letter to my mother

My mother sent me an email asking me why I think my views are so different and why I thought I have all the answers.
SO I wrote back a response that I thought I would share since I know she never comes to read any of this and since I wrote it not to her but to a generic audience. So it isn't personal in any way.
In bold are her words.

why do you suppose your views are so different than anybody else's are?

I really believe that people are living in denial, the kind of denial that an addict suffers from. I believe people are addicted to this standard of living and don’t want to give it up. As a former smoker I had countless reasons not to attempt to quit my addiction. From “oh my life is too stressful right now and I wouldn’t want to add another stress” to “well you gotta die of something.” I always had a reason because I was addicted. I think that there is a similar addiction to America consumerism and its symptoms manifest themselves in similar ways.
I always knew that smoking caused cancer, made my clothes smell, bothered other people, made me less healthy over-all, cost me tons of money and all of it went to the same corporations I railed against daily but I still smoked.

For instance everyone really knows that our country is rich enough to provide health care to every citizen. Everyone really knows that our country has plenty of money to provide for our citizens after they retire. Everyone really knows that it is morally wrong to invade other nations, drop bombs on children, and torture and “disappear” people all over world. Everyone knows that the disparity of wealth causes crime. Everyone knows that the justice system is racially biased. Everyone knows that their actions are having a devastating effect on people in the third world. Everyone knows that our elected officials are bribed. Everyone knows that our presidential candidates are provided for us by Big Business. Everyone knows that the majority of the clothes they buy are made in near sweatshop conditions, which exploit the workers terribly, but they still buy them.

When one really thinks about the effect their consumption has on people on the globe who are starving, when they see their government murdering brown people and they know they supported the invasion, when they realize that their “democracy” is really a sham and they think they can’t do anything about it, when people realize that the only way for the world to survive is to drastically cut back on their consumption they don’t like the idea at all. So they turn on the TV and watch commercials. And what do the commercials tell them?
“Buy buy buy. If you don’t buy this product you will be incomplete and unhappy. You don’t want to be unhappy do you? Just think what society will think if you don’t look this way. You deserve this product. How did you ever live without this and how can you go with out? You don’t want to be unhappy do you?”
Then they turn on the news shows and what do the news shows say, “this is the way it is. We have a thriving democracy. There is no alternative. It is fine to do these things because we have no other choice. Our system is fair. We offer the full spectrum of thought; see we have two economists talking about the fairness of our system. One is from the right and the other is right of center.”
There are really plenty of people who are far brighter and far more eloquent and far more educated who believe the things I believe. Notice though they are not allowed on the news shows. Notice how the worlds leading intellectual, by all counts, is an American but he is never on American television. Notice how the one of the world’s leading scholars on the Israel/Palestine conflict and the literature surrounding it has never been on American corporate television. I could go on. The fact that the corporate media purposely shuns these people speaks volumes. I think the corporate media doesn’t want these people to be able to talk to the general population because the general population, upon hearing some of these things for the first time, might say, “wait a second, that makes a hell of a lot of sense even though Thomas Friedmann says it isn’t true. Maybe it is Mr. Freidmann, the acceptable type of intellectual, who is wrong or misrepresenting the facts to suit his, and his bosses, ideology and paycheck.”
There must have been a reason why no cable company picked up Al Jazeera English when it was launched. Maybe it is overt racism against Arabs or maybe it is that they offer a different voice that isn’t heard, and shouldn’t, be heard. So they went to YouTube instead, more on that later.
I think a better question is why do so many people believe things that are factually incorrect? Why does 95% of the US population believe in a higher power? Why did the Germans allow the Holocaust? I don’t know.

the rest of the world is wrong but you have the answers, i don't
get it.
Honestly I feel as if I am closer to what the rest of the world thinks then the average American. For instance, how many people, do you suppose, in America would say that the US President is the greatest threat to peace on the planet, not just Bush but whomever? How many Americans see the leadership of Israel a greater threat to world peace then the Iranians? How many Americans think it is a war crime to openly threaten other nations? How many Americans think their level of consumption to be ethical? How many Americans think Israel along with their own country are the biggest obstacles to peace in the Middle East?
On these and a whole host of issues I believe that I am much closer, in opinion, with the rest of the world then Americans are.
Then the question is, is the rest of the world wrong and America right? Is Ahmenijad the next Hitler? Did he really threaten to “wipe Israel off the map?” Why is there such a difference in opinion between Americans and the rest of the world?

Answers
I never claimed to have any answers. There are people with far greater minds with plenty ideas on how this world could improve for everyone. There have been studies that show the world could really feed twice the current population if we just allocated resources properly and changed parts of our diets, just to mention one. I think, that as a regular Joe, I can help to pave the way for social improvement by talking to other average people since that is the only way people can see that other things are possible. I am not delusional enough to think I am going to change the world but I am not stupid enough to think that facts can’t change people’s minds.

i think you need to become realistic
I think this is the language of addiction I was talking about earlier. “I have to be realistic about quitting my, whatever addiction, this week because external situations make it a unattainable.”

I think it is unrealistic to think that we can continue down this path without dire consequences. Maybe the world’s leading scientists are wrong, all 2000 thousand who are in agreement, and those five scientists paid by ExxonMobil are right. Personally I’d put my money behind the ones that write in peer reviewed journals as opposed to the ones that go on cable news shows.

I think it is unrealistic to believe, with all of human history available, that the leaders of Empires are benevolent to the world. Maybe I am wrong and the intellectuals who defend the right of the Empire are correct? They all have nice houses, who knows.

In reality I believe that overall things are constantly improving and moving towards a more humane American population and leadership. The examples are endless if one wants to go back and compare. People like Kennedy make Bush seem like a harmless guy. Christ, we nuked people only 60 years ago.
People are putting up with less and less of the bullshit they are being fed. As a result the news shows offer less and less difference of opinion because they know they are slowly losing grip. People are going on-line and finding other sources of news. If they want to see the truth about what is happening in Palestine they can log on to Israeli newspaper sites, which have far fairer reporting about the conflict than any American paper would ever print (which is odd). Access to information is a huge thing for freedom and democracy and that is why Big Business is trying to shut it down and control it.

Things are getting better no matter what the Bush-haters try to tell you. We have more freedoms no matter what those paranoid Ron Paul-ites try to claim. (I always tell those idiots to find an older black man and tell him he has less rights now than he did in the past.) Corporations realize that they are losing their grip and to top it off, they are beginning to collapse under their own corruption. Latin America is slowly throwing off the oppression of America and voting in left wing leaders, even people from their own ranks. Israel realizes that public opinion in America is starting to shift so they are quickly building a wall to set up their borders in one final land grab. Things are getting better.

One last quick example, a few years ago the Federal Communication Commission voted to allow mass consolidation in the media industry. Prior there were regulations about how many radio stations one could one, regulations not allowing the TV stations to own the newspaper in town and others. As one would logically expect the media was silent during the whole lead up to the vote. They never thought it was relevant to the American population to know that their parent companies were about to be given even more control over the information we receive. Once the vote went through, and the news companies were confident, they finally reported on it. As soon as the population was made aware of this change in regulation there was a massive out pouring of anger. The Congress received over a million letters demanding they overturn these new, for lack of a better term, regulations. That is one in every 300 people writing letters which says a lot, especially if one believes in that line about for every one letter writer there are one hundred people who agree with them. People as diverse as the NRA and MoveOn.Org teamed up with each other to make Congress overturn the laws and eventually they did.
Things like that give me hope for a better future.

I'm at it again.

Yes I had to write to another community columnist. Basically this guy is against democracy as well.

Dear Mr. SMith
Do you think people should have the right to vote on anything or should we have some "managers" to make all of our decisions?
If people are not informed enough to make the proper decision isn't that the media's fault?
If we can't trust people to make rational decisions then can we trust the people that they elect to office?
Do you really know what the term "leftist" means? (I am surprised you didn't pull out the old bogey man, Socialists)
Why would anyone company want to come to this crappy town anyway? All the mass transit we offer? The great infrastructure? The fantastic race relations? The 50% unemployment rate of black men? So they all can live in tax heaven Waukesha county? All the great culture we offer? Clean beaches and water? The awesome parks system?
You seem to enjoy the talking point about entitlement mentality? Does this apply to Lockheed, Chrylser, the Airlines, Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the S&Ls, or just regular folks?
Typically intellectual garbage. "Oh ya it is okay for government to bail out the big monied interests in America but not the poor. Because you see unlike the corporations who we bail out, poor people made bad decisions so they deserve it. The monied interests, which Thomas Jefferson warned us about, are the important people." What I love is how the conservatives suck up to the masters of the world in hopes of getting, I don't know, some favors? Or maybe they too think that are monied interests.
So-called Conservatives make me laugh. If only they were really conservatives and not proxies for the masters of the world.
Oh by the way my fiance is a small business owner. Though I think we have a different view on what a small business is. Do yourself a favor and reread Wealth of Nations.
Justin Loper

Chomsky

My letter to one of the Community Columnists

This is an email I sent to one of the many idiots the Journal Sentinel picked to be a Community Columnist over me. Typical intellectual garbage. I thought I would post it just in case she responds. Here is a link to her column.

Dear MS. Carlson,
I read your column on Tuesday and was a little disturbed. Your essay was in relation to the proposed referendum to raise the sales tax to pay for various services. To be fair, I really don’t believe this is the right thing to do but that is my opinion, nothing more.
What I found so disturbing was your remark about how you applaud Mr. Walker’s veto of the resolution. I am a little confused by this remark because I figure that you must be an American citizen, most likely a naturalized one, yet you hold contempt for Democracy.
Why is it a good thing that the people’s right to exercise their right to vote should be thwarted? Shouldn’t people in America have the right to vote on an issue instead of having Government tell us we are not allowed to? Where does the Government get the right, or privilege, to stop us from voting? Is it that you believe Government is the best decider on all the issues and one man should be allowed determine everything? Because remember Scott Walker is part of the Government.
From where I sit this is classic class warfare. I really enjoyed the line about a radio caller who saves $30 dollars a month by not shopping in Milwaukee County. Because that is all it is about, me, me, me! Screw the rest. Why should any of you care if the old widow across town has enough to eat or can take a bus to the clinic? She made her choices and should have to not eat, right? Why should you care? It isn’t about the most important person, you.
I mean your essay was basically a stereotype. “I spend $500 dollars on garbage from a department store, while others can’t feed their children. I really need to have a plasma T.V. because I earned it. Forget all those others who made bad choices in life since everyone who is struggling is so because of the choices they made, not their parents, not the State, just them. Also while were at it, since there are more of them then there are of us, we better not let them vote.” What are we just the rabble who is allowed to “participate” in elections when you people decide we can.
Who the hell do you people think you are? Is Scott Walker now an elected Monarch? Is that the kind of system you would prefer? Where the more “educated”, or indoctrinated, get to make all the choices because the common person is to stupid to know what he wants. Of course, this is the same common person that the Right claims to be a champion for.
I am sorry if you think my rhetoric is a little heated but I believe strongly in Democracy, one person one vote, and you disagree. Democracy is supposed to be the law of the land, unless it may hurt your pocket book but allow others to find more work.
Nevermind, you only care about yourself, and by extension you family, and no one else. You hold contempt for the common person and their wishes. I am slowly beginning to see how the “right” in America is truly anti-american values. They don’t believe in elections, they don’t believe in a jury of one’s peers, they don’t believe in the right to assemble, they don’t believe in the right to free speech, they don’t believe that persons should not be unreasonably searched, they don’t believe in the right to a speedy trial, they like cruel and unusual punishment, and on and on. Oh wait they do believe that everyone should have the right to be armed to the teeth.
Opponents of democracy need to be unmasked for the good of the country.
The comedy is how you people label silly liberals as elitists because they drink fancy coffee. What is tragic is that people listen to you.

Scott Ritter

A History of the American Empire

Mumia Abu Jamal On Nader and Obama

You know the fucked up thing is how many college age kids got behind Ron Paul and not Ralph Nader. Could it be that Ralph threw his hat into the ring to late for those kids to know he even existed? Or do they really want the destruction of the state as Ro Paul does? Or is it that they are fucking ignorant? My guess is ignorance.

Finally

Finally, today, that bastard died. Jesse Helms died today of natural causes at 86 years old. THings like this make me envious of those people who believe in hell because I would be feeling some schadenfreuden.

Interesting read

U.S. has highest level of cocaine, pot use

What was Clinton's problem.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former South African President Nelson Mandela is to be removed from U.S. terrorism watch lists under a bill President Bush signed Tuesday.

The man became the President of South Africa and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize but he is finally not a terrorist in America's eyes. This makes Cat Steven's refusal to be let into America seem logical.
The funny thing is that many Israeli apologists ask, "where is the Palestinian Nelson Mandela?"

?

Why is it that North Korea was allowed to build a nuclear bomb during the Bush administration but we are told this administration will not allow Iran to do the same? The odd thing is that North Korea has missile technology that allows them to reach the United States whereas the Iranians do not. Why the difference? Is it oil or Israel?

Chomsky on Al Jazeera

Nader on Obama

Today's talking point.

Today the US Supreme court rejected the application of the death penalty to child rapists. The ones that rape children not children that rape. I can imagine, since pedophiles are rightly condemned, many people will be saying this was a terrible decision. They will say these people do not deserve to remain alive.
So the talking point is, if child rapists know that they may get the death penalty, if the abused child talks, then they will not allow the child to talk. In other words they would murder the child, since either way if it talks he gets the death penalty or if he kills it, and is caught, then he gets the death penalty. In killing the child he makes it more plausible that he could get away.
Now I would much prefer the chance to recover from being raped as a child as opposed to attempting to recover from being murdered. No amount of counseling is going to bring a murder victim back to life.
Oh ya, and the death penalty has never been shown to be a deterrent.

R.I.P.

The Israelis are fucking monsters!

Ya right.

SO Tim Russert died on Friday and the accolades haven't stopped yet. The one problem I have is this narrative that he was a good journalist. THis notion that he asked the "hard" questions. One example they showed was him asking Cheney what if we aren't greeted as liberators in Iraq but instead as occupiers. Cheney responds that he doesn't see that happening and, that is it, no more questions. I remember because I was watching that Sunday and I remember screaming at the TV.
IT is amazing how quickly convenient myths are created. Years from now the story will be that we had bad intelligence on Iraq and there were no dissenting voices in the Intelligence Community. Nothing about the VIce President's office setting up its own intelligence group to create 'intelligence" about Iraq or Cheney personally visiting the CIA.
I just love the bullshit fairy tale about how America always tries to do the right thing for the right reason but sometimes we accidentally slaughter 3.2 million Vietnamese and 58,000 Americans.
What is sad is that American, who must live in total denial at all times, accept it.

Finkelstein

Here a student asks Dr. Finkelstein if he attended the Holocaust Denial Conference in Iran.

Go Moyers

One Billion Dollars Gone

Interesting fact

Obama will accept the Democratic nomination for President exactly 45 years to the day that Dr. King delivered his "I have a dream" speech.

My letter to the Journal Sentinel

Letter writer David Hughes showed the goals of American conservatives when he asked, "Why should I have to pay a tax for something I don't use?" in his rant against mass transit ("Don't fund transit," June 1). It seems to be the goal of American conservatives to tear up the social contract and attempt to hammer any human solidarity out of us. Basically, he is asking why he should care about others in society.

Another prime example of this thinking was the attempt to privatize Social Security. That's basically asking why we should care if the old widow across town has enough to eat.

If human beings are social animals, and reciprocal altruism is the basis of our advancement into a highly scientific civilization, do American conservatives suffer from some unknown malady that makes them go against human nature?

Justin Loper
Shorewood
Link to Journal Sentinel

Chutzpah

Today I was watching Good Morning America and they had a story about the children of soldiers. It was about a couple of women who make dolls with pictures of the children's father. Of course, it was such a heartfelt story from the media. The only problem is that they are guilty, the american media, for this war. Had they done their job and challenged the lies being put forth by the Bush Administration the war would have never been waged. All they had to do was pick up a copy of The Nation, Zmag, et al and they could have found plenty of sources and facts. But no.

Who's Afraid of Norman Finkelstein?

05.27.2008 | Haaretz
By Haaretz Editorial

On Friday morning, the State of Israel refused to allow Prof. Norman Finkelstein, an American Jewish political scientist, to enter the country. Finkelstein was arrested at the airport and questioned by the Shin Bet security service for several hours. A day later, it became known that he had been banned from entering Israel for 10 years, for security reasons. Finkelstein managed to meet with a lawyer, who told him his chances of changing the decision were slim. When the Shin Bet decides that someone constitutes a security risk, the courts do not intervene.

According to the law, both in Israel and in other countries, no one has an intrinsic right to enter a country of which he is not a citizen. Immigration authorities have the power to keep a tourist from entering the country for reasons known only to themselves, and do not even need to provide an explanation. In Finkelstein's case, the disturbing issue is neither the legality of keeping him out nor the authority to do so, but the reasonableness of the decision. Considering his unusual and extremely critical views, one cannot avoid the suspicion that refusing to allow him to enter Israel was a punishment rather than a precaution.

It is difficult to sympathize with Finkelstein's opinions and preferences, especially since he decided to support Hezbollah, meet with its fighters and visit the graves of some of its slain operatives. But that does not mean he should be banned from entering Israel, since meetings with Hezbollah operatives do not in themselves constitute a security risk. True, the right to enter Israel is not guaranteed to noncitizens, but the right of Israeli citizens to hear unusual views is one that should be fought for. It is not for the government to decide which views should be heard here and which ones should not.

The decision to ban Finkelstein hurts us more than it hurts him. Every once in a while, the state suffers an attack of excessive sensitivity regarding its visitors. In 2002, it was Romanian flautist Gheorghe Zamfir who was kept out of the country by the Interior Ministry. The interior minister at the time, Eli Yishai, explained that Zamfir had expressed anti-Semitic views and that his entry into Israel would "hurt Holocaust survivors." Avraham Poraz, who succeeded Yishai, overturned the decision.

When the person refused entry is Jewish, the absurdity is even greater. After all, Finkelstein could realize his right to immigrate to Israel as a Jew, in accordance with the Law of Return. Since he is Jewish and has no criminal past, it is doubtful whether he could be prevented from receiving Israeli citizenship.

The Shin Bet argues that Finkelstein constitutes a security risk. But it is more reasonable to assume that Finkelstein is persona non grata and that the Shin Bet, whose influence has increased to frightening proportions, latched onto his meetings with Hezbollah operatives in order to punish him.

And the decision is all the more surprising when one recalls the ease with which right-wing activists from the Meir Kahane camp - the kind whose activities pose a security threat that no longer requires further proof - are able to enter the country.

Interview w/Finkelstein

Last week Political Scientist Norman Finkelstein was detained at Tel Aviv airport. He was interviewed for a few hours and then spent the night in jail. He later was deported and banned from the state of Israel for ten years.
Here is an interview with him about the incident.
This isn't the best audio but worthwhile.

Haaretz Editorial
Association for Civil Rights in Israel weighs in

More Uncle Noam

quick thought

The Left in America is kind of paralyzed by Islam. On the one hand they hate Islamic fundamentalism and its dislike for secular values and lack of protection for minorities. Yet they don’t feel comfortable discussing that topic because they are so afraid of the Right and its desire to smash things, since the Muslims sit on so much oil, so they keep quiet. In the end they end up using cultural relativism in an attempt to not agree with the xenophobic Right and they fail.
The Right in America ends up siding with the fanatic Muslims on the issues. They both hate Fags (because God hates them just ask Fred Phelps or any other preachers) and human rights. They hate due process. They both hate the separation of church and state.
I think the Left would be better off showing the similarities between the Right in America and the Islamists. Show intolerance as intolerance. Show how the two agree on so many fronts. Two sides of the same coin.

Hahahahahaha

Not bad for a bunch old men.

My friend Jeremy just introduced me to this band and my life has been greatly enriched. I am unsure how I functioned without knowing about this "punk rock supergroup." I once saw Watt and Nels CLine, ten years ago or so, in Portland and Cline had a guitar solo where he was strumming so fast his hand was just a blur. I was fucking floored.
Here are some samplings from Watt's 50th Birthday party. Unfortunately they are also kinda commercials for whoever is recording but that is a minor inconvenience.

Israeli Rock

Here is the Israeli rock band the Genders singing about Americans Jews who move to the Occupied Territories.

A quick thought.

It is exactly the separation of church and state, that so many radical Christians want to abandon, that has allowed radical Christian sects to flourish in this country. Without such a separation their wacko churches wouldn’t have been allowed. Instead we would all be Catholic or Lutheran.
Then again, trying to talk sense to those people is pointless.

What the hell are they so scared of?

Today, as always, I began my day with a cup of coffee and my daily reading of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. Not the greatest of papers but it is better than nothing, I guess. In my reading I stumbled upon an article about mass graves that were being unearthed in South Korea. Now, I don’t know much about the Korean War so I was interested. As it turns out, there were mass executions carried out by our South Korean allies early in the war, and guess who the victims were? Yes, you guessed it, those dangerous leftists. Korea slaughtered untold thousands of leftists and peasants that the government felt were sympathetic to the leftists. Why is it that leftist are always being slaughtered and why is the US helping nations with these actions?
Sept 11 1973 was the day that Augusto Pinochet’s, with the backing of the C.I.A., forces began the overthrow of the democratically elected Socialist President Salvador Allende. We couldn’t allow the stupid people of Chile make such a mistake, as to vote a Socialist, so we had to help them see the error in their ways. This time the US government gave the Chilean government thousands of names of leftists who were promptly rounded up and executed in a soccer stadium or were “disappeared”. Why, because they believed in equality for all?
Again, in the 1980’s, the Nicaraguans elected the Sandinistas, a Marxist group, to govern but that was not acceptable to the Reagan administration. So they got a bunch of thugs, called the Contras, and began a terror war against the people of Nicaragua and murdered thousands of leftists and peasants. How could America allow such an example of Marxism in the Western Hemisphere? What was their big crime, spreading literacy to the poor and taking back their land from the greedy? Oh ya, one of the side effects of that terrorist was the crack cocaine epidemic.
IN 1954 the C.I.A., helped overthrow another democratically elected Socialist leader in Iran. Then for 25 years our puppet King, the Shah, oppressed his people and gave us the rights to their natural resources. Then one day everything changed and we now had a bunch of Americans held hostage in our embassy, and we can see how this al worked out. Mossadegh’s crime, kicking out British Petroleum and nationalizing their oil and natural gas reserves.
I guess what I don’t understand is what is the threat posed by Socialists/Marxist/Communists/Anarchists/Leftists? We are told, so often it is now regarded as a truism, that socialism/communism is bound to fail and has failed. Or as most ignorant people respond in exactly the same wording, which always sets off alarms in my head, “that has been tried and it doesn’t work” to which I have begun responding, “and this system does?”
Why are the powers that be so scared of this ideology? If this more egalitarian system is bound to fail why has our government worked so hard to make it fail, if its failure inevitable? Our government, regardless of party, has no problems allowing very repressive “communist” regimes to be regular members of the international community, think China, yet it is Cuba that is to be punished.
Again if Socialist democracy is bound to fail then let it. This leads me to believe that they know full well that it won’t fail but will flourish and they as a result, will be a little less obscenely rich and they can’t handle that fact because, as I have shown in the past, the super wealthy actually hate the rest of the human race.

These are the people we have to deal with

Luckily for guys like Kevin his listeners are just as ignorant as he is.

WTF?

On Friday there was a tape released from Bin Laden. Now I have tried for the last 45 minutes to find a transcript of it anywhere on the internets and have been totally unable. If anyone finds it send me a link.
thanks
WHy is it that I can't find it? Hmmmmm

Movie Trailer

Ahhh Billo

Remember, they hate our freedom.

Then there is this

Billy Joel

Our media is racist garbage.

Now I have known for years that our media is garbage or maybe worse. Though after watching the Reverend Wright National Press Club speech I know believe the media is just a modern day lyncher. After watching the news talk about the speech I finally got the time to actually watch the full speech.(ya I am one of those people who actually thinks it is more important to look for myself then be lazy and let corporations tell me the what the truth is. I understand not everyone has the time and must rely on corporations to tell them the truth. Can I fault them? Yes, if they take the corporate media to be anywhere near the truth) I felt that I needed to because I know that the media is a lie machine but I thought for sure there would be some lunacy involved. I figured he must of said that America created AIDS to kill blacks, because that is what the media claimed he said. I also assumed that he said some other crazy shit because the news sure made it look like he did.
THough the funny thing is that I actually care about the truth so I watched it. And I now understand what it is that the media hates about him and it is that he is a powerful speaker who speaks the truth. They can't handle that because they are in the business of hoodwinking the Americans. As my friend Jeremy said to me, the real reason we are in Iraq is because of the media and I think that one cannot argue against that fact. Okay one can try but they will easily be spanked by anyone with enough time to actually fact check.
You know, I didn't think my opinion for the media could have gotten any worse but I was sadly mistaken. The media is a racist, Imperialist propaganda arm for the elite. They have destroyed a man's character because he said told uncomfortable truths, like the fact that the US government has experimented on humans in a most inhumane fashion. If he had been a white preacher and said the same things he would have been ignored, but he is black. That is the difference.
I guess though, at least they aren't slaves anymore so what are they bitching about? What racist garbage the media is.


Here are clips from the Q&A portion of the speech. I think they are informative.

Again, Bill Moyers is right

Hillary Is Dangerous

So the mad Iranian President can call for “the regime in Jerusalem to go the way of the Soviet Union and be wiped from the pages of history” and it is turned into him calling for a new Holocaust. Every commentator you can find will claim he said that Israel should be wiped off the face of the map even though that is not what he said.
Last week Hillary, when asked how she would respond if Iran launched a nuclear missile at nuclear Israel, said that she would obliterate Iran. So she openly says she would obliterate the Persian people and not a peep from the press. She is saying that genocide would be acceptable against the Persians and silence.
Isn’t the American Press a funny thing?

Nice Work Ian

Here is a video of my friend Ian calling out the racist David Horowitz for his lack of facts.

Roosting Chickens

Here is a mass email I sent out to a diverse group of friends. I am hoping for some responses in which I can get permission to reprint. Unfortunately I know better to think that most people would be willing to think objectively about these topics. Americans are brainwashed beyond belief and it should be painfully obvious since Americans view the life of an Israeli worth more than that of countless Arabs.

Quick question,
I apologize in advance, except to Ian,
Is there any action that our government, you and I, can take that would justify a similar or even lesser action against us. For instance, 3000 people were slaughtered on 9/11 by a bunch of Saudis and we reacted, with the overwhelming support (70%), by killing 80-90,000 Iraqis though violence and another million as a result of our invasion. We felt that it was our "right" but do the Iraqis now have that same "right", and if not, doesn't that mean we think we, America, own the world? Do we?
Justin Loper

Pot calling a clean kettle black

In case you missed it, the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations has called Former President and Nobel Laureate, Jimmy Carter, a "bigot". Of course this is the same Carter who got Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat to sign the longest lasting peace deal in the region.

What is that on that Coke can, Anita.

“Can you put some icing on these muffins for me?” asks a middle aged black woman. Unfortunately it was an hour past the time I was supposed to leave so I was not too interested in going through the hassle. So I told her that it would take a while to heat up the icing since we don’t leave it on all day, hoping that that would end it but no.
“Well that store, you know the one on 27th before Wal-Mart,” she says.
“Sorry ma’am, I don’t know what store you are talking about. I don’t get out much.” I replied.
“Well they do it right away for me, no problems.” She stated.
At this point I am getting a little annoyed with her but I go on, “oh ya I bet they leave their icing on all day.” I then realized that this was not going to stop without her getting some fucking icing on her muffins. So I told her, “if you want to give me a few minutes I can heat some up in the microwave but it will take some time.”
She then says, “Okay that is fine. You aren’t going to put pubic hairs in it are you?”
I thought that there was no way she just said that to me so I asked, in a puzzled tone, “pardon me?”
Again, “You aren’t going to put pubic hairs in it are you.”
It is this point when I realize I have a real doozy on my hands. Even though I heard her the second time I had to get her to repeat it so I asked again, “excuse me?”
“Pubic hair” she barks out.
“Oh god no why would you say such a thing?” I inquire.
She then goes on about something on the news about a restaurant and pubic hairs, “didn’t you see that in the news”.
To which I wanted to respond, but couldn’t, “No, ma’am I just read actual news.”
She continued to blather on about an undercooked steak and some pubic hairs.
I decided to try to lighten the mood so I told her, “I’m sorry I was just having an Anita Hill moment.” She looked at me with a blank stare. So I proceeded on, “You know Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and the Coke can?” Still no response.
I then informed her that hearing the term pubic hair at work is odd since it could be construed as sexual harassment.
“Really?” she asked.
“Yes and have a nice day.”
This woman was what black intellectual Shelby Steele would call a “challenger” vs. a “bargainer”. A challenger being someone like AL Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, two men whom I admire, who never let you forget that you are white. A challenger, according to Mr. Steele, is someone who assumes you are racist until you prove otherwise.
Whereas a bargainer, according to Steele’s definition, is one that doesn’t rub the racist past in white people’s faces. They say that they won’t prejudge you as long as you don’t prejudge them, think Obama.
This woman was definitely a “challenger” but doesn’t realize that people can see through that. I knew the moment she started talking to me that, in her mind, I was racist against Blacks. The problem is that I see that and I purposely act accordingly.
This is a problem with a lot of people, they think they are cleverer than they really are. They think that average people can’t see through their bullshit. Kind of like that worker who complains a day before they are going to call in sick about how they feel like they may be coming down with something. This just happened to be one example of many from all types of people that we see in our day-to-day routine. Why do people think other people are so stupid?
I still believe you Anita!

Fuck the rich!

It has been reported that the top 50 hedge fund managers earned a total of 29 billion dollars last year. Some earned as much as 3 billion. According to Matt Miller from Fortune Magazine, not a socialist rag mind you, the typical family would have to work 12,000 years to earn what a typical hedge fund manager earns in one year or the typical hedge fund manager earns in one hour the same as a typical family earns in a year.
I think it should be a simple truth that our earth is a finite object. As a result this earth can only create so much wealth, since our earth is finite. (sure we can print more money but what value does it have?) If, as I have shown simply, that the earth is a finite entity then therefore there is only a finite amount of wealth that can be created, legitimately. One economist, whose name escapes me, once said, to believe that infinite wealth can be created in a finite world, one must either be an economist or a madman.
Above my computer I have this framed document that states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator (notice the use of “their” instead of “the creator”) with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Ya, it is the Declaration of Independence. (Ya, I have a framed copy.)
So when Jefferson, Adams and Franklin were imagining a proper society they deemed that those three things should be guaranteed, since humans were endowed with those rights as they stated. We have the right to live, we have the right of liberty and we have been endowed with the right for the pursuit of happiness.
If one person, or a group of people, hide away for themselves money they will never use and not pour it back into the economy that money becomes sterile or dead. That money is taken out of the finite pool of money so no one is able to earn it. It has no positive use in society. It makes it that much harder for others to find some of that finite pie. As a result a huge number of Americans, and humans worldwide, are forced to suffer.
How can one be granted the right of life and then be denied healthcare? Why is it that the poorer Americans cannot afford healthcare? Does one have the right to life if one is not guaranteed healthcare? If there is only a finite amount of money, and some are hording huge amounts for themselves are they taking away ones right to life?
My liberty to swing my fist stops where your face begins, is a paraphrase of a John Stuart Mill line from On Liberty. Liberty, as far as Mill saw it, in America is a funny thing because it doesn’t apply to the wealthy only the poor. So if I, as a regular citizen, sullied your home with toxins I would be held accountable, if I was a corporation I wouldn’t. My liberty to spread toxins stops where your body begins, unless you are a wealthy corporation then that rule no longer applies. Even better is that the corporation can pollute our environment and then get us, the taxpayers, to pay for the clean up. Notice ExxonMobil still hasn’t paid their fine for the Exxon Valdez spill nearly twenty years ago. Maybe we should issue a warrant.
How can one be happy if they are unable to provide adequate nourishment to their children? If one’s basic needs are not met it is extremely difficult to have time to pursue happiness. Especially if they have to work two or three jobs, in order to feed one’s children. Is it even possible to pursue happiness unless one’s most basic needs are met? I would say, no.
If average workers wages have stayed stagnant while every year the obscenely rich get richer are all boats rising? If one segment of society continues to see their aggregated wealth increase, in a finite pool, is it any surprise that the rest of labor’s wages haven’t risen in the last thirty years? How else would there be this money for them to earn? It had to come from somewhere since you can’t just create money from nowhere. (Oh wait, that might be practically false. Just ask one of them Ron Paulites)
So as I am arguing that the ultra-rich hate America, the idea not the market, I am reminded of another fact. Not only are the obscenely rich amassing as much wealth for themselves, that they and their off-spring will never spend, they are shipping it overseas in order to not pay taxes to America. Just like how many “American” companies are really from the Cayman Islands.
So why do the rich in America hate it and its ideals so much. Why are they actively working to remove people’s rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I think it is because they suffer from some yet to be named malady. How else can a social being like a homo-sapien be so far removed from its roots?
Oh ya, and they, 14 of America’s richest families, also want to create a permanent aristocracy like the one our founders fled and created laws to stop.
Why do they hate America so much?

Preview

iPhone/iPod Touch Link

Words of Wisdom?

Recently a friend asked me how I remain happy in today's world. This is my quick response.

It is my belief that Americans are brainwashed to be consumers. We are told that we must have this life or that life in order to live a good life. Of course, that good life usually revolves around stuff. This has been drilled into our heads since birth and it is part of who we are. We have been told that we should have everything we want otherwise we will not be happy, so you better go get those things if you don't yet have them. These things are not only material objects or consumer goods but wealth and "love." We are told we need to be happy but how can one get happy, they get stuff to make them happy, but what if they can't get that stuff? Now they aren't happy and they were told that they are supposed to be happy so this leads them to be even unhappier. It is a vicious cycle.

So what is one to do? Like addiction recovery, one has to admit that they are brainwashed. It isn't the easiest thing to do because it started in infancy. My parents didn't have TVs until they were around five years old, and had been able to have some quiet time for mental development, and even they ended up brainwashed. So for us people who were brought up around the TV it is wired into our brains. Repudiating the television and its message is not easy. It's much like an abused child not wanting to admit that they have been abused but we have been. Everything the TV and our culture have fed us, in regards to the good life, has to be discarded. In order to rid oneself of its brainwashing one might have to attack it or abandon it until one is on the path to recovery. I am saying this with all seriousness. I am not being tongue in cheek.

What matters in life? Figuring this out is paramount to being content. I think happiness is an illusion. It is a fleeting thing. People come into it periodically as positive things happen but just as everything else it goes away. As I wrote earlier, the television has got people to think that they have to be happy when it is, really, unachievable on the scale and length they imply is possible. Actually, not "possible" but expected instead. I think it was Kant who made the claim that sustained periods of happiness are not achievable. So ridding oneself of the notion that they should be "happy" is necessary. That too is a hard task for someone growing up and living in this culture.

But back to the question, "what really matters in life?" I think that if one really thinks seriously and honestly about that, the answers will come pretty easy. For example, my answer would be, my loved ones and friends, my health and well being, knowledge and truth, ethics and fairness, and a roof over my head. Sure iPods and toys are cool and everything but they really don't matter. They can make life a little more enjoyable as entertainment but they have no real value, except the hundreds of dollars Apple charges.

Don't get me wrong, iPods are nice and the ability to have them is even nicer. By living in America, at this moment in time, we are some of the luckiest people to have ever lived. We have absolutely no problems finding enough food today since one can find a full meal for three bucks or less. Our health and well-being is unlike any time in history and should only continue to improve up until the Superbugs begin to emerge and kill us all. We have heat, electricity, tons of toys and a smidgen of basic rights guaranteed to us. (Hi Vice President Cheney)

Sure it is also depressing that living in America, at this time, makes us the meanest, greediest, most imperialist bullies. We are okay with torturing people, invading nations and flaunting international norms but things change. It sometimes requires action but things do change for the better. Never before had a war been protested before it began, even if it didn't stop it.

The basic level of freedoms we have is amazing and taken for granted. All one has to do is look around a world map and they will find that there are few countries where people have the rights, got through popular struggle, that we in the West have. We can basically do and say whatever we want.

I think Bertrand Russell was right when he said that time enjoyed wasted is not wasted time. I think too, that he argues in In Praise of Idleness that whole point of working is leisure time. Do what you enjoy as often as you can and see work and money as means not ends.

Of course it isn't possible to never be upset or depressed. Humans have developed the emotions we have for a reason. Unfortunately they can be destructive if not managed so we need to be able to recognize them. It may not be the easiest task but we should try to be able to look at ourselves in the third person.

None of this is easy. It is constant work. It isn't like you flip a switch and you now have a new outlook on life and "job over." Life is difficult and it continuously throws shit at us that we don't like. Our culture is a toxic one. We are forced to work too much and under too much stress but we have to keep in mind that we aren't making shoes for Nike in Indonesia. If we just sit back and expect that we won't be affected by the outside world we are headed for disaster. Again, Russell said, "The secret to happiness is to face the fact that the world is horrible." We have to acknowledge it, overcome it and try to live a content life.

Oh ya, and listen to punk rock.

The Problem of the Left

Michael Albert founder of Z Magazine.

iPhone/iPod Link

Normally I don't post this kind of shit.

HOW SMART IS YOUR RIGHT FOOT?
1. Without anyone watching you (they will think you are GOOFY......)
and while sitting at your desk in front of your computer, lift your
right foot off the floor and make clockwise circles.

2. Now, while doing this, draw the number '6' in the air with your
right hand. Your foot will change direction.

Quick Thought

I have figured out a way to solve the Palestinian issue. Lets hold the Olympics in Tel Aviv.
This is my standard initial response to anyone asking about China, Tibet and the Olympics.

Perspective

BACK BY POPULAR DEMAND

Why is it that there is correlation data that suggests the more one has their needs met the more they are likely to be depressed? Is it just me or does this seem to go against common sense?
Is it that once someone has their basic needs met, they then have the time to search their lives for the other things that are so terrible? For instance, “now that my family isn’t being oppressed by an occupying army, I can finally see that I am unhappy because of my looks or my social status? Before this I was concerned with trivial things like the safety of my children. Now I have time to complain that I don’t get everything I feel entitled to, like straight teeth.”
Isn’t it a joke for Americans to not take into consideration that there are four billion other people with far harder lives? One billion people are virtually starving to death while another billion are eating themselves to death because their sad lives created an addiction to food? One billion are fighting to feed their children and westerners are whining about how terrible their lives are, to a point where it is so bad that they can not eat and must throw their dinners into the trash.
I guess what I am talking about is perspective, a thing that is in short supply in our world. Where one Jewish settler’s life is worth that of one hundred Palestinians. Where 3000 dead one day are significant but another 3000 dead, not so. Where one fat person’s hopes weren’t met but children are starving and they aren’t complaining because they don’t know a different life while the fat woman complains that if she was wealthy like Oprah, she too could lose weight.
One thing is true, that people with real problems at least attempt to remedy them, and are killed along the way. In America we feel as if we shouldn’t have to act, instead we should just get. Maybe Americans like to be fat and sad. Though doesn’t the term “like” convey a sense of enjoyment? Maybe people are happy being miserable? Seems oxymoronic to me.

Holy SHit!

You have to listen to this clip. From what I have read it is Illinois State Rep. Davis of Chicago. In this audio clip you hear her responding to an atheist activist. Just listen and imagine her talking that way about gays, blacks, immigrants, Jews, Muslims, or women. If she did there would be outrage but guess what this story is days old and you are just finally reading about it. Only because I peruse a certain section of the internet did I find it.
What is it about the religious that is so threatened by non-believers? Is it that deep down they know that a belief in some benevolent omnipotent Creator is illogical and absurd. It is like the kid with his fingers in his ears yelling, "blah blah blah I can't hear you. blah blah blah". Christ you would think that us atheists were a bunch of commies, oh wait a bunch of us are.

Just in case anyone is interested, here is her email. mdavis2147@aol.com

William Shatner, Joe Jackson and Ben Folds

Free Market, my ass.

For the last two years I have attempted to land a spot as a community columnist for the Milwaukee Journal and have been rejected both times. At first I blamed my poor writing skills. Then I blamed my category as a white man when they were looking for a diverse group. Both of these seemed totally acceptable to me. Sure I wrote a great piece about the how stupid the death penalty and they picked a guy who stated that people who would/should receive the death penalty are routinely let out of prison.
I think though after years of reading the columnists I have figured out one must have to do, and I am going to call them out this year when I try again. The one column they print every single year is a column attacking atheists, around 5% of the population, as being unethical and having no morals. One guy actually argued that atheists should go around and murder because they have no book telling them it is wrong. If the topic isn't on the depravity of non-Christians then you must write a column filled with logical fallacies like the one a couple of days ago. The use of the logical fallacy, begging the question so pissed me off I had to respond. I decided I would share it with people and her response.

I was reading your column in Thursday's paper and I came upon an interesting statement. You say, "Salaries, in a free market, are set by supply and demand" which I find interesting. You are said to be the business and economics chair of a local university so surely you can't really call America a free market. I believe you are purposely lying to people to advance your ideology. How can the chair of economics call our economy a free market? Is it a free market when we bailed out Lockheed and Chrysler? My father lost his job because his boss at his saving and loans gave out shotty loans and we bailed out the SnLs but
not the workers. Some estimates put the figure at half a trillion dollars. How does this jive with your fake free market? How about the 14 billion dollar bailout of the airlines after 9/11? How does that fit into your psueso-free market. What about subsidies to the oil industries? How is that a free market? What about all the programs for returning GIs from WWII? Was that that free market at work? With just these few simple examples it is obvious, to even a non-chair of economics, that we do not live in a free market. At best we live in a coporate socialist state with free markets for the citizen. Give out bad loans and the tax payer will bail you out, take a bad loan and you lose your house. Socialism for the rich and free markets for the poor.
I have no problem with peole being ideological but they should not be deceptive. If they are deceptive then it makes one wonder how good their arguments are.
Don't lie to the people. A chair of economics should know better.
Justin Loper


Her response:
Hello:
While we do not agree, thanks for responding.
Barbara

Really that is it. I call her a liar and she says she disagrees. She cares that much to get her beliefs out there but can not defend them? Truly sad. Not what I would expect from a chair of economics unless she studied under Dershowitz at Harvard.

New Controversy

BEWARE SOME GRAPHIC FOOTAGE


I have no problem calling out religious texts for the bullshit inside, like when the Bible says gays should be murdered and fortune tellers too. Oh ya and unruly children and your wife if she tries to take you away from God. Though to paint the entire group in this way is offensive to me because it is unfair. What about the Christians who slaughtered doctors for performing a procedure which is legal?
I once met a guy who moved hear from Holland and I was shocked so I asked him why. He said that Holland is becoming a very racist country, which surprised me. I now understand what he was saying.
One point from Chomsky. Chomsky has asked how come when a Muslim leader does something crazy it is because they are Muslims while no one says that Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon slaughtered 3.2 million Vietnamese because they were Christian. Somehow one's religion only affects them if they are Muslim.

New Mental Illness

A new mental illness is upon us. This mental illness plagues users of cell phones and blackberrys. They say that people are mentally ill because they are texting people too much. My guess is, had a newer mental illness that I have discovered been around when the telephone was introduced, people would have been talking about the new mental illness of people who talk on the phone too long. They would have argued that it is totally a different phenomena then talking to someone in person. Much like how iPods are more dangerous then their predecessor the walkman. Sure they are both mobile music devices but iPods are new and scary. In other words old people don't understand them.
You may wonder what this other new mental illness is that I have discovered. Of course, it should be known I hold no degree in any psychological field or any field for that matter. Still I think, I make just as much sense as the ones with letters after their names. My new mental illness is a mental illness that attempts to show that mental illness explains all behavior that doesn't fit some "norm".
Though at what point do we realize that abnormal is normal since everyone will have been diagnosed with some form of mental illness which in turn will turn the non-mentally ill into the mentally ill and the mentally ill into the norm?

Music videos

Here is a version of one the most important songs of my life.


Then the Housemartins


and Stereolab

A LIBERAL DECALOGUE

By Bertrand Russell

Perhaps the essence of the Liberal outlook could be summed up in a new decalogue, not intended to replace the old one but only to supplement it. The Ten Commandments that, as a teacher, I should wish to promulgate, might be set forth as follows:

1. Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.
2. Do not think it worth while to proceed by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light.
3. Never try to discourage thinking for you are sure to succeed.
4. When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavor to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory.
5. Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.
6. Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.
7. Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
8. Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter.
9. Be scrupulously truthful, even if the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it.
10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness."

McCain '08

A couple thoughts on the Democratic Nomination.
Let it be known that I am a Clinton-hater. I figure that information should be known so that everyone will understand my slant. I just have a few questions.
Hillary is pushing this narrative that she has the experience to come in, on day one, and begin fixing the problems. Okay that is fine, but what problems are there? Of these supposed problems, how many did Hillary vote for or the Democratic Party as a whole? Is one the problems the Iraq War? Didn’t she vote for the Iraq war? Is she going to take on the major financial businesses that are paying for her campaign? Is she going to demand they fix this housing mortgage mess or are the banks buying her off? Or could it be that they are paying her for all the work she did on the Finance Modernization Act when she was President, oops I mean First Lady?
What happens if Obama goes into the convention with a lead in delegates but the party chooses Hillary? Will a whole generation of voters be turned off? Will people revolt and flock to Nader? Would Obama even get behind her considering she is an immoral human or as Ms. Power called her “a monster?” Wouldn’t it be a coup d’etat?
Is it possible that Hillary is going to come out and explicitly claim that Barack is not qualified to be President with the hopes that McCain will beat him and she can run again in 2012? Is she that opportunistic and if so why are people supporting her?
Are older women just voting for Hillary out of their own selfish reasons of hoping to see a woman President before they die and if so, Why couldn’t Condee been the one?
Just a few thoughts.

Israeli Nazis

I truly believe that we are seeing an end to Israel as presently structured. I fear as Israel realizes it is losing it will go on a major offensive and kill many. It is just amazing how fearless some people are and how full of fear others are.
Fuck the Nazis. SOme people don't like making any analogy between the Nazis and the Israeli state but when your leaders say things like this it makes it much easier.


iPod/iPhone Link

Portishead

iPod/iPhone Link


iPod/iPhone Link

Finkelstein

iPhone/iPod Link

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

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

Funny

iPod/iPhone Link

It is a take off of this powerful commercial put together by some average citizens.

iPod/iPhone Link

Funny Movie Trailer

iPhone/iPod Link

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.

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

Everyday

iPhone/iPod Link

84 New Elementary schools everyday? Instead everyday that 720 million goes to war contractors, ouch.