep it here?
So I'm reading about yet another public figure/celebrity/agent of Satan who voted for Bush, apologizing that he voted for him. Immediately I thought of the Star Wars scene where Darth Vader stands over captain Needa's strangled corpse, saying "apology accepted, captain Needa."
Seriously, let's tally up this shit. Generals who say the war "wasn't done properly." PNAC people who say the Bush Administration has betrayed the true neo-con agenda. Comedians who, two years ago said Bush was good for Israel (Maher I'm looking in your direction) are now spouting all the anti-Bush buzzwords. Ho ho, that Bush sure is a clown.
Let's get something straight, you white devils. Bush is doing the neo-con agenda perfectly. And you're all prospering really well under it. It's the same old program - bomb and dominate the planet so a few rich people can get richer. And their stooged can lick those salacious crumbs falling off the table. You stooges aren't dumb. It's just that you can't justify the line anymore, so you're pulling off whatever stunts you can pull to curry favor with a public that's ready to explode.
As far as I'm concerned, voting for or supporting Bush in 2004, let alone 2000 or 9/11/2001, earns you a scarlet W on your forehead. But this isn't any old scarlet letter to let everyone know to shun and distrust you. Since we know there is no way you will ever truly oppose his imperial program, this letter will burn its way into your frontal lobe, searing all synapses until all higher thought is cauterized, make its way through the brain and down to the cerebellum, until you're just a brain-stemmed Bush zombie. Undead and mindless, you will be under his beck and call, muttering only what you need to survive under his service, until hopefully the few sentient people his administration has not destroyed will finally take power, and manage to show their mercy by dealing you a death blow.
I remember being an undergrad Poli Sci major,
asking my TA what she thought of poli sci grad school.She answered, ?Don?t do it.The
whole discipline is run by Straussians.You
might think that you could just do your own thing, but they?ll still sit on
your exam boards, and if you don?t speak their language you won?t go
anywhere.?
If you don?t know, the ?Straussian school? is
also the ?neo-con school? ? I won?t get into finer semantics here on
whether one is just based on the other or a perversion of the other.Fact is, if you?re a poli sci PhD in this age, you?ve made your marks
in this school.And you?ll have
shown to the world that you accept bourgeois world domination as a given and a
good thing.
The problem is, the bourgeoisieare having a problem
in this country.People no longer
believe the fairy tale reason for war, and they?re starting to ask questions,
like ?why are we fighting??And
if they?re not answered in a way that points attention away from the bourgeoisie,
it could mean trouble.
So you can always count on your intellectual
lackeys to find someone to blame for your wars.Two such people have written a nice one blaming
Israel for this war.
Oh, since it?s an intellectual paper, I can?t
make such a strident, one-sided attack.It?s
far too complicated an issue for such black and white blah blah blah.It all sounds so wonderfully scientific and well researched, and so much
of it is undeniable.22 pages of
all the things Israel is doing, and all the things the US does to support
Israel.
Really?22
pages of facts, all irrelevant to the main question:Does the US really want to fight terror or is it out to take over the
Middle East?
These two academics definitely think the former.There is no questioning of US motives.We all know the US really wants to spread freedom and democracy around
the world, and make it safe for children to grow up in a world with out
extremism and terrorism, right?
Yeah.It
sounds ludicrous.But that?s
implicit in the entire thesis.Because,
if we know that the US only wants good for the world, that it doesn?t nuke
cities purely to terrorize everyone else, then why does it make so many
seemingly insane decisions?
The answer?Israel!Never mind PNAC.Never mind
the Oil Lobby.Never mind the
University Departments all over the US that have been planning this ?war on
terror? line for over a decade.Never
mind anything else.No.It?s AIPAC.It?s those
sneaky Israeli politicians.Really.It?s hardly removed from the ?sinister Jewish bankers plotting to
rule the world? bit.
Bloody fucking hell.And you know all the feebleminded in this country will swallow this shit.Well, it?s like Marx says, first time as tragedy, second as farce.
I occasionally get comments on why I don?t write more often, and I?m tempted to say it?s because I?m lazy, but
ironically, I think that?s a lazy answer. I?ve said it before, I?m not here to spout the same buzzwords that every
leftist and liberal keeps pulling off the boilerplate. I?m here to call things like I see them and move on with my life.
So instead of joining in on all the ?non-debates,? I?m hoping to address them all here, and end the stupid
discussions once and for all. Let?s end this noise pollution and move on to better things, and enjoy our precious few
years left on this planet.
The Ports Deal
This is easy enough. The ?War on Terrorism? is a sham. It is a professionally thought up lie to get people to
support the US?s next generation of wars. I know people say they know this, but apparently they have problems applying
it.
What this means is, The US government has no concern with beefing up security to protect citizens from anything,
unless you?re including anti-war protesters.
So, basically, this ?debate? over the ports is just what politicians are paid to do ? flap their arms and raise a
row about ?national security,? make believe the lie is real, and make reality fit the fairy tale. We have to hear about
?concerns for security? because they need to make believe it?s an actual concern of government. But like WMD?s, it?s all
a bunch of bullshit.
Free Trade/Globalization is hurting workers
Free trade isn?t hurting workers. Corporations are hurting workers. Trading with countries like China and Mexico
doesn?t hurt the economy. Companies ready to pay poverty wages, and governments that support them, do.
And for God?s sake, don?t pretend like Globalization is a new phenomenon. What, you want to pretend that back in
the 19th century banks and industrialists were under a tight leash? Really. It?s like some people never picked up a
history book.
Shameful Katrina Response
Now I know that when people say they like capitalism, they think of a flowery world with endless farmers markets and
factories owned by Willy Wonka. But let?s face reality. Capitalism is a system based on global plunder.
Okay? Try to internalize it next time you expect government to actually respond to people?s needs. People voted
for Bush. Twice. If that isn?t a mandate for pure capitalism, I don?t know what is. And pure capitalism means holding
starving flood victims at gunpoint so they don?t ?loot? food and water. And it means using your tax dollars to plunder
other countries, not help this one.
?Oh no, a civil war in Iraq?
Yeah kinda related to the Ports and Katrina. You weren?t expecting we were there to help Iraqis, were you? Again,
follow the formula of capitalism being a system of global plunder. We?re there to turn Iraq into an oil colony and
military outpost. End of discussion.
So the ensuing violence isn?t a product of ?incompetence? or ?mismanagement? any more than the wreckage of Attilla
the Hun?s campaigns. In fact, 2000+ dead soldiers is actually what PNAC expected when they said we could fight the future
generation of wars without the casualties of WWII or the Civil War. With that in mind, if we can get Iraqis to kill each
other rather than having our military do the killing as we take over the country, so much the better.
It?s all part of the calculus of the meat grinder.
The Democrats are Spineless
Okay okay, I?m a team player. I?ll vote Democrat. Fine. Really, I don?t mean that to just appease people. I also
can?t stand all the individuals who complain about why there isn?t a more radical party in this country. I?ll tell you
why ? nobody?s ready to build it. Are you ready to speak out in public about imperialism? Are you ready to ask people to
join you and face public ridicule from all the major media that you?re some violent lunatic traitor? Are you ready for
government surveillance and harassment if you?re at all successful? No? Okay then, sit down, shut up, and be a good
Democrat. (maybe that was a whole separate article)
With that said, I?ll vote Democrat but I?ll call a spade a spade. The Democrats are just as much a part of, and
just as beholden to, that power structure of capital. They are an equal part of DC, they understand the long term program
of imperialism that needs to be followed, and their job is to stick with it while talking to us like Mr. Rogers.
In fact, it?s funny how much spine the Democrats really show when it comes to facing their own electorate which is
up in arms about their complicity behind the war and the Patriot Act. And the fact is, the Democrats will always straddle
that line where they sound just militant enough to make us want to support them, while saying all the right words that
signal that they?re just as reliable for supporting the imperial program.
I certainly am happy to see people ready to run as ?more progressive? Democrats. But expect to see some very bold
disciplinary action by the leadership if it goes anywhere. Just ask Paul Hackett.
So, the storm of protests this week has been about Paul Hackett, who dropped his bid for Senate at the urging of
Democratic Party leaders. For those who don't know, Paul Hackett gained national attention as an Iraq veteran who
criticized Bush's handling of the war.
Of course, he never really talked about imperialism, but took the more popular line that the Bush administration was
handling it incompetetently. But that's beside the point - the real point is that he was saying things of his own accord,
and has his own following. He seems to be especially popular among US Veterans.
And this is what's scaring the Democratic Party leadership.
Now, I certainly respect the fact that many liberals
and progressives see the Democrats as the best opportunity to get this nation off the handbasket track. Especially if
they want to replace "Republican Lites" with candidates who can honestly speak the wishes of average Americans.
But the fact is, we need to understand the Democratic Party for what it is. Especially when it comes to imperial wars.
They're NOT spineless, in fact they have quite a spine when it comes to opposing their own rank and file. They have an
agenda, and it's the same agenda as the Republicans. They're just as much a part of the corporate/Washington power
structure. And that means that, to remain a party, they can't have anybody they can't trust to run their agenda. That
includes keeping out loose cannons like Paul Hackett.
I'm sure this is obvious but the fact is, if we want to put our kind of candidates as Democratic nominees, we have to
expect this kind of opposition from the Party leadership. To confront this leadership we'll have to build our own
organizations.
I'm not necessarily talking about a 3rd party, in fact I think Nader's bids for President are very careless and
irresponsible. You can't just run "on concscience" - if you want to affect the political process, you have to build real
organizations around your beliefs. We'll need to build the kind of networks it'll take to actually push our own agenda
and our own candidates into the public sphere.
And we'll have to build the same kinds of organizations whether we want to work within or without the Democratic Party.
Not only would it keep a monarchist from the Supreme Court, I think this would deal a big blow to the right and a huge moral victory for the left. Check out democraticunderground.com for names and numbers of key Senators to call.
Well we all saw it coming. We heard about the plans to invade Iran for the last few years, and now that we're reaching the scheduled time frame, we get to hear all the Jingo Journalism. Iran is developing nukes.
Well, if by nukes you mean nuclear power, and by weaponry you mean technology. Yes, and it's not Bush either but respected news outlets like AP and CNN. In fact, Iran banned CNN from working in Iran after they 'mistranslated' the Iranian word for technology, saying they were instead seeking nuclear weapons.
A minor oversight, I'm sure. Some klutzy proofreader is surely getting fired. Well either that, or CNN is getting the Medal of Freedom for bravely lying in the face of the public. And considering the penalty is they don't get to hang out in a country we're about to bomb, it's a small price to pay.
There's two points to be made here. First of all, it's all fun to blame the President, because one man seems so easy to pick on and we can pretend people are stupid to vote for him. But is it just him and a couple crazy neo-con buddies? Or is this drive much wider, extending to every major business and every major media company? Do we pick on the President, because the real enemy we face is so much bigger and more powerful?
Second, and this will seem disjointed, I have to throw the comedian circuit in with the "President's crowd." Yeah, sometimes I find Jon Stewart or Bill Maher to be funny. But name someone (on TV) who says right now that the US is lying about Iran. Let's admit it - they only spout the good old leftist catchphrases when they realize it sells. When it comes down to the party line they all lay it down loyally.
This is a series of interviews between Noam Chomsky and David Barsamian. All good stuff. I could splay all sorts of quotes from the book but then I'd just be repeating the book. Of course he's his usual barely-off-the-mark self, like when he criticises the government but is also profoundly anti-communist, which doesn't seem to make sense given his analysis is so similar to Marxism.
But one understands, given that he's probably able to reach a much greater audience by denying Marxism. And that doesn't detract from his writings. Especially when he mentions that we in this country have more freedom to organize for change than in most other countries, yet we still pretend we're more powerless than anybody else: He mentions that in other countries, audiences tell him what they're doing rather than asking him what can be done. To me, this is the really relevant issue in our country right now.
Other good quotables include the development of women's rights, his analysis of political will (i.e. what matters is not the will of the population but the will of the major companies), and of course his analysis of foreign policy objectives.
It also includes a transcript of his testimony at the Senate. It's all short, sweet, and to the point. Just my style.
George Galloway's personal account of his trip to Washington to clear his name and expose our Senate's role in the war. I usually don't read books like this because it seems like personal aggrandizement, but this one betrayed my prejudices. Apparently I too fell victim to all the right-wing propaganda about Galloway.
The only times he really mentions himself is to counter all the crap we've been hearing about him. Mostly he explains what happened with Hussein. He even gives his analysis of Hussein as a sort of Stalin - and it's a much more sophisticated analysis than the usual monster-with-fangs impression that's shovelled to the masses.
It also includes a transcript of his testimony at the Senate. It's all short, sweet, and to the point. Just my style.
No links on this one folks, the hearing wasn't that interesting, besides I think you're all competent enough to search for that media on your own. Anyway, I think we can see a definite pattern here. The main criticism I've heard of Alito is that he's basically going to give Bush the crown and we can wrap up any notion of civil liberties.
But what do they talk about? Abortion. Gay marriage. I don't know, something he did in college. I didn't see that much of it, to tell you the truth. But I can't imagine it was much different than any of the other hearings.
Randi Rhodes said it best - "If we're living under fascism it doesn't matter so much if I get knocked up." Fact is, any politician in DC knows the score, they know that they can't challenge this phasing out of civil liberties, they know it is as much the destiny of the US as it was the destiny of Rome. So what do they do? Side-track the issue. Any red herring will do.
I must apologize to the throngs of adoring fans about not updating my site in some 3 months. But the fact is, I needed some time off. For two main reasons. A) I'm impressed by the explosion of people screaming the opinions of the left for the first time, and putting the right on the defensive for once. Ergo, there's less I need to be screeching about.
But that leads to B) So much sloganeering on the left that I needed to refresh my own opinions. Example: I don't feel like debating whether we can win or lose the war. It's a bullshit debate. The war on terror is as fake as the war on drugs. Which was as fake as the war against communism/totalitarianism/whatever other bullshit our government claims to free us from. Nor do I feel like sounding the violin on troop deaths or Katrina deaths or any of the other obvious consequences of our current government's power. Really, I don't care - sorry, I'm an asshole like that.
Anyway, enough babbling for now. On with the show.
Belive me - I'd much rather quote other people than blab on my own, so here goes:
"Saddam Hussein could have had no legitimate complaint if, having lived by the sword--ruthlessly cutting down any and all opposition -- he had died by the sword at the hands of Iraqis. But that was not the situation. No trial arranged by an occupying army coud have any validity in law. Nothing legal could come from the invasion of Iraq carried out in flagrant defiance of the United Nations. The people who deserved to be on trial for crimes against the Iraqi people were first and foremost George Bush and Tony Blair. Saddam had ocmmitted many awful acts against his people, most of them at a time when I was demonstrating against him and when he as a highly profitable client of the same Anglo-American axis now holding him, but their crimes were greater than his.
Perhaps I should have said a lot about Katrina, but it didn't really seem like an appropriate time to talk. If anything, it showed the total willingness of politicians to talk and talk while they let people die. But this Rita hurricane, it's beautiful. I mean, if anything were divinely inspired, this is it. Dubya and his cohorts say "oh, we screwed up, we promise it won't happen again," so apparently God just got real sarcastic said "ok, let's test that theory you fuckwad."
But let's get a bit serious here. All this talk about who's at fault and setting up commissions and promising money and deficit spending, it's all BULLSHIT. It's not worth disturbing the air with it. The conservative doctrine (and I don't see Democrats materially opposing this, but I'd like to be wrong), in fact the entire capitalist doctrine, is that the State exists for three functions only: Rape, pillage, and plunder. So if it's not invading, plundering, or intimidating other countries, or taxing the poor and giving tax breaks to the rich and to big business, it has no place in government.
Since programs like FEMA and Medicare and Social Security fulfill none of these functions, they are actively letting them atrophy until people get used to not having them around. Sure, for now they'll set up some fake dialogue about "what this means to us as a country" or make promises. But action speaks louder than words - and the people of Houston now know that there will be no FEMA to save them.
I'd like to mention one more thing, for those of you who think that this is not true capitalism, and that real capitalism can harness people's entrepreneurial spirit - this IS capitalism, in its purest, most refined naked state. Capitalism was never about free enterprise, it was never defined that way. It's defined by an organization of the very wealthy and well connected for the plunder of the planet. And now that all the communists, socialists and trade unionists are gone, it's free to shamelessly plunder again.
Hurricane Katrina - Proof we're now a 3rd World country.
First of all, let me say this: I don't care. I didn't give any money.
There, now that I've sufficiently offended everybody, I can speak my piece. First of all, at this point the agencies seem to be flooded with money. Heck, we can just forget about government entirely if people keep giving money like this.
Second, for the most part, it's too late. I was like everyone else for that first week. Riveted to the TV, watching day after day as nobody came to rescue people, wondering "there's something wrong here. Why isn't anyone coming?" And I wanted to help any way I could. But for that week, all the money in the world wasn't going to save them, when there was no organization around that could put that money to use. And it turns out that even if I had gone there myself and chartered a boat with water and medical supplies, I would have probably been turned back.
The fact is, we need to remember: This government only exists as a tool of plunder - it is not there to help people. In fact, as things progress, you'll see that their main priority will be to rebuild the ports and the oil fields. As far as citizens or private homes, well, that's what "faith based initiatives" are for.
So forgive me if I don't care. Forgive me if I don't feel shocked that the government doesn't notice the stink of death. It's not their people. It's not their priority. And until this government is exorcised, weeded out root and branch, until a different government is put into power which actually reflects peoples desire to care for each other, we can expect more wars, more abandoning of human needs, more stink of death. People should get used to that fact.
In fact, it makes some sense out of why they actually DENIED aid to people in that first week, when people needed it most. This government wouldn't want people to get the idea that a government could actually be there for people, that people could actually establish organizations to manage crises like this.
And this is the proof we're now a third world country. First world countries have been historically separated from third world countries in that they were rich enough to allow their citizens protection against disaster and poverty. This is now, in the U.S., no longer the case. Not because we're a poor country, but because we agreed to be ruled by a government which doesn't believe wealth should be used for such plebeian concerns.
We never thought this day would happen. Or maybe we knew it all along, but were lulled by seduction of the powerful into thinking that nukes were a deterrent agent so we could achieve world peace, and not an instrument of terror to be actually used to put the world at the knees of the White House.
But the stories are there. The Pentagon wants to find ways to bring at least "small scale" nukes back into everyday warfare. There's chatter that we might nuke Iran. And Bush's post-sentient base definitely believes in the "glass plane" theory of Middle-East relations.
And it looks like the timeline is set for a September bombing of Iran. And I personally think they're just going to park a couple of warheads on Tehran. There's even speculation that Bush is at his ranch to plot a "terrorist attack" on US citizens again so he can have an excuse to destroy Iran.
Am I crazy for thinking this? Let's examine this a bit and look at Hiroshima. First of all, get all ideas out of your head that Hiroshima was necessary to win the war. Hiroshima had no military value, it was an all-civilian population, and Japan was in fact asking for a surrender. No. It was all about "we have nukes and we will use them when we want. Now what is it you were saying?" It is the purest form of terror.
And, now that the US sees itself as the primary power in the world, it is to reshape the world under it. And to do so, it needs to remind the world of the lessons of Hiroshima. It needs to nuke a country just to make that demonstration again. This kind of terror is the very reason they're torturing prisoners at Abu-Ghraib. The US must launch such massive destruction against the planet as to cause "shock and awe" in the human race.
There. It is done. US foreign policy in a nutshell. You either agree with it or you're wrong.
Okay, so all the left-leaning radio show hosts are happy - save a couple. Which, I admit, I share in some of this happiness. It's nice to know they can't get away with some of the things they've been saying.
But let's take stock here. Still in Iraq? Check. No plans to leave? Check. Plans to invade or nuke other countries in the near future untouched? Check So, materially speaking, the administration has not changed any of its warpath plans. And the Democrats running for Congress (such as Paul Hackett) are not calling for any material change in plans. So let's keep that in our heads lest we start the victory parades.
I would like to make a qualification on candidates like Paul Hackett, who as you may know, is an Iraq war veteran who was campaigning for congressman in Ohio. The opinion of him on the left has been rather split between "at least we're putting Republicans on the run" and "a vote for this man was still a vote for war." This is how I see it. Paul Hackett is not a professional politician, at least not yet, although he did take a weaselly (credits to Mike Malloy for that) position on the war by saying he's not yet in favor of supporting an immediate pullout.
But the fact that the major media has already attacked him is proof enough that he's not part of the war-machine, and that his opinions are at least independently formed and are not his masters' talking points. Though who knows. We can now only look at the sidelines, continue to scream against the war, and as things progress, we'll see how this man's growing awareness of his society forms his opinions - either he'll side with the beast or against it.
28 Marines Dead in 4 Days? That's only half the rate of Vietnam!
Well, the figures are in. It's now 28 marines dead in 4 days, and I think the total for the last 10 days is 50. Now, lest you think this is having any effect on the White House, consider their policy: We're in a position where we can take over the world without suffering casualties on the level of a WWII or Civil War (I tried to find the actual quote but I couldn't, sorry).
So, if we take the Vietnam War as a sort of benchmark for how many lives the White House is ready to use in pursuit of imperial ambitions, I believe that the casualty rate during that war was 14 a day. So we've got a way to go.
And I'll actually go you one further. Despite what right wing pundits would have you believe, Nixon didn't want to pull out of Vietnam. The documentary Hearts and Minds actually has a clip of him speaking to his supporters, apologizing for having to pull out. Why did the White House pull out of Vietnam? One word: RIOTS. J Edgar Hoover told Nixon that the 60's movements had reached such a fever pitch, that if they were to stay in Vietnam, he could not guarantee domestic security.
So, different story, same imperialism, same death-grip tenacity with staying in the war. In fact, I think Bush went on a 5-week vacation precisely so they can stall on the issue just a bit longer. But you don't have to look very far in history to realize, just how far governments will go to fight their own population, so they can fight their wars.
So I was listening to Stephanie Miller today, and she was quoting Tom Delay's remarks criticizing Clinton's war in Bosnia as being unnecessary. Now usually, I don't care, but it's becoming rather interesting. Because all too often, I'm hearing people who will defend Bush's policies to the death, and when they're cornered on the fact that this was an unjust war, they'll finally reply "Well, Clinton did it too."
Well ain't that great. So they agree that both parties are executing the same imperial program? Okay, finally we're agreeing on something. See you at the next ANSWER rally.
But seriously, let's get something straight here. The reason there's even a debate about this war, is because of the people who protested the loudest, who said this war was thinly veiled imperialism, and these people were neither Democrats nor Republicans. Maybe they lean Democrat but I assure you party is secondary to what people think can stop the war.
So let's try to get the word out to these fools. It's really sad to hear people who are so lost that they support Bush thinking the liberals are out to take away their freedoms.
And while we're on the topic of right-wingers who think us liberals are out to take away people's freedoms, I have a question about the NRA. If they think the President is so great, why do they want their guns so bad? I mean, I thought I had common ground with 2nd amendment proponents who say we should have guns to protect us from tyrannical governments. Especially when you see what plans our own government has in store for us.
But now I'm hearing these same gun nuts saying how much they love the president? What gives? Maybe they want their guns to shoot liberals. Gosh, that actually makes so much sense it's scary...
I did like this quote: '"Countless people said, 'If you'd had an exception for rape and incest, then we'd have voted with you,' " he says. So in version 2.0, he explains, "we're giving the people of South Dakota what they wanted."'
The fact is, for the proponents of this bill, an exception for rape or incest is still only a compromise, not something they want - which is total control over women.
It's a good illustration about just how antisocial people who live in such "idyllic" rural circumstances can be, that they can have such discord over a basic necessity like fire control, let alone in a fire region. There's anti-government sentiment for you.
Posted: Fri Oct 24 18:21:28 2008
Those damned capitalist economics
Who's going to be blamed for what we're doing now - feeding the monster some more manna?
Posted: Wed Oct 22 13:03:16 2008
I'm not the only one saying it
Nor do I want to take credit as such:
Posted: Wed Oct 22 13:01:57 2008
Was I right or Wrong?
The original house bailout bill was rejected, then passed. So my prediction still came out true. Even the argument that week was according to my prediction - yes, it's a huge bailout for the rich in the midst of election season, but congress had to do the "statesmanlike" thing and bail out the banks.
Verily I am omniscient. Ignore me at your peril.
Posted: Mon Sep 29 12:12:55 2008
Quick Prediction on Bailout Bill
The House is supposed to vote on the Bailout today. Not sure if they have yet, but I predict that they will, almost unanimously.
Much like the war on Iraq, congress will grandstand and puff their chests and raise all sorts of populist fury, especially as the election approaches. But they still are the servants of the interests of capitalism.
And, especially when you see Speaker Pelosi come out as the front-woman for the bill, that's a real sign of bipartisanship in these so-called fractured times.
Posted: Sat Sep 13 19:59:01 2008
Governator responds to yesterday's train crash
"You can add as many safety features as you want but it still doesn't eliminate human error."
Needless to say, the spokesmen for the crash are blaming it on the Metrolink train driver who didn't stop at the red light. And if you think a red light consitutes enough safety features for trains in this age of GPS and cellular communication, then might I suggest we get rid of air traffic control?
By Barbara Ehrenreich. Good historical article on what people used to do when confronted with foreclosures. I did like her quote of WSJ author James Grant: "One might infer from the lack of popular anger that the credit crisis was God's fault rather than the doing of the bankers and the rating agencies and the government's snoozing watchdogs."
"...According to the California Energy Commission, the state with its 37 million people uses more gasoline and diesel than any other country on Earth except the US as a whole. That's more than India with its 1.1 billion people. More than China with its 1.3 billion (California is 2.8% of China's pop.). So while demand has been increasing in China and everybody's talking about that, they [hide the] absolute numbers: 20 billion gallon of gasoline and diesel are used each year in California, 6.7 billion gallons more than in 1988.
From the article: "The result is that in many areas of policy, the general direction of the next White House seems already set, even if the details are not."
I think I've pointed out that by the time the primaries are over the presidential policy for the next term has been set. My only difference with this article is that the swing to the right is much more pronounced than the swing to the left.
Posted: Mon Jul 14 20:34:32 2008
Anglo-American interests in Zimbabwe
I betcha thought I meant the countries England and USA. No, there's an actual mining company in Zimbabwe called AngloAmerican. It's as if their name is an open declaration on which imperialism they ally with.
Anyway, the following two articles are a case study in the nature of the State as a servant of bourgeois interests...
Again, always nice when my articles predict events. If more people worshipped me as a prophet we'd be in much better hands.
Interesting thing is that this is being propagated by the airline industry, one of the primary victims of high oil prices. Check the CNN article HERE.
Posted: Mon Jun 23 21:43:40 2008
A rare glimpse
This NPR Article gives a rare glimpse into how our so-called "concern for human rights" is really just a chess-game over resources.
I transcribe this quote somewhat accurately: "[The Chinese] look at Myanmar and Darfur and see oil and natural resources that they need. They see it as hypocritical of the West that given that we colonized different parts of the world for different natural resources, that our concern for these humanitarian causes is a recent phenomenon."
Given the lack of this viewpoint in any American debate on global policy, it makes you wonder where the real repression on dialogue is taking place.
“With respect to crude oil, the influx of speculative dollars appears to have altered the historical relationship between price and inventory, leading the current oil market to be characterized by both large inventories and high prices.”
I thought this was interesting because it questions the idea that we’re losing all these jobs to China.
Posted: Wed Apr 2 23:34:51 2008
Who knew?
This was buried in page 7 of today's LA Time business section:
PG&E to build Mojave solar plants
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. is planning to build three large solar power plants in the Mojave Desert.
The three installations together will generate enough electricity for more than 375,000 homes. They'll be designed and built by BrightSource Energy Inc. of Oakland, with the first plant starting operation as early as 2011.
This is a good article debunking all the propaganda surrounding China ... about how we're losing jobs to them, they're taking over our country financially, and all the other fun things you hear to make you believe some yellow people across the Pacific are ruining your life.
Posted: Tue Mar 18 20:55:26 2008
As if Rutten wasn't enough
Jonah Goldberg, of the Flying Monkey Right division, lays in his opnion on Obama's pastor: Why Wright is wrong for Obama.
It's as if they're sitting in a parliament discussing what is the fate of their ultimate representative. Except this is in no abstract political house, but in society itself.
Posted: Mon Mar 17 19:19:36 2008
Politicians - adult versions of rock stars?
As an adolescent boy it was a source of constant torment that so many girls wound up gravitating around boy bands and rock stars. I used to think that this was some gross accident of human nature. Then I got into politics.
Really, I wasn't going to write about this and the rock-star-like adulation heaped on Obama, till I saw the following Rolling Stone Cover:
Not much there. Just thought it was interesting that while pundits and the public discuss the election like it's a pretend race/gender/war/economy issue, the inner Democratic circles are supporting each other based on who can best carry the company line.
Posted: Thu Jan 10 13:13:44 2008
Verily I am a prophet
Regarding Obama... so nice when I write something and two days later see something in the paper that confirms my opinion. It is the satisfaction of the scientist.
Posted: Sat Jan 5 11:30:26 2008
Obama's VIctory Speech
Somewhere out there Lieberman is smiling in a most vindicated way...
Posted: Thu Nov 15 17:52:30 2007
What's Wrong with this Picture?
Click the thumbnail to enlarge and read the caption: "...Ahmedinejad was met by thousands of protesters..." Really? These guys are protesting?
Seriously makes you wonder how far the press in this country will go to be cheerleaders for our wars.
Good arguments - except he doesn't make the frustratingly obvious connection about WHY religious lobbies enjoy so much more protection than atheists. And that's why his call to galvanize an "atheist lobby" rests on shaky ground. And ultimately, so long as atheists do not explain social reality in all its blunt power relations (i.e. the relations needed to sustain capitalism), the movement is doomed to an ivory tower.
Absolute agreement, though, that religion is an albatross around humanity that we can't ignore any longer.
Posted: Tue Nov 6 13:43:06 2007
Building a case for war with China
I found this to be a good article to sum things up:
From the article: "It's usually wise to be skeptical when our elected leaders in the U.S. Congress start to proclaim their devotion to democratic ideals like free speech... They want to whip up some anti-China sentiment, and Internet censorship is a convenient excuse to do it. "
Does that mean we're getting the nukes and the tanks ready? Not really, at least not today. But the language is certainly aggressive and aims at that direction.
An enlightening Colbert appearance on the Daily Show where he discusses the philosophy and members of Scientology. To the scientologists, this is very mystical secret stuff. To us it's hilarious stupidity.
I'm testing the HTML embed feature to show videos here. So if you're having issues let me know via my contact page.
Posted: Wed Oct 3 19:37:01 2007
Word of the day
Cretin n. - referring to a medical condition of stunted physcial and mental growth.
"The term parliamentary cretinism was introduced by Marx. According to Marx, parliamentary cretinism "confines its victims to an imaginary world and robs them of their senses, their recollection, all knowledge of the rude external world." Friedrich Engels wrote that it refers to the belief that a simple majority in one's national legislature has the power to direct the future of the whole world in all matters, and even to delimit historical causality authoritatively. Lenin used it to decry those who eschewed revolution in the streets for the leftist party project of gaining such a majority."
So you see, there's nothing new or radical about the Bush administration.
Posted: Tue Oct 2 23:56:52 2007
Duck and Cover, the sequel
From the State Department How to Identify Misinformation. What's funny is, in this very article they both acknowledge that depleted uranium has over half the radioactivity of natural uranium, but still claim it is not a health hazard. Among a few other things. Overall it's a funny read.
Now I'm certianly one to agree that there are a lot of people out there with runaway paranoia, but fact is they're generally more right than wrong.
Posted: Fri Jan 19 20:06:45 2007
Oil, Smoke and Mirrors
Good documentary - this actually shows the importance of oil to capitalist economy.
An economy that meets people's needs could do without, but capitalism requires constant growth, and that growth requires an ever increasing supply of oil. When oil runs out, the economy stops growing, if it stops growing no profits can be made and it crashes. That's exactly the kind of crash in Germany that led to a depression and fascism.
Therefore, they need the middle east to monopolize what's left of the oil supply. And they needed an excuse to invade. So that's how 9/11 happened.
Posted: Mon Nov 27 20:36:01 2006
Hunting Jews?
At first it looks like an innocent hunting ground, but sure you catch the last bit. All those crazy theories about Illuminati Jews? They exist for a reason...
Texas delenda est.
Posted: Wed Nov 22 20:40:00 2006
Atheists preach door-to-door in Mormon land
Hilarious clip. I think this guy could start a movement.
Posted: Fri Nov 10 16:30:25 2006
Great minds think alike
Rigth after I wrote the article about the Democrats, I read this guy's comic...
His explanation for his comic on his own webpage is also good.
An article that does a reasonably good job of joining the three as an explanation of why we're really in Iraq. Again, I may disagree with some details, but the core issue is one of those things that just isn't up for debate.
Please let me know if this link no longer works, and I'll upload a copy of the article.
Posted: Tue Oct 24 15:36:41 2006
Root of All Evil
Richard Dawkins of Oxford University exposes the destructive nature of religion:
Posted: Sun Oct 22 05:35:00 2006
Testing new thumbnails
Posted: Thu Oct 19 13:48:00 2006
Olberman on American History
Supports what I say that what Bush's program is nothing new in our history. And presents a chilling preview ofwhat the new "enemy combatant" definition means for your freedom.
Posted: Wed Oct 18 15:21:30 2006
Testing auto video form
A little Bolton video I saved from way back when. Anybody disagree that a predatory psycho is the perfect representative of American imperialism?
Posted: Mon Oct 16 12:59:43 2006
My friend's website
His articles are a bit more well thought out and researched than mine. Check him out at http://ax2blog.blogspot.com/
Posted: Fri Oct 13 12:44:02 2006
More Video Fun
I'm gonna be getting into this video posting for a while. Stewart and Bush mull over "what is torture?"
Posted: Fri Oct 13 12:43:21 2006
Testing embed feature
A little Letterman/O'Reilly zinger. Nothing special.
Video footage of the 'plane' that hit the Pentagon. Unless you count that aerodynamic optical illusion where fast flying planes look really thin and long like missiles.
In it, Russia likens the United States's position to the Wolf, the classic evil character in Russian fables, that threatens to swallow all the heroes.
Of course, the punchline is that U.S. officials are countering with "bringing democracy" to Russia. I hope this seals all readers' convictions that "bringing democracy" is U.S. codespeak for "undermining/overthrowing non-submissive governments."
I haven't had much of a chance to do more than skim it, but it's certainly the article all the left radio stations have been talking about. Great investigative journalism.
Well, I managed to have a nice conversation with a couple of active, progressive Democrats, and they enlightened me on the situaion in the Ohio Senatorial race where Paul Hackett ran. Turns out the Democratic favorite has a long track record of very liberal values and legislation. Paul Hackett, on the other hand, was a Republican until the war.
So it's really a question of a time-tested ally versus someone who is really a loose cannon for everyone involved. Not just a conspiracy of high-end Democrats.
Now I hope people don't get the wrong idea here. What I like about active Democrats is that they are politically mature enough to understand what it takes to push through the changes we want. Politics isn't for idealistic sparks that sputter out as soon as they start. Whatever you're fighting for, whether it's birth control, equal rights, unions, or Bolshevik revolution, takes a lifetime of work and dedication. And that's what people look for in you when they measure you up as an ally - not a one-time catchphrase.
Click the link above for more information. Sorry, I won't be there, Marathon's on the 19th.
Posted: Mon Feb 27 19:04:47 2006
Ritter and Vidal come to LA
Saturday, March 4th at 4pm, they'll be giving a talk about Iran, Iraq, domestic spying, and the "war on terror." It looks good, and I respect their opnions enough to think this could make a good debate. I'll certainly be there.
This is the nuclear physicist I mentioned who is debunking a lot of the Iran hype. Just a couple of good articles are What Noncompliance? and Planting Evidence.
He gets straight to the point about the lies leading us into our next war, and he brings up all the relevant evidence. He's got plenty of other good reads on antiwar.com, you can just visit their site and do a search under author: Gordon Prather.
Awesome article about how Republican right-wingers are trying to target UCLA faculty, and the motivations behind these guys.
I've heard a number of noxious stories about these guys at UCLA, including setting up a Republican-funded "Bruin Standard" and a website uclaprofs.com. Basically, though, the above-linked article says it all.
Indymedia's transcript of that fateful moment when Kanye West went off the script and said exactly what he thought of the response to the stranded poor of New Orleans. Watch the video and see Myers's reaction when Kanye says that Bush doesn't care about black people.
This is off the BBC site. From what I understand (and this is hard to mine from the article but was mentioned by a number of people on Air America) the two British officers were apparently caught red handed with a bunch of explosives and firearms, as if they were staging a terrorist attack.
Posted: Fri Sep 9 19:12:10 2005
Remember Operation Urban Warrior?
Some fun links, lest you think this was a fuck-up. I'll report, you
decide. And yes, the first site is the military's own:
Okay let's CUT THE CRAP HERE. You don't get to spin this. The government has failed on a fundamental problem. We need to establish a different government that can. The sheer amount of volunteers and donations that have flooded in are proof that Americans are ready to stop paying taxes to this government and establish one of our own.
And if there's any real debate, it's whether the government is just incompetent or whether they are honestly trying out their "damn the population" strategy.
Apparently rescuers thought it was Mardi Gras or Girls Gone Wild.
Posted: Wed Aug 10 19:22:03 2005
Cindy Sheehan
UPDATE: MoveOn is distributing a petition of support. Sign it HERE.
I don?t know how many of you guys have heard about this, Cindy is a mother whose son was killed in Iraq on military duty. She?s now camped out at Bush?s Crawford ranch while he?s vacationing there, and won?t leave until he personally answers her questions as to why he died. So far she?s been intimidated by half of Bush?s Security force, and a good chunk of the media.
While we're on the topic of nukes, The Sundance Channel has been airing a new movie about the nuking of Hiroshima. It includes footage, previously censored by the United States, of the immediate aftermath of the bomb. Good stuff.
You've probably already seen this video, using BBs to illustrate how many nukes we have. But, in a way, I find it frustrating. They show you the destructive power of the United States, and rather than discuss THAT in itself, what do they bring up? That it costs $17 billion a year.
Like that's the issue with nuclear weapons. You want to make a good case against nuclear weapons, let's talk about how the US uses nukes to terrorize the planet, how it was done in Japan, and how they're planning to to in Iran. You do realize that nuking Iran is an actual option, right?
Put in this context of terrorizing the planet, $17 billion is chump change for the government.
You know what, I admit that I don't really care about the antics of Karl Rove. I'd sooner get shocked that wolves eat sheep. But this Onion article is good for a laugh.
Not good enough for me to copy the article onto the site though, so if the link falls flat, you're on your own.
Somebody actually pasted this sign on a London Underground station. The London Police may not have put this sign up themselves, but they certainly sent the message when they shot the guy up last week.
Signs like this are a great barometer of freedom of speech. If people can say what's really going on without fear of reprisal, a country is free. The more they fear or avoid it, the less free it is.
Fortunately a copy leaked out to the NY Times. This while the White House is trying to pass their new energy policy. It was actually funny to hear proponents decry people who oppose the bill. "Opponents are ANTI AMERICAN!!!... energy... policy... people."
Don't know quite what to think of it... but It's kinda sad when the worker's movement has decayed so much, and people have gotten any idea of union out of their head, companies now feel sorry for workers and pay them a decent wage out of pity.
This is no joke. The military is testing a life-size microwave in Iraq to "deter riots" - you decode the double-speak.
But what's funny is how scientists are worried that this is a rather "unsympathetic" tool to use on people. Haven't people learned the the Pentagon has no concern for human life? Or more accurately, that they're INTERESTED in finding new ways to kill and terrorize people?
Speaking of the Pentagon's unsympathetic nature towards life, they're hiring mental health experts to deal with troops mental health problems and low morale. Apparently the brain seizes up when a living creature is forced to become a murderous automaton.
At any rate, another article talks about new technology which uses electrical impulses to stimulate the brain out of depression. Maybe we can electrocute the soldiers into becoming happy killers. It'll be like a real live evil-dead - and maybe we can have it all connected to a White House remote control!
A beautifully worded statement if I do say so myself. They're fully aware that the U.S. is planning to start using nukes as part of their daily "un-peaces."
Perhaps a nuclear war will start much like a Three Stooges pie fight. Man that would be a way to go...
This article goes well with what I wrote about Rove. Keep in mind that the faction trying to prosecute Rove is basically idealistic government officials who want the state to remain subservient to law and not become an increasingly propagandistic machine. Unfortunately, it's what the bourgeoisie will need as the predatory nature of wars becomes more and more apparent.
On a side note, the Economist summarized the bourgeoisie's viewpoint of the election well when they called it a choice between “The Incompetent or the Incoherent?”
Eugen Weber, UCLA Historian, taped several lectures about the
ancient Greeks and Romans. I've put these lectures online for your benefit.
What's fun about these lectures is how he compares so many
social ills of our day with the ills of the Ancient Roman Empire.
Well this was interesting because when I first read it I
thought, wow, is the media really questioning how they've lost
credibility by following the President?
But then you read the article. It turns out that Time Magazine
is haveing their documents subpoenaed regarding what issue? The
outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame by right-wingers.
So that's right. The only time the media questions itself is
when they have to do something against the right wing.
More proof that the "Warr on Terror" is only a war
on anyone who's not behind White House policy.
As Darth Vader is expected to say in Episode 3, "You're
either with us, or against us."
Our new ambassador to the UN speaks - and makes a clarion call
that the era of diplomacy is over.
Of course, if you'd read my earlier link to Wolfowitz's
doctrine that the US is in a position to establish world
domination, this would be an obvious conclusion...
Article about soldiers making home videos of their patrols...
basically shots of them killing civillians to heavy metal soundtracks.
It's this kind of thing that makes it difficult for me to
"Support our Troops." Id rather support the ones who took
the fast food jobs instead of signing up
Article about "Coutner-Recruiters" shadowing the military
and giving kids the low-down. HELL YEAH!
Irony Corner
Marine General Counseled Over Comments
- Marine General who admitted it's fun to kill towelheads. Apparently
the military still feels the need to be PC.
Now that the occupation of Iraq has proven a complete success
(don't kid yourself. It is.) the Bush Administration is moving on to
new targets. Hersh details it here.
Finally found an article eplaining the "death or organ
failure" definition of torture.
Though of course, nothing like this comes without irony... the
main objection to this clause is "...members of the American
military who recognized that these distortions of the law could
ultimately backfire to hurt American soldiers."
Meaning, we don't mind if the rest of the world gets totured,
as long as the torturers are safe.
Interesting article
about how periphery Republicans are taking up the anti-war cause.
Apparently there are some conservatives out there who still think
that rape, pillage and plunder is a bad idea.
Now the noteworthy part of this is, in my opinion, the fact
that the constituents of the Republicans are also wary of the war.
But see, they voted for MORAL VALUES. So now the Republicans have to
develop a spin to distance themselves from the war they're waging,
lest their MORAL VALUES be deemed too transparent.
The above link if for an interesting Kinsley column, which I
should have put up a while ago.
It shows just how far to the right we've swung from the
Vietnam War, where today's "Anti-war" position was
precisely the pro-war position in Vietnam.
Though I think he's being rather unfair criticising a left
that's essentially non-existent, I think he does have a point. By his
standards, even Jon Stewart is pro-war, and frankly I'm likely to
agree wtih him.
Hey guys, so what if Napalm is illegal. Lighten up! It's all a
part of Freedom's March!
Anyway, yeah. Guardian UK article. Since it's a left-leaning
paper, it usually means it's safe to ignore it regardless.
So, my understanding of freedom is now this - you let our
military walk all over your country, and if you don't like it, we'll
NUKE YOUR ASS. A bit different from what Jefferson or Voltaire said,
but hey I'm flexible...
An interesting excerpt from Dostoevsky's House of the Dead,
which though may not fit the situation 100%, can definitely shed some
light on social conditions today. Though we don't have corporal
punishment in the strict sense today, there is still plenty of
violence to push people into line.
(Note: this article is still in rough draft form as it was scanned
with OCR and I don't have the manuscript handy to edit it... I'll get
it done ASAP)
Nice webpage that tells you what you can do to stay involved
in the challenging of the vote reuslts.
And yeah, I think those voting machines are rigged. Think I'm
nuts? Where's the proof I'm wrong? Yeah, that's right. There is none.
Shows how the Pentagon building was hit by a cruise missile and not a
plane - I dunno, judging from the fact that there were no traces of
WINGS anywhere was proof enough for me.
Oh yeah, and the fact that the White House didn't want a 911 investigation.
"Environmentalists rage and wayward cows meet their maker, but
obstacles don't faze the dust studs of the Baja 500 and 1000, where
tricky conditions are part of the rush."
Just more randomly depressing news... I had a bad trip about this out
in the desert once.
More Fun Videos!
Mistaken: a montage of White House Lies: 100K300K Revolution:
Nice stuff.
And check out this woman's bid / divorce story on Ebay...
Jon Stewart manages to get on Crossfire and tell those people what
all of us are thinking...
All those times I wanted to strangle those audacious liars but was
left powerless by the one-way medium of television... finally some VINDICATION!!!
More Goodies!
Check out this new Hussein
video, and a nice montage of the RNC.
Some might like this Ferrell
clip, though I wouldn't rate it as highly as the other two...
A fascinating lesson in populist politics. Read the passage at the
link above.
Sounds radical, right? Sounds even Marxist? Well then, go to the link
at the bottom of that page and see where I quoted it from.
A news show
about the punk rock scene and politics. Interesting,
but...Conservative Punks? May as well wear a 666 tattoo on your
forehead while going to church.
U.S. Marine calls military operations in Iraq "genocide"
and is forced to resign.
It is interesting, because he says that intelligence told them that
all civilians were terrorists - when they weren't.
Does anybody believe that intelligence is anything less than
propaganda anymore?
Common Cause, MoveOn.org, and a bunch of other organizations have
launched a campaign to take on Fox for pretending partisan news is
"fair and balanced." They've posted a really horrifying but
funny video clip highlighting Bill O'Reilly's hypocrisy as well as a
complaint to the FTC at the address above:
And, in case any of you have gotten the wrong idea from my column on
the right, I strongly support this measure. I'm not one to cut the
right wing any slack.
