Author and historian Howard Zinn talks about the concept of a "Just War". Can there be such a thing as a humanitarian "Just War" or are those things antithetical to one another.

ANARCHISM:--The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary. Anarchism is the only philosophy which brings to man the consciousness of himself; which maintains that God, the State, and society are non-existent, that their promises are null and void, since they can be fulfilled only through man's subordination. Anarchism is therefore the teacher of the unity of life; not merely in nature, but in man. Anarchism is the great liberator of man from the phantoms that have held him captive; it is the arbiter and pacifier of the two forces for individual and social harmony. To accomplish that unity, Anarchism has declared war on the pernicious influences which have so far prevented the harmonious blending of individual and social instincts, the individual and society.Religion, the dominion of the human mind; Property, the dominion of human needs; and Government, the dominion of human conduct, represent the stronghold of man's enslavement and all the horrors it entails. Religion! How it dominates man's mind, how it humiliates and degrades his soul. God is everything, man is nothing, says religion. But out of that nothing God has created a kingdom so despotic, so tyrannical, so cruel, so terribly exacting that naught but gloom and tears and blood have ruled the world since gods began. Anarchism rouses man to rebellion against this black monster. Break your mental fetters, says Anarchism to man, for not until you think and judge for yourself will you get rid of the dominion of darkness, the greatest obstacle to all progress."Property is robbery," said the great French Anarchist Proudhon. Yes, but without risk and danger to the robber. Monopolizing the accumulated efforts of man, property has robbed him of his birthright, and has turned him loose a pauper and an outcast. Property has not even the time-worn excuse that man does not create enough to satisfy all needs. The A B C student of economics knows that the productivity of labor within the last few decades far exceeds normal demand. But what are normal demands to an abnormal institution? The only demand that property recognizes is its own gluttonous appetite for greater wealth, because wealth means power; the power to subdue, to crush, to exploit, the power to enslave, to outrage, to degrade. Real wealth consists in things of utility and beauty, in things that help to create strong, beautiful bodies and surroundings inspiring to live in. But if man is doomed to wind cotton around a spool, or dig coal, or build roads for thirty years of his life, there can be no talk of wealth. What he gives to the world is only gray and hideous things, reflecting a dull and hideous existence,--too weak to live, too cowardly to die. Strange to say, there are people who extol this deadening method of centralized production as the proudest achievement of our age. They fail utterly to realize that if we are to continue in machine subserviency, our slavery is more complete than was our bondage to the King. They do not want to know that centralization is not only the death-knell of liberty, but also of health and beauty, of art and science, all these being impossible in a clock-like, mechanical atmosphere.Anarchism cannot but repudiate such a method of production: its goal is the freest possible expression of all the latent powers of the individual. That being the ideal of Anarchism, its economic arrangements must consist of voluntary productive and distributive associations, gradually developing into free communism, as the best means of producing with the least waste of human energy. Anarchism, however, also recognizes the right of the individual, or numbers of individuals, to arrange at all times for other forms of work, in harmony with their tastes and desires.Such free display of human energy being possible only under complete individual and social freedom, Anarchism directs its forces against the third and greatest foe of all social equality; namely, the State, organized authority, or statutory law,--the dominion of human conduct.Just as religion has fettered the human mind, and as property, or the monopoly of things, has subdued and stifled man's needs, so has the State enslaved his spirit, dictating every phase of conduct. "All government in essence," says Emerson, "is tyranny." It matters not whether it is government by divine right or majority rule. In every instance its aim is the absolute subordination of the individual.In fact, there is hardly a modern thinker who does not agree that government, organized authority, or the State, is necessary only to maintain or protect property and monopoly. It has proven efficient in that function only. Unfortunately, there are still a number of people who continue in the fatal belief that government rests on natural laws, that it maintains social order and harmony, that it diminishes crime, and that it prevents the lazy man from fleecing his fellows.A natural law is that factor in man which asserts itself freely and spontaneously without any external force, in harmony with the requirements of nature. For instance, the demand for nutrition, for sex gratification, for light, air, and exercise, is a natural law. But its expression needs not the machinery of government, needs not the club, the gun, the handcuff, or the prison. To obey such laws, if we may call it obedience, requires only spontaneity and free opportunity. That governments do not maintain themselves through such harmonious factors is proven by the terrible array of violence, force, and coercion all governments use in order to live. Order derived through submission and maintained by terror is not much of a safe guarantee; yet that is the only "order" that governments have ever maintained. True social harmony grows naturally out of solidarity of interests. In a society where those who always work never have anything, while those who never work enjoy everything, solidarity of interests is non-existent; hence social harmony is but a myth. The only way organized authority meets this grave situation is by extending still greater privileges to those who have already monopolized the earth, and by still further enslaving the disinherited masses. Thus the entire arsenal of government--laws, police, soldiers, the courts, legislatures, prisons,--is strenuously engaged in "harmonizing" the most antagonistic elements in society.The most absurd apology for authority and law is that they serve to diminish crime. Aside from the fact that the State is itself the greatest criminal, breaking every written and natural law, stealing in the form of taxes, killing in the form of war and capital punishment, it has come to an absolute standstill in coping with crime. It has failed utterly to destroy or even minimize the horrible scourge of its own creation. Crime is naught but misdirected energy. So long as every institution of today, economic, political, social, and moral, conspires to misdirect human energy into wrong channels; so long as most people are out of place doing the things they hate to do, living a life they loathe to live, crime will be inevitable, and all the laws on the statutes can only increase, but never do away with, crime. The deterrent influence of law on the lazy man is too absurd to merit consideration. If society were only relieved of the waste and expense of keeping a lazy class, and the equally great expense of the paraphernalia of protection this lazy class requires, the social tables would contain an abundance for all, including even the occasional lazy individual. Besides, it is well to consider that laziness results either from special privileges, or physical and mental abnormalities. Our present insane system of production fosters both, and the most astounding phenomenon is that people should want to work at all now. Anarchism aims to strip labor of its deadening, dulling aspect, of its gloom and compulsion. It aims to make work an instrument of joy, of strength, of color, of real harmony, so that the poorest sort of a man should find in work both recreation and hope.To achieve such an arrangement of life, government, with its unjust, arbitrary, repressive measures, must be done away with. At best it has but imposed one single mode of life upon all, without regard to individual and social variations and needs. In destroying government and statutory laws, Anarchism proposes to rescue the self-respect and independence of the individual from all restraint and invasion by authority. Only in freedom can man grow to his full stature. Only in freedom will he learn to think and move, and give the very best in him. Only in freedom will he realize the true force of the social bonds which knit men together, and which are the true foundation of a normal social life.Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations.Will it not lead to a revolution? Indeed, it will. No real social change has ever come about without a revolution. People are either not familiar with their history, or they have not yet learned that revolution is but thought carried into action. ~Emma

Remembering Tomorrow: From SDS to Life After Capitalism

Michael Albert is a longtime activist, speaker, and writer, is co-editor of ZNet and co-founder of Z Magazine. He also co-founded South End Press and has written numerous books and articles. He developed along with Robin Hahnel the economic vision called participatory economics, or parecon for short.In this lucid political memoir, veteran anti-capitalist activist Michael Albert offers an ardent defense of the project to transform global inequality. Albert, a uniquely visionary figure, recounts a life of uncompromised commitment to creating change one step at a time. Whether chronicling the battles against the Vietnam War waged on Boston campuses or the challenges of creating living, breathing alternative social models, Albert brings a keen and unwavering sense of justice to his work, pointing the way forward for the next generation.

Interview with former CIA & State Dept. analyst Melvin Goodman co-author of "Bush League Diplomacy: How the Neoconservatives Are Putting the World at Risk"



A talk by Ray McGovern a 27-year veteran of the CIA and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.




Flynt Leverett worked as a senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council, the NSC, and he was a CIA analyst.



CIA operative Robert Baer comes out and admits (in no uncertain terms) that the administration LIED us into a war of aggression. Also worth noting; Chris Matthews in this interview states the obvious: "Fighting an aggressive war is a war crime."



In the months before March 2003, protesters around the world were joined by heads of state, U.N. officials, and religious leaders speaking out against the invasion. They labeled it a "war of aggression." But while these events were unfolding, Scott Ritter, a former intelligence officer holding the rank of Major in the U.S. Marine Corps, was warning Americans that they were being manipulated. From 1991 to 1998, he led the U.N. weapons inspection team in Iraq. He was the world's foremost expert on Saddam Hussein's weapons program. Ritter's team was able to determine the true status of the weapons program in Iraq, which was essentially inoperative and posed no immediate threat either to America or Iraq's neighbors. In his speech before a Los Angeles audience, Ritter gives his analysis of the real reasons for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Producers: Ed Sweed & John Odam (2003).

A very early and also very interesting interview with Noam Chomsky regarding his Linguistic work published at the time. The last part contains a discussion of his political views regarding the Vietnam war and Libertarian Socialism:

From 1969, but still very relavent today.Noam Chomsky debates William F. Buckley:

A look behind the front lines of the media wars during the most contentious election in recent history. Al Franken is shown to fearlessly confront pundits and politicians, blurring the boundaries between political satire and impassioned citizenry. Featuring a host of beltway big mouths including Ann Coulter, Michael Moore, Al Gore, John Kerry, Robert Kennedy Jr., Sean Hannity, William Safire, Karen Hughes and Henry Kissinger. This man makes me laugh so much. Enjoy. Peace!

In case you were still a child during the 2000 and 2004 elections I thought I would bring you up to speed about the 'other' candidate in the election. He's the one who knew he wouldn't win but was sure to point out the flaws in our so-called 'democracy' (small d).




So, he probably won't be running this time, but the principle remains the same. If you are in a safe state vote independent, if you are not in a safe state vote blue. We know the third parties don't stand a chance until there is election reform, but we must send a message to both of the major parties to let them know that they no longer represent us, that they are fundamentally disconnected from our genuine interests. Here's a recent interview with Ralph...


I voted for Nader in 2000, before I really understood how our election process worked. I thought you voted for the person you thought would do the best job. Now I know you've have to have a strategy to win each state to win the electoral college. Horses@%! Anyway, I've always thought it was unfair to lay the blame of the Bush administration at Nader's feet. Nader stood up for what was right and both parties attacked him for it, which says to me, neither party is at all concerned with the truth or with justice. Like mindless fans @ a football game they are concerned with Team Loyalty. The team comes first, and stats second. But politics is not a game. Just ask the Iraqis. Besides, Bush won the election because of the scandal in Florida. Not because of Nader. Nader was right, and until the Democrats acknowledge that then they have to take some of the blame of the Bush Admin. as well. They shook hands with the devil and congratulated him on his f'ing 'victory.' That's all I've got to say about that.



I still believe Nader would have kept his promises and that that commercial spoke about the fundamental problems in our country--problems that every other politician is afraid to go after because they will lose their financial backing.

It's obvious to me and to most free-thinking individuals that the Don Imus controversy is a load of hype and garbage. Whenever I see a media storm like this I start wondering what they're diverting my attention from. When they are trying to make an issue out of something that isn't really an issue at all, then you know that something foul is afoot.
Okay so here's my theory, which interweaves three premises into a rather obvious conclusion.

Premise #1: Al Sharpton protests all the damn time and nothing happens as a result. He's as much a joke to the corporate community as he is to the political community, perhaps even more so. CBS and MSNBC could have easily waited out the "crisis," and everyone would have forgotten within a few weeks. No problem. Just look at the Amadou Diallo case. Sharpton protested that and many others but no fitting punishments resulted.

Premise #2: There are rascists all over the radio and TV. I present exhibit A--



These people say racist statements all the time with no serious uproar or negative consequences. Where is the outrage over their venomous tongues? Okay, but I'm not mad at Sharpton, neccessarily. He picks and chooses his battles like every activist, but why did corporate America open its doors to him this time and give him free reign?

Okay, so here's my final premise which may seem a bit sketchy and don't mean to offend anyone.

Premise #3:

What Don Imus said was offensive, I suppose, but not particularly despicable, like many of the things said by the gentlemen mentioned above. To be honest, it was more of a sexist comment than it was a rascist remark. So it was hurtful to the girls on the team, but did they really think it was necessary to blow it up like this, or was this just a whole lot of attention and excitement in their lives that they aren't used to and decided to go with the flow. I can't imagine getting that upset over a bad joke. Honestly, Imus may be old skool, he may have some bigotted presuppositions lodged in the back of his mind, but he really wasn't trying to be hurtful like many of those mentioned above. He's just stupid. This brings me back to my second premise. Don Imus was not fired for making racist comments, and I personally doubt that Al Sharpton watches Don Imus, so he had to be tipped off. Corporate america, specifically Big Media, was open to this particular outrage simply because they needed an excuse to get rid of Imus. I present exhibit B--



Have I made my point clear. As mad as we may be at Imus for his offensive comments let's keep in mind that his bosses are goading us to ask for his removal, that way they can do it without Amy Goodman coming on to complain. Do you remember what happened to Donahue? He had the most popular show on MSNBC prior to the beginning of the Iraq war, but was critical of the war. For every peace voice he brought on, he was forced to bring on twice that many pro-war voices. This was all during their attempt to OUTFOX Fox, which failed. And Donahue was fired. I present my final piece of footage for your consideration:

It's obvious to everyone except Bill O that he his a raving loon. His psychotic rants are in some ways amusing, yet scary considering that there is a significant portion of this society that soaks this bullshit up. This man should be ostracized to the margins of American life. He is a radical right-wing nut, or rather, he is the mouthpiece to the genuine radical right-wing nuts like Richard Pearle, Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol, the President and Vice President and a whole host of others who are lovingly referred to as Neo-Cons. Now I'll be the first to admit that Bill O is an outright moron. He is the village idiot, unlike some of his ideologue supporters. Many of them are quite intelligent, but if you examine their value systems you begin to understand how they can advocate total war with the world. They are ultra-nationalists who make no apologies for their use of force or coercion. The end justifies any means. Moreover, a genuine discussion of the their true ends is impossible since they have no qualms about outright deceit and obfuscation. So long as they can keep people bickering over marginal issues then they can continue on with their brutal plans. Okay, enough on the Neo-Cons. My point today is to draw attention to the fact that Bill O has been gradually losing his mind on Air, especially since the democratic victory in Nov. of 2006. Here's an example of his lunacy from a long time ago. Jeremy Glick is here arguing things that are by now common knowledge but Bill O cannot even here him, it would seem:



And about a year ago Keith Olbermann noticed Bill O's paranoia and attempts to literally frighten people out of disagreeing with him. Here is his coverage of the strange phenomenon:




But more recently, Bill O has been absolutely losing it on the air. First:



If you're not sure what happened here, let me tell you. Bill O flipped out on his own co-host and cut off her mic. This man is terrified of any sort of intellectual criticism, just like a paranoid dictator. Here's more evidence:



Bill O has the gall to tell a Colonel in the Army who has made it her life's work to teach the Geneva Conventions that she is making "a slap at her own country." She's telling the truth but Bill O won't allow any criticism of himself and even less of his own country. America can do no wrong in Bill O's mind. She is stating the facts and Bill O hears a valid counterargument and he freaks out. He cuts her off, like a paranoid coward...
More Evidence...



Bil O FREAKSOUT!!!! He's screaming like a Manic Idiot. I'm laughing but this man is insane and people are taking him seriously because he feigns a position of "Fair and Balanced" or "NO SPIN ZONE." It's irresponsible and a danger to our country. Murdoch should strip him of his job and throw him out on the street before he does any more harm.

THE CENTURY OF SELF(EPISODE 1):The story of the relationship between Sigmund Freud and his American nephew, Edward Bernays. Bernays invented the public relations profession in the 1920s and was the first person to take Freud's ideas to manipulate the masses. He showed American corporations how they could make people want things they didn't need by systematically linking mass-produced goods to their unconscious desires. Bernays was one of the main architects of the modern techniques of mass-consumer persuasion, using every trick in the book, from celebrity endorsement and outrageous PR stunts, to eroticising the motorcar.His most notorious coup was breaking the taboo on women smoking by persuading them that cigarettes were a symbol of independence and freedom. But Bernays was convinced that this was more than just a way of selling consumer goods. It was a new political idea of how to control the masses. By satisfying the inner irrational desires that his uncle had identified, people could be made happy and thus docile. It was the start of the all-consuming self which has come to dominate today's world.



THE CENTURY OF SELF(EPISODE 2):The programme explores how those in power in post-war America used Freud's ideas about the unconscious mind to try and control the masses. Politicians and planners came to believe Freud's underlying premise - that deep within all human beings were dangerous and irrational desires and fears. They were convinced that it was the unleashing of these instincts that had led to the barbarism of Nazi Germany. To stop it ever happening again they set out to find ways to control this hidden enemy within the human mind.Sigmund Freud's daughter, Anna, and his nephew, Edward Bernays, provided the centrepiece philosophy. The US government, big business, and the CIA used their ideas to develop techniques to manage and control the minds of the American people. But this was not a cynical exercise in manipulation. Those in power believed that the only way to make democracy work and create a stable society was to repress the savage barbarism that lurked just under the surface of normal American life.



THE CENTURY OF THE SELF (EPISODE 3): In the 1960s, a radical group of psychotherapists challenged the influence of Freudian ideas in America. They were inspired by the ideas of Wilhelm Reich, a pupil of Freud's, who had turned against him and was hated by the Freud family. He believed that the inner self did not need to be repressed and controlled. It should be encouraged to express itself.Out of this came a political movement that sought to create new beings free of the psychological conformity that had been implanted in people's minds by business and politics. This programme shows how this rapidly developed in America through self-help movements like Werber Erhard's Erhard Seminar Training - into the irresistible rise of the expressive self: the Me Generation.But the American corporations soon realised that this new self was not a threat but their greatest opportunity. It was in their interest to encourage people to feel they were unique individuals and then sell them ways to express that individuality. To do this they turned to techniques developed by Freudian psychoanalysts to read the inner desires of the new self.



THE CENTURY OF THE SELF (EPISODE 4)This episode explains how politicians on the left, in both Britain and America, turned to the techniques developed by business to read and fulfil the inner desires of the self. Both New Labour, under Tony Blair, and the Democrats, led by Bill Clinton, used the focus group, which had been invented by psychoanalysts, in order to regain power. They set out to mould their policies to people's inner desires and feelings, just as capitalism had learnt to do with products.Out of this grew a new culture of public relations and marketing in politics, business and journalism. One of its stars in Britain was Matthew Freud who followed in the footsteps of his relation, Edward Bernays, the inventor of public relations in the 1920s.The politicians believed they were creating a new and better form of democracy, one that truly responded to the inner feelings of individual. But what they didn't realise was that the aim of those who had originally created these techniques had not been to liberate the people but to develop a new way of controlling them.

Pardon me and my bleeding heart, but I find this video disgusting. Not only am I disgusted by these chickenhawks dancing around while people are dying and their own citizens are marching in the streets, but I happen to have grown up listening to rap music, so I recognize that this is a disgrace to the genuine product of the impoverished yet politically conscious black culture. Real rap music was political, in the sense that it was an American voice that these gentlemen and others like them deliberately ignored or even supressed. These men almost certainly despise rap music and probably have more than a mere tinge of racism coursing through their every thought. This video isn't funny at all. It's a disgrace. It's an insult to the people who used their pain and experience and screamed into those microphones for so long, telling the world about their fate. These men ignored their fate and now make light of their pain.

PROSE AND VERSES FILLED WITH A MILLION BLACK CURSES

WATCH SEE DECISION OF DREAD SCOTT AS IT REVERSES

SO LONG AS THIS ROPE IS TIGHT AROUND MUMIA'S NECK

LET THERE BE NO RICH WHITE LIFE WE'RE BOUND TO RESPECT

CAUSE AND EFFECT, CAN'T YOU SMELL THE SMOKE IN THE BREEZE

MY PANTHER, MY BROTHER, WE ARE AT WAR UNTIL YOU'RE FREE!!!!

~Zach De La Rocha

It's a War Against Us All...

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=Suryu

I am so sick of the 9-11 truth movement. It’s the most divisive thing the left has encountered since the COINTELPRO and CHAOS programs of the FBI and CIA in the sixties and seventies. It bugs the crap out of me for a ton of reasons. First, it’s bad science. Its primary criterion for truth is whether or not it supports this New World Order hypothesis. I’m not buying that one either. Oh, but what about WTC 7? It fell into its own footprint in under 7 seconds. Well, isn’t that just mysterious. Or not? Buildings fall down. It’s happened before and it will happen again. My guess is that it caught on fire and something within it could handle the heat. I’m no scientist and neither are most of the people listening to and buying this garbage. Let’s be honest.
Why should random and peculiar events be evidence of anything sinister? They shouldn’t.

Strange events occur everyday in car wrecks and home fires and tornadoes and hurricanes and so forth. Just pick up a copy of Ripley’s believe it or not. Strange things do occur. Is the New World Order the cause of all of these strange occurrences? Give me a break. But that’s the point. The chief motive behind all of this pseudo-science garbage is an effort to support the theory that claims there is a super-secret group of extremely wealthy people who are satanic whatchamacalits and freaky deakies who are trying to control the world and depopulate and yada yada yada yada. It’s horseshit. When confronted with this nonsense just ask for the evidence. All that can be provided is innuendo or a suspicious lack of evidence. They don’t have any evidence. All they have is an intense fear and inner suspicion. Here’s a link to a tiny bit of info on it. I apologize for all of the advertising on the page. It seems primarily intended to sell you his cooked up DVD’s. http://www.infowars.com/bg1.html
But the real reason this stuff bothers me is that so much of the effort is devoted to undermining and slinging slander on actually credible people on the left end of the spectrum. I mean these are people who have devoted their entire lives to affecting positive change in the world. Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman, David Barsamian and anyone else who doesn’t believe them. Either they’re in on it or they’re being used by the people who are. So now they have training programs to teach unwitting kids how to distrust the very people that they should trust. It’s a huge disinformation campaign against these activists. Here’s some video:



This guy cracks me up. All of the points he accuses Chomsky of are things he himself commits much more frequently. Chomksy is usually very careful about citing evidence to support his claims. In fact he is famous for it. Chomsky has debated and won against some of the most powerful intellectuals out there. I mean it’s like listening to a living legend, like Marx or Kant or Mill or any of the other great philosophers. This guy in the video doesn’t compare, but he has the audacity to say that Chomsky uses little tricks to confuse you. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Notice how this guy dismisses the lives of the East Timorese as if they didn’t matter.

That video was in response to these:



None of this would bother me if I too weren’t suspicious of something myself. I think all this 9-11 truth nonsense has been cooked up by the right-wing to discredit, misdirect, and otherwise delude the New Left, who in their opinion are all a bunch of conspiracy theory loonies. So they feed them a bunch of garbage about 9-11 and the bohemian grove and skull and bones and so forth. Then you throw in some nonsense about how paying taxes, global warming, and the women’s liberation movement were all a part of the plan to enslave us. It’s laughable, but people are eating this crap up like it was donuts and chocolate syrup pancake caramel drizzles. Stupid kids are buying into it and establishing another deluded population base, like the Christian right, who will one day give up on the conspiracy nonsense but the residual effects of distrusting Global Warming as nonsense and despising taxes and hating women will all be left over. So they’ll vote republican. Other evidence of this is the fact that all over the place you see people using these conspiracy theories as ammunition for supporting the war. Like you’re either in support of the war or you’re one of those crazy conspiracy theorists. Here’s a quote from one of them:

“THIS VIDEO HAS MY FULL SUPPORT.YES, IT IS MEANT TO STATE AN OPINION AND I DO IT OPENLY. I AM TIRED OF EVERYONE ACTING LIKE A BUNCH OF PUSSIES AND RUNNING AWAY FROM WAR. WE NEED TO FIGHT BACK. IF YOU BELIEVE IN THESE CONSPIRACY THEORIES, YOU'RE DEFINITELY PART OF THE PERCENTAGE WHO IS MENTALLY RETARDED. I DON'T CARE WHO TELLS ME WHAT, I AM NOT GOING TO LET A BUNCH OF FAGS AND IDIOTS (BUT MOSTLY FAGS) TELL ME THAT OUR OWN GOVERNMENT DESTROYED MILLIONS OF PEOPLES LIVES FOR FUCKING OIL, OR BECAUSE BUSH IS A NEO NAZI.1. 9/11 WAS NOT PLANNED BY OUR GOVERNMENT.2. THE TERRORIST ATTACKS ON 9/11 WERE COMMITTED BY TERRORISTS, DON'T YOU THINK THAT MAKES SENSE?3. YES, WE NEED TO BE IN THIS WAR. IF WE PUSS OUT LIKE EVERYONE WANTS US TO, WE WILL BE LEFT OPEN TO ATTACKS ONCE AGAIN.4. I DO NOT HATE EVERYONE FROM IRAQ OF AFGHANISTAN OR ANYWHERE IN THE MIDDLE EAST BUT IF THEY HATE ME, I'VE GOT NO OTHER CHOICE.I AM POSTING THIS VIDEO BECAUSE I AM SICK AND TIRED OF ALL OF THIS. I'M TIRED OF SEEING NOTHING BUT DEATH WHEN I WANT TO SEE VIDEOS OF THE MAGNIFICENT WORLD TRADE CENTER.I'M TIRED OF SEEING PEOPLE WHO WALK BY THE WORLD TRADE CENTERS' FOOTPRINTS EACH DAY AND DON'T THINK ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO DIED THERE.I'M TIRED OF GOING EVERYWHERE AND HEARING PEOPLE TELLING ME BUSH DID THIS.”

It goes on a bit longer but I’ll cut it off there. This sort of nonsense doesn’t help anyone. As you can see above, it just fuels the passion of the right. What Chomsky and others are famous for is pulling the rug out from under their feet. And they’re doing a damn good job of it, but years from now they’re going to show pictures of real activists who are concerned with the lives of people all over the world, who are interested in real institutional analysis and real solutions, standing next to a picture of a placard reading “9-11 was an Inside Job.” And suddenly all their life’s work will be flushed down the drain, because even if it were true, no one will ever convince the people of the world. Occam’s razor: All things being equal, the simplest answer is most likely correct.

Cultural historian and social critic Morris Berman talked about his book Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire, published by W.W. Norton. In this book Mr. Berman compared current events in America with the fall of the Roman Empire. Mr. Berman argued that the American empire is in decline due to an overextended economy and a self-destructive foreign policy. He responded to questions from members of the audience.

From the Author:
When I published my previous book in 2000, I characterized the historical phase we were in as a "twilight" period, similar to Rome in the waning days of its late-empire phase. It seems to me that it is not entirely an exaggeration to suggest that since 2000 we have effectively transited from twilight to night, entered a new Dark Age. Thus there are a number of developments that can be characterized as frankly medieval: the triumph of religion over reason, and a progressive rollback of Enlightenment humanism; a massive breakdown of education and critical thinking (the statistics of which will probably strike the reader as surreal); the actual legalization of torture, and its widespread use by the American government; and the growing political and economic marginalization of the United States on the world stage. Equally sobering is that the vast majority of Americans are either ignorant of these developments or actually approve of them, bringing to mind the famous remark by Will Durant that "a great nation is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within."



For more on Morris Berman:

http://www.morrisberman.blogspot.com/

I have a professor who recently commented that people do not want to hear women speakers, that they are few in number and do not often compare to male speakers in stature or rhetorical technique. While I acknowledge her ability to make such generalizations based on broad trends within the culture, I wanted to devote a post in my blog to provide a couple of strong counterexamples to her thesis. On both sides of the political spectrum there are women of very significant stature. On the right there are, of course, the widely popular and influential voices of Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin. Both of whom I consider to be raving psychotics, nevertheless I must conceede that they are very popular. On the left, there are of course women such as Pelosi and Clinton, but I do not want to focus on them since in my opinion they fall too easily into the typical strong woman stereotypes. (You know what I mean.) By comparison I would like for you to consider the examples of the following women as being extraordinary examples of an alternate and commanding expression of femininity in Politics.

First, Naomi Klein, author of the popular book NO LOGO:



She is knowledgable to the point that hard-headed critics are hesitant to debate her content, preferring instead to slander her character, or to distort her point by defeating straw men.

Here is another wonderful example of a woman who deserves respect and at least in my case has earned it. Here are a few examples of her leaving O'reilley in a counterspin groping for his talking points so he can smear her later. Her name is Susnara Taylor and she is a spokesperson for World Can't Wait:



I am certain their are countless other examples. These are the ones that first came to mind. If you can think of others please let me know.

Here is fascinating debate which took place in 1988. It is between the well known intellectual Noam Chomsky and the PNAC icon Richard Perle. Chomsky criticizes U.S. foreign policy in almost every case. Perle advocates near total war with the world. Very little is accomplished through the debate other than to create a more enlightened audience. Chomsky and Perle are both deeply entrenched in their specific perspective. I very strongly support Chomsky. It's painful to watch other intellectuals scoff at his extremely well thought out ideas. His perspective, which incidentally happens to represent large segments of the worlds population, is anathema to the establishment. They seem almost not to hear it. In my humble opinion Richard Perle should be dragged from the pentagon, where he is currently employed,(Thanks for Iraq, Perle!) and shipped of to Iraq with a pellet gun and a sign reading 'I control your oil.' In contrast to that, the Mass. state government ought to create a large monument dedicated to Chomsky, although I suspect he would be fairly opposed to the idea. I apologize for the lack of video footage. There are images of each speaker accompanying their segments.



As I mentioned above, Perle is one of the major signatores of the Project for the New American Century. Here is a short video describing the program.



And a short message from Ike:

Forty years ago, in 1967, roughly 50,000 demonstrators marched from the Lincoln Memorial to the Pentagon, where a group of protestors inspired by Yippie activist Abbie Hoffman were attempting to levitate the Pentagon. This was one of the major demonstrations against the Vietnam War and helped to stimulate further activism against the unjust and immoral war.
Fast-forward to the present. On March 17, 2007, tens of thousands of protesters again marched on the Pentagon, this time to protest the unjust and immoral occupation of Iraq, as well as a whole host of issues which have led these protesters to call for President Bush’s impeachment. One need not have been present in order to understand the full magnitude of the grievances. Consider the lies the administration told to rush the American people into an undesirable and un-winnable war. Consider the torture carried out in our names. Consider the spying. Consider the human costs, as well as the billons upon billions of dollars already thrown down the drain. Consider the increased risk of Terrorism. Consider the veritable wars on science and on journalism. Consider the obfuscation of the facts and the inability or unwillingness to acknowledge the will of the American people.
After considering all of these things and many others, the real question wasn’t why were these people protesting. The real question was why wasn’t everyone? Well, to be honest, a great many were. The march on the Pentagon was only the keystone to a whole series of protests across the country between March 17th and March 20th, a date which incidentally marks the fourth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. Tens of thousands showed up in L.A. Nearly as many showed up in San Francisco. The numbers were genuinely staggering.


Well, it just so happens I was there on March 17th in Washington, D.C. and I witnessed firsthand the passion and courage that these protesters possessed. Some were angry, understandably. Some were sad. Some were cheerful in spite of their circumstances (It was bitterly cold.) Most had a sense of urgency and optimism that surprised me, probably as a result of the skewed perspective provided by the major media. But I have to be fair—there were also large numbers of people who showed up to demonstrate against the demonstrators. They were a less diverse group--mostly veterans who claimed to be protecting the various war memorials form alleged threats of vandalism. I have my doubts. On one side of the street an objective observer might have noticed protesters claiming that there is “No War but the Class War,” or one might have heard middle-aged men and women singing the lyrics to Lennon’s “Give Peace a Chance.” On the other side of the street you would find a smaller group, primarily composed of white males, shouting insults like “Traitors,” “Sissies,” not to mention a whole host of expletives hurled across the divide in the presence of small children. I won’t even bother to describe the various death threats I witnessed.
There is no doubt that the event was an historic marker for both sides involved. Likewise, there is no doubt, for any individuals concerned with the facts, that the numbers in protest of the war far exceeded those of the ‘pro-Bush’ crowd. The question undoubtedly on many protesters minds wasn’t whether they were doing the right thing, but rather would it be enough. Will it ever be enough? Many activists including some of the chief organizers of the event are expanding their definitions of Democracy in an attempt to counteract the virtual cold-shoulder they’ve received from the administration and also many in congress. To find out more about these developments please visit www.worldcantwait.org, www.impeachbush.org, and www.answercoalition.org.

Arundhati Roy is an amazing woman. I hope you all will read her book--

Here is a speech she gave a few years ago, but of course it still resonates as if it were today. The issues she raises have still not been adressed by those in power. Please give Arundhati your love and support.