Archive for August, 2010

This is Zionism.

August 31st, 2010

This is a syndicated post, originally from LENIN'S TOMB.

"An Israeli army officer who fired the entire magazine of his automatic rifle into a 13-year-old Palestinian girl and then said he would have done the same even if she had been three years old was acquitted on all charges by a military court yesterday.

"The soldier, who has only been identified as "Captain R", was charged with relatively minor offences for the killing of Iman al-Hams who was shot 17 times as she ventured near an Israeli army post near Rafah refugee camp in Gaza a year ago.

"The manner of Iman's killing, and the revelation of a tape recording in which the captain is warned that she was just a child who was "scared to death", made the shooting one of the most controversial since the Palestinian intifada erupted five years ago even though hundreds of other children have also died."

Copyleft of Lenin's Tomb

[Read the original at LENIN'S TOMB (2010-08-31)...]

Revolutionary Letter #4 by Diane di Prima

August 29th, 2010

This is a syndicated post, originally from ARTHUR MAGAZINE.

Revolutionary Letter #4
by Diane di Prima

Left to themselves people
grow their hair.
Left to themselves they
take off their shoes.
Left to themselves they make love
sleep easily
share blankets, dope & children
they are not lazy or afraid
they plant seeds, they smile, they
speak to one another. The word
coming into its own: touch of love
on the brain, the ear.

We return with the seas, the tides
we return as often as leaves, as numerous
as grass, gentle, insistent, we remember
the way,
our babes toddle barefoot thru the cities of the universe.


from Revolutionary Letters

[Read the original at ARTHUR MAGAZINE (2010-08-29)...]

Nancy Lugosi

August 24th, 2010

This is a syndicated post, originally from Who Is IOZ?.

Digby issues one of the tackiest (and dumbest) hit jobs in her blurgh's sordid and incoherent history. Digby is a dick.

History: Ron Paul issues an unequivocal statement of support for the rights of Muslims in America. Not only that, but he uses the opportunity to roundly condemn Barack Obama's America's War Against Islam. Naturally this offends La Digs, because Paul catches liberals in the sweep of his condemnation. Liberals, you may recall, currently control the legislative and executive branches of our government, and they are directing Barack Obama's America's War Against Islam.

She is outraged, outraged that Paul's J'accuse contained some general economic prescriptions with which she disagrees. Oh. Um. Wait. IT DIDN'T. Dear Digby: do not imply things that can be disproven by following the links that you yourself provide. She says in effect that because Paul has elsewhere and otherwise said things about economic matters that she finds objectionable, ergo his strong statement in support of religious liberty and the rights of private citizens to conduct their own private business on their own private property as they see fit are to be discarded, are of suspect origin and motive. She tars him with the views of his adult son--"his boy"--which is more than mildly amusing since she was just bitching about some or other preacherman claiming that Obama was Muslim by bloodline. How dare they!? Lady, you are a fucking hack.

Paul says that the angry sentiments surrounding the Islamic center are being stirred up by all sides in order to distract from the ongoing theft of wealth and property for the purpose of making a few very rich people even richer. He's right. Digby, a tribalist, wishes to cast this issue once again as nobel Progressives defending religious liberty against the evil, yokel xenophobes of the right:
And anyway, as Greenwald points out today, this is a real issue whether we want it to be or not and it speaks to some very dangerous and important cross currents in American political life. It's not a distraction.
Oh, bullshit. Total and utter. Can I just emphasize for the ten millionth time that it is not a conservative government that is currently waging war against Islam. It is not a tea-party protest that is bombing Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and who knows where else. It is not a conservative government that is trying a child soldier for war crimes in a secret trial. Ad infinitum. The popular sentiments shouted at "Ground Zero" are uncomfortable, but they aren't killing Muslims; they are, however, distracting everyone from the bankrupt American military project of killing Muslims. Their superficial anger at Islam is insignificant compared to Barack Obama's real and actual policies toward Islam, which is to bomb the living shit out of it every day.

On a more minor note, Digby doesn't seem to have any idea what a neoconservative is. She seems to believe that neoconservatives are advocates of laissez-faire classical liberalism when the exact opposite is the case. Neoconservatives are social moderates and social democrats on matters cultural and economic. Most of them started out as "liberals". That they became influential in the conservative government of George W. Bush, and that the policies of that supposedly conservative government were then adopted and expanded by the subsequent liberal administration, ought to tell you something about the nature of party divisions within the decision-making echelons of the American State. If, that is, you're not an idiot.

[Read the original at Who Is IOZ? (2010-08-24)...]

The Tantalizing, Sober, Respectable Joys Of Nuking Iran

August 23rd, 2010

This is a syndicated post, originally from Brian Doherty: Reason.com articles and blog posts..

There's a lot you can say in this country that will get most respectable voices leaping forward to mock and deride you as a dangerous lunatic--like, for example, believing that people should have the right to choose who they deal with on their property as businessmen.

However, as Robert Kaplan's latest warm, hairy rub up against the leg of Henry yes that's right Kissinger in the September Atlantic shows, advocating blowing up people with nuclear weapons because you just don't trust those obviously extremely dangerous bastards, is one of those things that's it's always OK to say in America.

By gosh, we mean we can use our nukes, and it'll be totally OK--in fact, the right, smart, wise, thing to do? What a "tantalizing" thought, Dr. Kissinger! Read the whole article, somewhat misleadingly titled "Living with a Nuclear Iran" since its prime conclusion is that "we must be more willing, not only to accept the prospect of limited war but, as Kissinger does in his book of a half century ago, to accept the prospect of a limited nuclear war between states."

And that Kissinger is so fucking "forceful and articulate" in calling for mass murder, Kaplan notes approvingly. And while Kissinger's status as the shambling corpse of bloody and horrific "foreign policy realism" (kill them, with sober, articulate, often even courageous force: kill them, kill them, before it is too late to kill them!) is too settled for me to be surprised no one is calling him out, I'd sure love to see someone raise an eye at Kaplan or The Atlantic for running that article, which is part of a growing and alarming set of prominent public pronouncements preparing we the people for war against Iran

[Read the original at Brian Doherty: Reason.com articles and blog posts. (2010-08-23)...]

The Tantalizing, Sober, Respectable Joys Of Nuking Iran

August 23rd, 2010

This is a syndicated post, originally from Brian Doherty: Reason.com articles and blog posts..

There's a lot you can say in this country that will get most respectable voices leaping forward to mock and deride you as a dangerous lunatic--like, for example, believing that people should have the right to choose who they deal with on their property as businessmen.

However, as Robert Kaplan's latest warm, hairy rub up against the leg of Henry yes that's right Kissinger in the September Atlantic shows, advocating blowing up people with nuclear weapons because you just don't trust those obviously extremely dangerous bastards, is one of those things that's it's always OK to say in America.

By gosh, we mean we can use our nukes, and it'll be totally OK--in fact, the right, smart, wise, thing to do? What a "tantalizing" thought, Dr. Kissinger! Read the whole article, somewhat misleadingly titled "Living with a Nuclear Iran" since its prime conclusion is that "we must be more willing, not only to accept the prospect of limited war but, as Kissinger does in his book of a half century ago, to accept the prospect of a limited nuclear war between states."

And that Kissinger is so fucking "forceful and articulate" in calling for mass murder, Kaplan notes approvingly. And while Kissinger's status as the shambling corpse of bloody and horrific "foreign policy realism" (kill them, with sober, articulate, often even courageous force: kill them, kill them, before it is too late to kill them!) is too settled for me to be surprised no one is calling him out, I'd sure love to see someone raise an eye at Kaplan or The Atlantic for running that article, which is part of a growing and alarming set of prominent public pronouncements preparing we the people for war against Iran

[Read the original at Brian Doherty: Reason.com articles and blog posts. ()...]

Imperial Doublespeak About Iraq

August 19th, 2010

This is a syndicated post, originally from The Libertarian Standard.

In a series of Orwellian twists, the United States is pulling out (prematurely some say) “all” “combat” troops from Iraq but doubling down (for starters) on mercenaries.

The Obama Administration gets away with “fulfilling” Obama’s promise to end US combat operations in Iraq by removing the last (officially-labeled) combat brigade from the country, yet 50,000 troops will remain until (supposedly) 2011. These 50,000 troops make up 7 “Advise and Assist” Brigades, which are brigade combat teams like the one that just left but with special training, and 2 combat aviation brigades. “The troops are officially there to assist and advise the Iraqi government, but will carry weapons to defend themselves and will join Iraqi troops on missions if requested.”

After 2011, the “military” presence in Iraq is supposed to be “limited to several dozen to several hundred officers in an embassy office who would help the Iraqis purchase and field new American military equipment,” but military officers are saying that “5,000 to 10,000 troops might [still] be needed.”

Meanwhile, “the State Department is planning to more than double its private security guards, up to as many as 7,000.” Can we really still call security personnel ‘civilians’ or ‘private security’ anymore when they’re working for the state in foreign lands, particularly in a combat zone? They’re mercenaries, troops that are conveniently not part of the official US military. The NYT reporter couldn’t help calling them “a small army of contractors.”

The US is building military bases, fortified compounds, outposts, and the largest “embassy” in the world in Iraq. Iraqi politicians still haven’t been able to come to an agreement and form a government after the last elections, making Iraq vulnerable to a coup if the Iraqi military leadership get too frustrated by the ineffectual, in-fighting politicians. The US empire will not be completely out of there anytime soon.

But hey, “we” won…right?

Related Posts

  1. America’s love affair with generals
  2. The price others pay for our “freedoms”
  3. I Guess It’s the Singer, Not the Song

[Read the original at The Libertarian Standard (2010-08-19)...]

Taking Afghanistan seriously

August 17th, 2010

This is a syndicated post, originally from This Modern World.

Taking Afghanistan seriously

[Read the original at This Modern World (2010-08-17)...]

By James Nachtwey

August 16th, 2010

This is a syndicated post, originally from riot rite right clit clip click.


By James Nachtwey

[Read the original at riot rite right clit clip click (2010-08-16)...]

Darth Nader

August 13th, 2010

This is a syndicated post, originally from Who Is IOZ?.

Shared by Ryan
This should be required reading for everyone.

But what's dangerously myopic about going ballistic as Gibbs did in his statements is that just 10 years ago we had a little event in which only a tiny portion of the base went with a third party bid from the left --- and the consequences were catastrophic. Democrats, of all people, should remember that every vote matters.

-La Digs
Dangerously mypoic! Terrifyingly farsighted! Horrifically astigmatic! Every vote! Thanksralph!

What the events of the last ten years have demonstrated is that a drawly Southern Republican and a clipped Northern Democrat will substantively govern in the same manner, engage the same means, and pursue the same ends. If Barack Obama, a man with a modest-yet-demonstrable history as something resembling a liberal, embraces aggressive war, the surveillance state, and the necessary eradication of social security, how the hell do they imagine that Al Gore, one of the most conservative and staunchly pro-military Democrats in the modern history of the party would've governed? You think one of the architects of the decade-long collective punishment of Iraq and America's official policy of "regime change" would've overlooked the opportunities of nineleven? Because . . . because in the alternate future history in which we're living the Norse Dynamite Commission gave him a Best-in-Show award? They gave that shit to Obama, too. I'll say this, for Al. At least he resisted the temptation to address the dignitaries from atop that monstrous pile of Afghan skulls and weeping Pakistani women.

By the way, the natural counterpart to thanksralphery is wouldyouprefermccaineration. The implication, apparently, is that in place of the blood-drinking crocodilian overlord we got, we could've gotten one who was also snippy . . . and old! How crazy would he have been? Whew, really dodged the bullet! I am increasingly conviced that this alternative isn't merely couterfactual, but wildly so. Now, you can argue that Barack Obama won the election because people were tired of Gee-dub, or because Obama ran a masterful political campaign, or simply because the economy crashed at exactly the right moment, but the reality is that Obama won because the system whereby American political parties select their candidates is weird and the Republicans ended up with McCain, a truly lousy contestant, a lurching, senescent grouch with a whiny voice and shaky hands who selected as a running mate a pneumatic PTA chief whose hee-haw antics offended the professional class. He never had a chance. If, on the other hand, the Republican party had produced a reasonable establishment candidate--let's call this hypothetical character Ritt Momney--with good hair, a ready smile, and a program of technocratically plausible, bureaucratically feasible empty promises, and if that grinning Gorgon had picked as a partner some sort of reassuringly homey, vaguely Christian backslapper--let's call him, oh, I don't know, Huck Mikeabee--then that candidate very well might've beaten back the challenge of the guy with the funny name, the windy style of speechifying, and the poor debating skills. And Ritt Momney, well, a guy like that, presumably, would've done, uh, what now? Would've largely continued the policies of his predecessor, even as he deplored certain rhetorical excesses and sought a more competently business-like demeanor to paste over the operations of the empire? Sounds familiar, nay?

The "activist base" . . . oy, you've got to love this self-conception: the scurrying loyalists of a top-down factional hierarchy perceiving themselves as engaged in activism, like the catering staff considering themselves titans of industry because they lay out the water bottles before a meeting of the board of directors. The "activist base" persists in believing that The Obama is An Historic Candidate who was handed An Historic Moment and is in the process of squandering it, when plainly Obama is a very ordinary administrator at a fairly ordinary moment doing an entirely ordinary job. Empires get embroiled in simmering conflicts in the provinces. Recessions happen. The imperatives and intertia of the empire are larger than the current emporer. He'll probably get drummed out after this term, and the next guy will probably benefit from a modest economic recovery that will ensure him eight years, even if he's got bad table manners. You heard it hear first. The motto of this blog bears repeating: plus ça change, motherfuckers.

[Read the original at Who Is IOZ? (2010-08-13)...]

A Poem for Hiroshima Day

August 9th, 2010

This is a syndicated post, originally from Young Anabaptist Radicals.

The Necessity of Hiroshima: why we must believe

Act I

in The Year of Decisions, our savior Harry asked

"a committee of top men"
                                    Men all carved from the same superior
                                    Aspen, carefully lathed of their
"to study with great care"
                                    care. Eviscerated as children, smiling
                                    beneath strange fruit. They died for
"the implications the new"
                                    the new; our idolatrous messiah. Our
                                    silicon steel colossus will consume
"weapon might have for us"
                                    us, our civilization. As surely as
                                    Saturn Devouring His Son.

the scientific advisers of the committee reports:

"We can propose no technical demonstration likely to bring an end to the war;
we see no acceptable alternative to
direct military use."

Act II

And so, 65 years ago today, an orange cloud blossomed above a city full of them for our salvation.

DSC_0243-1

Act III

And in the end, today, we must believe
in the bomb
in its righteousness, its compassion, its justice.

Because the thread of the necessary Hiroshima
and Nagasaki
is woven through the cloth of Iraq, Afghanistan and Deepwater Horizon

to pull that sacred strand is to unravel the torturous tapestry of our exceptionalism;
to send 200,000 burned, irradiated bodies crashing through the streets of
our city upon a hill

Source for Truman quotes: Deaton, Paul, "Hiroshima Day 2010 in Iowa"  accessed at http://www.blogforiowa.com/blog/_archives/2010/8/6/4596871.html

[Read the original at Young Anabaptist Radicals (2010-08-09)...]