Punk Rock Friday

NoMeansNo

Dead Kennedys

The Clash

The Sex Pistols

Save What!?

There is a wave sweeping across college campuses. Kids are starting to organize. There are teach ins, posters, rallies, marches, fliers, T-Shirts and they all are saying the same thing, "Save Darfur."
"Save Darfur" is now the hip thing to be a part of on college campuses while Iraq burns, badly. To them the real tragedy is in Darfur where it is estimated that around 200,000 have been killed, 20% violently. Iraq's violence, being caused by our own government, is far greater than anything going on in Darfur yet that is not worth a T-Shirt.
Yes there is tragedy in Darfur, there is no doubt, but what is the conflict's history? What will it take to stop it? WHo really knows, maybe the college kids could go to China and lobby that government.
Why is it that Darfur is to be saved but not Iraq. By some estimates three times as many people have been killed in Iraq.
The only government one can exert any control over is there own. Yet that is not happening? Why?
If someone wanted to protest against human rights violations going on in Africa they should look into the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Coltan.

Some Live Music Videos

They Might Be Giants


Stereolab


Arctic Monkeys


REM

Israel Week was sidetracked in such an ironic way.

Dr. Norman Finkelstein was denied tenure this weekend from DePaul. It wasn't surprising but absurd. Finkelstein is one of the pre-eminent scholars on the Jewish Holocaust and the Israel/Palestinian conflict. Raul Hillberg, the world's leading scholar on the history of Jews in Europe, had this to say about the tenure.

"It takes an enormous amount of academic courage to speak the truth when no one else is out there to support him. And so, I think that given this acuity of vision and analytical power, demonstrating that the Swiss banks did not owe the money, that even though survivors were beneficiaries of the funds that were distributed, they came, when all is said and done, from places that were not obligated to pay that money. That takes a great amount of courage in and of itself. So I would say that his place in the whole history of writing history is assured, and that those who in the end are proven right triumph, and he will be among those who will have triumphed, albeit, it so seems, at great cost." It must be mentioned that

Hillberg is no lefty, he is a right winger through and through.


Avi Shlaim, Professor of international relations at Oxford University, who is regarded as one of the world's leading authorities on the Israeli-Arab conflict, said this about Finkelstein.

"His last book, Beyond Chutzpah, is based on an amazing amount of research. He seems to have read everything. He has gone through the reports of Israeli groups, of human rights groups, Human Rights Watch and Peace Now and B'Tselem, all of the reports of Amnesty International. And he deploys all this evidence from Israeli and other sources in order to sustain his critique of Israeli practices, Israeli violations of human rights of the Palestinians, Israeli house demolitions, the targeted assassinations of Palestinian militants, the cutting down of trees, the building of the wall -- the security barrier on the West Bank, which is illegal -- the restrictions imposed on the Palestinians in the West Bank, and so on and so forth. I find his critique extremely detailed, well-documented and accurate.

Then there is Noam Chomsky. ptI

pt. II


How it all started. pt.I
If you watch this you will understand, outside of it being about Israel/Palestine, why I admire Finkelstein’s debating skills. He is like a pit bull constantly holding back. Remember too that he is debating Harvard’s head law professor, one of the men who got O.J. off. Notice how much Dershowitz tries to change the subject from his plagiarism. Finklestein’s research is meticulous and impeccable.

pt.II

Dershowitz wasn’t able to take down Chomsky, due to work in linguistics, so Finkelstein is his proxy.

More Myths

Okay a few more myths about the Israel/Palestinian conflict
“Palestinians are anti-Semitic by nature.”
People like to claim that the real reason that Palestinians attack Israel and its citizens is because of a deep-rooted hatred for Jews. People will point to this fact over and over. “In 1937 the Grand Mufti expressed his solidarity with Germany, asking the Nazi Third Reich to oppose establishment of a Jewish state, stop Jewish immigration to Palestine, and provide arms to the Arab population.” Of course, there is truth to that but how does that tell us anything about the Palestinians today? To me it is irrelevant.
As Prof. Finkelstein likes to point out, Did the Native Americans fight the European settlers because of deep rooted anti-Europeanism? It would be laughable to claim that was the reason.

“These people have been fighting for thousands of years or this is a religious war”
At first the obvious truth is that the Jews weren’t in Palestine for the last couple thousand years. The Romans had kicked them out, in the first century and they didn’t start returning, in any real numbers, until the early 1900’s. These early Zionists had actually hoped to live in peace with their Arab neighbors and share the land and did.
Religion does play a role in the conflict but it isn’t a main factor. Suicide bombing mostly occurs in places on the globe were people feel that their religion is being attacked by another or when people are being ruled by another religious group. The fact is that the majority of all suicide bombing have occurred in Sri Lanka by the more secular Tamil Tigers. This group is not a highly religious organization but they are the minority religion in their land and have no rule.
In addition all one needs to do is go back and reread the latest Bertrand Russell quotes.

“The Palestinians left, in 1948, either as a result of their Arabs leaders telling them to or under their volition.”
There was no Arab leader to tell the Palestinians to leave.
Right-wing Israel Historian Benny Morris has shown that the Israelis ethnically cleansed the Palestinians from the West Bank. His only complaint is that it was done well enough.
Not to mention, I would have gotten the hell out too after this.

“The Arabs are/were going to ‘Push the Jews into the Sea’”
Israel has always had military superiority to all its adversaries combined.

“There is a lot of controversy about the conflict.”
Actually pretty much the entire world in is agreement about the conflict, the solutions, the history, what is happening, what is legal under international law and who are the victims. The only controversy is coming from Israel and the U.S. In fact there doesn’t seem to be any controversy in Israel if one reads the Israeli papers.

That is all I can think of off the top of my head.
Hopefully tomorrow I will be able to tackle one of the biggest myths of all; “At Camp David in 2000, Ehud Barack, Israel’s Prime Minister at the time, made a generous offer, with huge concessions, to Arafat but Arafat just rejected it and started the Second Intifada (uprising in Arabic).”

Ah yes, Gore Vidal

The History of the Six Day War

I think it would be best for Norman Finkelstein to explain the history.
It is 50 minutes long.
Six Day War

Recognition of the Right of Israel to Exist.

Ever since the Palestinians exercised their right to vote and voted in Hamas there have been demands placed on them in order for the Palestinians to get assistance from the world community. One of the main demands is that “Hamas must recognize the Right of Israel to exist as a Jewish State.” There are a few problems with this demand, which has been made numerous times against numerous Palestinian leaders. These problems are so obvious and elementary that they seem to show us that it is the Israeli Government, not the Palestinians, who never want peace and are willing to sacrifice their citizens for the expansion of their State.

What exactly does “recognize the right to exist” mean? Does the state of Mexico recognize the right of America to exist in parts stolen from them? Should they? To many onlookers the state of Israel exists and it seems very silly to deny its existence. To others it means that Hamas should not call for the destruction of the State of Israel, a country with nuclear weapons being threatened by crude rockets. As usual though these things are not as plain and simple.

What constitutes a state? One of the main parts of any state is their border. If a state has ever-evolving borders then what is to be recognized? Israel has ever changing borders. For instance the borders today are not the same as they were in 2000, 1982, 1966 or 1948. With the addition of the euphemistically called “security fence” more and more land is being confiscated by Israel.

The next question is, “Does Hamas need to recognize the State of Israel even though its borders are always in a state of flux?” By recognizing Israel’s right to exist as a state with ever encroaching borders, will this then recognize the right for Palestinians to be forcibly removed from their land the next time Israel wants some aquifer? It would lead that yes, Hamas agreed to recognize and ever expanding state of Israel and has no right crying when Israel continues to expand.

Most people who even remotely know anything about the conflict are aware of what is called the “two state solution”; the most famously negotiated settlement became the Geneva Accords. Both sides have basically agreed in theory to this plan. If Israel, the most powerful state in the region, agrees that there should be a Palestinian state then why don’t they recognize Palestine’s right to exist as a state? I beg any of you to find any Israeli politician who has ever called for a Palestinian state inside the Internationally recognized borders, with its capital in East Jerusalem. It just has never been said.

In March of 2002 the Arab League came up with a detailed peace plan for the region. The participants agreed to full recognition of a secure Israel and diplomatic relations if Israel would do three things. They must pull back to the pre-June ’67 borders, agree to a just solution to the refugee problem and recognize a sovereign Palestine in all the West Bank and Gaza. Israel refused to accept those conditions, all of which are required of Israel under international law, and the conflict rages today.

It is very true that Hamas's charter calls for the destruction of the Jewish state and replacing it with an Islamic State but this document is old and so much has changed. Hamas has called for a Hudna, or truce in Arabic, to last for 10 years while issues are negotiated. A Hudna is a Koranic idea and Hamas is strongly religious so it leads that they would follow their religion. Yet Israel refused. The current Prime Minister told Ha’aretz, the most influential paper in Israel, "If Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders, peace will prevail and we will implement a cease-fire [hudna] for many years." To no avail.

So what does this tell us? It tells us that Israel is making demands of the Palestinians that they refuse to do themselves. On top of that it tells us that Hamas cannot, as the representative of the Palestinians, accept a neighboring state whose borders are always creeping in stealing land for the state you recognized. No country would accept that. Which means in the end that the Israeli Government has no desire for peace with its neighbors and will continue to steal more and more land from the native population with the hopes that things will become so desperate for the Palestinians that they will just leave. It is a sort of “soft” ethnic cleansing.

Israel Week

This Sunday, June 10th, marks the 40th anniversary of Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories. In case you have noticed, I haven't been posting much of my own writing. I had absolutely no inspiration, but now there is an anniversary that deserves attention.
I will be writing a series of essays about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict this week. Mostly I will be writing about the myths and red herrings. I have spent a few years arguing with Liberal Jews who support Israel, in varying degrees, and have come up with some fake roadblocks, propaganda and some intelligent debate. So in the next days I will deal with these issues that Israeli policy supporters use to end debate. The first installment will be on the line that "Hamas/PA/Palestinians must recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state."
SInce I have yet to write my first essay I will post my piece I did for my writing class. It deals with the conflict also.

On March 26th 1979 U.S. President Jimmy Carter brought together the leaders of two countries, which had been in a perpetual state of war for twenty-nine years, for a historic moment. After nearly three decades of on again off again war, the two countries, Israel and Egypt, came together to sign a peace treaty, Israel’s only peace treaty until the 1996 treaty with Jordan, which has lasted to this day. So how could it be that 28 years later Carter, a man who helped Israel create some peace in its neighborhood, would be branded an anti-Semite?

Menachem Begin, a former guerilla fighter who fought to free his country from British Occupation, was Prime Minister of Israel at the time. Begin’s legacy is controversial, some say he was a war criminal for his attacks against the British and the killing, terrorizing and displacement of the Arab natives while others view him as a champion of their dream for a Greater Israel, without the original Arab inhabitants. Begin went into the diplomatic dialogue knowing that it would be in his country’s best interest to attempt to negotiate in a one on one setting as opposed to Israel negotiating with the entire Arab world.

Anwar Al-Sadat, the third President of Egypt, also fought against British domination of his country, much like his Israeli counterpart. In 1977 Sadat made a bold and, amongst his fellow Arabs, unpopular move and became the first Arab leader to travel and speak to the Israeli Parliament, the Knesset. Sadat had hoped that this gesture, of essentially recognizing the state of Israel, would please America with the hopes that maybe the US could help the beleaguered Egyptian economy.

In September of 1978 President Carter invited both leaders and their respective negotiating teams to Camp David for secret talks that lasted 13 days. At numerous times, during those 13 days, both sides had wanted to end the peace process each time President Carter brought them back to the table. Carter would shuttle back and forth between the cabins of the two sides and then relay the information to a third party, whom would then inform either side of what has transpired.

Out of these 13 days of tense and trying negotiations came, what is now known as, the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty signed in Washington by Sadat and Begin, a peace treaty that has lasted for almost 28 years without incident. Sadat would later be assassinated for creating peace with Israel by many of the same people who would later fight the Russians in Afghanistan and finance the attacks perpetrated against the U.S. on September 11th 2001.

Since leaving office Former President Carter has become one of the world’s leading champions of human rights and democracy. His Carter Center has monitored 67 elections in over twenty-five countries and he personally won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 for his humanitarian work around the globe.

Four years after winning the Nobel Prize, President Carter released a book entitled “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid” in which he is critical of the Israeli’s treatment of the Palestinians. The book was condemned even before it was published by future Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi who said, “It is wrong to suggest that the Jewish people would support a government in Israel or anywhere else that institutionalizes ethnically based oppression and Democrats reject that allegation vigorously.” Another fellow Democrat, John Conyers, now chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has said he called the Former President “to express my concerns about the title of the book, and to request that the title be changed. President Carter does not build upon his career as a proponent of peace in the Middle East with this comparison and I hope he and his publisher will reconsider this decision.”

The Anti Defamation League wrote a letter to Carter telling him, “using the incendiary word "Apartheid" to refer to Israel and its policies is unacceptable and shameful” and “Apartheid, that abhorrent and racist system in South Africa, has no bearing on Israeli policies.” But Carter said: "Apartheid is the forced separation of two peoples in the same area and the forced subjugation of one to the other. No one can argue that that is not the situation in the Palestinian territories right now." Later the ADL went on to claim “[Carter has] been feeding into conspiracy theories about excessive Jewish power and control. Considering the history of anti-Semitism, even in our great country, this is very dangerous stuff.”

Some of Carter’s supporters point out that the word “apartheid” is a regular part of Israeli discourse. DePaul Professor Norman Finkelstein, son of Holocaust survivors, reminds us to “take the case of Ha’aretz, Israel's leading newspaper….in their editorials, they routinely refer to the apartheid-like regime in the Occupied Territories.” He then goes on to ask, “so why is it illegitimate for a former American president to use a term which is a commonplace? Why are you in the United States disqualified from participating in what in Israel is part of the mainstream discourse?”

The few book reviews that were published also attacked Carter. Martin Peretz of the New Republic claimed, “Now, I have read this book. Or as much of it as I could stand. It is a tendentious, dishonest and stupid book.” Deborah Lipstadt of the Washington Post said of the book, “It trivializes the murder of Israelis.” She went on to say that by “almost ignoring the Holocaust, Carter gives inadvertent comfort to those who deny its importance or even its historical reality” and that “Carter has repeatedly fallen back … on traditional anti-Semitic canards” Jeffrey Goldberg, also writing in the Washington Post says that “One gets the impression that Carter believes that Israelis -- in their deviousness -- somehow mean to keep Jesus from fulfilling the demands of His ministry.”

Though leading the charge in the criticism of the former President is Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz. Professor Dershowitz has written several articles attacking Carter and his book for “His use of the loaded word ‘apartheid,’ suggesting an analogy to the hated policies of South Africa”.

UCLA English Professor, Saree Makdisi, thinks differently. “Israel maintains two sets of rules and regulations in the West Bank,” he tells us, “one for Jews, one for non-Jews. The only thing wrong with using the word ‘apartheid’ to describe such a repugnant system is that the South African version of institutionalized discrimination was never as elaborate as its Israeli counterpart -- nor did it have such a vocal chorus of defenders among otherwise liberal Americans.”

Professor Dershowitz has compared Carter to Nazi sympathizers. “In reading Carter’s statements, I was reminded of the bad old Harvard of the nineteen thirties, which continued to honor Nazi academics after the anti-Semitic policies of Hitler’s government became clear. Harvard of the nineteen thirties was complicit in evil. I sadly concluded that Jimmy Carter of the twenty-first century has become complicit in evil.”

In the early part of 2007 Carter was invited to speak at Brandies University, a university founded by American Jews but is secular in nature. Though there has been debate surrounding the various invitations, according to The Brandies Hoot, the college’s paper, Carter had been invited three times. According to the Hoot, “The first invitation, extended by Faculty Senate Chair Harry Mairson, was declined by Carter after Carter advisor and Brandeis trustee Stuart Eizenstat told Carter he was uncertain if the professor had an agenda behind his invitation.”

Then the university suggested the former president, the first to visit since the 1957 commencement speech by the late Harry Truman, debate Alan Dershowitz. Many saw this as puzzling. “I don’t think you ask a President of the United States to come and debate anyone. It’s just not dignified,” said Brandeis Professor Gordon Fellman. Carter turned down the invitation saying “I don't want to have a conversation even indirectly with Dershowitz… there is no need to for me to debate somebody who, in my opinion, knows nothing about the situation in Palestine.” Dershowitz fired back arguing, "President Carter said he wrote the book because he wanted to encourage more debate. Then why won’t he debate?”

Carter responding to a caller on CSPAN, who called him a racist, bigot and anti-semite, said, “The pre-eminent goal that I have had in my mind is to bring peace to the people of Israel.”
In the end all of these attacks against the former President have taken a toll on him. "I've been hurt and so has my family by some of the reaction," Carter said. "This is the first time that I've ever been called a liar and a bigot and an anti-Semite and a coward and a plagiarist. This has hurt me."

Mark Twain's War Prayer Animated

I just found this on the web and had to pass it on.



It is amazing, considering his opinions, that Twain is as celebrated today as he is. Maybe someday America will look back at people like Chomsky in a more positive light as they do with Twain.
Twain was a genius!

Ant-War Movement R.I.P. 2004-2007

On May 28th 2007, Memorial Day in America, the anti-war movement was pronounced dead. With Congressional Democrats falling all over themselves, to provide the President with whatever he wants, in order to keep this fucking war going after a very brief moment of opposition. And now, Cindy SHeehan, one of the two people who made up the anti-war movement, has called it quits. So thats that. The war will continue on....
The Democrats in Congress deserve condemnation. So many voted initially to go to war when there was so much evidence that contradicted the Bush/Cheney line. Democrats aren't thinking about the troops in war, they don't care about those people, the only thing politicians care about is re-election. Many Democrats remember how after ending the Vietnam War, like the public demanded of Congress, they were seen as defeatists, even though they did what the public wanted. Our Democrats today are thinking back and are afraid of their job security because, again, that is all they care about. They don't care about morals, international law, human beings, or anything that doesn't involve them. Hey David Obey, remember when you told those stupid liberals that they didn't understand anything, that your bill was going to end the war and if they couldn't see that then they must be smoking something illegal, go fuck yourself.
CIndy SHeehan has not only disavowed herself from the Democratic Party but she has gone all the way and just given up on the anti-war movement. This isn't good for a movement made up of only two people. Somehow I doubt that Medea Benjamin, trust fund kid, will be getting that much air play. Don't get me wrong, Medea and her CodePink are great but they were not enough. The mother of a dead soldier(SIde note: Casey was killed during an uprising in Sadr City. The uprising was caused because then Viceroy Paul L. Bremer decided that, in his position of supporting freedom, he would shut down a newspaper from the Shia Cleric Al-Sadr.) is always a great figure to protest a war.
Well now she is gone and the war can continue without a peep from the public. If the Democrats are lucky this War will cost the Republicans the Whitehouse. One must remember that we are losing nearly four soldiers a day and Jan. '09 is quite a few days away. So, in 2009, we may be talking about our Democratic President or we may be talking about the 1500 kids who died since CIndy SHeehan gave up.

What's politics?

The other day at work I ran into a former co-worker of mine, a hip vegan kid who is attending college. He was a political science major at the University of Milwaukee so of course we talked quite a bit. He was young so he didn’t know much political history but he was passionate about the issues. So when I saw him recently I had to ask how his major was going. It turned out that he was now going to get a degree in I.T.. I gave him a strange look and he told me that he couldn’t do politics anymore. “Politics is great to discuss over a beer (most people polled said they would prefer to have a beer with Bush vs. Kerry) but to participate (at this moment he gave me one of those “you wouldn’t understand” looks) is not cool at all. It totally turned me off.” This made me realize something. Politics is not what the politicians do. Politics is not about elections or even what those politicians do in Washington. Politics is injustice, politics is economic tyranny, politics is black power, politics is equality, politics is direct action, politics is ACTUP, politics is the World Social Forum it isn’t about the bills on Capitol Hill like the cartoon used to tell us. If people think that what happens in the capitol is politics it is no wonder only half of Americans vote. Maybe, just maybe, if people understand what politics really is, change could actually happen.

Two Great Quotes

I was listening to a book on tape today and heard two awesome quotes. Both are by Bertrand Russell, in my opinion, one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th Century. If you haven't read anything by him, you are doing yourself a big disservice.

The book I am listening to is "Religion and Science."
I just thought these quotes are totally relevent to today.

"The harm that theology has done, is not to create cruel impulses, but to give them the sanction of what professes to be a lofty ethic and to confer an apparently sacred character upon the practices which have come down from more ignorant and barbarous ages."

"It is difficult to resist the conclusion that to many men there is something enjoyable in the sufferings of women, and that therefore there is a propensity in men to cling to any theological or ehtical code which makes it a woman's duty to suffer."

See You In Hell

We lost another bad one today. Poor Jerry Falwell has passed on to the eternal damnation and hell-fire that he believed in. If each person had a personal hell I think Jerry's arrival might look something like this.

After his last heart beat, Jerry Falwell leaves the natural world.
He looks up and sees a bright light and a voice telling him to come into the light. "This is it," he tells himself, "This is what I have been preparing myself for all these years." 'Finally I can meet Jesus, Moses and the rest."
He walks into the light and comes out on the other side. Looking around he realizes that it isn't quite how he pictured it. "Where are the Pearly Gates" he thinks to himself. "Where is St. Peter?"
He begins to walk around to see what his environs are. He notices a lot of men, actually it is all men. "I knew it. Women are evil. They got us kicked out of Eden." The men around are all nicely dressed, many of them in suits and ties. "Not bad." He thinks to himself.
It isn't long until he decides to approach one of the men in a suit. Jerry Falwell walks up and introduces himself, "Hi, I'm Jerry Falwell." The man responds, "I know who you are. We've actually all been waiting for you. My name is Ron, I was a business man when I was alive." "Ooh, a capitalist, this place is right on." Falwell thinks to himself.
"A business man, what kind of business man?" Jerry probes. "Oh, I worked in the energy sector, you know, the extraction of resources from the ground." Ron informs him. At this point Falwell is almost beside himself.
Jerry decides to do a little more digging. "Were you into politics when you were alive?" Jerry asks. "You had to be when you were in my business." Ron answers. Falwell puts two and two together and asks the kicker, "You were a Republican weren't you?"
"Of course, we are all Republicans here." Ron tells him. "Sweet Hosannas, I knew it. Heaven is full of Republican men. All those Liberals, gays, feminists, the ACLU, pagans and abortionists are in hell just like I knew they would be."
Now Falwell is being moved to tears. He just can't believe that this place could be so perfect. All of a sudden he begins to hear the sound of rain and thunder. Next comes some sort of music, a beat and some backround music. It is getting louder. He begins to notice that all the men had stopped and have begun to look up. Just then he hears a women's voice, the voice of Martha Walsh. "This doesn't seem right." Falwell quietly and nervously thinks to himself.
Suddenly the voice becomes clear, "Hi - Hi! We're your Weather Girls, Ah-huh, And have we got news for you. You better listen! Get ready, all you lonely girls and leave those umbrellas at home." "Omigod no" Falwell says to himself in despair.
THe voice continues "Humidity is rising, Barometer's getting low." "No, no, no. This isn't happening." Falwell pleads. The voice comes back, "According to all sources, the street's the place to go." "But I prayed and followed so closely your teachings." Falwells thinks he says to Christ.
Martha's voice gets louder, "Cause tonight for the first time. Just about half-past ten"
He looks over at Ron but Ron no longer is wearing his suit. Instead he shed it for some pink hot pants, mesh shirt and a feather boa. "Ron, I thought you said you all were Republicans?" Jerry begs. "But we are Jerry, were Log Cabin Republicans." Jerry falls to the ground in tears, assumes the fetal position and begins to rock back and forth as the voice now booms, "For the first time in history It's gonna start raining men."
See you in Hell Falwell
Of course, this is Falwell's own personal hell.

Founding of Mother's Day

Mother's Day Proclamation - 1870

by Julia Ward Howe
Arise then...women of this day!
Arise, all women who have hearts!
Whether your baptism be of water or of tears!
Say firmly:
"We will not have questions answered by irrelevant agencies,
Our husbands will not come to us, reeking with carnage,
For caresses and applause.
Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn
All that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy and patience.
We, the women of one country,
Will be too tender of those of another country
To allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs."

From the voice of a devastated Earth a voice goes up with
Our own. It says: "Disarm! Disarm!
The sword of murder is not the balance of justice."
Blood does not wipe our dishonor,
Nor violence indicate possession.
As men have often forsaken the plough and the anvil
At the summons of war,
Let women now leave all that may be left of home
For a great and earnest day of counsel.
Let them meet first, as women, to bewail and commemorate the dead.
Let them solemnly take counsel with each other as to the means
Whereby the great human family can live in peace...
Each bearing after his own time the sacred impress, not of Caesar,
But of God -
In the name of womanhood and humanity, I earnestly ask
That a general congress of women without limit of nationality,
May be appointed and held at someplace deemed most convenient
And the earliest period consistent with its objects,
To promote the alliance of the different nationalities,
The amicable settlement of international questions,
The great and general interests of peace.

Maybe this guy should be President.

God damn popular artists.

Here is a song by the artist P!nk. I was never really a fan of hers but this song is probably the most biting mainstream song so far.


Here is James Blunt, who's music I can not stand. THough this song, which I bet is about his time as a PeaceKeeper, is quite timely.


SO why the hell are these some of the only mainstream music artists producing music like this? Is that the music industry is so money hungry that they don't care about humans or art for that matter. I have no forum but I try. I write to the local newspaper and get my stuff read by thousands. Pop music artists have millions that they could reach but are either to fucking scared, of some percieved Dixie Chicks treatment, or don't give a rat's ass about anyone other than themselves. My guess is that it is the latter.

Poor Former Director of the C.I.A.

In the last few days a lot has been said about the new "tell all" book from former C.I.A. Director George Tenet. What I find the most interesting about this is the "slam dunk" comment. According to Cheney and his evil minions, Tenet told them that Saddam's possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction, was a "slam dunk."
According to Tenet his "slam dunk" comment was about how easy it would be to sell "WMD" to the US public. No shit. He is saying that he never said Saddam's holding of "WMDs" was a "slam dunk" but instead said lying to Americans is a "slam dunk."
What bullshit.

I Don't Get It.

Why the hell do these shows keep bringing this Bozo on? He hasn't gotten a single thing right in years. This kind of asshole gets invited on a news show, even though he got everything wrong, but where is Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman, and on and on......


Sometimes I really wish I believed in Hell or Karma or some sort of mythical justice.

Get Ready to Be Fuckin' Liberated!

Guest Commentary

I had been meaning to write something about the tragic events at Virginia Tech but hadn't got around to it. Then I recieved this email from my friend whose attending Grad. School out in New Mexico. He summed up my feelings exactly so I am reprinting his letter for you all.

What makes us so fucking special?

by: Ian Kleats

We've been reminded in the past days of the failure of American society to control its own weapons of destruction. The loss of 33 lives is certainly tragic, but do the same Americans who cry and pray for those 33 respond likewise to other, greater losses of life. This one act of violence will be in the news for two weeks or more, yet there is barely a passing mention of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed in the civil war we have facilitated. Moreover, the genocide of Darfur is practically invisible to the corporate media in this country. What makes us so special that 33 American lives are worth more than the people of Darfur or the citizens of Iraq? What makes 33 college students and faculty more deserving of sympathy than over 3000 soldiers we have needlessly sacrificed in an unjust war? As you reflect on the events at Virginia Tech remember that violence perpetrated against anyone, Iraqi or American, college student or serviceman, is an affront to everyone. Stop the violence and honor the lives of the Virginia Tech victims by ending this war.

My Latest Letter to the Editor

Here is a copy of my latest letter published in the Milwaukee Journal. It is a response to the following letter written by a husband and wife team who are constantly being published. Below is their letter and below that is my response.

Shame on these so-called leaders
By; Tom and Margie D’Amato

What war? Now that the liberals have Congress, the war is over. They want to stop funding and leave our troops out to dry and die. The memory of those who served and died will now be forever tarnished, and they will have died for nothing.
Whatever the reason we got in Iraq, we need to win; Sept. 11 will look like kids work if we pull out of Iraq now without winning. Maybe that’s what it’s going to take to wake up Democrats John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Russ Feingold, Al Gore and "do nothing" former President Carter. However, the number who will die in another Sept. 11 will be tenfold that of 2001.
Our enemies are laughing and waiting and at the same time taking comfort in the words of some of our government’s so-called leaders.
It’s as though because of their hatred for President Bush, these lawmakers want America to lose. Some are calling this an illegal war. President Clinton went to Bosnia without Congress or the United Nations, and the liberal press said nothing.
We can win in Iraq. Simply turn the troops loose to go win this thing, and then get the heck out.

Lawmakers are serious about protecting U.S.
By; Justin Loper

The March 1 letter by Tom and Margie D'Amato was a prime example of low the discourse has gone ("Shame on these so-called leaders"). Decorated Vietnam veterans like Chuck Hagel, a conservative Republican, and Jack Murtha supposedly want to "leave our troops out to dry and die" in Iraq, or at least that is what the D'Amatos want people to believe.
It is ludicrous to believe that two men who love their country, enough to fight in a war, are not as serious when it comes to protecting the nation as two guys who supposedly love their country so much they refused to go to war when it was their time.
The D'Amatos also claimed we can win in Iraq. They wrote that we should "simply turn the troops loose to go win this thing, and then get the heck out." Turn our soldiers loose?
What the D'Amatos and so many others are unable to see is that winning means staying. We never had an exit strategy because we didn't plan on exiting. Winning means creating a regime that will let the United States stay in Iraq indefinitely. Winning means staying, not leaving.
And staying really means losing.

And we lose another good one.

Here's some of Vonnegut's thoughts about the situation we find ourselves in. He couldn't be more right on.

Those Poor Western Hostages

The Iranians released footage of the captured British soldiers playing chess and ping pong. It may very well have been a set up. For all we know, there could have been armed soldiers with their rifles trained on the sailors.

What I find comical is the reaction by the West. America and Britain both have zero legs to stand on. The Americans and the British area complaining about the treatment given to the captured sailors. Maybe they would have been better off in say, Gitmo, Bagram, Abu Ghraib or any other of the secret prisons set up around the world. I bet that the prisoners in Guatanamo would love access to ping pong and chess boards. Instead they get really loud offensive music blasted at them while they are forced to stand for days in freeezing conditions.
Here is what the British do to the Arabs today. Just imagine what they used to do to them when they were the imperial power, think poison gas.

In case you missed it here is what the Americans do to their prisoners.

Spreadin' Freedom

I would love to know how the soldiers knew that the person driving his car down the street was an enemy combatant. My feeling is that to the soldiers and marines all Iraqis are the enemy. In that case who the fuck are we liberating?

We lost another good person

I just read on Israel's leading paper's website, Haaretz.com, that linguist and peace activist Tanya Reinhardt died last night. I first learned about her from the Nation magazine which ran advertisements for her book simply titled Israel/Palestine. Of course, I had to buy a copy of it and I did. The book is a powerhouse. In it she dismantles so much of the Israeli rhetoric and shows the true story of the second Intifada. She recently published a book called A Road Map To Nowhere that I have not had a chance to read.

Printed below is Prof. Chomsky's reaction to her loss. I have stole the writing from CounterPunch.org and have posted it here.
I hope the guys at Counterpunch will be okay with that. Tanya studied under Prof. Chomsky at M.I.T.

She Drew Away the Veil on Criminal and Outrageous Conduct
In Memory of Tanya Reinhart
By NOAM CHOMSKY

It is painful, and hard, to write about the loss of an old and cherished friend. Tanya Reinhart was just that.
Tanya was a brilliant and creative scientist. I can express my own evaluation of her work most concisely by recalling that years ago, when I was thinking about the future of my own department after my retirement, I tried to arrange to offer Tanya the invitation to be my eventual replacement, plans that did not work out, much to my regret, mostly for bureaucratic reasons.
I will not try to review her remarkable contributions to virtually every major area of linguistic studies. Included among them are original and highly influential investigations of syntactic structure and operations, referential dependence, principles of lexical semantics and their implications for syntactic organization, unified approaches to cross-linguistic semantic interpretation of complex structures that appear superficially to vary widely, the theory of stress and intonation, efficient parsing systems, the interaction of internal computations with thought and sensorimotor systems, optimal design as a core principle of language, and much else. Her academic work extended well beyond, to literary theory, mass media and propaganda, and other core elements of intellectual culture.
But Tanya's outstanding professional work was only one part of her life, and of our long and intimate friendship. She was one of the most courageous and honorable defenders of human rights whom I have ever been privileged to meet. As all honest people should, she focused her attention and energy on the actions of her own state and society, for which she shared responsibility _ including the responsibility, which she never shirked, to expose crimes of state and to defend the victims of repression, violence, and conquest.
Her numerous articles and books drew away the veil that concealed criminal and outrageous actions, and shone a searing light on the reality that was obscured, all of immense value to those who sought to understand and to react in a decent way. Her activism was not limited to words, important as these were. She was on the front line of direct resistance to intolerable actions, an organizer and a participant, a stance that one cannot respect too highly. She will be remembered not only as a resolute and honorable defender of the rights of Palestinians, but also as one of those who have struggled to defend the moral integrity of her own Israeli society, and its hope for decent survival.
Tanya's passing is a terrible loss, not only to her family and those fortunate enough to come to know her personally, and to those she defended and protected with such dedication and courage, but to everyone concerned with freedom, justice, and an honorable peace.

Even So I'am Pro-CHoice

Here is an essay I found on the web. I can't give the proper credit because the person just went by the name of Wulf.

If you're still under the impression that homosexuality is a choice:
You're confused about the facts. You're wrong about the science.
I'm sorry to be so blunt, but a lot of specious arguments have been invoked here to defend that mistaken belief, including burglary, bestiality, and the Bible.
Could we have some minimal standards for evidence, please? This isn't a political question, or a moral question, or a theological question--it's a scientific question. It's a question about human behavior, about human nature, about biology, about why we do what we do. And you don't have to be a card-carrying scientist to approach the question analytically. But you have to be willing to give up a comforting or cherished belief--you have to be willing to go where the evidence leads.
Because this is a question about human sexuality, there are three possible sources of evidence:
--what we (collectively) observe _--what others report _--our own introspection
Since we know that human beings don't always understand why they do what they do or feel what they feel, and since we know that human beings sometimes lie about what they do know, we have to approach the second and third potential sources of evidence with caution.
One other caution: whatever conclusion we come to about homosexuality needs to make sense in the context of the rest of human sexual behavior (and, for that matter, primate sexuality and mammal sexuality in general). We can't have a special theory for homosexuality in isolation.
So what kind of observational evidence do we have a reasonable consensus on?
--Among mammals generally, females are attracted to males and males are attracted to females.
--However, homosexual acts have been observed in many mammal species, and
--Homosexual pairings have been observed in other social, pair-bonding species.
--There are significant differences between male and female sexual behavior (biologists call this "sexual dimorphism").
--These differences in behavior are linked to differences between male and female brains and between male and female endocrine systems (hormones).
--The level and mix of our sex hormones affects our social-sexual behavior. Alter the level or the mix and you alter the behavior.
--We all started out female. The basic human body plan is female. It takes at least three 'hormonal events early in a pregnancy to transform this default female design into the modified male version. The changes include altering the fine structure of the developing brain--not only how it is 'wired,' but how it will respond to sex hormones at puberty. Neurologists have labeled this process "masculinizing the brain."
--Because of this complex transformation process, and the possibility that it is disrupted, not every outwardly male body contains a fully "masculinized" brain (and not every outwardly female body contains an unaltered female brain). In fact, a wide range of variations is possible.
What are the implications of this evidence? That there exists a natural developmental path which can account not only for 'instinctive' heterosexuality, but male homosexuality, female homosexuality, true bisexuality, and gender dysphoria (both "a woman trapped in a man's body" and "a lesbian trapped in a man's body"). It's possible that all sexual orientations trace their origin to this process.
Would that explain all human sexual behavior? No. Just as with food, we are creative pleasure-seekers. We are fully capable of experimenting with toys, textures, electricity, intense sensations, fruits and vegetables, other species, our own sex, in the pursuit of pleasurable experiences. And when we find one, we're generally inclined to repeat it. Here's where we do see a significant element of choice. Here's where we get a lot of sexual acts (by straights, gays, bisexuals) which have no obvious connection to reproduction.
For my money, this model does a good job of accounting for what we see: most sexual behavior (of all orientations) driven by deep instinctive drives, some driven by experimental pleasure-seeking. The remainder, sadly, probably has to do with people who are in one way or another damaged goods--with enough power over someone, you can warp and even break them sexually (something all too often done in the name of an Abrahamic religion).

Dolphin Massacre In Japan

Beware. Graphic Footage below.

glumbert.com - Dolphin massacre in Japan

This is just wrong.

Ann Coulter must be a good Christian

Luckily, according to one of our commenters, gays choose to be faggots.



The superior intellect causes her truoble.


I just love fucking hypocrits. If I remember, Jesus Christ had a whole speech about hypocrits and never said a word about faggots. To be fair, it could be argued that he was crowned with a faggot, a thorny faggot.


Thanks Super News.


The best part about the clip of Ann calling Edwards a "faggot" is that the crowd cheered. This shows you exactly what the Republican party stands for. It isn't as if the crowd gasped, like the crowd at the comedy club Kramer was at, but instead they agreed. The Republican party is the party of hatred, straight up. Why else attack gays, migrant workers, women, educators, intellectuals, the poor, labor or anyone else different.
From what I can tell there is absolutely nothing about the Republican party that says anything other than hate. Some say that the Republicans are for small government, yet they have increased the size of government at a faster pace than Clinton did. If my memory serves me right it was Clinton who claimed that big government was dead. Some say the Republicans are libertarian in nature but the want to tell us who to marry, what substances we choose to put into our bodes, who can die and who can't.... in other words it is complete bullshit. The Republican party is full of hate.

And again.

Fuck Tim Hardaway

Holy fuck. I am sorry, but since I think basketball is stupid, I wasn't aware of Tim Hardaway's hatefilled rhetoric until I read about it in the paper. Damn. I am still wondering if this will get the same play as Michael Richards explosion. I guess in today's age it is still okay to hate fags but don't call some one a nigger. When I was in highschool it was the cool thing to call someone a faggot. Yet, if I used that word at home I got a swift rebuttal from my mother. She wouold say "You don't use the word nigger, do you? It is the same thing." Too bad not enough people are as enlightnened as my mother.
So just in case you missed it.


Of course, Basketball isn't homo-erotic at all. Oh shit that is right, it is as gay as football. In case you need proof here you go.


Sorry about being lazy and posting youtube videos. I just haven't had the time to write.

Oooooh! Bama

Ah yes, the Democratic politicians are falling all over themselves to support one of the worst human rights violators in the world. This time it is Barak Obama.
Here's an exerpt from the Israeli Daily Haaretz

WASHINGTON - United States Senator Barack Obama, a Democrat from Illinois who is competing for his party's presidential nomination, told Haaretz on Thursday that the United States should help protect Israel from its "dangerous" enemies.
"My view is that the United States' special relationship with Israel obligates us to be helpful to them in the search for credible partners with whom they can make peace, while also supporting Israel in defending itself against enemies sworn to its destruction," he said.
"Israelis want more than anything to live in peace with their neighbors, but Israel also has real - and very dangerous - enemies," Obama said.

Mr. Obama please sit down and have a smoke. Collect your thoughts. You will not get the Jewish dollars for your campaign because yoou can never be as tough as Hillary is on Arabs.
First off, Why should the U.S. protect Israel, the strongest military in the region with hundreds of Nuclear weapons, when it obviously can protect itself. I thought the point of the Western world possessing nuclear weapons was as a detterent.
Second, what is this special relationship that America has with Israel and what do we get out of it? THe only special relationship we have with Israel is our blocking of any meaningful peace process and vetoing any resolution critical of Israel at the UN. America hasn't and will not search for credible partners with whom they can make peace. We never had. Remember Arafat couldn't be talked to. Now Hamas is in charge and all of a sudden the US backs Arafat's Fatah party, which before wasn't a partner for peace. We are told that Hamas must recognize Israel's right to exist yet no Israeli politicians has ever said that the Palestinians have a right to exist.
THird, if Israel really wanted to live at peace with their neighbors they would get the hell out of the West Bank and pull back to the pre-67 borders.
Again this just shows how powerful the Israel Lobby is. In order for any Democratic candidate to be viable they must come out in favor of Israel's terrible human rights record and against the Arabs. Fuck, Obama is probably the only person on the globe who has Hussein in their name who doesn't support the Palestinians.

YouTube Videos of the Week

First off we have the "straight talk express" barrelling down the tracks. Oh crap that train derailed.


DO NOT WATCH UNLESS YOU CAN HANDLE GRAPHIC PICTURES OF WAR DEAD


Here is one of the best journalists in US history, Bill Moyers. THere is a movement starting in the hopes of getting BIll Moyers to run for President on the Democratic ticket. Draft Bill Moyers

At least some musicians care enough about the poor to talk about it. Thank you Immortal Technique.

Why things are the way they are.

Today in Wisconsin it is unreasonably, no insanely, fucking cold. We are talking 10 below air temp. and 30 below wind chill. Yes it is stupid cold here. As a result of the cold weather the city shut down the schools. Therefore I had many children today in the grocery store with their parents.
In case you don't know, I live in a pretty yuppie neighborhood. It is very European, whereas it is a walking community, it has a large Jewish and Russian population and is overall pretty upper middle class. From where I stand politically, I believe that it is the middle class that truly is responsible for the state of our country. These are the people who go to the polls, they write letters, they are in the P.T.A, and they basically decide the fate of our country. I may be wrong but I would I love for someone to tell me why. Either way the middle class is in control whether they know it or not. So my encounter with a upper middle class soccer mom was very informative and a little saddening.
I look up from my work and there is a white lady standing at the counter. IN the shopping cart there is a boy, maybe twelve, the new thing today is to have you children sit in the large part of the shopping cart along with you grocerys. I approach the customers and make some small talk.
Justin: So no school today, eh?
UpperMiddleClassWhiteLady(UMCWL): Ya, I was surprised.
Justin: Well it is just too cold out and the sad thing is that some kids get sent to school without gloves, and you just can't have that. SO the city did what it had to and shut down the schools.
UMCWL: Ya, I was watching the news today and they were at the Salvation Army. They didn't have enough beds so they were handing out gloves and hats. Imagine, these people don't even have gloves.
Justin: Ya I just watched a special on PBS, last week, about the homeless in Milwaukee. Did you know that there are 12,000 homeless people in Milwaukee.
UMCWL: (Gasp)
Justin: That is like a small city
UMCWL: Some of them sleep along the bike path, sometimes I see their little camps in the woods.
Justin: It is terrible, where do these people go in this weather.
UMCWL: It just makes you wonder, what you can't get a job at McDonalds?
Justin: Most of them are too mentally ill to hold down a job.
UMCWL: You know I never thought about that. Hmmm.
Justin: Well ya, you'd have to be crazy to want to live on the streets.
UMCWL: Ya that makes sense, and the drugs.
Justin: Well the drugs are really just a way for the mentally ill to self medicate themselves.
UMCWL: Or the drugs made them that way
Justin:(Hiding his total disgust and tryinf to find a way to end this conversation and not explode) Ya, I guess there are no simple answers. (A total lie in my mind. I am actually surprised at how simple the answers are)
SO here we have a white upper middle class voting citizen who doesn't realize that homeless people are mentally ill. No wonder absolutely nothing gets done that is good for the poor, ill and old. FOr her it was a question of laziness until she met me.
This whole time I thought this was all Ralph NAder's fault.

Molly Ivins 1944-2007 R.I.P.

Last night America lost a great voice of Progress. I can't really do any justice to her by trying to tell you about her. THerefore I will link an article by someone who can do her just.

Here is some video

One of Two Rejected Columns

Last summer I tried to get a position as one of the Journal Sentinel's community columnists. Here is one of the two essays I submitted to the paper. Unfortunately I wasn't good enough to make the cut. Instead they chose a person who, in his essay on the death penalty, claimed that people who would be qualified for death are actually getting out of jail. Of course, we all know that people who the death penalty, especially in Wisconsin, is being suggested for will not get out of jail. Yet the Journal printed his crap. Maybe I shouldn't have called myself a Marxist Socialist in my cover letter. Oh well.



How is it that at a time when the entire world is moving in more humane directions Wisconsin has decided to join the ranks of countries such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China, Egypt, Sudan and Afghanistan? How has it come that keeping criminals locked up for good is no longer good enough? With everything facing us in the world today why are people clamoring to bring back the death penalty? Unless people see it as some sort of deterent there is no logic in bringing it back. The only problem is it isn’t a deterent.
The law that this referendum proposes we enact would require DNA evidence to support the conviction in order for the death penalty to be administered. Why is that? It is because both the authors of this bill, and the voting public, know that far too many people have been let off of death row due to DNA evidence. So by putting it into the bill they are admitting that in the past the death penalty had some major problems but this will “correct” those flaws. They also should have set it up in a way so that it wouldn’t be used against minorities in a disproportional way that it has been used in the past.
The law would be set up so only the vilest of murderers would be killed. The type of person who commits the crimes necessary of this threshold doesn’t think of anything reality based. It is ridiculous to think that someone who is getting ready to go out and act in such horrendous way thinks beforehand. The people who commit these hideous crimes don’t sit down before and make a pro and cons list. This law is designed for people who don’t think about consequences. So where is the deterent?
In the last several years we have seen a nationwide switch on the death penalty. Say what you want about Former Illinios Governor George Ryan but even he, a Republican, put a moratorium on the use of the death penalty because so many death row inmates had been exonerated. The Supreme Court has dealt with a number of cases involving the adminstration of the death penalty when the crime was committed by a child or of some one who is mentally handicapped. In both instance they sided with life.
On my walk home from work one day I saw a bumper sticker that stuck with me, it said, “Our Government kills people who kill people to show it is wrong to kill people.” That pretty much sums up the logic behind the death penalty. What really is the benefit of having the state kill some of the worst murderers, who obviously the death penalty was no deterrent, instead of keep them behind bars for life?
Often the same people who advocate using the state to kill people are the same ones who oppose allowing a person near death from taking their own life and/or believe aborting a zygote is murder. Many of them use the Bible as their moral justification by going back to Exodus, Leviticus or Duetoronomy, the law books, yet they do so in a disingenuous self-serving way. These people are called Christians presumably because they follow the teachings of Christ. Christ never called for this type of punishment to be handed out. He asked for the opposite. While it may be impossible to “turn the other cheek” with murderers like these, once they are locked up behind bars they no longer are a threat to humanity.
So if the death penalty doesn’t serve as a detterent and locking up people makes them no longer a threat to society then why the need to kill these people? It must be that they feel murdering a murderer is a just punishment. Murder is wrong plain and simple. Being a resident of Wisconsin I would feel more comfortable knowing my state isn’t taking part in the killing of another human being no matter how terrible.

Iran War Watch 1/30/07

Everyday the war drums seem to be getting louder and louder. Here is just a brief look into the stories of today.
US rejects call for timeout in Iran crisis
Bush 'spoiling for a fight' with Iran
Bush warns Iran against action in Iraq
We're on the edge of the abyss....

And then to top it all off, here we have Israeli apologist, plagerizer and Harvard Professor Dershowitz. You just have to watch to see whose interest he has at heart.

I Really Am Nervous or I.R.A.N.

Holy fuck!!!
I swear I just read in the paper that the US has authorized the military to kill Iranians. At first I thought I was just seeing things but no. Then I heard it reported on the nightly news, top story. A few days back we had former NATO Supreme COmmander Gen. Wesley Clark say that he believed that the US was looking for a confrontation with Iran. Slowly we have been moving more and more warships into the Persian Gulf. IT is rumored we now have Nuclear Subs in the Gulf. My god these people are insane.
NOw today according to the Jerusalem Post, a right wing Israeli paper, is claiming that Iran is bringing in 3000 more centrifuges for their nuclear program. It has been reported much in the Israeli press their desire to have Iran confronted. We had the former Prime Minister of Israel, Netanyhu, sayinig we need to convince America of the threat. There was just a meeting in Israel with some former US officials where RIchard Perle, one of the cheif architechs of this latest war, was saying that the US will take military action to not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons.
This is just the shit I pulled out of my head without going back and doing even the most basic of research. I can remember many other pronouncements that soound a lot like war posturing but I can't remember them well enough to put them in. So I guess I will need to go back and find more.
From now on I will be on Iran War Watch. I will be reporting and repeating all the stories I see from the mainstream press that indicate a inevitable war. There has been a lot of propaganda lately and I will try to compile more.

The Restrictions Remain

There is still a lot of hoopla concerning Jimmy Carter's latest book, Palestine:Peace not Apartheid. Tomorrow he should be in the news again because he is slated to speak at Brandeis University about his book. Brandeis is a traditionally Jewish school founded by a group of mostly secular Jews. He was invited to speak but was told as a condition he would have to debate the plagerizer Alan Dershowitz, notice I will give credit to the author I reprinted. He said he wouldn't. A former President writes a book and in order to talk he must debate a plagerist from Harvard. Why not invite Prof. Chomsky everytime a Pro-Israel speaker comes to speak at Brandies? It would be a short trip for him.
The main crux of real, not fabricated, complaint is his use of the term apartheid in describing Israel's treatment of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, to say nothing of Israel proper. Many, only in America, are offended by the comparison. They claim that it isn't true and that it is an attempt to isolate them in the international community. If anyone is of interest in this debate you know that much is being made of the use of Apartheid. The Israelis could care less about the word because their major newspapers and various peace groups use the term frequently.
I have reprinted an article that I found reprinted on CounterPunch's web site. It is from an actual Israeli and not just some American Jew who lives in the comfort of their home in Brooklyn or Mequon.
Now just imagine readinig this in any american newspaper. You won't.

Life Under Prohibition in Palestine
By AMIRA HASS

All the promises to relax restrictions in the West Bank have obscured the true picture. A few roadblocks have been removed, but the following prohibitions have remained in place. (This information was gathered by Haaretz, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and Machsom Watch)

Standing prohibitions
* Palestinians from the Gaza Strip are forbidden to stay in the West Bank.
* Palestinians are forbidden to enter East Jerusalem.
* West Bank Palestinians are forbidden to enter the Gaza Strip through the Erez crossing.
* Palestinians are forbidden to enter the Jordan Valley.
* Palestinians are forbidden to enter villages, lands, towns and neighborhoods along the "seam line" between the separation fence and the Green Line (some 10 percent of the West Bank).
* Palestinians who are not residents of the villages Beit Furik and Beit Dajan in the Nablus area, and Ramadin, south of Hebron, are forbidden entry.
* Palestinians are forbidden to enter the settlements' area (even if their lands are inside the settlements' built area).
* Palestinians are forbidden to enter Nablus in a vehicle.
* Palestinian residents of Jerusalem are forbidden to enter area A (Palestinian towns in the West Bank).
* Gaza Strip residents are forbidden to enter the West Bank via the Allenby crossing.
* Palestinians are forbidden to travel abroad via Ben-Gurion Airport.
* Children under age 16 are forbidden to leave Nablus without an original birth certificate and parental escort.
* Palestinians with permits to enter Israel are forbidden to enter through the crossings used by Israelis and tourists.
* Gaza residents are forbidden to establish residency in the West Bank.
* West Bank residents are forbidden to establish residency in the Jordan valley, seam line communities or the villages of Beit Furik and Beit Dajan.
* Palestinians are forbidden to transfer merchandise and cargo through internal West Bank checkpoints.

Periodic prohibitions

* Residents of certain parts of the West Bank are forbidden to travel to the rest of the West Bank.
* People of a certain age group - mainly men from the age of 16 to 30, 35 or 40 - are forbidden to leave the areas where they reside (usually Nablus and other cities in the northern West Bank).
* Private cars may not pass the Swahara-Abu Dis checkpoint (which separates the northern and southern West Bank). This was cancelled for the first time two weeks ago under the easing of restrictions.


Travel permits required

* A magnetic card (intended for entrance to Israel, but eases the passage through checkpoints within the West Bank).
* A work permit for Israel (the employer must come to the civil administration offices and apply for one).
* A permit for medical treatment in Israel and Palestinian hospitals in East Jerusalem (The applicant must produce an invitation from the hospital, his complete medical background and proof that the treatment he is seeking cannot be provided in the occupied territories).
* A travel permit to pass through Jordan valley checkpoints.
* A merchant's permit to transfer goods.
* A permit to farm along the seam line requires a form from the land registry office, a title deed, and proof of first-degree relations to the registered property owner.
* Entry permit for the seam line (for relatives, medical teams, construction workers, etc. Those with permits must enter and leave via the same crossing even if it is far away or closing early).
* Permits to pass from Gaza, through Israel to the West Bank.
* A birth certificate for children under 16.
* A long-standing resident identity card for those who live in seam-line enclaves.

Checkpoints and barriers
* There were 75 manned checkpoints in the West Bank as of January 9, 2007.
* There are on average 150 mobile checkpoints a week (as of September 2006).
* There are 446 obstacles placed between roads and villages, including concrete cubes, earth ramparts, 88 iron gates and 74 kilometers of fences along main roads.
* There are 83 iron gates along the separation fence, dividing lands from their owners. Only 25 of the gates open occasionally.

Amira Hass writes for Ha'aretz. She is the author of Drinking the Sea at Gaza

Surge Protector

Okay so the President has come out and said we need more troops sent into Baghdad. He is calling it a surge, which implies that it will be a short-lived increase, which it won’t be. The Democrats have come out against this intentionally misnamed “surge” and have been calling it an “escalation”. Escalation is the correct term for what the President and the media are calling for. Yet their own Presidential candidate was proposing an escalation of the War in Iraq during his run up to the Presidential election. When I would refer to Kerry’s plan as an escalation, and would instead argue for troop removal, I was met with all these altruistic reasons why we should send more troops. Again this is another example of the bullshit of partisanship. In other words, “Its okay when my guy suggests it but not when the other side does because they are just plain evil.” Unfortunately both sides have been and are wrong about sending more troops into Baghdad.
The President has been saying for years now that this war must be won. He is using terrifying rhetoric about the fate of world resting on the outcome of this war. He talks about how if we fail the forces of evil will haunt us forever. Evil and good make sense in children’s books and the Bible but not in intelligent debate. Killing 3000 innocent civilians or killing 650,000 innocent civilians, which is evil? If one is the other certainly is.
So here we have the President claiming that we cannot lose this war. If we do, basically, our existence as a nation is threatened. Lets just say that he believes what he says and, lets go a step further, actually is right. So we have established for the sake of argument that Bush truly wants to win the war. Fine. If Bush truly wants to win this war, it begs to ask, ‘Why isn’t he fighting it to win?” Generals told him, that in order to win this war and keep the peace, since it is easy to destroy stuff but hard to stop anarchy, we would need hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground. Yet he chose not to listen and now we have utter chaos in Iraq, which is leading to the civil war and disintegration of the country.
So if we are to believe that if we don’t win this war, when we don’t even know what that means, that our country is in danger of being wiped off the face of the map, then why isn’t he trying to “win”. Why isn’t he bringing in the Turks, Iranians and Syrians? If this war is so important for the future of our country then why the hell isn’t he sending 100,000 more troops to Baghdad. Instead he is sending in 20,000 of which maybe 7000 are combat troops.
Another question is why the use of the term “surge”. We all know now that the Right is very careful about the words they use and try to use words to change the debate. For instance, the estate tax, which affects a tiny group of the ultra rich families in this country, is now the “death tax”. Why, because poor people die too and they don’t want to be taxed. Dilation and Extraction abortion becomes “partial birth abortion”. Just image that whore of a women, because women who get abortions are all whores who need to punished by bearing a child, grunting, breathing and pushing in the delivery room. Suddenly the doctor says, “Oh here comes the head,” and the women saying all of a sudden “quick Doc, I changed my mind. Please chop off the baby’s head.”
So why surge? Because a surge is short and escalation reminds people of Vietnam and the lasts election showed that Americans want out of Iraq not more Iraq. Of course, escalating the war was right when John Kerry proposed it last Presidential election; of course he too chose not to use the term “escalation.” The Democrats all went along with it, for one, because they fell into the “anybody but Bush” crowd, and two, because those poor Iraqis need our help to form a country. Which was nothing short of a modern day “white man’s burden”.
Even though the American public wants out and Bush knew that his plan would be unpopular, he still is going ahead with it. This leads me to believe that he really thinks that he is doing the right thing. Of course, the cynical side of me says that he wants the Democrats to be the ones tarnished with the accusation that they lost the war and be able to say that at least he tried. Obviously the architects of the war, the Neo-Conservatives, will be able to claim that they suggested far more troops and the President didn’t listen to them, so then they can try to wipe their hands clean of the whole thing.
In the end though the US will leave Iraq. It may be able to find some face saving measure like having the Iraqi government to ask us to leave or it will start to blame the Iraqis for their problems as if those problems are completely unrelated to the fact that we blew up their country into little pieces. Either way Bush is escalating the war and/or, my biggest fear, he is ramping up for some confrontation with Iran (see my first post on Iran). We are truly in trouble. If we are lucky we will have Ann Coulter around to tell us how the Democrats are to blame for Iraq and how they hate Jesus.

"The most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietman, if it's carried out!"

I was about to write about the President's plan for Iraq and the rest but instead stumbled upon Mr. Cockburn's analysis. It is reprinted here in full. The orginal can be seen at CounterPunch's Web Site

Nomads Beware!

By ALEXANDER COCKBURN

A make-or-break speech by a beleagured American president is usually preceded by a demonstration of American might somewhere on the planet and the run-up to Bush’s address Wednesday night was no exception. The AC-130 U.S. gunship that massacred a convoy of fleeing Islamists on Somalia’s southwestern border, apparently along with dozens of nomads, their families and livestock, was deployed on its mission on Sunday, to make timely newspaper headlines indicative of Bush’s determination to strike at terror wherever it may lurk. Moral to nomads: when the US president schedules a speech, don’t herd, don’t go to wedding parties, head for the nearest cave.

President Bush stuck to his expected script and said he plans to boost America’s forces in Iraq by 4,000 Marines to Anbar province and 5 combat brigades -- 17,500 troops -- to Baghdad, in a new scheme to regain control of the city. Past strategies to do this had failed, Bush explained, because of insufficient numbers. He added ominously, “Also, there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have.”

In other words, the gloves will now be off in the impending onslaught on the areas of Baghdad controlled by Muktada al Sadr and his Mehdi army. In urban counter-insurgency – the specialty of the politically agile and ambitious new US commander Gen. David Petraeus – the unrestricted U.S. response to a sniper attack or a street corner ambush will be to level the block and if necessary, the entire neighborhood, in a reprise of the destruction of much of Fallujah at the end of 2004.

But Baghdad is a vast city, and the actual fighting component of the beefed up US force in the whole of Iraq won’t be more than 30,000 – and probably less, so it’s impossible to see the new plan as anything other than stupid and cruel, destined only to deepen sectarian hatreds, and to kill, wound and render homeless very large numbers of Iraqis crammed in the slum areas -- i.e., very crowded houses -- which are Muktada’s base.

Within ten minutes of Bush’s half-hour address, Democratic Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois made an unusually spirited rebuttal on behalf of his party, (far better than the usual slither from Obama ) saying military strategies had failed, and that it was time to bring the troops home and tell the Iraqis to figure it out for themselves. But such bluntness won’t translate into the only way the Democrats could end the war, which is to refuse to okay the money to pay for it. This is something the Democrats could do, since they now control Congress.

But despite the urgings of Senator Ted Kennedy, Rep. Jack Murtha and some others, they shirk the opportunity the voters gave them last November 7. Although heavily pressured by their constituents, a majority of the Democrats in Congress dread White House accusations that to nix the funds would be to leave US troops in Iraq defenseless. So instead they will contrive symbolic votes in protest against Bush’s escalation, okay the money and then spend the run-up to the presidential election in 2008, piously saying “We told you so” as the bad news and the bodies come home from Iraq.

Hagel says Can't

Seeking to explain why the Democrats wouldn’t do anything so bold as to seriously try to stop the war, one Democrat on TV said smugly to an incredulous Pat Buchanan, that after all it was a Republican war, “they started it”. Is there a more ludicrous simulacrum of inanity and misplaced self-conceit than Senator Joe Biden, the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee? Questioning Condoleezza Rice Biden rambled through a thicket of platitudes, leaving the perennially silly Secretary of State unscathed.

She got far rougher treatment from the lion of Nebraska, Senator Chuck Hagel as well as other Republicans like George Voinovich. Hagel: “You cannot sit here today -- not because you're dishonest or you don't understand -- but no one in our government can sit here today and tell Americans that we won't engage the Iranians and the Syrians cross-border. Some of us remember 1970, Madam Secretary, and that was Cambodia. And when our government lied to the American people and said, ‘We didn't cross the border going into Cambodia,’ in fact, we did. I happen to know something about that, as do some on this committee. So, Madam Secretary, when you set in motion the kind of policy that the president is talking about here, it's very, very dangerous. As a matter of fact, I have to say, Madam Secretary, that I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out. I will resist it.”

"I don't see it, and the President doesn't see it, as an escalation," Rice stuttered. "Would you call it a decrease?" asked Hagel . "I would call it, Senator, an augmentation."

At least a dozen Republican senators, some of them expecting tight races in 2008, like Senator Norman Coleman of Minnesota, were denouncing Bush’s plan even before he stepped in front of the cameras to announce it.

At least Senator Russ Feingold brought up the obvious object lesson, regarding what Congress can do, namely the Boland Amendment, passed by Democrats back in Reagan time, forbidding the administration to send material support to the Nicaraguan Contras. Efforts by the Reagan administration to circumvent this law – organized in part by the present Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, led to the Iran-Contra scandal, which badly dented Reagan in his final years.But Feingold got not support on a new Boland Amendment from his Democratic colleagues.

Some 80 per cent of Americans think Bush has made a hash of things in Iraq and it’s a fair bet to say that the President’s speech won’t have done much to reverse that assessment. Perhaps it was the shift of setting for his broadcast to the nation to the White House library that made the president seem uncomfortable. With the exception of Laura, the former librarian, the Bush clan are not a bookish lot. The late Brendan Gill reported that having stayed at the Bush family compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, he scoured the premises late one night in search of something with which to read himself to asleep and could only find “The Fart Book”.

If Bush did like to get his nose into a book instead of over the handlebars of his mountain bike he could glance at Sun Tzu who, (as Chuck Spinney reminded us recently on this site) , said, Avoid protracted war and attack cities as a last resort.

After the speech Frank Bardacke wrote to me from Watsonville:

“Alex, One good thing about the surge that I haven't seen or heard anyone say (not that I've searched) is that it will ruin McCain's chance at the Presidency. It in't gonna work, and it will make it impossible to run for President on a slogan of more troops to Iraq. So maybe when more troops just means more bloodshed the whole adventure will have to be called off. The next President will close it out, it will be historically summed up as the Boy Emperor's War, and most folks here will do their very best to forget the whole damn thing.”

I wrote back: “Good point. I thought McCain looked very groggy in the post speech analysis. But can they call it all off? I mean, at what point did a Roman emperor say, "Screw it, give them goddam Dacia. We don't need it. Parthia too." No, never. It was surge surge surge until finally the overtaxed citizenry of the Roman Empire hung out signs saying "Goths Welcome! 15 per cent off for Parthians!" The Brits were still battling for south Yemen in the 1960s when they hadn't a dime in the bank. In those days Aden was a "crucial entrepot", now days, it's a "backwater", just like Grenada which, when the New Jewel movement briefly gleamed, was "athwart our vital sea lanes".

Final word from Frank: “The Romans built aqueducts, law, peace,you know, the Life of Brian list. What do we build? Nothing. Here is the way I have been putting it to my dog Nellie as we walk along the levy: We have the power to destroy everything, and the authority to build nothing.”

Apartheid in Israel? "The lady doth protest....."

Wow. Jimmy Carter the Antisemite. Look at the wrath his book has conjured. Why, I wonder?


Christ, Even Bill O'Reilly defended him.


Here is a Jewish American defending Carter.


What it is about this book that upsets everyone so much?


Here we have Trent Lott telling us that he's been to the territories and it isn't, oh wait, he's only been to illegal Jewish settlements. Man they are coming out of the woodwork.


This is what your tax dollars pay for. Ya, this isn't aparthied. My ass. Look it up.


I have to say that this seems very much like what one sees in Palestine. Both Israel and South Africa were founded in 1948. One of them had a much better lobbying.


Oh man I totally forgot about this one. I wish that today artists would speak up against injustice, oh well.