Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
December 30, 2011

Some Links And Open Thread

An interesting portrait: I’ll Be Your Mirror - What Pakistan sees in Imran Khan - Caravan Magazine

How Merkel kicked out Berlusconi. (Not sure about this tale. There is certainly an agenda and some spinning behind it. Still an interesting read.) Deepening Crisis Over Euro Pits Leader Against Leader - WSJ

Because they can. The racist land-robber tribe plans to kill more defenseless people: IDF confirms preparations for extensive future Gaza military action - Haartez

Obama administration secretly preparing options for aiding the Syrian opposition - The Cable/FP

I for one do not believe for a minute that the ongoing U.S. operation against Syria has not been planed and implemented months, if not years, ago. Spinning this now preparing options out to the media is only to announce the implementation of the next stage.

Another stupid default judgement: Crackpot Anti-Islam Activists, "Serial Fabricators" and the Tale of Iran and 9/11 - Gareth Porter/Truthout

Saying the obvious about what never was the real issue: Mossad chief: Nuclear Iran not necessarily existential threat to Israel - Haaretz

"Getting to Yes" never was part of the plan: Keeping Iran From Saying Yes - Paul Pillar/National Interest

AMERICA’S DRIVE FOR MIDDLE EAST DOMINANCE SETS THE STAGE FOR ATTACKING IRAN—NEVER MIND INTERNATIONAL LAW (OR EVEN U.S. INTERESTS) - Levretts/Race For Iran

Australian TV on Kill/Capture raids in Afghanistan: In Their Sights (video, 45 min)

Another interesting portrait. A former Mujahedin/Taliban telling his life: We Felt No Mercy - Maisonneuve

“I told the Americans many times, ‘Don’t do what the Russians did. Why do you do this? Why don’t you learn or listen to people who’ve been there?’ If they did two years ago what they’re doing now, there would be no war. They do everything at the last possible minute, after they fail.

The last sentence sounds just like Churchill.

Posted by b on December 30, 2011 at 01:49 PM | Permalink

Comments

Speaking of Churchill, in one of his early lyrical prose essays he recounts the episode of the young anti-British fighters gathering around the local Mullah:

. . .Then the Mullah will raise his voice and remind them of other days when the sons of the prophet drove the infidel from the plains of India, and ruled at Delhi, as wide an Empire as the Kafir holds to-day: when the true religion strode proudly through the earth and scorned to lie hidden and neglected among the hills: when mighty princes ruled in Bagdad, and all men knew that there was one God, and Mahomet was His prophet. And the young men hearing these things will grip their Martinis [British rifle], and pray to Allah, that one day He will bring some Sahib -- best prize of all -- across their line of sight at seven hundred yards so that, at least, they may strike a blow for insulted and threatened Islam." -- Winston Churchill, journalist, 1897, aged 23

Posted by: Don Bacon | Dec 30, 2011 2:16:47 PM | 1

ahem,

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/12/30/us-calls-hugo-chavez-cancer-speculation-reprehensible/

actually hugo chavez remarks came after - German conservative newspaper FAZ speculated in a matter of fact way -
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/argentinien-praesidentin-kirchner-an-krebs-erkrankt-11582822.html
"Neben Fernández de Kirchner leiden noch zwei weitere Präsidenten Lateinamerikas an Krebs: Hugo Chavez in Venezuela und Fernando Lugo in Paraguay. Auch der frühere brasilianische Präsident Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva ist betroffen."
It is not just FAZ it is The Economist also
http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2011/12/argentine-politics
and it might be Erdogan also
http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2011/12/turkeys-prime-minister

now, if there had not been Wikileaks outing Clinton for asking for politicians' DNA, nor completely illegal Drone attacks,that cannot be justified neither by ethics nor by political outcome, I would have considered Chavez musings crazy, as it stands I believe it.


so it is about time Russia publishes its first human rights report
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/28/us-russia-usa-rights-idUSTRE7BR0ND20111228


the first victim of all this are human rights, of course.

does the US intend to be taken seriously by anybody?

Posted by: somebody | Dec 30, 2011 3:13:52 PM | 2

In 1931, Dr. Cornelius Rhoads infected human subjects with cancer cells - under the auspices of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Investigations. Rhoads later conducted radiation exposure experiments on American soldiers and civilian hospital patients.

“The Puerto Ricans are the dirtiest, laziest, most dangerous and thievish race of men ever inhabiting this sphere… I have done my best to further the process of extermination by killing off eight and transplanting cancer into several more… All physicians take delight in the abuse and torture of the unfortunate subjects.” –-Dr. Cornelius P. Rhoads, 1932


Posted by: Don Bacon | Dec 30, 2011 3:57:13 PM | 3

Lars Schall interviews Pepe Escobar in a really long piece covering just about everything in geo-politics from pipelines, to the Afghan drug trade to South America, the BRICS, and war coming to Iran.

Source: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30108.htm

Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Dec 30, 2011 7:13:53 PM | 4

Spinning this now preparing options out to the media is only to announce the implementation of the next stage.

And yet, in all this time, nothing substantial to support this belief.

The most revolting outcome of your strategic views about Syria is how you condescend the earnestness of Arabs to oppose tyranny. You can only imagine that Arabs would do so when brainwashed and armed and programmed to do the Empire's dirty work. Arabs are stupid creatures, for you.

It's really pretty disgusting.

Posted by: slothrop | Dec 30, 2011 7:37:10 PM | 5

If US wants to help arabs opposing tyranny it can do so in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Yemen

Posted by: nikon | Dec 30, 2011 9:15:49 PM | 6

Ron Paul's particular version of libertarianism and its connection to Christian reconstructionism:

http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/153607/major_ron_paul_supporter_favors_death_penalty_for_gays/?page=entire

A common misconception about the Ron Paul agenda is that he is a libertarian who just wants to let all humans live as they please. But Ron Paul is no libertarian; if not a Christian Reconstructionist himself, he is truly the best enabler a Reconstructionist could hope to have.

Ron Paul seeks to shrink the federal government to minimal size not because it intrudes in the lives of individuals, but because it stands in the way of allowing the states and localities to enact laws as they see fit -- even laws that govern people's behavior in their bedrooms. (Digby has dubbed this philosophy Ron Paul's "antebellum politics.")

Here's what Paul published on the Web site of Lew Rockwell -- allegedly one of the authors of his racist, homophobic newsletters -- about the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas that struck down the state's anti-sodomy laws, which prohibited sex between men:

The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment "right to privacy." Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.

This plays neatly into the hands of Paul's Christian Reconstructionist friends, who seek the destruction of the federal government for the opportunity to implement "God's law" on earth.

Posted by: anna missed | Dec 30, 2011 10:07:12 PM | 7

"Here's what Paul published on the Web site of Lew Rockwell....blablahblah....."

What evidence do you, or the author of this hit piece, have that "Paul published" the quoted paragraph? Wasn't it, in fact, Rockwell that "published" it?

The insinuation that Paul want's to institute some sort of "God's law" on our nation is bullshit. What a disingenuous bit of journalistic excrement you've found here, Anna. You can't possibly be proud of this contribution.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Dec 30, 2011 10:57:11 PM | 8

If credible, a highly pertinent find anna missed, and I see no reason why it isn't. A Christian Reconstructionist cloaked in libertarian garb!? He had me fooled for years. I'm not totally convinced but it does fit with my intuitive gleanings of Ron of late. I'll be paying close attention. If this is the only viable alternative to the imperial powers invading every aspect of global existence I'm feeling deeply despondent. Maybe the climate crisis is a preferable destiny.

Posted by: juannie | Dec 30, 2011 11:03:26 PM | 9

There are many things to criticize Ron Paul for but this shit, Anna, is garbage.

The Democrats like Digby, as well as the author of that poorly reasoned hit piece, are supporters of a corrupt fascist conservative party (the Democrats) so they have to attack anyone that challenges their support for fascist bloodthirsty policies.

What an obvious diversion. What a weak attack--and revealing about those that peddle it. It's the equivalent of the right-wing attacks on Obama being a socialist. It's bullshit meant to distract from their own culpability.

Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Dec 30, 2011 11:45:03 PM | 10

I'm sorry Anna for being so triggered by the anti-Paul stuff. His article in Lew Rockwell is bad:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html

While I totally disagree with his strict interpretation of personal liberty in the Constitution, I'm frustrated because so many Democrats want to focus on relatively obscure and theoretical positions and then barely acknowledge the fact that Paul is much better than Obama and the Democrats when it comes to things like not assassinating people without due process.

The chances of Lawrence or the Civil Rights Act being overturned are almost nil. And in many more important ways Paul would increase liberty (if he is sincere).

For instance, he would not have signed the NDAA and would not be targeting people for assassination. He would also presumably try to end the drug war.

Paul has problems and is presumably playing footsie with the religious right when he says he's against anti-sodomy laws but the constitution allows the states to decide (after all he is a Republican). But it's more complicated that the Democratic partisans like Digby et al. make it seem.

Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Dec 31, 2011 12:11:19 AM | 11

@annie missed
OMG, Christian reconstructionism? A religious and theological movement within Evangelical Christianity that calls for Christians to put their faith into action in all areas of life, within the private sphere of life and the public and political sphere as well? That's awful --there oughta be a law. Chistians actually putting their faith into action? No more wars? Being nice to people that aren't like us? The Golden Rule? The horror of it.

Ron Paul was of course correct in his interpretation of the constitution, and any claims that this "plays neatly into the hands" of this or that group, without proof to the contrary, is purely incidental and affects Paul not at all. If this is all you have on Paul, save it. Stow it. Your claim lacks any credibility, and even if there were credibility, which there isn't, so what.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Dec 31, 2011 12:13:48 AM | 12

@11 WWM
On what grounds do you "totally disagree" with Paul's interpretation of the constitution?

Posted by: Don Bacon | Dec 31, 2011 12:18:05 AM | 13

I posted the above (mostly) because it elucidates exactly what the right has in mind when they talk up states rights. Most of the Jim Crow laws post civil war - into the 1950's were established at the state level down through county/municipality/etc. segregation of course, but also a plethora of all manner of regulations like "sunset laws" (a black person could be arrested simply for being black on the street after dark) poll taxes and the like. See especially Indiana in the 1920's where state government was almost entirely run by a clack of KKK members, Christian dominionists, reconstructionists, and proto-fascists. Shades of the regressive past are currently manifesting in local anti-abortion, anti immigration, and voter suppression legislation that are all predicated on supplanting federal powers with state power - as a means to enforce what is essentially a long standing nativist or "Americanism" agenda. There's a reason why the leader of (neoKKK) Stormfront came out 2 days ago and endorsed Ron Paul.
Now of course I (or Ms Stan) have no idea whether Ron Paul is directly connected or even openly sympathetic to any of these affiliations. Or whether these groups are simply his useful idiots, but there is indeed a clear reasoning as to why they are attracted and openly supportive of him, and that has to mean something important w/ regards to jumping on the bandwagon simply because he is an isolationist.

Posted by: anna missed | Dec 31, 2011 12:59:53 AM | 14

Ron Paul is not an isolationist -- you made that up.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Dec 31, 2011 1:13:46 AM | 15

This dredging up episodes from fifty years ago is interesting but not controlling. Paul is correct in his observations that the federal government has become too large and oppressive. We now have federal agents on our highways, eavesdropping on our communications, shutting down our medical marijuana stores, closing schools and assassinating foreigners and even citizens. Paul says that this has gone too far -- and he's correct. He can't control who endorses his campaign.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Dec 31, 2011 1:30:58 AM | 16

Lack of job openings?
Not in the federal government.
Currently, just in Washington, there are 854 federal job openings. About a quarter them pay more than $100K.
They are listed randomly at usajobs.com
Here's the first four, today:
* Supervisory Social Science Analyst, $123,758.00 to $155,500.00 / Per Year
* Policy Analysis Group Manager, $123,758.00 to $155,500.00 / Per Year
* Senior Analyst (Systems and Methods),$123,758.00 to $155,500.00 / Per Year
* Air Conditioning Equipment Operator, $26.63 to $31.11 / Per Hour
http://www.usajobs.gov/JobSearch/Search/GetResults?location=washington%20dc

I think I'll go for that Supervisory Social Science Analyst job. It looks sweet, and if it's the federal government they must know what they are doing. Gonna analyze me some social science.

And once I get the job, I'm set. Federal employees' job security is so great that workers in many agencies are more likely to die of natural causes than get laid off or fired, a USA TODAY analysis has found.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Dec 31, 2011 2:08:47 AM | 17

Point #16 taken, but I'm just as worried that given Paul's notions of more deregulation on business (finances/trade/accounting/liability/labor/environmental), education standards, less taxes on the rich, and the elimination of Social Security Medicare and Medicaid, etc. - when allied with reduced federal oversights in favor of enhanced states rights we'll not just be thinking a hundred years in the past, we'll be living in it. Not to mention that we'll still be a country with a decayed international reputation well on its way to middle ages living standard, yet still ripe enough for vindictive international exploitation. Basically, it's the way empires die.

Posted by: anna missed | Dec 31, 2011 2:19:05 AM | 18

@anna missed
repeat of previous comment
Voters who like Paul's foreign policy but not his domestic policy ideas should realize that, while it's not in the constitution, a U.S. president enjoys much more latitude in implementing foreign policy than he does in domestic policy, where there are many more checks and balances. That's just the way it is.

So, many of us like him b/c he's the only anti-war candidate -- and that's the important thing 'cuz wear's a bitch and not kind to women and children.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Dec 31, 2011 2:36:07 AM | 19

I still think the important point about pushing Ron Paul is that it moves the Overton window. Some of his positions are certainly not favorable. But he would probably be able to change the current Dem/Rep consensus of more wars and unlimited support for Israel. On any domestic stuff Congress and the courts would limit his ability to change things.

Please also notice that he writes "Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be...". He does not seem to be in favor of such laws but in general favor of more state rights. Those can have various directions. One may find it bad when Texas wants to regulate sodomy but one may find it good when California allows medical marijuana. Currently the federal government works against both.

Posted by: b | Dec 31, 2011 2:39:20 AM | 20

Fortunately this is an open thread, so this rather mercenary link is not completely out of place. It reflects a desire to "conjure into existence" a service which ought to exist already, but, to my knowledge, does not. If it leads to a bit of New Year's Eve Bankster bashing, so much the better.

Posted by: Hannah K. O'Luthon | Dec 31, 2011 3:51:16 AM | 21

Overton windows surely are moving with Paul, but so far all I see is alignments moving the leftist perspective into the right frame in the name of non-interventionism. On the whole the power of a federal surveillance state will pale in comparison to the oppression of corporate sponsored Taliban oriented fiefdoms created by a return to antebellum "states power". As far as foreign policy goes, look no further than Jacksonian manifest destiny foreign policy, this time based on paranoiac shrinking empire disorder instead of unlimited resources for the taking syndrome (save for a few heathens). Needless to say, any foreign intervention can be re-branded and re-funded, and re-inspired from the secular to the sectarian point of view. God willing.

Posted by: anna missed | Dec 31, 2011 4:34:32 AM | 22

Alot of people are listening to his foreign policy ideas and agree with them.

Posted by: elaine marie | Dec 31, 2011 8:12:40 AM | 23

@ elaine marie
quite an interesting website your name links to. I looked around a few states to see if I was an inmate.

Posted by: dan of steele | Dec 31, 2011 9:04:24 AM | 24

Although this blog has become about Ron Paul the open thread started with a link to an article on Imran Khan. It is a rather long article that seems like is throwing everything at him to see if any will stick.
-He has connections to military/doesn't criticize the military, he has connections to the fundamentalists who really got him into politics. All this is bizarre considering he is an outside candidate not endorsed by these groups.
-Yes he has sex appeal and hero worship but it doesn't mean anything
-He talks about corruption being a problem....but the article simply leaves it at that not acknowledging that corruption is right now at destructive levels with Pakistan.

I really found little to recommend in this article. It would be nice to get some kind of a responsible critique not fluff pieces like this.

Posted by: Khalid Shah | Dec 31, 2011 9:19:53 AM | 25

Hey Anna,who you gonna call,Mitt to save US?How about Peter Venkman and ghostbusters?Alfalfa?
The man is a refreshing return to yesteryear,a Christian who acts like a Christian,in that deeds matter,and goodness counts,unlike all our 35 year spell of lying hypocrite Ziowhore scum.
To hell with making the world safe for sexual wacko idiots whose stupid behavior is called enlightening,and to murder people not caught up in this unhappy(ooh) world of naked women,men and sexual confusion,as freedom to be emulated.
And he has no problem with those who wish to express these actions,just do it privately and spare US the hosannas of its righteousness.
And I love how many people of the Jewish faith have a problem with Christianity in America,but genuflect to that Zionist state in Israel,and the fact that 54% of Jews(NYT's) in America don't believe in that higher authority,but claim He gave Israel the land.
Absurd hypocrisy.

Posted by: dahoit | Dec 31, 2011 10:47:14 AM | 26

The more one knows about Obama and the neoliberal D party domestic policy in terms of social cuts,austerity, privatization, taxation, bankster bailouts, abrogation of rule of law, compelling citizens to buy for profit insurance and pharmaceuticals at whatever they want to charge, the cat food commission, etc. The less concerns about Paul or even the wing-nutty Republican party as a whole makes sense. On this, they are all part of the problem.... which of course is why I will not vote D or R in Nov., but Green or Socialist. Both the R and D party are ongoing criminal enterprises.. I will play with a Paul vote in a primary where there is no other choice but to stay home.. but I would never play with it in Nov. Paul, is after all, a part of the criminal Republican enterprise.

Posted by: Eureka Springs | Dec 31, 2011 11:57:17 AM | 27

Greenwald takes progressives to task on Ron Paul: Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies

recommended

It’s perfectly legitimate to criticize Paul harshly and point out the horrible aspects of his belief system and past actions. But that’s worthwhile only if it’s accompanied by a similarly candid assessment of all the candidates, including the sitting President.
And there Ron Paul comes out quite favorable (at least in my view)

Posted by: b | Dec 31, 2011 12:37:36 PM | 28

Most Syrians ‘supportive of Assad’

Although the majority of Arabs believe Syria’s President Basher al-Assad should resign in the wake of the regime’s brutal treatment of protesters, fewer Syrians are supportive of an immediate leadership change.

According to the latest opinion poll commissioned by The Doha Debates, Syrians are more supportive of their president with 55% not wanting him to resign. One of the main reasons given by those wanting the president to stay in power was fear for the future of the country.

Wonder how Slothrop would explain that away?

Posted by: b | Dec 31, 2011 12:52:12 PM | 29

New poll out on Syria finds 55% want Assad to stay in power:

"According to the latest opinion poll commissioned by The Doha Debates, Syrians are more supportive of their president with 55% not wanting him to resign. One of the main reasons given by those wanting the president to stay in power was fear for the future of the country."

Source: http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=478192&version=1&template_id=36&parent_id=16

Note: The Doha Debates is funded by the Qatar Foundation (effectively the Qatar state), which is strange given that Qatar is on the regime change bandwagon as with Libya. Poll itself was conducted by YouGov a British polling company.

It also found that outside Syria most Arabs want Assad gone:

That level of support is not mirrored elsewhere in the region with 81% of Arabs wanting President Assad to step down.


Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Dec 31, 2011 12:53:36 PM | 30

The people who put a higher priority on Paul's alleged homophobia, and other minor matters, than on his strong anti-fascist and anti-war beliefs are seriously misguided and need to realign their priorities with recognition of the intense expensive destruction of lives and property that the current establishment fosters, an establishment that Paul far and away shows the most promise of changing.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Dec 31, 2011 12:55:30 PM | 31

LOL B, just read your comment you published as I was writing mine.

You know what they say: "great minds think alike"

:D

Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Dec 31, 2011 12:57:55 PM | 32

Stop presses, this important news just in--

December 31, 2011 Obama 'Hopeful' About New Year VOA News US President Barack Obama says he is "hopeful" the new year will bring about more progress for the United States, including the ability to grow the economy and create jobs.

US Constitution
Article II. - The Executive Branch
Section 1 - The President
The executivehoping Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Dec 31, 2011 1:18:26 PM | 33

Imran Khan.

Sports and Cancer Treatment, what more supreme modern credentials ?

The piece linked, a puff piece, only quickly skimmed by me left out that:

Khan is a Chancellor of the University of Bradford (GB), which has a program in Peace Studies and is into green initiatives - many of its other programs are very well respected. Student vy to go there.

It has an arm in Pakistan - Namal College. (See Wiki for ex. It is selective of course.)

His super good looks and reportedly friendly divorce give an added Wow.

He served for a long time as UNICEFs special Representative for Sports.

He was a ‘celeb’ in London for a while ..drinking (no longer! as he espouses Islamic values) and generally partying it up with various women, reportedly.

Not in support or against, it is curious that his strong ‘academic’ links with Britain / UN affiliated, were left out, but as said I skimmed.


Posted by: Noirette | Dec 31, 2011 1:44:38 PM | 34

From Greenwald:
"It’s perfectly legitimate to criticize Paul harshly and point out the horrible aspects of his belief system and past actions. But that’s worthwhile only if it’s accompanied by a similarly candid assessment of all the candidates, including the sitting President."

for the record, I agree with this assessment, emphatically so, w/regards to Obama. Biggest bait & switch charlatan in American presidential history. Like Eureka Springs, I'll go green or SWP.

Posted by: anna missed | Dec 31, 2011 3:26:07 PM | 35

b, Thanks for the link. I am firmly with you and Greenwald. Like I said, he's got my primary vote. Time will tell whether a Nov. vote for Paul would even be possible. I'll save my Green Soc. Paul decisions for eight or nine months. Honestly I think we are in systemic fail here, way beyond repair before a much bigger fall. I won't spend much time at all on inside election season baseball in the traditional sense this year. OWS and other avenues will be my route. That's already raised awareness/issues of import more than anything I have experienced here since the late 60's early 70's. I was born in the 60's, but I remember enough to know it's true. Anyway OWS is/will be an avenue where Ron Paul types meet and act with liberals. It's already happening... I'm sure the ows phenomenon is part of the reason Stoller and Greenwald, even you, are writing this way.

Posted by: Eureka Springs | Dec 31, 2011 3:45:54 PM | 36

happy new year to every one.

Posted by: ben | Dec 31, 2011 11:45:15 PM | 37

Paul is anti-fascist? To make that determination, one has to look at the facts. If he is anti-fascist, how, or where, does he stand on corporate personhood and corporations' ability to subvert the democratic process?

Here's a link to a thread at the Ron Paul website. Notice the equivocation, if not downright support for corporations, by his "supporters." Sorry, but anyone with any brain cells left, and who has worked for corporations, and is objective about it, knows that corporations are tyrannies, and under the guise of the "free market," Paul wants to eliminate the influence and restraint on these tyrannies from everyone and anyone, leaving them alone to rule the day, unrestricted in their oppression.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?290121-Ron-Paul-Corporate-personhood-advocate

And no, I could care less about his stance toward homosexuality or abortion or God or all the other wedge issue nonsense. Let's also not forget he represents the fascist state of Texas. If there is a nuclear strike on the U.S., please, take the entirety of Texas out, because it is ground zero for the cancer that is upon us. My apologies to any good and decent people who live there. Get out now. You don't belong there, and you're really not welcome there, so don't get flushed down the drain with that garbage that surrounds you.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Jan 1, 2012 11:53:12 AM | 38

@ Morocco Bama
Actually, corporations are the heart and soul of America. They provide its citizens with countless goods and services, efficiently and cheaply, and provide employment for millions. Texans are nice too -- I just visited that state and was impressed by their friendliness. Oncoming motorists wave to you on secondary roads! So I don't think all Texans ought to be killed, unless there is some evidence I'm overlooking regarding their death-worthiness.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jan 1, 2012 12:27:16 PM | 39

Actually, corporations are the heart and soul of America. They provide its citizens with countless goods and services, efficiently and cheaply, and provide employment for millions.

Jesus, this is right out of the Corporatist Lobbyist playbook. It's where Libertarians fail, well, one of the places they strongly fail. Tyranny comes in many forms. Currently, it is provided by a collusion of corporations and state, with corporations precipitating that takeover, unlike Nazi Germany where the direction was from state to corporation. Still, it's the collusion that counts as Fascism. Ron Paul Libertarians want to remove the state part of that equation and leave corporate tyranny to rule the day, thus removing any possibility of an outside influence, meaning any Government that could have been for and by the people, to the extent that was ever possible, now will no longer even be possible, and the Corporate Mafia can now take the gloves off and go to work at eliminating any and all of its perceived dissidents in whatever manner it chooses....as it's been doing abroad for an eternity now, it seems.

I lived in Texas, Don, so I didn't just pass through it like you. Read Russ Baker's Family of Secrets and understand that Texas is ground zero in the Fascist Putsch that has taken hold in the last fifty years. Obviously, my comment about nuking it is tongue and cheek, but there is a point to it. On other forums I have heard what cowards the "terrorist arabs" are because they hide in and amongst the general population, however, take a look at the U.S. Tell me where the U.S. terrorists are not hidden amongst the general population, using its citizens as human shields, whether they're witting, or not? So, I propose that all these fascist scum, if they're not cowards, and we know they are, be willing to relocate and congregate as one in a state of their own, and I think Texas is the perfect location for them. See, that way, any enemies they create, domestically and abroad, and there are already many and there will be many more, will know how and where to find them, and if they feel a need for retributive punishment, will punish the evildoers instead of those who wanted no part of their sadistic, twisted and destructive ways.

And, I will finally add, asserting that corporations are the "heart and soul of America" is oxymoronically appropriate in every way. Since Corporations have no heart and no soul, the implication is that "America" has no heart and no soul, so truer words have never been articulated.

http://whowhatwhy.com/

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Jan 1, 2012 2:10:29 PM | 40

Hmmm....can't speak for this blog, because I just ran across it, so I'm not sure if it has an agenda. It does, I'm sure, as most blogs do have one, but nonetheless, it raises some interesting points...namely who and what makes up Ron Paul's support, or at least part of that support.

http://www.dialoginternational.com/dialog_international/2011/12/ron-paul-and-the-neo-fascists.html

But the editors of eigentümlich frei fail to point out who many of these enthusiastic supporters for Ron Paul really are. The New York Times published an excellent article on support for the Paul campaign from white supremacist groups in the US who were enthusiastic subscribers to Ron Paul's racist newsletters in the 1990s.

The TImes piece, however, is incomplete in that it fails to explore Ron Paul's contacts with prominent neo-fascist groups both in the US and abroad. For example, in November of this year Ron Paul met with Marine LePen, leader of the French neo-fascist Front National (FN) and a serious opponent of Sarkozy. In Germany, the völkisch-national weekly Junge Freiheit has written extensively - and admiringly - about Ron Paul as the father of the Tea Party movement, which the editors Junge Freiheit would love to replicate in Germany as the vanguard of a neo-fascist movement. A reporter for Junge Freiheit - Kristof Berking - even traveled to the US to attend a Ron Paul "Rally for the Republic". Berking has compiled a useful "Internet Guide the Ron Paul Revolution" and also writes about Paul for eigentümlich frei - demonstrating the close links between libertarianism and neo-fascism. Junge Freiheit's American Cousin - the "intellectual" white supremacist site Alternative Right has written approvingly of Ron Paul's racist newsletters and the site's senior editor - Professor Paul Gottfried - has endorsed Ron Paul.

The NYTimes piece points out that Ron Paul was heavily influenced by the Libertarian thinker Murray Rothbard, who tried to build a Libertarian political movement in the 1970s and 1980s. Rothbard's most famous disciple is the German-born Libertarian anarcho-fascist thinker Hans Hermann Hoppe (also, incidentally, a contributor to Junge Freiheit) who, in his 2001 book Democracy: The God That Failed advocates a new feudalism centered on a cult of private property where enemies of the "natural order" - Gays, Lesbians, Democrats, etc. - would be forcibly expelled or detained:

"There can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They-the advocates of alternative, non-family-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism-will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order." -Hans Hermann Hoppe, Democracy: The God That Failed

Now, I have to say that I find it hard to swallow that the New York Times could possibly produce an excellent piece. Obviously, the NYT wants to smear Paul, and we know the reasons why, but that doesn't necessarily give Paul a clean bill of health. I think DaveS on the other thread said it all too well. He said:

As far as RP is concerned; I figure he's just another maggot politician who has managed to keep playing the game by talking to the fringe. One of the reasons I don't trust him is – can anyone really say what his policies would be? He seems almost as good a chameleon changing his beliefs to fit the times as the rest of the assholes in Congress. He just has talking points that resonate with a lot of people, like a certain senator from Illinois who talked a fine talk but doesn't even begin to walk the walk. Not that I was surprised.

Greenwald has shown himself to be an absolute idiot and is now a captive of his audience. Instead of him owning his own criticism of Paul, he instead practically endorses him, and the electoral process, in his permanent reactionary state to the MSM and his ceaseless mission to provide the crossfire opposite to anything it says or puts forth.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Jan 1, 2012 4:15:31 PM | 41

@41 Greenwald is far from being an idiot, and in fact anticipated the hack-attacks he would receive for stating his opinion about Paul.

I’m about to discuss the candidacies of Barack Obama and Ron Paul, and no matter how many times I say that I am not “endorsing” or expressing support for anyone’s candidacy, the simple-minded Manicheans and the lying partisan enforcers will claim the opposite. But since it’s always inadvisable to refrain from expressing ideas in deference to the confusion and deceit of the lowest elements, I’m going to proceed to make a couple of important points about both candidacies even knowing in advance how wildly they will be distorted.

Posted by: lizard | Jan 1, 2012 4:25:06 PM | 42

@42, his caveat rings empty when you consider the context. Of course, he knows this, and yet enters the fray and allows himself to be used as support for Ron Paul. If one were to review b's last thread on Ron Paul, without thoroughly examining every last word, the impression, especially with b's last link provided in the comment section, is that Greenwald supports and/or endorses Paul. So, my point remains and is still valid. Rather than react to what he believes to be a group called "Progressives", he should instead own his own criticism of the electoral process and any and all candidates represented therein.

Truthfully, I'm not a Greenwald fanboy, or a fanboy of anyone or anything, so I don't read him and really don't care what he has to say...except when someone posts a quote from him or links to one of his articles to support their point.

Pity the poor homosexuals who don't have the luxury of jetting off to South America to hide out when the people he failed to scathingly criticize come for the homosexuals...if and when they do.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Jan 1, 2012 4:54:12 PM | 43

@ Morocco Bama
According to census figures (2007) there are 18,311 firms with over 500 emplyees, at 1,158,795 locations, with an annual payroll of $2.8Bn. Hate 'em all?

I repeat, corporations are the heart and soul of America. Without them you'd be living in a mud hut eating grass. Where many liberals get off track is to lump all corporations in with a few large corporations who receive undue favors from bought-and-paid-for politicians. So whose fault is that. And then these misguided liberals go further, wanting to provide even more power to these bought-and-paid-for politicians. Makes no sense, because these businesses have a choice -- they avoid these crooked politicians completely and outsource manufacturing and services overseas -- which is what they do. That's dumb, but that's the current situation in the USA.

And I still like Texans, in part from personal experiences and also because I don't discriminate against any people on geographical grounds. That's blind prejudice which is always wrong. Better to hate somebody because they're bad, not because they're Chinese or Texan or Mexican or German. I completely reject that, and so should everyone. I've lived in a dozen or so foreign countries and many US states and there are good people everywhere. Blind prejudice is what leads to wars, for one thing -- demonizing people for where they live. Iran comes to mind.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jan 1, 2012 5:06:44 PM | 44

And I still like Texans, in part from personal experiences and also because I don't discriminate against any people on geographical grounds. That's blind prejudice which is always wrong. Better to hate somebody because they're bad, not because they're Chinese or Texan or Mexican or German. I completely reject that, and so should everyone. I've lived in a dozen or so foreign countries and many US states and there are good people everywhere. Blind prejudice is what leads to wars, for one thing -- demonizing people for where they live. Iran comes to mind.

That's a Strawman. I said Texas, not Texans, and of course, as I qualified it was a satirical tongue in cheek, and as I mentioned earlier, there are good and decent people in Texas, and it's a shame they have to be associated with the scum that owns the state and uses it as their base of Fascist operations. Of course, it's much larger than that now, but Texas is like Bethlehem, and will always hold a special place in the Fascist's heart, so it's a good place for them to relocate to, and all who support them, and call home. It's time for the Fascists to quit cowardly hiding behind other people and out themselves for what and who they are, and wave their proud flag and say "here I am, come and get me if you can."

Sorry, Don, the Joe The Plumber bullshit stunt you're proselytizing is just that, Bullshit. There are many other effective ways to conduct trade and business that don't allow those operating such endeavors to escape accountability and responsibility for their actions, not to mention that regardless of size, Corporations mimic the behavior of other Corporations, to a large extent. There are exceptions to this rule, but they're few and far between, and they're not glaring exceptions. Corporate structures are hierarchical fiefdoms, or feudal estates, if you will, with a few overlords at the top and the rest licking the overlords' boots for a few table scraps in which to feed their families. So yeah, you have it right, that is certainly the heart and soul of America.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Jan 1, 2012 5:45:00 PM | 45

so do you have problems with the substance of Greenwald's arguments, or do you dislike him personally because he, according to you (evidence?) has some kind of planned escape route to flee fascist Amerika when they come for the homo's?

Posted by: lizard | Jan 1, 2012 5:56:34 PM | 46

@ Morocco Bama
What "other effective ways to conduct trade and business" do you have in mind?

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jan 1, 2012 6:20:04 PM | 47

For Morocco Bama and others of you who seem rather interested in getting inside Greenwald's head in order to understand exactly what makes him tick, I highly recommend that you listen to this hour-long interview he had with Berkeley’s Harry Kreisler:

http://conversations.berkeley.edu/content/glenn-greenwald

Posted by: Cynthia | Jan 1, 2012 6:38:24 PM | 48

Blind prejudice is what leads to wars

Bullshit. War is about resource expropriation, not about blind prejudice. Yes, tapping into prejudice may help stoke the fervor and help to manufacture consent, amongst other things, but it's never the cause. It's an after the decision has been made selling point, not something that "leads" to wars. Most people, regardless of their prejudices, don't want war, or in the least, don't want to lay their life on the line in one....hence forced conscription. With the advances in technology, that's increasingly irrelevant, as is stoking the fervor and manufacturing consent.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Jan 1, 2012 6:51:49 PM | 49

@Morocco Bama
I agree that the cause of war is profits, mostly financial and some political, but the warmongers use prejudice -- much as you are doing with your wild talk -- to lead people to it.
What "other effective ways to conduct trade and business" do you have in mind?

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jan 1, 2012 7:01:18 PM | 50

@48, it's not a matter of not understanding Greenwald, or having a problem with him. It's a matter of his opinion not having any more weight than your opinion or lizard's, or Don Bacon's, or anyone else's here, or elsewhere, so say it in your own words, rather than pointing to implied sources of authority, when discussing, instead of saying "well, Glenn Greenwald says." It reminds me of the old E.F. Hutton commercials. I laughed at them then, and I laugh at it now, in retrospect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SX7ZEotoFh0

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Jan 1, 2012 7:31:03 PM | 51

What "other effective ways to conduct trade and business" do you have in mind?

Don, come on, seriously? Are you serious with this question? The implication of your question, because it's not really a question, but rather a statement disguised as a question, is that the corporate structure, legally, administratively and operationally is the only effective way of conducting trade and business, and that's why it's so ubiquitous. That's nonsense, Don. I'm sorry, but I'm not buying the logic that without the corporate structure, we'll all be eating mud cakes whilst living in mud huts and picking nits off each other for entertainment. The main reason any business owner incorporates is to limit their liability. It's certainly not for tax purposes, because Corporations don't enjoy gracious tax benefits unless they have a cadre of tax attorneys to reduce their tax obligations to less than zero. Limiting your liability is code for avoiding accountability and responsibility. And before you go any further, I despise class action attorneys who manipulate and take advantage of the legal process duplicitously on behalf of clients who have been wronged in order to enrich themselves. I hold more disdain for that than I do for the business owner who fucked up because he was careless and tries to evade responsibility via a corporate structure.

Also, I'm not a liberal, so don't try to hang that shit on me. In fact, I think you're wrong about them there (that's Texas talk) Liberals. I think they love Corporations and Corporations love them. I mean, let's face it, Corporations elected Obama, and he's a "Liberal", ain't (more Texan) he? Plus, all those there (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4ptm6F2KHQ) Class Action Attorneys have set themselves up as LLPs which are de facto Corporations for all intents and purposes.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Jan 1, 2012 7:59:55 PM | 52

@ Morocco Bama
Yes I was serious with the question. Why not? I suspected you couldn't answer it.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jan 1, 2012 9:06:54 PM | 53

No, Don, I won't answer a question that's not a question. Instead, I addressed the implication behind the disguise. You can agree with, or not.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Jan 1, 2012 9:42:41 PM | 54

Some interesting stuff from Roads to Iraq (& other places), indicating that Maliki's recent machinations might yet work. The understory might read as Maliki has gotten a chisel into his rival Iraqiya party's weak spot and is applying leverage that may split the party into fragments. Apparently there has been a growing dissatisfaction with al-Allawi's leadership and many are explicitly calling for his resignation, which will shatter the party (and its effectiveness) into smaller disconnected pieces.
This would bode well for Maliki's Shiite centric consolidation initiative.

Posted by: anna missed | Jan 1, 2012 11:05:01 PM | 55

whoops wrong thread. link above anyway - http://www.roadstoiraq.com/

Posted by: anna missed | Jan 1, 2012 11:07:27 PM | 56

Ron Paul is an advocate of the Austrian fairy tales of Hayek and Von Mises. Were he elected and his economic policies implemented there would certainly be a global depression (likely killing more than W's and O's wars combined) and the only remedy in the playbook would be further austerity.

Posted by: Jeff65 | Jan 2, 2012 5:19:14 AM | 57

A good overview piece on what happened during the recent months in Egypt by Issandr El Amrani (The Arabist): Sightings of the Egyptian Deep State

Posted by: b | Jan 2, 2012 7:38:17 AM | 58

Where did my post go?

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Jan 2, 2012 9:28:39 AM | 59

That's crappy censorship. There's nothing offensive in what I posted, and it was pertinent to the discussion that developed.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Jan 2, 2012 9:36:54 AM | 60

Ron Paul has nothing against corporations per se, Morocco Bama. He just opposes corporatism, which means that he opposes corporations being able to buy politicians in order to rig the game of making money in their favor and to prop them up with taxpayer dollars when they are incapable of surviving on their own in a competitive marketplace.

Believe me, Morocco Bama, I don't like at all the fact that Ron Paul opposes labor unions, worker rights and minimum wage laws. After all, these are the only weapons workers have to maintain some sort of reasonable balance of power between themselves and their greedy and power-hungry bosses in management. But to me, Ron Paul's strong opposition to militarism and the national security state and a Federal Reserve that's shrouded in secrecy and steeped in cronyism all far outweigh any opposition he has for using the power of government to create a fair and equitable workplace.

As Don Bacon and some others here have pointed out, the president can't shape domestic and social policy without consent of Congress. So even if Ron Paul wants to rid the workplace of labor unions, worker rights and minimum wage laws, he can't do so without the full consent of Congress. But the same thing can't be said with regards to foreign policy. And because Obama has made the very fascist move to invoke the state secrets privilege in order to protect our central bankers from persecution, the president is now also free to shape banking policy without consent of Congress.

It's bad enough that we have a president who has given himself the unchecked authority to wage endless and unjust wars against sovereign nations, but it's even worse that because of Obama's very fascist move to further militarize our civilian police forces and lock us up indefinitely without due process, we also have a president who has given himself the unchecked authority put a gun to the head of our civil liberties!

Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate that has expressed any interest in scaling back these and other presidential powers and restoring our Constitutional Rights, and for those two reasons alone, he gets my vote!

Posted by: Cynthia | Jan 2, 2012 11:06:48 AM | 61

I cannot wait to see how well Ron Paul does in Iowa.

Posted by: elaine marie | Jan 2, 2012 7:45:42 PM | 62

NDAA - American Detention Has Nothing to do with the War on Terror, its about You.

MTV seems to think so.

Posted by: Juan Moment | Jan 2, 2012 7:48:39 PM | 63

'“I told the Americans many times, ‘Don’t do what the Russians did. Why do you do this? Why don’t you learn or listen to people who’ve been there?'


and what did the russians do? But bring a socialist govt to Afghanistan,one that benefited the sort of people who suffer under islamist ones. The americans and the taliban both hated this sort of govt and joined forces to destroy it.

Posted by: brian | Jan 5, 2012 3:40:24 PM | 64

if there are old farts around here, other than the new guys who have outed themselves, who are bothered by people talking on their cell phones during meals....there is hope.

Propose the Phone Stack. upon arrival everyone places their phones face down in the middle of the table. Whoever picks theirs up to answer, also picks up the tab.

Posted by: dan of steele | Jan 7, 2012 3:27:04 PM | 65

Timelapse of 30-Story Building Constructed In Only 360 Hours

Posted by: annie | Jan 7, 2012 5:45:32 PM | 66

The comments to this entry are closed.