Iran, Iran so far away.

In the paper today I read about a letter that the President of Iran wrote to the American public. What I found most interesting is that the paper didn’t print it. Nor did it print even any excerpts. To many this might not seem strange but then again 30% believe Bush was responsible for 9/11. Something that has been bothering me for sometime is how can a designated enemy of the US write a letter to its people and no media reprints it?
How can a people make informed decisions in respect to elections if they are uninformed? How can a real democracy function without information? It can’t. This is one of many reasons why I don’t believe America is a Democracy. Oh ya, people vote but that doesn’t make it a democracy. People used to vote in Saddam’s Iraq and no one would have called that a Democracy. If you have one candidate or two clones there is no choice. If you don’t have a grasp of the issues how can you choose wisely? Why is it that people don’t have a grasp of the issues? Because the American media is total garbage that sucks up to power.
Whenever Osama Bin Laden releases an audio tape our press talks about it. They don’t replay the entire broadcast or even a major segment of it. You can’t find it reprinted in your newspaper either. At best they reprint a line or two out of context. So we are led to believe that we must launch wars all around the globe to fight this shadowy figure but are not allowed to read what he says. We are all supposed to go along with the “War On Terror” yet we’re not given the information about our enemy. So we are just to believe what out trusted leaders tell us. If history proves anything it is that you should never trust your leaders yet that is exactly what the sheep of America do.
I decided years a few years ago to find Bin Laden’s speeches and read them. In order for me to do so I had to go to the British Broadcast Company’s web site. It turns out that the English are more democratic and less fearful of their population then America is. We are not to be allowed to read about what bin Laden says. Maybe this difference between the two nations is why the majority of Brits were against the war whereas 70% of Americans were for it. It must be said that our news media did everything in their power to link Saddam to 9/11 even though the facts showed something totally different.
Now our government is revving up for a confrontation with Iran under the guise of Nuclear Weapons and their threat to the nation of Israel. Remember that the Iranians have no missile that can reach the States yet we must be kept scared. If anyone has been paying attention this all revolves around the protection of Israel who already has hundreds of nuclear weapons, with our Government’s tactic approval. Part of the disinformation campaign, the majority of news we get is really disinformation, is that the President of Iran, Ahmadinejad, is in control of the Islamic Republic of Iran. What our worthless media conveniently forgets to mention is how Iran is truly ruled by a bunch of unelected clerics. The media had no trouble reminding us when the last leader Khatami, the reformer, was in power. When the kids rose up a few years ago the clerics came in with their proxies and beat the shit out of the protestors. The media was certain to inform us then that Khatami really wasn’t in power it was the clerics who ruled. Nowadays though it would seem as if a major shift in control has happened in Iran and no one noticed.
As far as nuclear weapons are concerned, it is wholly hypocritical for us to decide that other nations are not allowed to possess them. It can be argued that according to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Iran is not to build nuclear weapons and this would be correct. What most people don’t know, and the media does it job not to tell us, is that America is supposed to be getting rid of their nukes. That bit of information is not relevant according to our free press. What the media also refuses to mention is that Israel is armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons but I guess that too is not relevant. Sure some may argue that Israel’s nuclear weapons may have started an arms race in the Middle East but of course, that would go against the media’s narrative of Israel the innocent perpetual victim. Actually maybe what is needed in the Middle East is some good old-fashioned Mutual Assured Destruction. Maybe just maybe the Israelis would be forced to take their boot off the neck of the Palestinians since they are getting terribly close to being asphyxiated.
So as our leaders openly threaten Iran with the use of force it is important that the American public get informed. (If you think that war with Iran is possible read my first entry on this blog.) The sad thing is that people won’t be informed unless somehow the writers of Lost or Desperate Housewives can somehow slip it into their scripts. Our country was led into a disastrous war with Iraq because the media forced us to. The media had at its disposal all the information that the alternative press had yet refused to give it airtime. Instead the media amplified the lie filled rhetoric of our government as it fulfilled its role as mouthpiece for the corporate controlled government and its minions. I have no reason to believe the same thing won’t happen again, even with what we know now.
Amhaminejad's Letter to the U.S. People

This is liberation.

I think John Kerry was right about a lack of education and one's chances of ending up in Iraq. This is what we have our troops doing. Real classy. What a bunch of good patriots.

It is pretty obvious we studied Israel's behaviour towards Arabs.
No wonder they want to kill us.

Another Fucking Racist

What the fuck is terrorism.

Terrorism is a term thrown around a lot lately due to the fact that the U.S. was attacked on Sept. 11th 2001. Everyone can agree, besides those 30% who believe Bush was behind the attacks, that those attacks were terrorism. It fits the most basic definition of terrorism, which is basically, the use of force against a civilian population with the goal of changing the policies of that people’s government. That seems simple enough and as a result should be applied broadly but never seems to be. As it turns out, it is never terrorism if you are the one terrorizing. In order for something to be considered terrorism it must be received never handed out. For instance, a Palestinian blowing themselves up at a bus stop full of soldiers and some civilians is terrorism. This is simple enough and everyone agrees with that. What people seem unable to grasp is that if the US drops a bomb on a water treatment facility, a television station or in a neighborhood that too is terrorism. 9/11 was a terrible day for the people in the buildings, on the planes and their loved ones. No one deserves to be killed for the actions of their government regardless of what those actions are. The innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq do not deserve to die because of the dictatorships that led their respective countries just like average Israelis who were being killed also deserve to live. Still one is terrorism and one is “defense”. In other terms terrorism is used by the weak “defense” is used by the strong. “Israel has a right to defend itself” but the Palestinians don’t?
If an alien people invaded America and kicked us out of our homes, would we have the right to resist or would that be terrorism? If that same alien people were dropping bombs on apartment buildings and continuously launching artillery at us would we call it their “defense”? Was George Washington a terrorist? Probably to the British he was. Was he right to kill the British or should he and the rest just lived as subjects? Were the Contras in Nicaragua terrorists or freedom fighters? Depends who you ask.
The beauty of the word terrorism is that it is meant to apply only to the weak. If the Palestinians were launching artillery shells into Israel and “accidentally” killing civilians would it be considered terrorism or “defense”? Is the accidental slaughter of over 45,000 Iraqi civilians by US war toys terrorism? Can any innocent civilian death be an accident when every war planner knows full well that civilians will die as a result of military action. Of course, these dead are euphemistically called “collateral damage”. That makes it seem okay. “The war was noble and these people had to die ‘accidentally’, overall though it was worth it”, that is what “collateral” damage means.
If it is morally wrong for a “terrorist” to knowingly kill civilians in an attempt to change the actions of a hostile government than it is equally immoral to knowingly kill civilians through the use of guided missiles. In both instances the planners knew that their actions would kill civilians in advanced. For once our people were at the receiving end of violence and we freaked out and killed at least 60,000 civilians as a response. That is twenty times the number killed in America. Since virtually everyone thought that attacking the people of Afghanistan was the right thing to do, it begs the question. Would it be okay for the Afghan people to come back and kill 300,000 Americans? Of course not. So it only makes sense that the most powerful nations, who have the means to kills millions, have a bigger responsibility to not respond the way they do. Violence is violence. If it okay for us then it is okay for them. If it wrong for them it is wrong for us. No one has the right to kill another person unless we all have that right.

The Democrats Don't Care

Screw the Palestinians, Full Steam Ahead

By KATHLEEN and BILL CHRISTISON

At a panel on the defense and foreign policy impact of the midterm election, sponsored two days after the election by Congressional Quarterly, Steven Simon, late of the Clinton administration and still a member of the Democratic, pro-Zionist mainstream at the Council on Foreign Relations, pronounced on prospects for Palestinian-Israeli peace and essentially declared it not worth anyone's effort. Using words, a tone, and a body language that clearly betrayed his own disinterest, he said that Hamas is "there" (exaggerated shrug), that the Israeli government is in turmoil after its Lebanon "contretemps" (dismissive wave of the hand), that both sides are incapable of significant movement, and that therefore there is no incentive for anyone, Democrat or Republican, to intervene (casual frown indicating an unfortunate reality about which serious people need not concern themselves). There is simply no prospect for more unilateral Israeli withdrawals and therefore for any progress toward peace, Simon said in conclusion -- signaling not only a total lack of concern but an utter ignorance of just what it is that might bring progress, as if Israeli unilateralism were truly the ticket to peace.

Thus spake the Democratic oracle. Not that anyone who knows the Palestinian-Israeli situation from other than the selective focus of the Zionist perspective had any expectations in the first place. No one ever thought the new Democratic Congress would hop to and put pressure on Israel to make peace. Just remember John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, to say nothing of Bill Clinton, when any question of the Democrats' stance arises. And don't forget Nancy Pelosi, who rushed to condemn Jimmy Carter for using the word "apartheid" in the title of his new book and for whom, according to a Jewish Telegraphic Agency profile, support for Israel is personal and "heartfelt." One Jewish activist and long-time friend described her as "incredibly loyal" (interesting term) and as feeling Jewish and Israeli issues "in her soul."

But Simon's brief disquisition on the futility of even making an effort was particularly striking for its profound dismissiveness and its profound blindness to what is and has been going on on the ground. Simon's "contretemps" in Lebanon was no mere embarrassing misstep but a murderous rampage that killed 1,300 innocent Lebanese and dropped over a million cluster bomblets in villages across the south, left to be discovered by returning residents. But the Democrats don't care, and Steven Simon considers this hardly worth a second thought. Israel gets itself in trouble, showing its true brutal nature in the process, and this gives Simon and the Democrats a handy excuse to avoid doing anything.

Eighteen Palestinian innocents in Beit Hanoun in the northern Gaza Strip were murdered while sleeping in their beds a day before Simon spoke, killed by Israeli shellfire, round after round fired at a residential housing complex -- 16 members of one extended family and two others who came to help them after the first round exploded. The Democrats don't care. Steven Simon considers this not worth a mention.

In the six days preceding this incident, Israel assaulted Beit Hanoun the way it assaulted Jenin and Nablus and other West Bank cities in 2002 -- a murderous assault reminiscent of Nazi sieges or of the Russian siege of Chechnya, in which in these six days 57 Palestinians were killed, to one Israeli soldier. The dead include Palestinian fighters and a large number of civilians, including children and including two women shot down in the street while attempting to lift the Israeli siege of a mosque. The mosque was leveled. The Democrats don't care. Steven Simon considers this not worth a mention.

In the four months preceding this six-day siege, the Israelis killed 247 Palestinians in a prolonged attack on Gaza. Of the dead, two-thirds are civilians, 20 percent children. Of nearly 1,000 injured, one-third are children. The Democrats don't care. Steven Simon considers this not worth a mention.

Israel is planning a larger siege of Gaza, concentrating not just on Beit Hanoun in the north but on Rafah in the south, ostensibly to unearth arms-smuggling tunnels. This has been going on for years; Rafah has been the scene of Israel's murderous pummeling periodically since the intifada began -- in 2003 when Rachel Corrie was killed trying to protect the home of an innocent family from demolition, in 2004 when hundreds of homes were demolished in multiple sieges and a peaceful protest demonstration was strafed from the air. But the Democrats don't care. Steven Simon considers this not worth a mention.

Gaza, of course, is not the only Palestinian territory being raped and pillaged. Its 1.4 million residents are the most distraught -- living imprisoned in a territory with the highest population density in the world, walled in with no exit except as Israel sporadically allows, being deliberately starved by the official policy of Israel, which dictates to the U.S., which dictates to Europe, vulnerable to constant Israeli assault. But the West Bank's 2.5 million Palestinians are not much better off. They continue to be killed by Israelis and squeezed by Israel's separation wall, by settlement expansion, by movement restrictions, by theft of agricultural land, by diminishing economic opportunity, and by massive Israeli-fostered unemployment. Their death toll is only minimally less than Gaza's.

This obscenity of oppression and murder does not faze the Democrats or any of Israel's Zionist supporters in the U.S. Whatever Israel wants is all right with the Democrats. The 110th Congress will screw the Palestinians just the way the Republican 109th did.

Kathleen Christison is a former CIA political analyst and has worked on Middle East issues for 30 years. She is the author of Perceptions of Palestine and The Wound of Dispossession.

Bill Christison was a senior official of the CIA. He served as a National Intelligence Officer and as Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis. They spent October 2006 in Palestine and on a speaking tour of Ireland sponsored by the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign

Pete Seeger

This is what our government supports.

It is finally over!!!!

Well the election is finally over. No more commercials telling us how terrible the candidates are. I really wish that we lived in a society that one; cared about politics vs. the politician’s character and two; actually knew history. Instead we live in a civilization where the past has been deleted from our memory and people don’t care about politics. We are often told that we aren’t supposed to talk about politics; religion and I’ll add class. This is probably why we live in a society where religion decides our policies, no one knows what goes on and we have the most uneven wealth distribution in the western world. If we don’t talk about these things, why should we expect anything to get better?
Last night the people of Wisconsin went to the polls to enshrine discrimination into our Constitution. The only way for such a hate filled amendment to pass was for the twenty- somethings to decide that they don’t need to vote. Had the echo boomers, Gen-Yers, or the millennials come out to vote they could have swayed the election. Instead they sat at home and allowed a bunch of fucks to decide that I shouldn’t have the right to see my girlfriend in the I.C.U. The funny thing is that the younger people bitch about Bush and have no right to. Television is far more interesting than human rights. In an attempt to find a silver lining in such a travesty of humanity, I think I may have found one. The Republican hate mongers used up one of their last nasty ploys to get elected and it didn’t even work for them. Now next election they might have to run on their platform, which will never get them elected. So they shot their load and they still lost. Unfortunately homosexuals were the victims. God I hope they fight back! I am extremely angry that our state is filled with so many stupid wacko religious people. This is another product of our societies refusal to discuss politics, religion and class.
While we are on the topic of stupid religious wackos lets not forget the death penalty initiative. This one I can’t blame on World of Warcraft. Even if Generation Y had voted this one would have still passed. Too many people are fill with vengeance to see that murder is wrong in all cases. This referendum was what pushed me to vote for Governor Doyle. I had no plans on voting for him but once I got my ballot I had to rethink. Doyle is the only thing stopping our state from re-instating the death penalty. I hate the death penalty more than Democratic Politicians so I had to hold my nose and vote for Doyle. I had to do it. Executing people is what Saddam was just convicted of.
So the Democrats won the House and look poised to take the Senate. If this happens Bush will have dust off his veto pen. Remember that Bush only vetoed one bill, the one banning torture. Classy. If the Democrats are what the electorate thinks they are then they should start sending bills to Bush that help the average people for him to veto. Imagine him vetoing a raise in the minimum wage. I, of course, expect that the Democrats will just take their position in between the Republicans and the center.
I hope that the take over of Congress by the Democrats might slow down our shitty government. Maybe the Government will stop handing all our wealth to a tiny minority of obscenely rich white guys. I know I am calling for a redistribution of wealth but what do you expect from a Marxist. Only in a society ruled by the rich can the term “wealth redistribution” be a dirty word whereas “wealth concentration” is never even spoken in public.
We must start talking about class, religion and politics; our society needs us to. If we as Americans actually started talking about these issues the world, not just America, would end up a much better place. Our citizens would end up educated on issues that affect everyone. No longer could our rulers say things like, “The terrorists hate our freedom.” The people would be too educated and would respond with things like, “Don’t the Muslims hate us for what we have done to them over the decades? From our support of some of the most egregious human rights violations from Israel to Saudi Arabia, to the overthrow of democratically elected governments like Iran.” Until we get to the point where people get educated about politics we will continue to be ruled over by a tiny group of the ultra-rich who care solely about themselves and their wealth.
As that terrible human being, Ralph Nader once said, “You better get turned on to politics otherwise politics will turn on you.” I hate him so much, stupid seat belts and the Freedom of Information Act. What a bastard.

The Death of Saddam

The verdict of death by hanging for Saddam is a travesty. Not because he was innocent but because it was victor’s justice at its worst. How can an occupied country hold a fair trial? Everyone knows that Saddam is guilty of horrendous crimes against humanity. That fact is in no way in doubt. What is in doubt is if a person can get a fair trial when the judges are seen as nothing other than puppets.
First off, Iraq is not free. Iraq’s judiciary is not free due to the country’s status as being occupied. Iraq’s criminal justice system is not theirs but ours. America has decided what their laws will be, more accurately L. Paul Bremer. Why couldn’t we have done this in a more transparent or neutral site? There is no reason why we couldn’t have held this trial at The Hague in Holland like we have with Milosevic and the butchers of Rwanda. What was the reason for such a hasty trial in such a troubled country? The government wasn’t even able to protect the lives of Saddam’s defense lawyers. Yet this is supposedly the best environment to hold a landmark trial.
One of the main reasons that the U.S and its Iraqi puppets didn’t want this trial held in Holland is the death penalty. The US government wanted Saddam put to death, as did their Iraqi puppets. The desire of his victims for his life is understandable but ours is not. It is well known that the Europeans would not sentence a human being to death because, as enlightened people, they view the death penalty as inhumane. Of course, the killing of humans is the reason Saddam was being tried. So it is interesting to murder him. Before anyone mentions the Old Testament remember that the root word for Christianity is Christ, not Moses. Christ taught to turn the other cheek but very few Christians follow this part of the doctrine.
Another main reason, the US feared trying Saddam at the International Criminal Court at The Hague, is that the US cannot control it. For instance, during the trial of Milosevic, Gen. Wesley Clark was summoned to testify by the defense. I cannot remember anyone, of any significance, being called by Saddam’s defense team. This seems interesting due to the US government’s support for Hussein during his most vicious human rights violations. If I were trying to defend myself from the US, I would call people like George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, Don Rumsfeld or James Baker. Instead none of these people were forced to testify. Therefore, US support for Saddam’s terrible crimes, was sent down the memory hole.
I truly believe that Saddam should be held responsible for his crimes. He committed some hideous acts on fellow humans or allowed his subordinates to do so, we all know about his son’s sadism. I wish that the US could have done the right thing for once. They could have taken the moral high ground and either sent him to The Hague or waited until the Iraqis were controlling Iraq. Instead they wanted a quick trial and a death penalty. It is amazing how our leaders, who profess to be such moral Christians, don’t follow any of Jesus’ teachings.

Why the Democrats don’t deserve to win but why I hope they will.

With the election less than a week to go, we are all being bombarded with political bullshit. The media keep telling us what the polls are saying and what the trends are. Every move is overanalyzed to the point where it has no meaning. We are told about George Allen using a racial slur but not about his politics. So this will be my only entry about the elections until after because I am getting sick of the bullshit coverage.
Right now the polls show that a large majority, 2 to 1, say the war in Iraq is a disaster. What is the Democratic Party’s plan for Iraq? They don’t have one. Instead you have Hillary saying we need to stay the course, Joe Biden saying we should split the country into three parts, John Murtha saying we should move our troops to Kuwait and then you have Kerry/Feingold who are saying we need to get out. Why won’t anyone say what is obvious and morally right? We should ask the Iraqi people what they want us to do. It is their country, not ours. Many say that we have to stay otherwise the place would descend into civil war. This is just a revamped version of the “white man’s burden” but 21st century style. We, white America, are the smart ones who should take care of the Iraqis because, as brown people, they are unable to take care of themselves. Is it even possible to doubt that the reason we can’t leave is because we want control over their oil resources?
It is obvious that the Democrats agree that we must control Iraq otherwise they would launch a campaign aimed at the large majority of us who are now against the war. They aren’t though. They are so scared of the Republicans that they refuse to go on the offensive. Instead we hear people say that the Democrats don’t want to look weak on National Security. Of course, the Democrats are weak on National Security because they are weak on everything. They decided years ago that they were too scared to not have super cushy jobs and that in order to keep those jobs they would have to suck the corporate tit. So a party that once claimed to be the party of the people is now just the party for the corporations. As a result they have been unable to champion a populist agenda because it goes against what a tiny minority of rich white assholes want.
What is the platform of the Democrats? In 1994 when the approval rating of Congress was near rock bottom, the Republicans didn’t run on “We aren’t the Democrats”, they ran on what they claimed to believe. Instead of biting their tongues, in hope that the Democrats might lose, they went on the offensive. They created a simple little document called the Contract With America. Newt Gingrich and the other white men gave the public a list of what they wanted to accomplish. (Don’t forget about Newt in 2008) Years later they have abandoned it but it got them elected and they kept power for twelve years before their corruption finally bubbled to the surface. Why can’t the Democrats offer a list of what they want to accomplish? Because they have no such list or idea for that matter and they still fear any idea put forth will be attacked by the opposition and their corporate donors.
The polls show that a majority of the US population thinks that our country should have some form of universal health care coverage. The last number I saw was an ABC poll that put the number at 61%. Here is a winning issue but the Democrats can’t put forth the idea because they are weak. They are so afraid of being called a socialist, a title I where with pride, that they refuse to make it part of their platform. Then there is the cost of prescription drugs, what are the Democrats planning on doing about that? Then there is our environment; poor Democrats don’t want to piss off their toxic creating donors so that issue is off the table. Then there are unfair payroll taxes, can’t touch that because that would piss off too many rich white assholes. Then there is the Israeli/Palestinian conflict the main reason Arabs hate our government and the main recruiting tool for “terrorists”. In this case the Democrats fall over themselves attempting to show who really supports the horrendous Israeli war crimes more. You’ve got Howard Dean calling the Iraqi Prime Minister an anti-Semite for showing his support for Hezbollah, the Democrats in Congress voting to stand by Israel even while they littered Southern Lebanon with over a million cluster bombs (war crime) and used chemical and radioactive weapons (war crime) and we’ve got Hillary saying that the illegal wall, Israel is building to confiscate as much land as possible, only hurts the “terrorists”.
There is nothing the Democrats stand for. They are a bunch of wishy-washy power seekers. We are always told that the Democratic candidate is only sounding more moderate to win an election yet once they are elected they actually get even more right wing. There is little that the Democrats have done in the last twenty years, on a national level, which has been good for anyone. They haven’t helped the poor or people of color. They haven’t stood up for human rights anywhere. They haven’t attempted to slow the pollution of our planet. They haven’t stopped corporations from harming us. They haven’t stood for peace. What really have they done?
Even with all that I still hope that the Democrats win at least one house of Congress. I don’t have any hope that Democrats will help the people of the country besides those who are in the country club. They won’t stand tough for a measly minimum wage increase to 1970’s levels. They won’t stand up against the polluters who pay for them to be elected. They won’t stop Israel’s ethnic cleansing of its indigenous population. They won’t get us out of Iraq. The one thing they may do is slow down the American Empire just a little bit. If this is the case, that alone is a reason for hope. Maybe just maybe our country will end up in a gridlock and we will stop harming the people of the world all just to make the tiny white rich assholes obscenely richer at the expense of real human beings, no matter if they are brown or white.