Good interview with Tariq Ali about assassination of Bhutto yesterday: http://www.democracynow.org/2007/12/28/pakistan_in_turmoil_after_benazir_bhuttos
Ali's article in LRB: http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=1405
Friday, December 28, 2007
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Evil Paradises and the Lies that aren't Meant to Deceive Us
China Miéville gave a good interview on the 12/17/2007 show of Against the Grain. He spoke about his contribution to the book "Evil Paradises," and his recent article in the Socialist Review, titled, "The Lies that aren't Meant to Deceive Us."
Monday, December 17, 2007
News From C-Bus Ohio
Reporter, and Columbus native, Harvey Wasserman was on Democracy Now! this morning (audio here). He spoke about Ohio Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner's recent findings that Ohio's voting machines were and still are susceptible to fraud.
Ohio Secretary of State confirms 2004 election could have been stolen
Wasserman has also led this campaign against federal funding to build more nuclear power plants. Sign the petition here: http://www.nukefree.org/.
More stories on Ohio voting:
http://www.alternet.org/stories/71041/?page=entire
Ohio Secretary of State confirms 2004 election could have been stolen
Wasserman has also led this campaign against federal funding to build more nuclear power plants. Sign the petition here: http://www.nukefree.org/.
More stories on Ohio voting:
http://www.alternet.org/stories/71041/?page=entire
Recall Mayor Tom Bates
In light of protests and efforts by many Berkeley citizens to recall their mayor, Tom Bates, the joke around the Bay Area has become "the Liberal mayor Tom Bates isn't liberal enough for Berkeley." 'Liberal' may be the correct term for Bates. However, the word should not be confused with 'left' or 'progressive.' While he is a big business liberal, who hands out cheap development contracts, it is certainly different from being 'progressive.'
Here's one of the citizen cites calling for his recall.
http://recalltombates.blogspot.com/
Here's one of the citizen cites calling for his recall.
http://recalltombates.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
NYT's take on Annapolis
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/opinion/28wed1.html?_r=1&ex=1353992400&en=6b90cfd86ad03804&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin
NYT: If only the Arabs squirmed a little less under Israel's foot and accepted "bridging proposals" beyond their "long-fixed positions," then maybe we'd get somewhere.
NYT: If only the Arabs squirmed a little less under Israel's foot and accepted "bridging proposals" beyond their "long-fixed positions," then maybe we'd get somewhere.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Mike Huckabee Idiot
Laughable stuff. Always hard to understand this level of ignorance.
Excerpt from Blitzer Huckabee interview:
Excerpt from Blitzer Huckabee interview:
BLITZER: Should Israel give up the West Bank?
HUCKABEE: No, I don’t think so. I have been to Israel nine times. I have been all throughout the Middle East, to Lebanon, to Syria, to Jordan, to Egypt. Anyone who goes to Israel, and if you just understand the unique geography and the unique tension that surrounds that area, it would be very problematic for Israel to give up the West Bank, from their own standpoint of security.
The same thing with the Golan Heights — giving up the Golan Heights makes most of Galilee a sitting target. And it would be a very problematic concern for Israeli security. Now it’s their government. They’ll make that decision, not me.
But I certainly could not encourage them to give up the West Bank.
BLITZER: Well, if they’re not going to give up the West Bank or with Syria, the Golan Heights, or at least parts of the Golan Heights, what are they going to negotiate about, from the Arab perspective, or the Palestinian or the Syrian perspective if Israel shouldn’t give up the West Bank or the Golan Heights?
HUCKABEE: Well, there are a lot of options that involve other territory that doesn’t have to include the West Bank or the Golan Heights. There is an enormous amount of land in Arab control all over the Middle East. And to say that it has to be on the West Bank or that it has to be in the Golan Heights, I think, limits the capacity to bring some type of resolution.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Letter to Rep. Pryce on Telcomm Immunity
Rep. Pryce of the 15th district of Ohio.
Dear Congresswoman Pryce,
Just wanted to voice my opposition to giving immunity to tellcom industries for their willful participation in surveillance of the population. They are big corporations with big legal departments, and new full well the legal ramifications of their actions. They should thus be held accountable.
Dear Congresswoman Pryce,
Just wanted to voice my opposition to giving immunity to tellcom industries for their willful participation in surveillance of the population. They are big corporations with big legal departments, and new full well the legal ramifications of their actions. They should thus be held accountable.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Hilarious Revelations about Giuliani
Sound the alarms! Aside from being a raving mad dog terrorist bomber, Giuliani is a brazen liar, and urged Bush II to hire a friend to the HSD, who has now been indicted on 16 counts of federal corruption charges...
Not surprised?
Well neither am I, I 'spose. But this interview with Wayne Barrett on Democracy Now! was amusing still.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/15/1433208
He wrote a book on Giuliani and published an article in the village voice entitled Rudy Giuliani's Five Big Lies About 9/11. Exposes Giuliani as a phony at every turn. From his professions to being an expert on terrorism to his association with his crony business partner Bernard Kerik. Even by politicians standards, this stuff is pretty damning, especially given the fact that the public and media seems to be extremely receptive to 'terrorism' and 'Homeland Sec' issues. The details of the scandal seem to be fairly simple enough to be ingrained in voters minds -- Giuliani has criminal friend, pushes for criminal friend to receive a job in HSD that he is unqualified for. Only time will tell. Aside from these scandalous revelations, I always thought, that Giuliani's Foreign Affairs article -- with its fanciful historical revisions, and mad dog vision for future US aggressions -- ought to have been ample evidence to disqualify him as a President, let alone a morally decent human being.
But such is life in American politics. You pronounce all sorts of pieties about the good intentions of empire, you gloss over the history of Vietnam and make it sound like a defeat to America instead of a genocidal campaign that left about 4 million dead, left a land poisoned by dioxin chemicals that results in cancer and birth defects to this day, destabilized Cambodia and led to the rise of Pol Pot, and suddenly you're Presidential material. However, when it becomes evident that you're exchanging political favors by getting your criminal friend into the Homeland Security Department, the media and public latches on and says, "Oh my goodness, you're compromising US security. We need someone who's not implicated with criminals to launch illegal wars in the Middle East and continue our unbending support for a brutal occupation in Palestine. What kind of message would we be sending the children if we did otherwise?"
If you wanna read some lambasting of Hilary, read this Alex Cockburn article, The Seeds of Corruption: Hilary Clinton in Arkansas. Obama's up next.
Not surprised?
Well neither am I, I 'spose. But this interview with Wayne Barrett on Democracy Now! was amusing still.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/15/1433208
He wrote a book on Giuliani and published an article in the village voice entitled Rudy Giuliani's Five Big Lies About 9/11. Exposes Giuliani as a phony at every turn. From his professions to being an expert on terrorism to his association with his crony business partner Bernard Kerik. Even by politicians standards, this stuff is pretty damning, especially given the fact that the public and media seems to be extremely receptive to 'terrorism' and 'Homeland Sec' issues. The details of the scandal seem to be fairly simple enough to be ingrained in voters minds -- Giuliani has criminal friend, pushes for criminal friend to receive a job in HSD that he is unqualified for. Only time will tell. Aside from these scandalous revelations, I always thought, that Giuliani's Foreign Affairs article -- with its fanciful historical revisions, and mad dog vision for future US aggressions -- ought to have been ample evidence to disqualify him as a President, let alone a morally decent human being.
But such is life in American politics. You pronounce all sorts of pieties about the good intentions of empire, you gloss over the history of Vietnam and make it sound like a defeat to America instead of a genocidal campaign that left about 4 million dead, left a land poisoned by dioxin chemicals that results in cancer and birth defects to this day, destabilized Cambodia and led to the rise of Pol Pot, and suddenly you're Presidential material. However, when it becomes evident that you're exchanging political favors by getting your criminal friend into the Homeland Security Department, the media and public latches on and says, "Oh my goodness, you're compromising US security. We need someone who's not implicated with criminals to launch illegal wars in the Middle East and continue our unbending support for a brutal occupation in Palestine. What kind of message would we be sending the children if we did otherwise?"
If you wanna read some lambasting of Hilary, read this Alex Cockburn article, The Seeds of Corruption: Hilary Clinton in Arkansas. Obama's up next.
Letter to Rep. John Conyers
Read an Op-Ed in support of Kucinich's HR 333, calling for Cheney's impeachment:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/12/5171/
My Letter to Conyers:
Dear Congressman Conyers,
I personally, think the bill calling for Cheney's impeachment is a productive one. The more people in the mainstream discuss it, the better it is for the anti-war movement and the better it is for the rest of the population who needs to be educated.
I understand that the Democrats think discussing impeachment is a losing tactic. Perhaps it might lose. But consider the alternatives... Dems could lose if they don't speak up loudly right now.
It also gives you control of the agenda. If you talk about impeachment, it forces people to talk about why impeachment is being proposed. Here, there are many violations of domestic and international law that come to the forefront.
Contact info for Conyers:
John.Conyers@mail.house.gov
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/12/5171/
My Letter to Conyers:
Dear Congressman Conyers,
I personally, think the bill calling for Cheney's impeachment is a productive one. The more people in the mainstream discuss it, the better it is for the anti-war movement and the better it is for the rest of the population who needs to be educated.
I understand that the Democrats think discussing impeachment is a losing tactic. Perhaps it might lose. But consider the alternatives... Dems could lose if they don't speak up loudly right now.
It also gives you control of the agenda. If you talk about impeachment, it forces people to talk about why impeachment is being proposed. Here, there are many violations of domestic and international law that come to the forefront.
Contact info for Conyers:
John.Conyers@mail.house.gov
Letter to Congressman Weiner regarding his speech on Iraq Resolution
The video can be viewed on his website: http://www.house.gov/weiner/
Begin Letter:
I don't think these appeals the the inherent unwavering goodness of 'our troops' is a winning strategy, first of all. Individual troops are there for different reasons.
More importantly is the issue of why the executive branch wants to be in Iraq. We should dispense with any notions that they're there out of goodwill or want to bring peace and democracy to the region.
The conflict needs to be looked at as an 80 year war that has been waged against Arabs and Persians first by the British at the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and then by the US after WWII.
The notion that "Iran is happy" with the US having a huge presence on their border, and the huge naval armada that is now sitting off the coast, can't be taken very seriously. This does not give Iran more opportunities to work casually on their nuclear warheads while the US behemoth is indisposed in a neighboring civil war. On the contrary, the US presence in the region, on both sides of Iran (Afghanistan, and Iraq, and Israel) is most likely terrifying to the regime in Iran. It gives them all the more legitimate reasons to pursue deterrent capabilities, and all the more justification in the eyes of their constituents to revive more fundamentalist elements in their society.
It is well known that many reformers were coming to prominence after 2000. They have found their influence severeley compromised by fundamentalists who have risen on a wave of populism that is against US empire, and constant US threats against their country. Here, it was terrible for you to suggest that we put more troops on Iran's borders. Not only is it horrible in principle, it disregards the fact that that is what we are eseentially already doing. We already ARE on their border. We are building military bases there. We have a naval fleet right of the coast. These can only be considered provocations. Would the US allow an Iranian fleet in 'international waters' off the coast of long island?
Recent polls have shown that Iraqis think that US troops are legitimate targets of the resistance to occupation. You can take this one of two ways: 1) that Iraqis are fundamentally immature and hopeless in retaliating against forces which are there in their best interests -- the position you took, or 2) you could look at the rest of the polls and find that a majority of Iraqis want the occupation over, a majority of Iraqis believe that the US will disregard their wish to get out of the area, a majority of Iraqis believe the Americans are there to build permanent military bases and remain indefinitely. Given the realities of an occupying force, there illegally, against the will of the people, they think troops are legitimate targets.
The fact that a majority of Iraqis believe US soldiers are legitimate targets should tell you a lot more about the US occupation, than it does the people of Iraq. Consider again, as a reductio ad absurdum, the notion of an occupying force in Brooklyn, 'there for your own good.'
If you look at the polls further, they flatly contradict your notion that Iraqis are somehow unwilling to take control of their own affairs. Nearly 100% of Iraqis want the US completely OUT, bases OUT, everything OUT now, regardless of the consequences.
Begin Letter:
I don't think these appeals the the inherent unwavering goodness of 'our troops' is a winning strategy, first of all. Individual troops are there for different reasons.
More importantly is the issue of why the executive branch wants to be in Iraq. We should dispense with any notions that they're there out of goodwill or want to bring peace and democracy to the region.
The conflict needs to be looked at as an 80 year war that has been waged against Arabs and Persians first by the British at the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and then by the US after WWII.
The notion that "Iran is happy" with the US having a huge presence on their border, and the huge naval armada that is now sitting off the coast, can't be taken very seriously. This does not give Iran more opportunities to work casually on their nuclear warheads while the US behemoth is indisposed in a neighboring civil war. On the contrary, the US presence in the region, on both sides of Iran (Afghanistan, and Iraq, and Israel) is most likely terrifying to the regime in Iran. It gives them all the more legitimate reasons to pursue deterrent capabilities, and all the more justification in the eyes of their constituents to revive more fundamentalist elements in their society.
It is well known that many reformers were coming to prominence after 2000. They have found their influence severeley compromised by fundamentalists who have risen on a wave of populism that is against US empire, and constant US threats against their country. Here, it was terrible for you to suggest that we put more troops on Iran's borders. Not only is it horrible in principle, it disregards the fact that that is what we are eseentially already doing. We already ARE on their border. We are building military bases there. We have a naval fleet right of the coast. These can only be considered provocations. Would the US allow an Iranian fleet in 'international waters' off the coast of long island?
Recent polls have shown that Iraqis think that US troops are legitimate targets of the resistance to occupation. You can take this one of two ways: 1) that Iraqis are fundamentally immature and hopeless in retaliating against forces which are there in their best interests -- the position you took, or 2) you could look at the rest of the polls and find that a majority of Iraqis want the occupation over, a majority of Iraqis believe that the US will disregard their wish to get out of the area, a majority of Iraqis believe the Americans are there to build permanent military bases and remain indefinitely. Given the realities of an occupying force, there illegally, against the will of the people, they think troops are legitimate targets.
The fact that a majority of Iraqis believe US soldiers are legitimate targets should tell you a lot more about the US occupation, than it does the people of Iraq. Consider again, as a reductio ad absurdum, the notion of an occupying force in Brooklyn, 'there for your own good.'
If you look at the polls further, they flatly contradict your notion that Iraqis are somehow unwilling to take control of their own affairs. Nearly 100% of Iraqis want the US completely OUT, bases OUT, everything OUT now, regardless of the consequences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)