The beginnings of the Madness of Justin.

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

Another Reason WHy the KKK is Totally Off-Base

I can't believe I lost to this guy.

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

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

Chomsky on 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

In case you missed it.

Islamofascism Awareness Week

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

Thank You Democrats!

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

Chomsky debates the late Foucault

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



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

Music Videos

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


I know it's Michael Jackson.

Snoop gets it right.

Hilarious.

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

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

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

Resource

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

A Quick Thought.

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

In Case You Missed It.

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








Here is the footage of the Journalist being shot.


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

You've Got To Be Kidding Me

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

I thought this was funny.

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

In case you were interested

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

Disinformation Nation

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

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

Quick Iraq Rant

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

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

Videos of the Day

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

Is it coming?


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