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