Regis Plugs my Favorite News Show

Why I Plan to Boycott the Daily Show and the Colbert Report.

It was brought to my attention that the Daily Show and the Colbert Report are going to be going back on air without their writers. In other words they are crossing the picket lines and will become scabs. How can it be that supposedly left leaning artists could abandon their fellow artists and side with Westinghouse, part of the Military Industrial Complex? Maybe they have figured that labor is worthless today. I think though if either Mr. Stewart or Mr. Colbert looked around they may see that everything around them was created with labor.
The labor dispute between the studios, General Electric, Disney, Westinghouse, and Fox, and the writers is over revenue. At the moment the writers get no royalties from the shows that their networks air over the Internet, even though the studios are receiving ad revenue from the advertisers. The writers argue that if their work is bringing in money then why don’t they get a cut.
The major companies argue that it is really impossible to figure out any dollar amounts for online content. While at the same time, Westinghouse, owner of CBSViacom, is suing Google for one billion dollars for allowing users of YouTube to post CBSViacom’s content on their site. So again it looks as if the powerful want it both ways. When the hell will people wake up to this phenomenon?
I find it really sad that these two would jump back on air so quickly and even more shocking is that they would cross the picket lines. How can they claim any democratic credentials anymore, and I use a small “d” not a “D” on purpose. It is totally possible that I am wrong about this. It could be that the two of them are going to use their pulpits to lambaste the networks, which pay them, and show support for the writers. Unfortunately if that is the case someone will have to tell me because I will not be watching. I expect this kind of shit from Jay Leno but Stewart and Colbert, they know better.

Funny Spoofs

A little music and reading for Xmas

Here is a great essay by the philosopher Peter Singer. I figured that it was very fitting for Xmas. Of course, it may make you feel bad.
The Singer Solution to World Poverty
Peter Singer
The New York Times Magazine, September 5, 1999

Wow these guys are paranoid

Last night I came across an article on one of my favorite web sites. IT was an essay on 9/11 and the Bush Administration's complicity in the attacks. I decided to add my two cents worth in the comment section and then things get wacky. At one point the other commentators questioned if I worked for the US GOvernment and was there just to spread disinformation. Then they get anti-semitic.
Here's the thread if you are interested. I am "InStride".

Enough Police State

NEW ORLEANS (AP) - Police used chemical spray and stun guns Thursday as dozens of protesters seeking to halt the demolition of 4,500 public housing units tried to force their way through an iron gate at City Hall.
One woman was sprayed with chemicals and dragged from the gates. She was taken away on a stretcher by emergency officials. Before that, the woman was seen pouring water from a bottle into her eyes and weeping.

New orleans
Uploaded by dollarsandsense123

Orchestra Prevented from Entering Gaza to Hold Solidarity Concert in Ramallah

Please circulate widely; Let the whole world know how these Nazis carry on

Maestro Daniel Barenboim expresses deep dismay at discrimination against Palestinian musician, and will hold press conference in Berlin tomorrow in protest. For more information, please contact Maestro Daniel Barenboim. Tel: 00491-792160544.
12.16.2007 | AlKamandjati.com

Ramallah, 16-12-07: An international orchestra refused to perform in Gaza today after its sole Palestinian member, violinist Ramzi Aburedwan, was prevented from entering the Strip by the Israeli authorities and threatened with arrest, despite the fact that all 20 members of the orchestra – including Aburedwan - had secured prior coordination from the Israeli authorities via the General Consulate of France in Jerusalem to enter Gaza.

The orchestra had been due to perform as part of a Baroque Music Festival which is taking place throughout Palestine and Israel, supported by the Barenboim-Said Foundation, the General Consulate of France in Jerusalem, the A.M. Qattan Foundation, and the Goethe Institute of Ramallah.

The tour specifically scheduled a performance in the Strip to give ordinary Gazans some respite from the grinding, daily suffering they face because of Israeli measures of collective punishment and isolation, including fuel and electricity cuts and crippling border closures, which have caused massive levels of poverty and unemployment, and continued Israeli military attacks.

When the orchestra arrived at the Israeli-controlled Erez crossing, all of its international members were told they could pass except Aburedwan, who was told that he had travelled to the crossing illegally despite possessing all the necessary documentation. The orchestra refused to enter Gaza without Aburedwan. After being detained at Erez for almost seven hours, Aburedwan was taken to an Israeli police station in Sderot accompanied by his fellow musicians, where he was held for a further two hours.

All members of the orchestra have now returned to Ramallah and intend to hold a concert in solidarity with Gaza from Ramallah. The concert will take place on Monday 17 December at 13:00, at the Al Kamandjâti Association in Ramallah's Old City. All members of the press and general public are invited to attend.

Maestro Daniel Barenboim, one of the backers of the Festival, expressed his deep dismay at this blatant discrimination against a Palestinian musician, which prevented the orchestra from performing this vital humanitarian act for the people of Gaza. To express his protest, Maestro Barenboim will hold a press conference in Berlin on Monday 17 December at 12:00, where he will be available to respond to comments and requests for information. All members of the international press are invited to attend.

For more information, please contact Maestro Daniel Barenboim. Tel: 00491-792160544.

For more information on Ramzi Aburedwan and the Al Kamandjati Association, please visit: www.alkamandjati.com.

Some Words of Wisdom from other people

Chomsky on Looting:
"As to the question of looting, I myself wouldn't regard that as violence. I don't see why it's more violent for a person to go into a store and take what's there than it is for a person who has money that was achieved by violent methods to go into the store and take what's there by handing over the money. I think one can give a good argument that looting isn't violence at all. In a sense, most of us are looters, or at any rate we are benefiting from others' looting."

H.L. Mencken:
"A church is a place in which gentlemen who have never been to heaven brag about it to persons who will never get there."
"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under."
"Immorality: the morality of those who are having a better time."
"The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable."
"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."

Lord Bertrand Russell:
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly."
"So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence"
"There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths."
"We are faced with the paradoxical fact that education has become one of the chief obstacles to intelligence and freedom of thought."

John Dewey:
"Anyone who has begun to think, places some portion of the world in jeopardy."
"Man is not logical and his intellectual history is a record of mental reserves and compromises. He hangs on to what he can in his old beliefs even when he is compelled to surrender their logical basis."

Isaiah Berlin:
"Liberty for wolves is death to the lambs."
"Philosophers are adults who persist in asking childish questions."

ALbert Camus:
"After all, every murderer when he kills runs the risk of the most dreadful of deaths, whereas those who kill him risk nothing except promotion"
"At any street corner the feeling of absurdity can strike any man in the face."
"In order to understand the world, one has to turn away from it on occasion."

Immanuel Kant:
"Act that your principle of action might safely be made a law for the whole world."
"Always recognize that human individuals are ends, and do not use them as means to your end."
"In law a man is guilty when he violates the rights of others. In ethics he is guilty if he only thinks of doing so."

Diogenes of Sinope:
"In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face."
"Why not whip the teacher when the pupil misbehaves?"
"There is only a finger's difference between a wise man and a fool."

Ludwig Wittgenstein:
"Nothing is so difficult as not deceiving oneself."
"The face is the soul of the body."
"The limits of my language are the limits of my mind. All I know is what I have words for."
"If a lion could talk, we could not understand him."

Just some thoughts by people with larger brains then me.
-justin

The Garden of Eden is in Missouri?

Catching Mitt

So Mitt Romney gave a speech on religion in an attempt to convince one group of wacko Christians, the Evangelicals, that his absurd religion, Mormonism, isn’t that far from theirs. Here is just a selection of choice quotes from Mitt’s speech, with a little rebuttal.

"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.”
Actually if one looks at history there are many examples of how incredibly false this statement is. For instance, persecution is one of religion’s greatest friends. On top of that, religions are mostly based on control, hence sin.

“A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.”
This is begging the question, at least to an atheist.

"As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America's 'political religion' – the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God.”
I wish I had the time to go back and locate that quote by Lincoln to understand its context because I read it differently. Does God really care about the Constitution, Mitt?

“Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.”
That’s all you people are, who do you think you are kidding?

“But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God.”
Can you really blame us?

“It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.”
Worshipping secularism? WTF?

"We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word”
“The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814


"The consequence of our common humanity is our responsibility to one another, to our fellow Americans foremost, but also to every child of God.”
Again, doesn’t our “common humanity” overlook lines drawn in the sand?

"Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government. No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty.”
Just go ahead and start reading the Old Testament because you will find that God does not give his humans liberty but nonsensical laws about eating shellfish and how many shekels of gold must make up each curtain rod in the tabernac

“America must never falter in holding high the banner of freedom”
I read recently that the umbilical cord of kings were saved and used as a way to rally the people, they would have parades and wave them in the streets, and was most likely the precursor to modern day flags.

“It was in Philadelphia that our founding fathers defined a revolutionary vision of liberty, grounded on self-evident truths about the equality of all, and the inalienable rights with which each is endowed by his Creator.”
Ya, the equality of all white-male property owners.

"Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me”
So if you haven’t knelt in prayer to the Almighty, the one, the only, GOD, then you are no ally of his. Ouch!

"In that spirit, let us give thanks to the divine 'author of liberty.”
The bible is a book telling people what not to do, not a book granting freedom.

It is sad that in 2007 our leaders feel the need to show how much they love Jesus. I am still waiting for the backlash against all of this. Maybe America will have a mini-Enlightenment since our mini-Crusades aren’t working so well.

Russell's Last Essay

The time has come to review my life as a whole, and to ask whether it has served any useful purpose or has been wholly concerned in futility. Unfortunately, no answer is possible for anyone who does not know the future. Modern weapons make it practically certain that the next serious war will exterminate the human race. This is admitted by all competent authorities, and I shall not waste time in proving it. Any man who cares what the future may have in store therefore has to choose between nothingness and conciliation, not once, but throughout future ages until the sun grows cold.

Unfortunately, our politicians are not accustomed to such a choice. However hard they try, their minds inevitably slide back to the courtroom and the criminal world. If, out of kindness, the last man foresees the murder of the last man but one, the whole law-enforcement campaign imagines all the apparatus of police, Scotland Yard, judges and wigs ready to catch and punish him. But this is not how the scene will be. There will be first the death of nearly all the inhabitants of New York or London or Peking or Tokyo, then a gradual extension of deaths to the country, then famine due to failure of trade, and at last gasping, horrifying lonely death in the mountains, and then eternal silence.

If the Great Powers continue their present policies, some such end as this is inevitable. When two or more Powers disagree, what can they do? A can yield to B, or B can yield to A, or they can reach a compromise, or they can fight. If either yields, it is thought pusillanimous: either it loses caste, or, next time, it must fight; or it must secure an ally. Since the number of States is finite, this process must soon come to an end. We have seen all the steps in this development since the end of the Second War. Consider what happened in the Cuba crisis. Both sides were willing to fight, but at the last possible moment Khrushchev's nerve failed and he allowed the world to live till the next crisis. But it turned out that Russia would have preferred death, and Khrushchev fell.

Can we count on this always happening?

What is the present system?

When there is a quarrel, a conference is summoned, each side debates, they reach two compromises, one favoured by one side, the other by the other. If each contains disarmament clauses, each is aware that they may be infringed. Each considers the tiniest chance of infringement a greater misfortune than the end of the human race. And so nothing is done. The powers must learn that peace is the paramount interest of everybody. To cause this to be realized by governments should be the supreme aim.

What has been achieved towards this end, and what have I personally contributed?

Publicly, in the relations between states, very little, but still something. Russia has expressed willingness to transform NATO by joining it; but China is a new threat. The Vietnam war seems likely to end in negotiation. Generally, the powers (except the U.S.) show a reluctance to go to war. France is uncertain, but leaves room for hope. At any rate, the stark opposition of Communist and non-Communist is breaking down. If peace can be preserved for the next 10 years, it will be possible to hope.

What can private persons do meanwhile? They can agitate, by pointing out the effects of modern war and the danger of the extinction of Man. They can teach men not to hate peoples other than their own, or to cause themselves to be hated. They can value, and cause others to value, what Man has achieved in art and science. They can emphasize the superiority of co-operation to competition.

Finally, have I done anything to further such ends?

Something perhaps, but sadly little in view of the magnitude of the evil. Some few people in England and the U.S.A. I have encouraged in the expression of liberal views, or have terrified with the knowledge of what modern weapons can do. It is not much, but if everybody did as much this Earth would soon be a paradise. Consider for a moment what our planet is and what it might be. At present, for most, there is toil and hunger, constant danger, more hatred than love. There could be a happy world, where co-operation was more in evidence than competition, and monotonous work is done by machines, where what is lovely in nature is not destroyed to make room for hideous machines whose sole business is to kill, and where to promote joy is more respected than to produce mountains of corpses. Do not say this is impossible: it is not. It waits only for men to desire it more than the infliction of torture.

There is an artist imprisoned in each one of us. Let him loose to spread joy everywhere.

Radiohead does The Smiths

A little music and a little Iran.

I don't know why but this song has me mesmerized.



No nukes in Iran? What the fuck? Wait a second, hasn’t the Bush administration claimed for years that Iran had a clandestine nuclear weapons program? But now the new National Intelligence Estimate, or NIE, comes out and says that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program four years ago. That would be 2003, two years after Bush labeled Iran, and because it is a “democracy”, all its people, part of the Axis Of Evil. How can it be that we have had four years of bellicose saber rattling, not too mention all the claims made by Bush and Cheney about their supposed on-going weapons development, when they knew all along there was no program. I think this shows a pattern. Too bad we are the United States of Amnesia.
My conspiracy mind says this, could it be that the intelligence agencies, after being thrown under the bus by Cheney, threatened to go public with this information forcing Bush to release it or suffer a huge attack by career agents. Basically, once bitten, twice shy.

Demands of a thief

"I really wish America had a press corp like Israel."
-Justin

11.25.2007 |Haaretz
By Gideon Levy

The public discourse in Israel has momentarily awoken from its slumber. "To give or not to give," that is the Shakespearean question - "to make concessions" or "not to make concessions." It is good that initial signs of life in the Israeli public have emerged. It was worth going to Annapolis if only for this reason - but this discourse is baseless and distorted. Israel is not being asked "to give" anything to the Palestinians; it is only being asked to return - to return their stolen land and restore their trampled self-respect, along with their fundamental human rights and humanity. This is the primary core issue, the only one worthy of the title, and no one talks about it anymore.

No one is talking about morality anymore. Justice is also an archaic concept, a taboo that has deliberately been erased from all negotiations. Two and a half million people - farmers, merchants, lawyers, drivers, daydreaming teenage girls, love-smitten men, old people, women, children and combatants using violent means for a just cause - have all been living under a brutal boot for 40 years. Meanwhile, in our cafes and living rooms the conversation is over giving or not giving.

Lawyers, philosophers, writers, lecturers, intellectuals and rabbis, who are looked upon for basic knowledge about moral precepts, participate in this distorted discourse. What will they tell their children - after the occupation finally becomes a nightmare of the past - about the period in which they wielded influence? What will they say about their role in this? Israeli students stand at checkpoints as part of their army reserve duty, brutally deciding the fate of people, and then some rush off to lectures on ethics at university, forgetting what they did the previous day and what is being done in their names every single day. Intellectuals publish petitions, "to make concessions" or "not to make concessions," diverting attention from the core issue. There are stormy debates about corruption - whether Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is corrupt and how the Supreme Court is being undermined. But there is no discussion of the ultimate question: Isn't the occupation the greatest and most terrible corruption to have taken root here, overshadowing everything else?

Security officials are terrified about what would happen if we removed a checkpoint or released prisoners, like the whites in South Africa who whipped up a frenzy of fear about the "great slaughter" that would ensue if blacks were granted their rights. But these are not legitimate questions: The incarceration must be ended and the myriad of political prisoners should be released unconditionally. Just as a thief cannot present demands - neither preconditions nor any other terms - to the owner of the property he has robbed, Israel cannot present demands to the other side as long as the situation remains as it is.

Security? We must defend ourselves by defensive means. Those who do not believe that the only security we will enjoy will come from ending the occupation and from peace can entrench themselves in the army, and behind walls and fences. But we have no right to do what we are doing: Just as no one would conceive of killing the residents of an entire neighborhood, to harass and incarcerate it because of a few criminals living there, there is no justification for abusing an entire people in the name of our security. The question of whether ending the occupation would threaten or strengthen Israel's security is irrelevant. There are not, and cannot be, any preconditions for restoring justice.

No one will discuss this at Annapolis. Even if the real core issues were raised, they would focus on secondary questions - borders, Jerusalem and even refugees. But that would be escaping the main issue. After 40 years, one might have expected that the real core issue would finally be raised for honest and bold discussion: Does Israel have the moral right to continue the occupation? The world should have asked this long ago. The Palestinians should have focused only on this. And above all, we, who bear the guilt, should have been terribly troubled by the answer to this question.

Cool Design

My God.

Gaza's Reality

Add to My Profile | More Videos

Here is a video for that idiot attacking me.

A little music videos

Fuck ya, NoMeansNo!

Quick thought

America ended up with George W. Bush because of name recognition. Now we are going to end up with Hillary.

If Our Friends Do It, It Is Not Genocide

CORPORATE CRIME REPORTER
21 Corporate Crime Reporter 45, November 13, 2007

The Genocide Prevention Task Force was unveiled at the National Press Club this morning.
The task force is being co-chair by former Secretary of State Madeline Albright and former Secretary of Defense William Cohen.
It's being convened by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, the American Academy of Diplomacy, and the United States Institute of Peace.
In addition to Cohen and Albright, its members include: John Danforth, Tom Daschle, Stuart Eizenstat, Michael Gerson, Dan Glickman, Jack Kemp, Gabrielle Kirk McDonald, Tom Pickering, Julia Taft, Vin Weber, and Anthony Zinni. "The world agrees that genocide is unacceptable and yet genocide and mass killings continue," Albright said. "Our challenge is to match words to deeds and stop allowing the unacceptable. That task – simple on the surface – is in fact one of the most persistent puzzles of our times. We have a duty to find the answer before the vow of ‘never again' is once again betrayed."
"We are convinced that the U.S. government can and must do better in preventing genocide – a crime that threatens not only our values but our national interests," Cohen said.
But after the opening remarks, Cohen and Albright hit a buzz saw of skeptical questioning from reporters in the First Amendment Room.
"How do you reconcile your work in trying to build a moral American consensus against genocide when just very recently each of you signed letters urging America not to recognize the Armenian genocide?" a reporter asked Cohen and Albright.
"This mission is about the future," Albright answered. "We want to look at ways to try and prevent genocide and mass killing. That is the purpose of this task force. The former Secretaries of State recognized that terrible things happened to the Armenians and tragedies. The letter was primarily about whether this was the appropriate time to raise the issue."
"The fact is that all of us who signed were concerned about the level of killings and the human suffering that took place between 1915 and 1923," Cohen said. "There was also a very deliberate decision to say that we are engaged in warfare at the moment. We have our sons and daughters who are at risk. And we felt that to have the resolution brought might result in reactions on the part of the Turkish government that could place our sons and daughters in greater jeopardy. It was a very practical decision that was made. This was not to say that we overlooked what took place in the past. We are saying – at this point forward, what do we do? How do we marshal public opinion? How do we marshal political action? How do we generate the will to take action in a society that has been reluctant to do so in the past? It involves multiple levels of complexity."
"If we are saying that this isn't the right time to acknowledge this genocide, does that mean that you are arguing that for political expedience purposes, we are not going to be taking action on nor should we take action on future genocides because of what are perceived to be U.S. interests?" another reporter asked.
"We are saying there are no absolutes in this," Cohen answered. "We are going to try and set forth a set of principles that will serve as a guide. And hopefully that guide will allow political leadership in this country and elsewhere. This is not something where the United States is advocating unilateral action. We are talking about the United States taking a lead to help shape public opinion – certainly domestically but also internationally. And this will involve multiple considerations, multiple political factors that have to be taken into account. We hope this endeavor will be successful in pursuing mass killings and genocide in the future."
"I also do think that it is important to recognize that even if terrible things happened in the past, they do not need to happen in the future," Albright said. "And that is what this is about. In no way does it put the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on anybody's behavior. On the contrary. It is to examine people's behavior. It is very important for us to move forward."
"It sounds as if you are both saying – if our friends do it, it is not genocide," said another reporter. "And if our enemies do it, it is genocide. A professor at the University of Haifa, Ilan Pappe, has written recently that he believes there is genocide ongoing in Gaza and ethnic cleansing in the West Bank. But you folks wouldn't agree with that because Israel is our friend and we couldn't say that about Israel. Secretary Cohen, you say – we can't say that about Turkey and the Armenian genocide because our boys and girls are in harm's way. If you are going to define genocide by who does it, not by what it is, your task force is in trouble."
"I don't know that even the UN has declared that genocide occurred in the Armenian situation," Cohen said. "We are trying to look forward rather than backwards. On the issue of whether genocide is taking place in the West Bank and Gaza – certainly that will be part of [what] the task force [is] looking at."
"Yes, there is an element of pragmatism," Cohen said. "If someone else's son or daughter is in harm's way, that is a factor that I as an American citizen and as a former Secretary of Defense would have to take into account. And would. And I think anyone serving public office necessarily has to have a set factors to take into account. It is not absolute. This will not be a document that says – this is when the line is crossed, this is the action that will be taken. These are going to be guidelines. They themselves will serve a valuable purpose. It will help to at least raise the issue to a level of both domestic and international concern – hopefully stirring action. That is our goal."
"When you are in the government, and you have to make very tough decisions, you have to look at the overall picture," Albright said. "Otherwise, we are not going to get off the ground. These are very, very hard issues. I would definitely not accept your definition – if friends do it, it's okay, and if enemies do it, it is not. I find that just an unacceptable premise. This task force is going to set forth guidelines for practical action by the United States government. Which is why we want to present this by the end of next year."
"You can have all kinds of emotional arguments why something is wrong and then you never get it off the ground," she said. "You ultimately have to take practical action. That is what is happening in the United States. We are not going to get ourselves into emotional appeals. Because that is not going to work. We are interested in practical steps."
"The experience of the Armenians does indeed conform with the UN Convention," another reporter shot back at Cohen. "In fact, Elie Wiesel has said that the denial of the genocide is the final stage of the genocide. The two of you have personally worked toward ascertaining that the United States government does not take a stand recognizing the Armenian genocide. This is of course based on real, practical political considerations, that you mentioned. However, taking on this new role, how can you reconcile your positions and the U.S. foreign policy? How can you provide credibility that your recommendations will be of use to the United States in its foreign policy and will not be words on a piece of paper that will be acceptable but the US will not follow up on?"
"You talk about political expediency," Cohen responded. "As Secretary of Defense, I had responsibility for every man and woman who was serving in our armed forces. And yes, I would have to take into account whether or not I was placing them in greater jeopardy in order to make a declaration for something that happened back between 1915 and 1923. I would have to weigh that. And frankly, I think the former Secretaries of Defense – Republicans and Democrats alike – all came to the same conclusion. We could not put our men and women in greater danger under these circumstances. Does that mean that we are not in a position to look forward and say – here are some of the things that happened in the past, here are some of the things we did not do in the past, here is something that needs to be done in the future? There is no absolute right or wrong. It's not all black and white. We are going to have to take these into account.
You as a private citizen will be in a position to say – here is a document issued by this esteemed group. What do you Mr. President, what do you Mr. Secretary, intend to do about the atrocities currently taking place in x-country? Are your abdicating your moral leadership, abdicating the U.S. responsibility to lead? To gather and galvanize international support to do something – disinvestment in that particular country, condemning the leadership of that country? Having dealt with ethnic cleansing in the past, to take that experience, as well as what took place in Armenia, as well as what took place in Rwanda, now in Darfur, and say – this is how we have to lead on this issue."
"It's important to recognize what we said in the letter," Albright said. "While we were secretaries, we recognized that mass killings and forced exile had taken place, and we also said that the U.S. policy has been all along for reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia on this particular issue. I do think that one of the things that this task force will ultimately recommend is that the parties to the problem have to acknowledge what happened. That is part of the issue. There is not one answer to fit all. This task force is about the future – about preventing genocide." Corporate Crime Reporter
1209 National Press Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20045
202.737.1680

Carlin gets it right.

We live in sad times. Our mainstream press and politicians are telling us bullshit and the only people telling the truth are either wackos like Mike Gravel and Ron Paul or comedians. This just proves the Carlin's thesis. The media and the politicians are all in cahoots. REpublican/Democrats what a fucking joke. Oh ya, that is right there is a difference, one party hate fags and the other tolerates them, one loves corporations and the other does too, one offers unconditional support to Israel and the other tries to out do them, one supports health insurance companies and the other wants to get every american for profit health care insurance, and on and on and on,.............................

The beginnings of the Madness of Justin.

In 1998 the great liberal began Operation Desert Fox, Desert Fox being the name given to Hitler’s greatest General, while I was at work at Paradise Bakery in Portland, OR. A block away the protesters were amassing at the Federal Building to scream about the unnecessary loss of life that was going to be forced on the Iraqis. A great feeling of justice swept over me.
Here I was outraged at the disregard for human life and as I walked outside I saw that another hundred people were so angry they felt the need to come downtown and put their safety on the line. It seemed, to me, that killing people was disgusting and should be opposed, especially when the world’s most powerful country was perpetrating it. Unfortunately I was unable to participate in the protest since I had to close up shop but I was able to tune into Pacifica Radio, of course you have never heard of it since it doesn’t spew the approved corporate bullshit, and they were interviewing Professor Chomsky. Chomsky is a moralist along the lines of Kant and Russell, who believes that something is only moral if everyone, in similar circumstances, can exercise the same actions as all the others. In other words, if it is okay for us to invade nations that we perceive as threats then it is just as moral for others to do the same.
Chomsky went on to outline the outright lies, the hypocrisy and the human toll of this new attack, by Clinton, on Iraq. His words resonated with me unlike many other people have in the past and since he was talking about morality and the principle of universality I got hooked.
I began to realize that I voted for this warmonger asshole Clinton and therefore I too was responsible for his actions, even though I could argue false consciousness. I was led to believe that the Democratic Party cared about other human beings and were the progressive party. This night was very illuminating for me. I went from a mild Socialist, their ideas always made the most sense for me since I was not out to get all I could, to a radical. At the same time my opinions went from being given some respect to receiving outright hostility from the Democrats, which I soon learned meant I was on the right course.

Another Reason WHy the KKK is Totally Off-Base

I can't believe I lost to this guy.

As you know I was turned down in my attempt to land a community columnist spot with the Journal. Ever since I have turned on the idiots that were chosen over me. This happened again when I read this moron's column about evolution and atheism. At first I was pissed and began to fire off a nasty email but then realized that he would never read a nasty email so I rewrote it.
Here is the original article.

And my response.
Dear Philip, I read your piece in the Journal on Saturday and felt obliged to reply. At first I was upset, due to the fact that I am an atheist, but later I calmed down. I have no desire to argue evolution, religion, creationism or any other theological topic. I only would like to counter your points about evolution. I think much of the debate between the Religious and Secular is based mostly on a lack of understanding of each other’s beliefs, mostly because neither side wants to take time to understand the other person’s. I am going to attempt to explain, in better detail, what we believe and how simplified your take on it is, much like many Secularists who simplify the creation belief. I will try to quote you so that I am not putting words into your mouth.
Early on you state, “If we humans are animals like any other - only more evolved - there is no basis for us to act any differently from other animals.” The only problem is that all animals act differently then the others. There is no universal animal behavior because the animals differ so greatly. For instance, an ant, with its social structure is going to act differently then, say, a tiger. We, as human, if also animals, would act differently then other animals based on our numerous differences. Also could we not have evolved morality?
Later you go on to mention how the kookaburra’s commonly kill the weakest siblings. One could easily argue that we too as humans kill, through our inaction, the weakest people on the planet. With just a couple dollars a day, each first world citizen could save countless of the world’s poor. If my memory serves me right, Christ talked much about helping the poor with Jesus saying, to paraphrase, “what you did for the least off of your brethren you did for me.”
“If atheistic evolution is true, what basis do we have for prosecuting murderers as criminals? They're acting just as naturally as any other animal that kills.” Humans are social beings, they would not survive without the help of others around. Now, according to an evolutionist, murdering is wrong in a social animal because of what it does to the society. Social cohesion is the most important thing for the survival of the species because we are not the fittest, in the traditional sense, instead we band together to tip the balances in our favor.
“If evolution is true, and we are just more highly developed animals, then violence and rape cannot be condemned on moral grounds. There is no such thing as right and wrong in the animal world, so why should there be in the human world if we are just another animal?”
This is odd because just on the fact alone that we are more developed leads that we could set up laws unlike the animals. And to claim that there is no right or wrong in the animal world is silly because there are countless examples of members being kicked out of the herd and as a human, how could you possibly know what is going on in the minds of all the animals on the planet.
I think that your description of animal behavior is simple at best. We have no idea whether animals hold that some behavior is right and others wrong. Just because they have no ability to build courthouses and jails does not mean that they lack “right and wrong” even if that goes against what we see as moral. For instance, when a pack of dogs wants to invade another pack’s territory they scare them off. Whereas humans, and Exodus is a prime example, kill every man, women, the elderly and the children.
Does one really believe that if the Kookaburra could evolve farther that they too would build atom bombs and drop them on Japanese fishing villages? OR does that same Kookaburra, if it evolved to the point of speaking, justify the killing of the weaker sibling much like we justify dropping two atomic bombs on Hiroshima. When it comes to the latter we are told that we had to do it, therefore stripping it of its obvious immorality, whereas the Kookaburra could argue the same point, “I killed my weaker sibling for the good of the flock.” It was still immoral to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent fishermen even if the ends justify the means.
As a person who is both an atheist and someone who believes in evolution, I hold that human beings had inbred instincts that made us behave in all sorts of ways that are beneficial to our society as a whole. I just believe that the morality came before the Bible was written whereas you believe that the Bible came first. Of course, neither of us can come up with any proof either way, nor should we waste our time trying to.
If one looks at human history, and much of religious history, it may be possible to argue that animals are more moral not less. I doubt that animals are pedophiles, I doubt that animals horde more than they need while allowing the others to die, and I can’t fathom animals partaking in genocide.
So maybe the big difference is the same as the chicken and the egg. I say that morals came first and you say the holy text came first. Luckily though for you, this conundrum is easily solved. “God did it.”

Chomsky on 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

In case you missed it.

Islamofascism Awareness Week

Just when you thought that October had its full with Breast Cancer awareness here comes David Horowitz with his Islamo-fascism awareness week. He had many things planned like attacking feminists in America for not standing with their Saudi/Afghan women which is kind of fitting considering it is Breast Cancer Awareness month. I guess he figures that the numbers of breast cancer deaths, predicted to reach 40,000, are less important than the 3000 killed on Sept. 11th or the thousand Israelis killed in the five years since the Palestinian’s latest uprising. Or maybe like his Islamofascist enemies he too views women as lesser beings.
Here are the fourteen points of Fascism and why the term is wrong.
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism: How can it be that the Islamic Jihadi movement can be called nationalist when they have no nation is beyond me.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights: Well it can be easily demonstrated that these Jihadists have no regard for human rights but that does not make them unique. If one looks, from Abu Ghraib to the West Bank to the French in Algeria to China to India, it is obvious that most powerful people have a disdain for human rights.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause: This, I believe, can be applied to the Jihadists for sure. The Jews, the West and modernity are the scapegoats no doubts. Just like the Arabs, the Islamofascists and communists were to the US.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism: Even though the Jihadists don’t have a formal military, one can interchange the words military with violence if they like. In the US though, it is off limits to question anything the military does or spends it money on. It must be remembered that the lack of a formal military was the excuse given as to why we didn't need to apply the Geneva Conventions to our P.O.W.s. and why it was admissible to shove things in their rectums, make them stand for days at end, keep them in cold cramped cells without clothing, sexually humiliating them and on and on...... Though I am sure Rumsfeld would argue that their is a percentage of Americans who actually like to have things inserted into their rectums.
5. Rampant Sexism: No need to comment, obviously.
6. A controlled mass media: Even though many freaks will argue that AL Jazeera is the Jihadi television network, which is complete nonsense. Unless of course, you subscribe to the racist mentality of “fight THEM over there” in other words, you view all Muslims as terrorist.
7. Obsession with national security: Again considering they have no nation this is kinda moot. Though if one wanted to they could argue that the Jihadists want to create a Pan-Arabic state and they view that as under assault but it is a stretch.
8. Religion and the ruling elite tied together: Just on the simple basis that it is a Jihad makes this one very logical even though there is no ruling elite unless you really think Bin Laden is the chair of an organization named Al Qaida. “One nation under God”, “the attack on Christmas…..”
9. Power of corporations protected: That one is simple since they have no corporations.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated: There is no transcript of Bin Laden or his ilk talking about Labor rights.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts: By their rejection of modernity they reject intellectuals and the arts. Though if one looks around, the “Right” in America feels the same about intellectuals.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment: Their fascination with Sharia law shows that they are obsessed with punishment.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption: Typicallly the more pious the religious muslims are the less corrupt, as we in the west understand it, they are.
14. Fraudulent Elections: This one is too easy since there would be no elections in Bin Laden’s world.
Now compare these fourteen points with the society we live in. Are they more apt to describe our country? If one tallies the vote it would seem that the US is more closely aligned with fascism then the radical muslims.
Maybe what we need, in place of Islamofascism awareness week, is plain Fascism Awareness week.

Thank You Democrats!

Well the Democrats proved that they too can destroy the Constitution just as well as the quasi-fascist Republican Party. Today the Senate Intelligence Committee reached an agreement with the Bush administration granting immunity to the telecom companies that allowed the Bush Administration to illegally wiretap us. Again this proves that, when it really comes down to it, the Democrats will sell us all down the fucking river just as quickly as the authoritarian Republican regime. So in 2008 when everyone tells me how “this is the most important election in our lifetime”(ever notice how every election is so much more important then the last most important election ever?) and that there is a huge difference between Hillary and Rudy I will laugh in their face and vote for whatever third party is allowed on the Wisconsin ballot.
This illegal wiretapping, or “terrorist surveillance program”, depending on whom you ask, became a big deal when the New York Times first reported about it after the election. The Democrats said that had the American public known about the program it may have been enough to tip the election to John “I voted to give Bush the Authority to invade and occupy Iraq” Kerry in 2004. Then it came out that some Democrats had been briefed about it but had said nothing. So these asshole Democrats, Jay Rockefeller and the rest, were telling us that this election was the most important in our history yet refused to leak the information they claim could have changed, the most important, election. Instead they kept quiet.
That the Democrats would capitulate to every whim of Bush should have been obvious, had it not been for the faux outrage spouted by the Democratic Congress members. The minute we all should have foreseen this happening was when our brave Senator Feingold suggested censuring the President for his illegal behavior. The proposal, from Russ, was toothless and symbolic. He wanted the record to show that Congress voted that the Bush Administration had overstepped their authority and then move on from there. Democratic colleagues ran away from reporters, some leaving out the backdoor, for fear of having to make a statement and when they finally did they said things like “I haven’t read it.” This incident should have told us all that the Democrats weren’t really concerned about the violations of the Constitution, no matter how outraged they pretended to be.
The most obvious reason the Democrats don’t protest the repeated violations of the Constitution is because they only care about their careers. Instead they, after repeated faux protest on the airwaves, have quietly passed legislation giving Bush the powers they claim to abhor. It is more important that they continue to suck our tax dollars in the form of income, an income they voted to automatically increase because average Joes were getting upset when the press would report on Congress giving themselves a raise, while Joe’s income stays stagnant at best.
So when my Democratic friends begin attacking me in 2008, over my plan to vote for any left-wing third party candidate, I will laugh in their faces. When they tell me that this is the most important election in the history of humankind, I will laugh in their faces. Then when they attempt to prove the differences between the two parties, I will laugh in their faces and remind them that the Democrats voted for nearly everything they are upset with. Last election, in an attempt to sway my vote away from a candidate I agreed with, many of my Democratic friends would tell me about how abortion would be outlawed, more wars would be started, gay rights were going to get rolled back and numerous other horror stories. So what are they going to say when the Republicans nominate a pro-gay rights, pro-choice, pro-immigrant candidate? What, he might start a war with Iran that Hillary will vote for?

Chomsky debates the late Foucault

I love this debate not only for the discourse but also because both speak their native tongues without translators.



Foucault was the only Parisian Post-Modernists that Chomsky thought was of any value. He at least, according to Chomsky, was attempting to say something even though is wasn't profound.

Music Videos

Here are some of the things that inspired me as a child. I know they are corny but their messages resonated with me when I was a kid.


I know it's Michael Jackson.

Snoop gets it right.

Hilarious.

I just read this most hilarious of jokes. It turns out this is a joke that the Israeli Defense Forces like to tell.

"Two soldiers, infantry-men in the Golani Brigade, were on patrol in Hebron, getting ready to enforce the six p.m. curfew. The streets were mostly empty already, but one of the soldiers saw an old Arab man hobbling down the lane in the distance. The soldier dropped to one knee, took aim, and fired, taking off the old man's head. The other soldier watched this in shock. "What are you doing?" he cried. "It's not six yet."
"I know," said the first soldier. "But I knew where that guy lived. He never would have made it home in time."

Ah yes, the poor Israeli victim. The fact that this joke is even acceptable and popular tells you something about the people who live in that state. Whenever I come across things like this I have the hardest time reminding myself that it is the Palestinians who are the violent ones, the aggressors. I wonder where one can get some of that Israeli 'kool-aid".

Resource

I just spent the last two hours enjoying Bertrand Russell essays and thought you might too.
Here is a link to a site with many of his writings.
Here is a great quote from his Praise of Idleness.
"First of all: what is work? Work is of two kinds: first, altering the position of matter at or near the earth's surface relatively to other such matter; second, telling other people to do so. The first kind is unpleasant and ill paid; the second is pleasant and highly paid."

A Quick Thought.

Today, as usual, I was engaged in my mindless job listening to a Chomsky lecture from a few years ago and a thought entered my mind. Noam was talking about what may happen if the Iraqis are ever really allowed to control their own country in the democratic form so highly touted by the US administration. He lists off a few things that could be possible, this was before any elections in Iraq had occurred, and he mentions, the obvious, that they would seek better relations with Shia Iran. It is an obvious outcome considering many of the most important Iraqis lived there in exile, during Saddam's reign, and the most powerful man in Iraq, Al-Sistani, was born there. At that moment I realized why we are going to attack Iran and it is an exact replica of the Iraq bullshit.
Notice how again we are told that some evil brown skinned man is producing nuclear weapons just like Saddam was.(Our own CIA now claims that there were no WMD let alone nukes in Iraq) Then comes the threat to Israel with the now proven incorrect translation where the Iranian President says that he wants to "wipe Israel off the face of the map".(Israel being the fifth strongest military in the World and the first Middle Eastern nation to introduce nuclear weapons into the region) I think the final sign of imminent attack is the comparison to Hitler.(Remember that Hitler killed millions and the Iranian President has 40,000 Jews living in his country) So that is the pretext but what is the real reason.
The real reason again will be regime change which will be the second time we have overthrown a democratically elected Iranian leader in 60 years. Why must the regime change? Because if we allow Iraq to be free they would align themselves with the Clerics who run Iran, since the President is merely a figurehead, something the press and the intellectuals seem to be unable to remember. So we must eliminate the Clerics and the President, I guess for symbolic value since he is the newest Hitler. ( With amazing amounts of "New Hitlers" arriving on the international scene it makes one wonder about reincarnation.) That way when we are forced out of Iraq, which will happen, the Iraqis will have no Iran Shia Clerics to align themselves with. The only regime in Iran will be a secular regime that respects minority rights, just like the Iraqis who greeted us with flowers.
The most cynical part of me has another scenario that may be possible.
Okay say the US attacks Iran and the SHia in Saudi Arabia rise up, with the help of Iran, and overthrow the "government" of Saudi Arabia. We all know that the US and it population believes that the oil over there is really our property so a overwhelming percentage of AMericans would argue for the invasion and takeover of the Saudi state and its oil fields.

In Case You Missed It.

As of now this is about all of the footage that has gotten out of Burma since the massacres started. It is impossible to know exactly what has transpired because the government has cut off the internet. One thing that is known, as of now, is that a Japanese journalist was shot dead at point blank. I mean c'mon, I expect that kind of behavior from the Israelis but the Burmese.








Here is the footage of the Journalist being shot.


It is okay when our buddies do it in Israel. Notice how the other Israeli peace activists have to tell the Israeli Defense Forces that the wounded journalist is an Israeli. Why is that? Is it because their entire society is completely racist through and through. If only the Burmese people had a strong lobby in this country then they coould shoot civilians at will and our government would fall all over themselves to praise them.

You've Got To Be Kidding Me

Whoa, I am to believe the architects overlooked this design element.

I thought this was funny.

And then I found this too. THis is EXTREMELY GRAPHIC footage of where our meat comes from. Not for the faint of heart or pseudo-animal lovers.

In case you were interested

I watched the speech and found it interesting. There were two major reactions from the crowd to what Ahmadinejad had to say. One was when he claimed that Iran had no homosexuals to which the audience laughed at him. The other was when he was describing the plight of the Palestinians and he drew applause. Columbia has been a major focal point in the Israel/Palestinian conflict with students secretly recording lectures and such. Other than that it was what one would expect. Here was a world leader being criticized for his nuclear policy (by a nation who dropped two bombs on Japan), capital punishment (by a country that still kills people who committed crimes as a minor) and his sponsoring of terrorism (by a nation that supports terrorists in his country). So he basically called us the hypocrites that we are.

Disinformation Nation

Sorry I don’t have much time to write this but I want to at least get a little bit out because it is very time sensitive.

The President of Iran never said, “Israel should be wiped off the face of the map.” He never said it. They have purposely misquoted him and all the leading intellectuals know it. In the quote, where he supposedly uttered these words, he never says “Israel”, “wipe” or “map” but that is what he is quoted as saying. All the intellectuals know it and refuse to refute it. It is exactly like when Clinton or Bush would talk about the evils of Saddam and say “he even gassed his own people” and no intellectual would say, what everyone knew, that he did so with our support and we increased the support after.
Also, in case the media forgot to tell us, the President of Iran is a figurehead. The media had no problem telling us that when a reform President was impotent due to his figurehead status. In that case then it was necessary for every news article to include it just like every news article today must include that quote about “wiping Israel off the face of the map.”
Tomorrow: The Newest Hitler and The Holocaust as a myth?

Quick Iraq Rant

Here is a quick thought I threw down on electronic paper today. I had been meaning to write about this for a while so I just spit it out. It may not be the most pleasurable read and I bet there are typos and grammatical mistakes but what's new, eh?

I can’t take it anymore. It has become too much. Why are liberals arguing with me telling me that we have to stay in Iraq? They are telling me that since we went in and smashed it up we “owe” it to the Iraq people to stay and fix the mess we made. It is a new “white man’s burden” or so it seems.
Then you have the conservatives who are just talking complete nonsense, and the sooner they realize it the more likely they won’t get trounced at the polls. Their line of argument, which is very similar to the liberal’s, is that we can’t leave because there would be chaos and Al-Qaida, which experts argue doesn’t even exist, will set up camp in order to plan new attacks against America.
So both sides are arguing that we must stay in Iraq, for very similar reasons, and both talk of only two options. Our options, so it goes, are either we pull every troop out or we stay indefinitely. Either way at the end of the day we will still be in Iraq and we will still be doing everything in our power to exercise control over their oil resources. The Democrats and the Republicans may differ slightly over the reasons why we must continue our occupation of Iraq but none are telling us the truth. That truth being that Iraq will be and must be a part of the American Empire.
We are told, almost ad nasuem that we have only two options, immediate withdraw, which is impossible, and staying forever which will be impossible. Really? There are only two options, which seems odd to me. I may not know a whole hell of a lot about the human nature but it seems that there must be more than two ways to look at a problem.
One plan never talked about is going to the UN and asking for help. Do Americans really believe that we are the only ones who can fix this mess, when our mere presence makes matters worse? Whenever an American intellectual talks about leaving Iraq they talk about a power vacuum that, they claim, would be created and how dangerous it would be to America, the only people who matter. Yet if we asked the UN to help us with Iraq, my guess is that many other countries would step up, only of course, if it was mandated through the UN.
So why don’t we go to the UN and ask for help? How come no major Presidential candidate has even suggested it? Is it because they know already what the answer would be, it does seem like these assholes all own crystal balls or at least that is what they want us all to believe. Though in reality one would have to guess that they actually have the Magic Eight Ball instead. Or could it be that if we truly internationalized the conflict then American companies wouldn’t get first dibs on all of Iraq’s wealth, infrastructure, reconstruction contracts, oil and on. Would it be possible that the UN would take over the granting of contracts in Iraq? I don’t know but one must admit that it seems conspicuously absent from all debate on the topic.
We were told, after the weapons weren’t found, that the reason we went to Iraq was to destroy the country so that the naturally occurring Democracy could finally flourish. There are some sticky points about that democracy. For instance, an unelected body gets to decide who is allowed to run for office and there were a few other laws put in place as Viceroy Bremer was departing. Either way we went to war in order to bring Democracy to Iraq. I believe the quote was, “freedom is on the march” which if one has ever read Orwell they would gather that actually the complete opposite is occurring but I digress.
Now when it comes to whether our troops continue to occupy Iraq or whether they leave it seems completely obvious that only one group of people should be allowed to make that choice, the Iraqis themselves. Still I have not heard a single “respectable” politician argue that we ask the Iraqis what they want us to do since it is their country, at least in the minds of non-imperialists. The question of what happens to Iraq should be in the hands of the Iraqis not us. We claim it is our duty, or what I prefer to call the “new white man’s burden”, to take care of them. They no not of what they do we are to believe. They somehow are lesser people unable to decide what is best for them? Only Hillary and Rudy know what is best for the people of Iraq. Am I the only person who thinks that this is fucked up? It isn’t even part of the acceptable mainstream discourse to even suggest we allow the Iraqis to decide their future. Why is that?
In the end it must come down to Empire. We have an occupation that is hugely unpopular yet no politicians are arguing to get the hell out. Instead they all have plans of keeping tens of thousands of troops “in the area” to fight the terrorists, which I thought meant anyone fighting the occupation of their country. Instead the main priority for them is to push Iraq to change their oil laws, the reasoning of which should be transparent. Our mainstream moderate politicians all want us to stay with massive troop levels in the Middle East until the oil runs out. This should be painfully obvious. It isn’t just George who thinks that oil under their feet is ours, but I think so do all the rest.

Videos of the Day

I realize that Bush is stupid but you would think he would know that Nelson Mandela is still alive not too mention Mandela's disgust for this war.
Video Link

Is it coming?


THis song was originally meant for Reagan but it is applicable to today.
The Minutemen "Little Man With a Gun In His Hand.

Here comes the police state ptII

Notice how the liberals clap when he is being tased. This is how the police state is brought upon us with the clapping hands of the liberals.

Short Film

Here is a short film made by the guy who did Children of Men. It is based on the book by Naomi Klein.

9/11 I already forgot.

And also on this date -- on Sept 11 1973, US-backed Pinochet forces rose to power in Chile to overthrow the democratically-elected Salvador Allende. Allende died in the presidential palace. On Sept 11 1990, American anthrologist Myrna Mack was murdered by US-backed Guateleman security forces. On September 11, 1977 in South Africa oSteve Biko founder of the black consciosness movement was being beaten in the back of a van by apartheid forces. He died in the early morning hours of Sept. 12, 1977. On 9/11 1993, in the midst of the US-backed coup in Haiti, Antoine Azenery was dragged out of a church by coup forces and murdered in broad-daylight. He had been commemorating a massacre of parashiners at the Saint John Boscoe church that had occured five years earlier on September 11, 1988. Father Jean Bertrand Aristide had narrowly escaped death in that attack. He later became president of Haiti.

It is becoming obvious that the government, not solely the Bush Administration but the Democratic hacks, is getting worried. They are so scared that they had to gang tackle a Minister and break his leg because they didn't like the pin he was wearing. Free speech my ass. On the plus side, this is proof that they are becoming terrified of their subjects.


This is humorous.

I have a Pre-Sept. 11th mindset

One of our official enemies has released a tape talking to the American public. Of course, Americans are not allowed to know exactly what Bin Laden says, so I have provided a link. Why we are not allowed to know what our greatest enemy is saying is bizarre.
One of the most interesting lines in the Bin Laden speech is this."And among the most capable of those from your own side who speak to you on this topic and on the manufacturing of public opinion is Noam Chomsky, who spoke sober words of advice prior to the war, but the leader of Texas doesn't like those who give advice."
This reminds me of when Hugo Chavez went before the UN General Assembly, held up a Chomsky book and told people they needed to read it.
What is weird is how two of America's official enemies cite an American intellectual and the press doesn't even mention it. Why is that? WHy won't the press ask, "Who is this Noam Chomsky and why do our official enemies cite him?" This says a lot about the American press. They refuse to look into a man who was referenced by our enemies.
The press is scared of what Chomsky says. THis is the reason they refuse to mention him in their reports. You can bet that had Chavez and Bin Laden talked about Angelina Jolie every news organization would talk about it. What is it about Chomsky or his ideas that threaten them?
Their silence speaks volumes. What a bunch of sell outs.

Finkelstein

It begins.

Today, two scholars, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, from University of Chicago and Harvard, released a book on what they term the "Israel lobby" and how it effects our foreign policy. Let it be known that Mearsheimer and Walt are no screwballs by any stretch of the imagination. Both are/were widely respected for their knowledge of foreign policy and were considered "realists".
It all started when the Atlantic Monthly asked them to do a study on the influence of Jewish lobbying groups and how they may or may not effect our foreign policy. After the Atlantic Monthly read it they decided that they couldn't print it. Of course this is America and we are not allowed to talk about Israel's human rights violations. So since American journals are total sell out fucks they had to take it to England where their people are at least allowed a little more truthful information from their press. It received condemnation immediately from all sides, of course mostly American Jews which in a sense supports their thesis. From Alan "Lets torture people" Dershowitz to Abe "Grand Wizard" Foxman of the ADL. They spewed nonsense about how these professors are anti-semites and aren't qualified scholars. (This coming from a man who plagerized a fraud, for Christ's sake and is still the chair of Harvard Law School.) It is worth noting that two of the world's leading experts on Israel also had reservations about the book but no one wanted their opinions because they are "self-hating" Jews or as some have called them "Hamas Jews". It is an unwritten rule that Noam CHomsky will not be given air time in the U.S. so his opinion on the piece, which was very valuable, was not relevant because the press knows what Chomsky will go on to say about the history of Israel and we don't to open debate.
The book has been out one day so far and it is already raising an uproar. So far they have had an invite rescinded from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. It turns out that criticism of Israel is not acceptable in America home of a supposed free press. Abe Foxman wrote a book countering the points made in the book even though the book had not been released and Foxman could have no knowledge of what is in the book. My guess is that he falls back on the old canards of Antisemitism, shoddy scholarship(which makes you wonder about the quality of teachers at Harvard, if they can't write a research paper) and how the whole issue is "very complicated".
My thought is, if the authors are anti-semites and have a faulty arguement then why the need to attack them? Could it be that they are hitting it right on the head. THis of course, is just the latest in American Jewish reaction to criticism in the last year. Remember the rabid anti-semite Jimmy Carter who dared called Israel's actions in the West Bank as apartheid. As it turns out so do many Israelis. It should be said that no one attacked Carters thesis or facts instead it was typical ad hominem bullshit. Though that time it didn't work and it is proof that the "Lobby" is losing strength. I mean it is one thing when the world's leading intellectual condemns Israel but for people from Harvard and the University of Chicago(birthplace of Neo-Conservative thinking) to do so is too much. They must be stopped by whatever means possible and the more outrageous the better. Maybe next week Dershowitz will accuse of them as offspring of a Nazi or something, which of course, it is okay for a Jew to call a Gentile a Nazi but never the other way around.

The New Yorker Attacks
So does the NY Sun
National Review
At last some sanity from CounterPunch

Mike Gravel

Hillary Is Dangerous

Then there is this.

chomsky

Chomsky on Iran/American relations.

Moyers on Rove

We are lucky to have a journalist like Bill Moyers.

Some Readings

Here's some doom and gloom about our economy.
THe Gloom
and
The Doom
Then here are some hopeful words from Albert Einstein
Einstein On Socialism

What a difference seven years makes.

Don't you just love how the educated intellectuals say nothing about this. Instead they toss it down the memory hole. It is amazing how well the media followed the official line from the White House. The people who led the Soviet Union would be amazed at the discipline of the American media.

Ron Paul

I don't agree with him on about 95% of his views but on the War he is dead on.

Time to Resign

This petition has been brought to my attention and I figured I had to act. I have been looking for an excuse to resign and this killed two birds with one stone. I didn't mean to use a pun when I referred to throwing stones.

To Whom It May Concern:

It has come to my horrified attention that my Union, and therefore me by extension, has signed onto a petition denouncing the courageous stand taken by British Unions to boycott the State of Israel. That there is a basic level of Human Rights seems self-evident and it is painfully obvious to anyone, who reads non-American newspapers, that Israel violates even the most basic Human Rights of the Palestinians continuously. I could go into detail but that seems unnecessary since it is has been well documented and from the looks of it, irrelevant to you. So if the UFCW is against a boycott of the State of Israel it is easy, even if incorrect, to follow a logical path to the point where one says, “British Unions are using one of the only effective incentives for change, economics. The UFCW doesn’t think that boycotting Israel is right, therefore the UFCW does not think that Israel should change and grant even the most basic Human Rights, like freedom of movement, control of one’s borders, what roads one can travel on, even whom one can marry, etc., to the Palestinians.” Well I do, and I strongly disagree with the Unions stance on basic Human Rights, as does nearly the entire world.
Israel is a First World nation and should have to play by its rules not those of the Third World. Israel’s Human Rights record is, at the moment, the worst in the First World with its legal torture, detention without charges, use of F-16 fighter jets to shoot missiles into densely populated neighborhoods, kidnapping family member to use as “bargaining chips”, complete control of movement with a series of hundreds of checkpoints, extra-judicial targeted assassinations, illegal settlements, and many other violations of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Human Rights record of Israel is so well documented it is amazing that it is even mentioned in the same breath, as Palestinian Human Rights violations, which, of course, do exist.
The statement signed onto argues not enough attention is given to other Arab Governments, but that is a red herring. This conflict is between the Israelis and the Palestinians and, no matter what the government of Yemen does, it is irrelevant to Israel’s Human Rights record. The statement also questions the motives of singling out one country when there are so many other conflicts and repressive regimes around the world. Here the writers are using the logical fallacy To Quoque where one argues that since the Unions are not actively trying to stop all the world’s conflicts then therefore the idea of stopping the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is flawed or of questionable motives which is a sly way to imply Anti-Semitism as its root. Anyone with even a minor understanding of the conflict has heard these all ad nauseam.
Many people over thirty years of age remember the name Checkpoint Charlie, the famous checkpoint separating East Berlin and West Berlin. Most also remember Ronald Reagan’s famous speech in which he called on Russian Premier Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall.” Eventually Walls always come down and repression comes to an end, history has proven this true time and time again. People were on the wrong side of Jim Crow laws, the Vietnam War, abolition, Universal Suffrage, and one could go on. By signing this statement it seems as if the leaders of the UFCW haven’t read history and will end up on the wrong side of history like so many before them.
People have to be able to look themselves in the mirror each day, and as much as my deep-seated political and economic views make it hard to terminate my position as an advocate for my fellow workers, I must. Otherwise looking at myself in that mirror would be impossible. So therefore I must hereby resign my post as Union Steward.



Sincerely,



Justin Loper

"Higher Taxes" is a Red Herring.

Our country is a Democracy in name only. Our leaders do not follow the public’s wishes or opinions. One prime example is our health care. Virtually every poll taken, asking if people think their government should provide health care, shows that at the least 60% believe that it should. It seems self-evident that it is the job of our government to protect our citizens from harm but many powerful interests would prefer that not to be the case. So they attempt to frighten people with talk of higher taxes. It is true that taxes would have to increase but in the end you wouldn’t notice the difference on your paycheck because your insurance premiums would disappear.
On pay day I open my check to see that the amount of money I am paid is different then the amount I receive. Damn those evil taxes, which go to fix potholes, educate our youth and launch cluster bombs, have been removed but wait that isn’t all I’m missing. Nearly 30% of my money is gone. Of that, 23% went to my government and almost 7% went to an insurance agency. So would it be correct to say I’m taxed at a rate of 23%, or is it 30%? All I am concerned about is that 30% of my money is being taken.
The insurance industry, the Pharma industry and the Doctor industry have used their proxies for years to convince the people of the fact that their taxes would increase if a national health care system was implemented. Factually correct their statement is but it is also deceiving. So for instance, continuing to use me as the example, it is true that my tax rate of 23% would increase. Whether it would reach 30% is doubtful.
This is a world of pluses and minuses but not blacks and whites. The perceived negative part of the equation is that your taxes may increase, though it is doubtful your paycheck will decrease. The truly positive aspect is living in a society that takes care of its most vulnerable especially its children. It should be shameful for all Americans, and a negative, that 30 million children have been punished with a lack of health care because of their parents, and it would be a positive for that to change.
In order for our country to do what is right and protect its citizens, especially the ones in the most dire straits, we need a national health care system. To achieve the health care system this country deserves our taxes will invariably increase, yes. Will your paycheck be affected, no. Removing the outrageous health care premiums and moving that money into the Medicare tax makes it a wash. As a result we, as Americans, can have one less aspect, of our great country, to be ashamed of.

More Crap

This is the other piece I submitted the the local paper. Unfortunately when I opened the file I realized that the spacing between paragraphs was all fucked up. That can be my excuse when I get denied because the "white man" excuse is a tad bit weak.

There is a huge problem with our elections, we are told, so rampant that it may destroy the whole process. What is this emergency? Voter fraud, yes, there is widespread voter fraud being committed, they say. Though when one actually looks at the numbers there doesn’t really seem to be much fraud at all. The real crisis, which these people ignore, is not that one guy, here, tried to vote twice or one woman, there, didn’t realize she was disenfranchised and tried to vote. The crisis with our democracy is that the people don’t vote.
The last time that over 60 percent of voters turned out to the polls in a Presidential Election was 1968. Of the nine Presidential elections held since then, 2004 had the highest turnout with a little over 55 percent voting. Contrast that with the latest elections, for heads of state, in France where nearly 74 percent went to the polls, Bolivia where 84 percent voted and Finland which had 74 percent show up to the polls.
It becomes worse in off year Congressional Elections. In our most recent Congressional Election, which switched control from one party to the other, just under 37 percent bothered voting. If we take a look around the world we find similar differences as we did before. We can look across the pond to Austria where 78 percent came out and if we gander southward to Peru we should be ashamed since they turned out 88 percent of their voters.
Ralph Nader sold tens of thousands of tickets, at 7 bucks a piece, in 2000, to people who wanted to hear his message. His main thesis, right or wrong, was that the Democrats and the Republicans have become too much alike and control all political debate.
Ross Perot’s message of how terribly irresponsible our national debt was, got airtime because people were looking for another voice. Before Ross Perot no one talked about our National Debt but now it is commonplace in political speak.
I offer up two suggestions that, though they won’t fix the problem, could help move us in a direction that brings out more voters to the polls. It is true that we may never reach the levels of countries like Peru but we should and could get at least 2/3 or 3/4 of the population to care enough about elections to vote in them.
We should allow more voices into the debates, Presidential and Congressional. There are two common arguments for why this should not be the case and both are very flimsy. The most common is that it is just too hard to have debates with a stage full of candidates even though we do it for the Presidential Primary debates and it seems to work.
The other argument is that anyone could become a Presidential candidate even if they couldn’t feasibly win and this would allow anyone and everyone to be in the debates. Right now there is a threshold of 15 percent in the polls that must be crossed to gain entry into the debates. What could be done is to make it so that if a candidate is on the ballot in enough states, in which it is theoretically possible to get enough Electoral College votes, to win, they get entry into the debates.
The one thing the countries listed above and their elections have in common with each other but differ with America is that they are all held on Sunday when a larger percentage of the general public is off from work. The reasoning behind the 1845 law making our elections fall on the second Tuesday in November is gone. America is no longer an agricultural society who can’t vote while the crops are in the field and need time to travel into the city.
We, as Americans, need to find ways to fix our elections and democracy. We have so many intelligent citizens in this country with a myriad of ideas. We need to stop fearing change and see that there is a crisis in American democracy. If this is the Democracy we are trying to sell to the world, I fear we won’t be finding too many takers.

Save What?! Revised

Here is one of my two pieces I wrote for the local paper in an attempt to land a job as a community columnist.


There is a new wave of protest sweeping the nation and all the usual suspects are out calling for action. We have stars like George Clooney urging us to take action and most recently music artists from Aerosmith to Green Day have contributed songs for an album to raise funds to supply relief to the people in a war zone. Where is this war torn area they are so concerned about? It is the Darfur region of Sudan. My question is, why not Iraq instead?

The crimes against humanity going on in Sudan are horrendous, no doubt. The figures of dead in Darfur range from 200,000 to 400,000. Of those it is estimated that ten percent died from actual violent conflict with the remainder a result of the war going on around them. If a person dies due to starvation, disease or other factors related to the conflict then they are counted with the war dead.

A study conducted last year by Johns Hopkins University showed that around 650,000 people have died as a direct result of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Many critics argue the study was flawed. They argue that the method used, referred to as “cluster sampling”, can’t be an accurate measure of deaths. This “cluster sampling” is the same technique used, by the U.S., to find out how many people had been killed in Kosovo and Afghanistan. And the U.S. continues to spend millions to train UN workers and non-governmental agencies to employ this exact same technique in other parts of the globe.

Since the end of the last Gulf War to the beginning of this latest, estimates show that at least 1/2 a million people died from the sanctions we placed on Iraq. If you add that to the 650,000 dead that Johns Hopkins University figured then you are looking at over a million citizens. Really, a million citizens died as a result of our government’s actions. America, the nation that we think is the greatest, is responsible for that many deaths?


A major obstacle preventing anything from being done in Darfur is China’s support for the Sudanese Govenrment. How is it that these activists plan to pressure the government in Beijing? Typically the best method for changing people’s behavior is through economic incentives or punishments, like boycotts. Though boycotting Chinese products would be virtually impossible since their products are ubiquitous in our society and it would hurt the Chinese workers the most.

In a perfect world the Chinese citizenry would rise up in support of the people of Darfur and demand their government take action. It is an unfortunate fact that the Chinese are not free to assemble and protest because they live under totalitarian rule. We, on the other hand, live in, most likely, the freest nation on the planet and we have shown, throughout history, the ability to change what it is doing.

That leaves us with the only option of pressuring our government to call out China or attempt to lean on them to change their backing of Sudan. There is a minor problem and that is we have no moral high ground for which to stand on. As we speak our government is engaged in a war against an enemy that never attacked us or could, for that matter.


So it seems quite obvious that the best way to stop the terrible atrocities happening in Darfur is to stop the actions of our government in Iraq. It has been said that it is almost cowardly to call out the crimes of someone else’s government while your own is committing massive crimes. We as citizens of a Democracy are responsible for the actions of our country and the predictable outcomes of those actions. That is not to argue that the people in Darfur don’t deserve hope or help, they truly do, yet so do the people in Iraq. We can and must force our government to do what is right because I doubt the centers of power in China are paying much attention to what happens on U.S. campuses.