Friday, February 29, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
Finally I Have Someone I Can Vote For!!!!
So Ralph has entered the building. Early results are in and it looks as if the media has decided just to ignore him. Of course, they had to mention the news from yesterday but it had to be done in a dismissive way. The narrative is that Ralph is losing it and is going to taint his legacy as a great champion of the people. The problem is, he doesn’t give a shit. If Mr. Nader had this enormous ego, that everyone attempts to pin on him, then wouldn’t he be far more concerned about his legacy? Even the humble Bill Clinton was concerned about his legacy. That being said, I still am not clear as to why he is running.
In 2000 the American public was slowly moving back to the left, towards the center. People had finally caught on to the eight years of fake liberalism. The Clinton Administration had moved right of center and began neo-liberal colonialism on the world under the guise of free trade. People were sick and began to mobilize. Culminating in the riots in Seattle in 1999. Suddenly everyone knew what the W.T.O., I.M.F. and the World Bank were, and it mattered to them. This economic colonialism was rearing its ugly head and people began to have regrets.
Then comes election 2000, the most important of our lives, and it is more of the same. Two sons of congressmen, Al Gore Jr. Vs. George Bush Jr., in “the battle of the unperceived aristocracy.” AL Gore had a formidable opponent in Bill Bradley and many of us still wish Bradley had won but he didn’t. Bush was battling McCain and could have lost had it not been for Rove’s stories about McCain’s black baby, the baby I believe was actually Vietnamese. That destroyed McCain in S. Carolina and the rest is all Nader’s fault.
Then comes the 2004 election. The most important in our lifetime, we were told. We had to defeat this Bush character at all costs. This is so important we don’t care who the nomination is as long as it is Anybody But Bush. The Democrats were so determined to win they picked a candidate that wanted to send more troops into Iraq when the actual Democratic voters wanted the opposite to be happening. Since Kerry was Anybody But Bush it worked out perfectly. Here we had both candidates advocating the continued, and in Kerry’s case an increased, presence in Iraq. Either way you voted you voted in favor of the war. (If one wants to argue that Kerry would have begun a drawdown of troops, they should remember why the Democrats won in 2006 and what the results were).
The problem is that some of us can’t vote to continue the illegal occupation of a foreign nation. It goes against our morals. We don’t believe that America owns the world. Which is exactly what all these other people believe otherwise the rhetoric used would be far different. For instance, Iran is meddling in Iraq? They have no right? What about our meddling in Iraq? It isn’t meddling when you own the world. The sad thing too was that the Democratic base, as a result of their candidate being pro-war, had to legitimize his position so they adopted, what I, at the time, referred to as “the New White Man’s Burden”. In other words, us Americans (whites) need to run the affairs of the Iraqis (browns) because don’t have the ability. That is what voting for Kerry represented, to many of us people who believe in ethics and morality, and Ralph gave us an out.
To be sure, I am a little uncertain why Ralph is running again but I think it may be that he doesn’t care about his reputation anymore, if he ever did. I have a feeling that Ralph is willing to destroy his reputation in hopes of advancing his strongly held beliefs. This idea that his morals/values are somehow disingenuous is bullshit.
Is Ralph going to accomplish his mission? My guess is no. The American Public prefers denial to reality. As long as they have a paycheck they could care less that they are serfs. It won’t be until the economy begins to truly crash that we acknowledge all the people who, in the past, had warned us but, by that time, it will be too late.
I think that Ralph will spend the rest of his entire life trying to get people to understand the shear level of crimes being committed against the American citizens and the rest of the globe. The sad fact, for Americans who prefer to live in denial and don’t see themselves as responsible for the actions of their government, is that Ralph is likely to live a lot longer too since the man lives off chickpeas.
“Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.” Bertrand Russell
In 2000 the American public was slowly moving back to the left, towards the center. People had finally caught on to the eight years of fake liberalism. The Clinton Administration had moved right of center and began neo-liberal colonialism on the world under the guise of free trade. People were sick and began to mobilize. Culminating in the riots in Seattle in 1999. Suddenly everyone knew what the W.T.O., I.M.F. and the World Bank were, and it mattered to them. This economic colonialism was rearing its ugly head and people began to have regrets.
Then comes election 2000, the most important of our lives, and it is more of the same. Two sons of congressmen, Al Gore Jr. Vs. George Bush Jr., in “the battle of the unperceived aristocracy.” AL Gore had a formidable opponent in Bill Bradley and many of us still wish Bradley had won but he didn’t. Bush was battling McCain and could have lost had it not been for Rove’s stories about McCain’s black baby, the baby I believe was actually Vietnamese. That destroyed McCain in S. Carolina and the rest is all Nader’s fault.
Then comes the 2004 election. The most important in our lifetime, we were told. We had to defeat this Bush character at all costs. This is so important we don’t care who the nomination is as long as it is Anybody But Bush. The Democrats were so determined to win they picked a candidate that wanted to send more troops into Iraq when the actual Democratic voters wanted the opposite to be happening. Since Kerry was Anybody But Bush it worked out perfectly. Here we had both candidates advocating the continued, and in Kerry’s case an increased, presence in Iraq. Either way you voted you voted in favor of the war. (If one wants to argue that Kerry would have begun a drawdown of troops, they should remember why the Democrats won in 2006 and what the results were).
The problem is that some of us can’t vote to continue the illegal occupation of a foreign nation. It goes against our morals. We don’t believe that America owns the world. Which is exactly what all these other people believe otherwise the rhetoric used would be far different. For instance, Iran is meddling in Iraq? They have no right? What about our meddling in Iraq? It isn’t meddling when you own the world. The sad thing too was that the Democratic base, as a result of their candidate being pro-war, had to legitimize his position so they adopted, what I, at the time, referred to as “the New White Man’s Burden”. In other words, us Americans (whites) need to run the affairs of the Iraqis (browns) because don’t have the ability. That is what voting for Kerry represented, to many of us people who believe in ethics and morality, and Ralph gave us an out.
To be sure, I am a little uncertain why Ralph is running again but I think it may be that he doesn’t care about his reputation anymore, if he ever did. I have a feeling that Ralph is willing to destroy his reputation in hopes of advancing his strongly held beliefs. This idea that his morals/values are somehow disingenuous is bullshit.
Is Ralph going to accomplish his mission? My guess is no. The American Public prefers denial to reality. As long as they have a paycheck they could care less that they are serfs. It won’t be until the economy begins to truly crash that we acknowledge all the people who, in the past, had warned us but, by that time, it will be too late.
I think that Ralph will spend the rest of his entire life trying to get people to understand the shear level of crimes being committed against the American citizens and the rest of the globe. The sad fact, for Americans who prefer to live in denial and don’t see themselves as responsible for the actions of their government, is that Ralph is likely to live a lot longer too since the man lives off chickpeas.
“Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.” Bertrand Russell
Where's the Iraqi Voice?
By: Noam Chomsky
THE US occupying army in Iraq (euphemistically called the Multi-National Force-Iraq) carries out extensive studies of popular attitudes. Its December 2007 report of a study of focus groups was uncharacteristically upbeat.
The report concluded that the survey "provides very strong evidence" to refute the common view that "national reconciliation is neither anticipated nor possible". On the contrary, the survey found that a sense of "optimistic possibility permeated all focus groups ... and far more commonalities than differences are found among these seemingly diverse groups of Iraqis."
This discovery of "shared beliefs" among Iraqis throughout the country is "good news, according to a military analysis of the results", Karen deYoung reports in The Washington Post.
The "shared beliefs" were identified in the report. To quote deYoung, "Iraqis of all sectarian and ethnic groups believe that the U.S. military invasion is the primary root of the violent differences among them, and see the departure of 'occupying forces' as the key to national reconciliation."
So, according to Iraqis, there is hope of national reconciliation if the invaders, responsible for the internal violence, withdraw and leave Iraq to Iraqis.
The report did not mention other good news: Iraqis appear to accept the highest values of Americans, as established at the Nuremberg Tribunal -- specifically, that aggression -- "invasion by its armed forces" by one state "of the territory of another state" -- is "the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole". The chief US prosecutor at Nuremberg, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, forcefully insisted that the Tribunal would be mere farce if we do not apply its principles to ourselves.
Unlike Iraqis, the United States, indeed the West generally, rejects the lofty values professed at Nuremberg, an interesting indication of the substance of the famous "clash of civilisations".
More good news was reported by Gen David Petraeus and Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker during the extravaganza staged on September 11, 2007. Only a cynic might imagine that the timing was intended to insinuate the Bush-Cheney claims of links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, so that by committing the "supreme international crime" they were defending the world against terror -- which increased sevenfold as a result of the invasion, according to an analysis last year by terrorism specialists Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank.
Petraeus and Crocker provided figures to show that the Iraqi government was greatly accelerating spending on reconstruction, reaching a quarter of the funding set aside for that purpose. Good news indeed, until it was investigated by the Government Accountability Office, which found that the actual figure was one-sixth of what Petraeus and Crocker reported, a 50 per cent decline from the preceding year.
More good news is the decline in sectarian violence, attributable in part to the success of the murderous ethnic cleansing that Iraqis blame on the invasion; there are fewer targets for sectarian killing. But it is also attributable to Washington's decision to support the tribal groups that had organised to drive out Iraqi Al Qaeda, and to an increase in US troops.
It is possible that Petraeus's strategy may approach the success of the Russians in Chechnya, where fighting is now "limited and sporadic, and Grozny is in the midst of a building boom" after having been reduced to rubble by the Russian attack, CJ Chivers reports in the New York Times last September.
Perhaps some day Baghdad and Fallujah too will enjoy "electricity restored in many neighbourhoods, new businesses opening and the city's main streets repaved", as in booming Grozny. Possible, but dubious, considering the likely consequence of creating warlord armies that may be the seeds of even greater sectarian violence, adding to the "accumulated evil" of the aggression. Iraqis are not alone in believing that national reconciliation is possible. A Canadian-run poll found that Afghans are hopeful about the future and favour the presence of Canadian and other foreign troops -- the "good news" that made the headlines.
The small print suggests some qualifications. Only 20 per cent "think the Taleban will prevail once foreign troops leave". Three-quarters support negotiations between the US-backed Karzai government and the Taleban, and over half favour a coalition government. The great majority therefore strongly disagree with the US-Canadian stance, and believe that peace is possible with a turn towards peaceful means. Though the question was not asked in the poll, it seems a reasonable surmise that the foreign presence is favoured for aid and reconstruction.
There are, of course, numerous questions about polls in countries under foreign military occupation, particularly in places like southern Afghanistan. But the results of the Iraq and Afghan studies conform to earlier ones, and should not be dismissed.
Recent polls in Pakistan also provide "good news" for Washington. Fully 5 per cent favour allowing US or other foreign troops to enter Pakistan "to pursue or capture Al Qaeda fighters". Nine per cent favour allowing US forces "to pursue and capture Taleban insurgents who have crossed over from Afghanistan".
Almost half favour allowing Pakistani troops to do so. And only a little more than 80 per cent regard the US military presence in Asia and Afghanistan as a threat to Pakistan, while an overwhelming majority believe that the United States is trying to harm the Islamic world. The good news is that these results are a considerable improvement over October 2001, when a Newsweek poll found that "eighty-three per cent of Pakistanis surveyed say they side with the Taleban, with a mere three per cent expressing support for the United States," and over 80 per cent described Osama bin Laden as a guerrilla and six per cent a terrorist.
Amid the outpouring of good news from across the region, there is now much earnest debate among political candidates, government officials and commentators concerning the options available to the US in Iraq. One voice is consistently missing: that of Iraqis. Their "shared beliefs" are well known, as in the past. But they cannot be permitted to choose their own path any more than young children can. Only the conquerors have that right.
Perhaps here too there are some lessons about the "clash of civilisations".
THE US occupying army in Iraq (euphemistically called the Multi-National Force-Iraq) carries out extensive studies of popular attitudes. Its December 2007 report of a study of focus groups was uncharacteristically upbeat.
The report concluded that the survey "provides very strong evidence" to refute the common view that "national reconciliation is neither anticipated nor possible". On the contrary, the survey found that a sense of "optimistic possibility permeated all focus groups ... and far more commonalities than differences are found among these seemingly diverse groups of Iraqis."
This discovery of "shared beliefs" among Iraqis throughout the country is "good news, according to a military analysis of the results", Karen deYoung reports in The Washington Post.
The "shared beliefs" were identified in the report. To quote deYoung, "Iraqis of all sectarian and ethnic groups believe that the U.S. military invasion is the primary root of the violent differences among them, and see the departure of 'occupying forces' as the key to national reconciliation."
So, according to Iraqis, there is hope of national reconciliation if the invaders, responsible for the internal violence, withdraw and leave Iraq to Iraqis.
The report did not mention other good news: Iraqis appear to accept the highest values of Americans, as established at the Nuremberg Tribunal -- specifically, that aggression -- "invasion by its armed forces" by one state "of the territory of another state" -- is "the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole". The chief US prosecutor at Nuremberg, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, forcefully insisted that the Tribunal would be mere farce if we do not apply its principles to ourselves.
Unlike Iraqis, the United States, indeed the West generally, rejects the lofty values professed at Nuremberg, an interesting indication of the substance of the famous "clash of civilisations".
More good news was reported by Gen David Petraeus and Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker during the extravaganza staged on September 11, 2007. Only a cynic might imagine that the timing was intended to insinuate the Bush-Cheney claims of links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, so that by committing the "supreme international crime" they were defending the world against terror -- which increased sevenfold as a result of the invasion, according to an analysis last year by terrorism specialists Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank.
Petraeus and Crocker provided figures to show that the Iraqi government was greatly accelerating spending on reconstruction, reaching a quarter of the funding set aside for that purpose. Good news indeed, until it was investigated by the Government Accountability Office, which found that the actual figure was one-sixth of what Petraeus and Crocker reported, a 50 per cent decline from the preceding year.
More good news is the decline in sectarian violence, attributable in part to the success of the murderous ethnic cleansing that Iraqis blame on the invasion; there are fewer targets for sectarian killing. But it is also attributable to Washington's decision to support the tribal groups that had organised to drive out Iraqi Al Qaeda, and to an increase in US troops.
It is possible that Petraeus's strategy may approach the success of the Russians in Chechnya, where fighting is now "limited and sporadic, and Grozny is in the midst of a building boom" after having been reduced to rubble by the Russian attack, CJ Chivers reports in the New York Times last September.
Perhaps some day Baghdad and Fallujah too will enjoy "electricity restored in many neighbourhoods, new businesses opening and the city's main streets repaved", as in booming Grozny. Possible, but dubious, considering the likely consequence of creating warlord armies that may be the seeds of even greater sectarian violence, adding to the "accumulated evil" of the aggression. Iraqis are not alone in believing that national reconciliation is possible. A Canadian-run poll found that Afghans are hopeful about the future and favour the presence of Canadian and other foreign troops -- the "good news" that made the headlines.
The small print suggests some qualifications. Only 20 per cent "think the Taleban will prevail once foreign troops leave". Three-quarters support negotiations between the US-backed Karzai government and the Taleban, and over half favour a coalition government. The great majority therefore strongly disagree with the US-Canadian stance, and believe that peace is possible with a turn towards peaceful means. Though the question was not asked in the poll, it seems a reasonable surmise that the foreign presence is favoured for aid and reconstruction.
There are, of course, numerous questions about polls in countries under foreign military occupation, particularly in places like southern Afghanistan. But the results of the Iraq and Afghan studies conform to earlier ones, and should not be dismissed.
Recent polls in Pakistan also provide "good news" for Washington. Fully 5 per cent favour allowing US or other foreign troops to enter Pakistan "to pursue or capture Al Qaeda fighters". Nine per cent favour allowing US forces "to pursue and capture Taleban insurgents who have crossed over from Afghanistan".
Almost half favour allowing Pakistani troops to do so. And only a little more than 80 per cent regard the US military presence in Asia and Afghanistan as a threat to Pakistan, while an overwhelming majority believe that the United States is trying to harm the Islamic world. The good news is that these results are a considerable improvement over October 2001, when a Newsweek poll found that "eighty-three per cent of Pakistanis surveyed say they side with the Taleban, with a mere three per cent expressing support for the United States," and over 80 per cent described Osama bin Laden as a guerrilla and six per cent a terrorist.
Amid the outpouring of good news from across the region, there is now much earnest debate among political candidates, government officials and commentators concerning the options available to the US in Iraq. One voice is consistently missing: that of Iraqis. Their "shared beliefs" are well known, as in the past. But they cannot be permitted to choose their own path any more than young children can. Only the conquerors have that right.
Perhaps here too there are some lessons about the "clash of civilisations".
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
My Mass Email
Hello Everybody,
I know, you never get emails from me but I have an important one.
I am determined to do anything in my power to have Hillary lose the nomination. Fuck, I even gave Obama a campaign contribution, I get some t-shirts out of the deal, and I don't even plan on voting for him in the general election.(we all have our beliefs).(full disclosure: I have never even fancied the idea, in the past, of giving money to a candidate and actually it goes against a great deal that I believe in)
It is becoming painfully obvious to Shelley and I, and the rest of the astute observers, that conservatives are voting for Hillary, in the open primary, in huge numbers. SO there is a chance that Obama may lose the vote in Wisconsin. So in the case that such an outcome is created I have come up with two talking points.
If Obama loses, "Well of course Obama lost. All the conservatives, due to Wisconsin's open primary, voted for Hillary because they know she is the only candidate who could possibly lose to the warmonger(fill in your favorite adjective) McCain. Doesn't this show the fear that conservatives have with a Obama/McCain race. They have all seen the numbers and Obama beats McCain without question whereas McCain wins against Hillary. IN other words Hillary won because conservatives are terrified."
If Obama wins it gets better, "Barack beat the odds with so many conservatives voting for Hillary. I know it was close(my prediction) but Obama still won. THis is a movement that can not be stopped."
So even if Obama loses, he can still win.
Later
loper
P.S. Hey Gordon, you make some t-shirts and I will buy some.
I know, you never get emails from me but I have an important one.
I am determined to do anything in my power to have Hillary lose the nomination. Fuck, I even gave Obama a campaign contribution, I get some t-shirts out of the deal, and I don't even plan on voting for him in the general election.(we all have our beliefs).(full disclosure: I have never even fancied the idea, in the past, of giving money to a candidate and actually it goes against a great deal that I believe in)
It is becoming painfully obvious to Shelley and I, and the rest of the astute observers, that conservatives are voting for Hillary, in the open primary, in huge numbers. SO there is a chance that Obama may lose the vote in Wisconsin. So in the case that such an outcome is created I have come up with two talking points.
If Obama loses, "Well of course Obama lost. All the conservatives, due to Wisconsin's open primary, voted for Hillary because they know she is the only candidate who could possibly lose to the warmonger(fill in your favorite adjective) McCain. Doesn't this show the fear that conservatives have with a Obama/McCain race. They have all seen the numbers and Obama beats McCain without question whereas McCain wins against Hillary. IN other words Hillary won because conservatives are terrified."
If Obama wins it gets better, "Barack beat the odds with so many conservatives voting for Hillary. I know it was close(my prediction) but Obama still won. THis is a movement that can not be stopped."
So even if Obama loses, he can still win.
Later
loper
P.S. Hey Gordon, you make some t-shirts and I will buy some.
Monday, February 18, 2008
60 Minutes Interview
Great video besides the fact that it really turns out to be a Ron Paul ad.
iPhone/iPod Link
Here is a 60 minutes interview I have seen a few times and finally found a youtube version to show you'all.
One question I have is simple, In the 1950's our country had enough money to house, clothe, feed and give medical care to all the baby boomers as they were growing up. Now our country is much more wealthy, a bunch of the boomers were slaughtered in 'Nam and yet we don't have the same amount of money as we did in the 1950's? Really, our country is poorer then it was in the '50's? How can that be? From every indicator I have seen our country is far richer then it was is the fifties yet we can't take care of these same people for another 18 years? Something just doesn't add up.
Also how is it that the rest of the Western world is able to give healthcare to its citizens without going broke? I highly doubt a conservative like Walker would advocate a single payer healthcare system like they have up in Canada.
Maybe what promises need to be rescinded are the ones to the corporations that say you don't need to pay taxes. I love how the first group to be denied help are actual human beings, and then later they think about going after corporations.
Maybe we need to go bankrupt (some of my friends would argue it isn't a question of "if") in order for us to see what really matters, humans not corporate profits.
iPhone/iPod Link
Here is a 60 minutes interview I have seen a few times and finally found a youtube version to show you'all.
One question I have is simple, In the 1950's our country had enough money to house, clothe, feed and give medical care to all the baby boomers as they were growing up. Now our country is much more wealthy, a bunch of the boomers were slaughtered in 'Nam and yet we don't have the same amount of money as we did in the 1950's? Really, our country is poorer then it was in the '50's? How can that be? From every indicator I have seen our country is far richer then it was is the fifties yet we can't take care of these same people for another 18 years? Something just doesn't add up.
Also how is it that the rest of the Western world is able to give healthcare to its citizens without going broke? I highly doubt a conservative like Walker would advocate a single payer healthcare system like they have up in Canada.
Maybe what promises need to be rescinded are the ones to the corporations that say you don't need to pay taxes. I love how the first group to be denied help are actual human beings, and then later they think about going after corporations.
Maybe we need to go bankrupt (some of my friends would argue it isn't a question of "if") in order for us to see what really matters, humans not corporate profits.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Hillary's Wintery Dillema
The Sunday schedule of Sen. Clinton includes stops in DePere, Wausau and Madison. Unfortunately Wisconsin is expected to get nearly a foot of snow. So the question is, will Hillary risk her and her staffer's necks, driving in a blizzard, in order to campaign? Or does she cancel her events and make the voters think she is conceding Wisconsin to Obama. Which in turn could be enough to catapult Obama to the nomination. So is it possible that a weather pattern could decide our next President? Isn't it stupid if it can?
Just some thoughts.
Just some thoughts.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
If You're Big Enough, You Can Whack Anyone
Mafia Rules in the Middle East
By ALLAN NAIRN
I happened to learn about the car-bomb assassination of Imad Mughniyeh, the Hezbollah commander, while talking to a Palestinian Fatah man who is a confidante of Mohammed Dahlan, who is famously reputed in the press to have been both a torturer and the CIA's man in Gaza, until the Hamas ousted him.
The Fatah / Dahlan man who imparted the assassination news hates Hamas with a passion -- he said that in last year's rival security forces showdown they grabbed and tortured him with knives for four hours (he was earlier tortured by the Israelis far longer, and worse, but views that as par for the course)-- and is no fan of Hezbollah, but he viewed the killing with irony. He said he was hearing that the Israelis were saying "we cleared the account with him (Mughniyeh)" (Palestinian Authority security forces, like those Dahlan ran, now have regular coordination meetings with their ostensible enemies, Israeli intelligence), yet he claimed that Mughniyeh's major killings had been more against other Arabs (eg. Saudi, Kuwait) than against Israelis.
The Israeli killing men are trying to contain their grins. The government issued a non-denial denial "Israel rejects the attempt by terror groups to attribute to it any involvement in this incident. We have nothing further to add" -- i.e. they reject terror groups saying they were involved, but do not say that they were not involved.
The US, which had a $25 million bounty on Mughniyeh's head (he's implicated, in, among other things, the Lebanon Marine barracks bombing, the kidnap/ holding of AP reporter Terry Anderson, a TWA hijacking) felt no need to show restraint, saying, through the State Department: "The world is a better place without this man in it. He was a cold-blooded killer, a mass murderer and a terrorist responsible for countless innocent lives lost."
In a world of proportionality and full enforcement of the murder laws -- or even, rough justice-style "what goes around comes around" -- George Bush's men would not want to make that statement, since they (and Israel) are responsible for vastly more, and vastly more civilian, killings, don't have Mughniyeh's sometime excuse of responding to invasion, and don't want to start up their cars tomorrow morning and wind up blown to bits.
But that is not this world. This is mafia world. If you're big enough, you can whack guys.
It so happened that, hours before, another Palestinian man had used that mafia term as we wove through scrolls of barbed wire, checkpoints, walls, and Galil/M-16 toting Occupation men as Jewish settlers/occupiers zipped through the West Bank on ethnically/religiously segregated superhighways.
Two days before, a fairly typical day in Israeli politics, the lead front page headline in the Haaretz newspaper was "IDF (Israel Defense Forces) to step up Gaza assassinations," in response to homemade rockets from besieged, hungry, bombed Gaza that had recently wounded Israelis (for background on the siege and the disproportionate death tolls, see postings of December 7, 2007, "Imposed Hunger in Gaza, The Army in Indonesia. Questions of Logic and Activism," and January 6, 2008 "The Breaking of the Gaza Wall. Wise, Justified Political Violence.").
"The IDF needs to wipe out a neighborhood in Gaza," said the Israeli Interior Minister Meir Sheetrit, "We need to target all those responsible for terrorism without asking who they are" -- suggesting a broad definition of "responsible" that encompasses those whose actions are unknown, but who do, at least, fit the criterion of being Palestinians living in Gaza. (Haaretz English Edition, February 11, 2008).
Dani Yatom, the former Shin Bet internal security chief, now a parliamentarian for what constitutes Israel's establishment left, the Labor Party, said on TV of blowing up the smaller killer Mughniyeh that "the free and democratic world today achieved a very important goal" -- suggesting that freedom and democracy do not have law and order (as opposed to whacking) as a prerequisite, which seems to undercut the whole US worldwide project of building up heavily-armed security forces, along with non-troublesome courts -- in places including occupied Palestine -- on the claimed premise that you can't have freedom and democracy until you've first established the rule of law.
The politics are pretty clear. The US Republicans want terrorism -- other people's -- on the US electoral front burner (see posting re. the just-announced 9/11 tribunals, February 11, 2008, "The Guantanamo Gambit. A Smart But Vulnerable Establishment. Tactical Options in US Politics."), and Israel's Olmert administration is still smarting from a new official report (the Winograd Commission) saying they lost the '06 Lebanon war with Hezbollah (and with the precision-carpet-bombed civilian populations of southern Leabanon, and southern Beirut), and are simultaneously facing a fierce Israeli public clamor to go in and kill more Gazans.
There's always a certain -- weak -- case to be made for just taking out a killer if nice, legal courts can't do it (its the kind of thing that leftist guerrilla/liberation movements, or the French Resistance, did all the time). That was basically the case -- apart from the weapons/ Al Qeada lies -- that the US made for taking out Saddam Hussein. But the weak case becomes dangerously unserious when the one proposing to do the ajusticiamiento (delivery of justice, as they used to say in rebel Central America), has, like, say, the US or Israeli leadership, killed and murdered far more prolifically than has the proposed target. Then, though you remove a smaller killer from the face of the earth, you make the bigger killer still stronger, thus making life even more dangerous for regular people who are still walking around.
Surprisingly enough, for a man based in the New York area -- an old mob stronghold and recently the fictional home of HBO's Tony Soprano -- Malcom Hoenlein, head of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations seemed to express surprise, at a Tuesday Jerusalem press conference, at his group's poll findings that American popular support for Israel is "broad" but "also thin, and most Americans see Israel as a dark and militaristic place."
Evidently they shouldn't. When an assassination car bomb explodes, it gives off a lot of light.
(For the Hoenlein press conference see Anshel Pfeffer, "Hoenlein: Obama's spirit of change could harm Israel," Haaretz, February 13, 2008; despite the headline, he wasn't criticizing Obama, who like all the big 3 candidates, is already pledged to the official US/Israeli government line, including on Gaza. He was merely fretting that "[t]here is a legitimate concern over the zeitgeist around the campaign... All the talk about change, but without defining that that change should be, is an opening for all kind of mischief.").
Allan Nairn can be reached through his blog.
By ALLAN NAIRN
I happened to learn about the car-bomb assassination of Imad Mughniyeh, the Hezbollah commander, while talking to a Palestinian Fatah man who is a confidante of Mohammed Dahlan, who is famously reputed in the press to have been both a torturer and the CIA's man in Gaza, until the Hamas ousted him.
The Fatah / Dahlan man who imparted the assassination news hates Hamas with a passion -- he said that in last year's rival security forces showdown they grabbed and tortured him with knives for four hours (he was earlier tortured by the Israelis far longer, and worse, but views that as par for the course)-- and is no fan of Hezbollah, but he viewed the killing with irony. He said he was hearing that the Israelis were saying "we cleared the account with him (Mughniyeh)" (Palestinian Authority security forces, like those Dahlan ran, now have regular coordination meetings with their ostensible enemies, Israeli intelligence), yet he claimed that Mughniyeh's major killings had been more against other Arabs (eg. Saudi, Kuwait) than against Israelis.
The Israeli killing men are trying to contain their grins. The government issued a non-denial denial "Israel rejects the attempt by terror groups to attribute to it any involvement in this incident. We have nothing further to add" -- i.e. they reject terror groups saying they were involved, but do not say that they were not involved.
The US, which had a $25 million bounty on Mughniyeh's head (he's implicated, in, among other things, the Lebanon Marine barracks bombing, the kidnap/ holding of AP reporter Terry Anderson, a TWA hijacking) felt no need to show restraint, saying, through the State Department: "The world is a better place without this man in it. He was a cold-blooded killer, a mass murderer and a terrorist responsible for countless innocent lives lost."
In a world of proportionality and full enforcement of the murder laws -- or even, rough justice-style "what goes around comes around" -- George Bush's men would not want to make that statement, since they (and Israel) are responsible for vastly more, and vastly more civilian, killings, don't have Mughniyeh's sometime excuse of responding to invasion, and don't want to start up their cars tomorrow morning and wind up blown to bits.
But that is not this world. This is mafia world. If you're big enough, you can whack guys.
It so happened that, hours before, another Palestinian man had used that mafia term as we wove through scrolls of barbed wire, checkpoints, walls, and Galil/M-16 toting Occupation men as Jewish settlers/occupiers zipped through the West Bank on ethnically/religiously segregated superhighways.
Two days before, a fairly typical day in Israeli politics, the lead front page headline in the Haaretz newspaper was "IDF (Israel Defense Forces) to step up Gaza assassinations," in response to homemade rockets from besieged, hungry, bombed Gaza that had recently wounded Israelis (for background on the siege and the disproportionate death tolls, see postings of December 7, 2007, "Imposed Hunger in Gaza, The Army in Indonesia. Questions of Logic and Activism," and January 6, 2008 "The Breaking of the Gaza Wall. Wise, Justified Political Violence.").
"The IDF needs to wipe out a neighborhood in Gaza," said the Israeli Interior Minister Meir Sheetrit, "We need to target all those responsible for terrorism without asking who they are" -- suggesting a broad definition of "responsible" that encompasses those whose actions are unknown, but who do, at least, fit the criterion of being Palestinians living in Gaza. (Haaretz English Edition, February 11, 2008).
Dani Yatom, the former Shin Bet internal security chief, now a parliamentarian for what constitutes Israel's establishment left, the Labor Party, said on TV of blowing up the smaller killer Mughniyeh that "the free and democratic world today achieved a very important goal" -- suggesting that freedom and democracy do not have law and order (as opposed to whacking) as a prerequisite, which seems to undercut the whole US worldwide project of building up heavily-armed security forces, along with non-troublesome courts -- in places including occupied Palestine -- on the claimed premise that you can't have freedom and democracy until you've first established the rule of law.
The politics are pretty clear. The US Republicans want terrorism -- other people's -- on the US electoral front burner (see posting re. the just-announced 9/11 tribunals, February 11, 2008, "The Guantanamo Gambit. A Smart But Vulnerable Establishment. Tactical Options in US Politics."), and Israel's Olmert administration is still smarting from a new official report (the Winograd Commission) saying they lost the '06 Lebanon war with Hezbollah (and with the precision-carpet-bombed civilian populations of southern Leabanon, and southern Beirut), and are simultaneously facing a fierce Israeli public clamor to go in and kill more Gazans.
There's always a certain -- weak -- case to be made for just taking out a killer if nice, legal courts can't do it (its the kind of thing that leftist guerrilla/liberation movements, or the French Resistance, did all the time). That was basically the case -- apart from the weapons/ Al Qeada lies -- that the US made for taking out Saddam Hussein. But the weak case becomes dangerously unserious when the one proposing to do the ajusticiamiento (delivery of justice, as they used to say in rebel Central America), has, like, say, the US or Israeli leadership, killed and murdered far more prolifically than has the proposed target. Then, though you remove a smaller killer from the face of the earth, you make the bigger killer still stronger, thus making life even more dangerous for regular people who are still walking around.
Surprisingly enough, for a man based in the New York area -- an old mob stronghold and recently the fictional home of HBO's Tony Soprano -- Malcom Hoenlein, head of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations seemed to express surprise, at a Tuesday Jerusalem press conference, at his group's poll findings that American popular support for Israel is "broad" but "also thin, and most Americans see Israel as a dark and militaristic place."
Evidently they shouldn't. When an assassination car bomb explodes, it gives off a lot of light.
(For the Hoenlein press conference see Anshel Pfeffer, "Hoenlein: Obama's spirit of change could harm Israel," Haaretz, February 13, 2008; despite the headline, he wasn't criticizing Obama, who like all the big 3 candidates, is already pledged to the official US/Israeli government line, including on Gaza. He was merely fretting that "[t]here is a legitimate concern over the zeitgeist around the campaign... All the talk about change, but without defining that that change should be, is an opening for all kind of mischief.").
Allan Nairn can be reached through his blog.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Funny
iPod/iPhone Link
It is a take off of this powerful commercial put together by some average citizens.
iPod/iPhone Link
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
If I hear one more person say race card....
If I hear one more person talk about how Obama is playing the race card, for which he isn't, I am going to fucking kill them. Here, again, Sen. Clinton cries at an event. If you think that her tears are genuine then you don't remember the Clintons.
Here I am going to say it, if you cry in public you are not qualified to be President whether you are a lady or a gent. Just imagine on 9/11 had Bush been brought to tears, what the nation and the world would have said. Now Hillary cries when she talks about how much she cares about the country, what happens if something bad happens. Oh Clinton's supporters will say that she is tough, and that is why she voted to start a war with the Iraqi people. The thing is that you can't have it both ways. Either you cry or you keep your composure. At the risk of falling into a gender trap, she should not be crying on the trail in order to get votes. If you think she isn't that heartless, where the fuck have you been for the last 16 years.
Here I am going to say it, if you cry in public you are not qualified to be President whether you are a lady or a gent. Just imagine on 9/11 had Bush been brought to tears, what the nation and the world would have said. Now Hillary cries when she talks about how much she cares about the country, what happens if something bad happens. Oh Clinton's supporters will say that she is tough, and that is why she voted to start a war with the Iraqi people. The thing is that you can't have it both ways. Either you cry or you keep your composure. At the risk of falling into a gender trap, she should not be crying on the trail in order to get votes. If you think she isn't that heartless, where the fuck have you been for the last 16 years.
How old is this fucking guy?
Here is an interview with the bass player from one of the best bands around, NoMeansNo. In the interview he says he hopes that downloading music brings down Sony, EMI et al.
iPhone/iPod Link
iPhone/iPod Link
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
