James Landrith - Taking The Gloves Off

Republicratism

From the comments at a No Treason posting on Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, Or Something, John Lopez said:

“All the hope Republicans offer is that since they’re playing perennial ideological catch-up, they’ll always be “Communist Lite". That means you’ll get a few years’ delay before they adopt the exact position that the Democrats hold now. I guess that’s nice and all, but let’s not pretend that there’s some difference in principle between the two.”

Dead-on brother. These big government conservatives chafe my ass. For all their “liberal, liberal, liberal” shouting, they fail to notice that they are just one wing of the Demopublican-Republicrat Matrix of Tax, Spend and Growth of Government.

Comments (0)

We Just Can’t…

Andy Stedman of No Treason on I’m Copyright:

My wife just tried to get Wal-Mart to make copies of this (mildly embarassing) picture of me, and several others from my childhood. They refused to allow her to copy this one and all the other professional-looking ones, despite the absence of any copyright marks. I don’t even know that school photographers in the 1970’s claimed to own the copyrights on pictures they took.

Now, I understand Wal-Mart’s desire to cover its collective ass, and certainly assert no right to force them to allow me to use their equipment against their will, but there is something very wrong when the copyright holders have managed to bully companies into forgoing business, presuming that the potential customer is attempting to do something illegal. How is the customer to prove a negative, that no one (else) holds a copyright to a particular photograph?

Wal-Mart can hire some real dumbasses sometimes. My wife and I tried to write a check at a local Wal-Mart. They said they couldn’t accept the check because there is a post office box for the address. Of course there is a p.o. box for the address. Identity theft and financial security experts agree that you should NOT put your home address on your checks if you can help it. Even some financial institutions will suggest you not use your home address if possible. Of course, this information fell on deaf ears when I explained it to the assistant idiot manager at our local Wal-Mart. Rules are rules and common sense is outmoded. Further, in Virginia, you can put your p.o. box on your drivers license, as we have done. After showing the idiot assistant manager that even our drivers licenses have our p.o. box on them he said, “that doesn’t matter, we can’t accept checks with p.o. boxes on them.” Why? “We just can’t.” Even when the address matches the drivers license? “Nope, we just can’t.” You’re just a mindless automaton aren’t you? (blank stare and eyes glaze over)

They really don’t want my money anymore. I left over $700 worth of computer accessories and groceries there in the checkout aisle. Best Buy and Target, however, wanted my money.

After all, rules are rules. I can’t have Wal-Mart profiting from my use of a p.o. box. That would be, like, wrong and stuff.

Comments (0)

Welcome TheosoD’Rejean

We have a new blogger at A Mixed Blog - TheosoD’Rejean Turner aka SKYDOGS (archives will be available here.) Turner is the Coordinator/Founder of M.O.X.H.C.A., a Canadian affiliate of the Association of Multi-Ethnic Americans. Previously, TheosoD’Rejean has written for The Multiracial Activist on Preaching to the Converted.

This entry also posted at A Mixed Blog.

Comments (0)

Being Pro-War Is Not Necessarily Patriotic

As the 21st century dawns, Americans have come to define patriotism as uncritical support of war and the military. In this year’s presidential campaign, John Kerry touts his war exploits in Vietnam, and those with connections to George W. Bush try to rewrite this history decades later. The president dresses up in military garb and lands on an aircraft carrier, pretending to be a war hero to make people forget that he avoided the danger of conflict years earlier. Both Bush and Kerry favored the unprovoked U.S. invasion of a sovereign nation (Iraq)—the same thing Saddam Hussein did to become a world pariah in 1990. And both the president and his challenger said they would have invaded even if they knew in advance that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Such militarization of U.S. society and foreign policy would cause the founders of this great nation to roll over in their graves.

The profligate use of the war metaphor in unrelated matters demonstrates that the glorification of war runs deep in contemporary America. The word “war” is so effective in raising passions that it is used as a propaganda tool for the cause of the day. For example, there is a war on poverty, a war on drugs, and a war on terrorism. (Terrorist attacks are usually isolated in time and place and often can be better countered when thought of as crime). None of these “campaigns” have been very successful, and often the term “war” is used only as a marketing tool to garner support from an all-too-eager American public. The use of such terminology could be dismissed as harmless rhetoric rather than an intrinsic subconscious desire for war. The reality, however, is that the U.S. government’s post-World War II meddling in the affairs of countries overseas has embroiled the United States, either directly or through proxies, in many conflicts. Some foreign policy scholars on both the left and right—Chalmers Johnson of the Japan Policy Research Institute and Andrew Bacevich of Boston University, respectively—have decried the militarization of U.S. foreign policy. This interventionist foreign policy is an aberration in American history that now seems like the rule. For more than 170 years before the Cold War began, the United States followed, albeit imperfectly, a policy of military restraint overseas and eschewed permanent, entangling alliances that could drag the nation into unnecessary war.

Some would argue that much of the post-World War II period was spent in the laudable fight against the forces of totalitarian communism. But that jousting against a second—rate enemy (the Soviets’ dysfunctional communist economic system made it an “Upper Volta with missiles”) masked a U.S. effort to remake the world in its own image. The United States established alliances and military bases around the world and regularly intervened in the affairs of other nations through coercion, covert action and the use of armed force. The best evidence that this U.S. overseas “empire” was not created mainly to fight communism was its retention—and even expansion—after the Soviet rival collapsed into the dustbin of history.

After the demise of the rival superpower, however, the advantages of wanton U.S. global intervention have declined precipitously. And blowback from foreign meddling—for example, the September 11 terrorist attacks—has demonstrated that the dangers of such a policy have increased exponentially, especially if hostile terrorists could acquire a nuclear weapon.

It’s time to reconsider the founders’ original foreign policy of restraint overseas—made possible by America’s blessed geographical position oceans away from the world’s centers of conflict. Today, with the most powerful nuclear arsenal on the planet, the United States remains secure from the vast preponderance of threats, except that of catastrophic terrorism.

In the short-run, the United States needs to neutralize al Qaeda, but in the longer term it needs to ask why the group attacked U.S. targets. If the United States quietly abandoned its interventionist foreign policy, it would greatly reduce the worldwide anti-U.S. hatred and the resultant blowback terrorist attacks. General Anthony Zinni, the tough Marine who commanded U.S. forces in the Middle East, perceptively advised that the United States should avoid making enemies but treat its intractable foes forcefully.

As the founders astutely realized, when the leaders of nations start wars of aggrandizement, the costs—in lost lives, taxes, and reduced liberties—often fall on the backs of the common people. Even General George Washington was suspicious of unnecessary foreign wars and a large military, leading to big government oppression at home. His form of patriotism is truer to the American spirit than its modern day militaristic counterpart, which treats war as a cool videogame and has more in common with German and Soviet-style patriotism of the 20th century.

——————————————————————————–
Ivan Eland is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute in Oakland, CA., and author of the book, Putting “Defense” Back into U.S. Defense Policy. For further articles and studies, see OnPower.org.

Comments (0)

New Libertarian Blog

Harry Browne, an investment advisor and two-time Libertarian Party nominee for president, has launched his own blog. Its available here.

Comments (0)

Ride On

Dr. M. A. Muqtedar Khan on HOW GEORGE W. BUSH CHANGED AMERICA:

What September 11th has done is to give the Bush administration a carte blanche to act recklessly while responding to the fears and opportunities that presented themselves. Fear nurtured by the White House and an understandably heightened sense of patriotism in most Americans have combined to empower the Bush administration far beyond their mandate. They have used the “everything has changed” slogan as a justification for significant departures from the political and moral traditions of this nation. As far as America is concerned, the mantra has become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The “everything has changed” slogan recognizes that American foreign policy and security establishment needs an overhaul. Policy errors had spawned anti-American terrorism and failed to arrest its growth and potential to harm the nation. Security and intelligence lapses had allowed the homeland to be attacked as never before. Agreed. Foreign and defense policy as well as the institutional set up that facilitates it need an overhaul. Everyone understands this and recognizes it.

Read the rest of Dr. Khan’s commentary here.

Comments (0)

More From My Censor

A series of questions from my good buddy J. Scott or J.P. Scott (jpscott@post.com) or whoever it really is:

jscott said: I noticed that you have removed Steve Sailer’s articles from your blog. I’ve enjoyed reading many of the articles and posting that you’ve posted on multiracial issues but was appalled to see that Ms. Powell had posted Sailer’s articles not to criticize them but to use them to further her biased views.

Actually, Ms. Powell has posted hundreds of times at A Mixed Blog and only LINKED or QUOTED a Sailer column on five or so occasions, three of which she admonished him for racism or illogic. You are flat out lying when you claim that I’ve “removed Steve Sailer’s articles.” His articles have never been on the blog. But his writings have been talked about. There is a big difference, and you know it, yet intentionally skew the record for some strange reason. Some would call that lying.

jscott said: What did surprise me was that you expunged my posting from your site. Normally, I understand when a site’s editor censor postings because of foul language; but, since I didn’t use any such words, I found it disquieting and Orwellian.

You demanded that I kick Ms. Powell off the blog, and when you didn’t get your way you turned your attentions towards my children by claiming I was raising them wrong and turning them into immoral bigots and bullies. That is why you were kicked off. And I’ve told you such repeatedly. Arguing a point is one thing, but picking on a person’s family when you don’t get your way is quite another. Quit pretending that its otherwise.

jscott said: I could only assume that my words about your giving tacit approval to Ms. Powell’s methods and politics by publishing the Sailer articles was too much for you.

You are going to assume whatever you want and continue to lie as well, so why bother asking? You attacked my family and then called it “intellectual debate.” In the real world that’s called trolling. You repeatedly used fake email addresses as well, giving further evidence of your intent to engage in disruption, rather than intellectual debate.

jscott said: Let me be clear on this, Ms. Powell is a bigot. She repeatedly seeks to champion her status as a white multiracial with the emphasis being on “whitenes” and the seeming desire to benefit from white privilege by denigrating “blacks.”

Wrong. She believes in scrapping “racial” classifications and you believe in keeping them - even if you have to lie and exaggerate about others in the process. If you dislike her approach, which is to co-opt the so-called “white” category, rather than continue to live under the one-drop rule, then that’s your issue, not mine. If you hate her because her experiences differ from yours, again - your problem. You even went so far as to refer to a popular “black” conservative academic as “dirty” for the crime of having the wrong skin color and disagreeing with you. Interesting choice of word - “dirty.” Pot, meet kettle.

jscott said: “Again, I find her logic amazingly bizarre but familiar. The character of the self-hating this or that is a cliched character in literature and film. Ms. Powell’s writings point clearly to her view that “blacks” are “other” to her whiteness, disconnecting from her African heritage and, more importantly, her own family. Through her constant use of phrases or words like “whining” to describe “blacks” shows an utter lack of sympathy towards the struggles of her own ancestors. Given the plethora of examples of Ms. Powell’s writings available across the Internet, I cannot point to any that show a positive multiracial attitude. Virtually every article or essay is about white multiracials or mulattos victimization by “blacks"; thus, making the impression of her bigotry as solid as steel.

In other words, you came to the blog with an axe to grind, intent on picking a fight. You don’t like A.D.’s style and beliefs. You badmouth her because her experiences differ from yours. So what? Not every “multiracial” person has walked the same path. You demand conformity of thought and conformity of action. Take that demand somewhere else, you lack the authority to make it.

You also called me “egotistical,” “sad,” “pathetic” and implied I was a bad father after I refused to kick Ms. Powell off the blog. You used what I would deem to be hate speech to describe Ward Connerly and Thomas Sowell in the comments. And you have the nerve to judge someone else? Go pound sand.

jscott said: “However, the revulsion that I felt towards Ms. Powell after seeing her use the words of Steve Sailer freed me from most of the sympathy I might have for her and whatever personal pain she may have suffered to bring her to this point of intellectual and moral bankruptcy. Recently, “USA Today” signed Ann Coulter to be a columnist for its coverage of the Democratic Convention. However, no column was published because the first column proved unprintable for its pages. The editors made a judgement that some words, filled with hatred, were not worth printing.

A.D. Powell is not Ann Coulter. She linked to a columnist she disagrees with the overwhelming majority of the time and discussed his work and a handful of occasions out of hundreds of blog entries. And in your hysteria, you want her murdered for it. You really need to check that hate. Its not becoming of someone who has self-appointed themself censor of this website.

jscott said: “And that brings me to you. As you said, you pay the bills on your site. I don’t understand how you could have left her Sailer postings up there for so long.

Once again, since you intend to exaggerate and lie about it. She posted links to FIVE or so Sailer pieces. She has hundreds of posts on the blog. Get a grip and stop the drama and exaggerations. Its only a short walk from that to full-blown lying. But then, you fully intend to continue with the falsehoods, don’t you? That’s what trolls do best.

jscott said: “I don’t understand how you couldn’t have felt the revulsion that I did. I don’t understand why it took my words to move you to act.”

Oh, I’m feeling plenty of revulsion. Calling a man “dirty” based on his skin color and ideology tends to do that to me. Picking on my family and then lying about it afterwords tends to do that. Lying, badgering and harassing me by email in order to provoke a response tends to do that.

jscott said: “"Even more, I don’t understand why you then removed my words. All of my comments disappeared. It’s not from vanity that I question the removal of my words but of integrity, your integrity. A blog is a journal, a written public legacy. Changing the public record, history, is deeply saddening; and words like Orwellian and Kafkaesque easily come to my mind. We don’t like slavery, do we erase it from the history books? We don’t like the holocaust, do we erase it? We don’t like the terrors of Rwanda, do we erase it? You wrote to me about black conservatives. I thought one of the goals of modern American conservatism was the vilification of “political correctness.” Surely, your expunging of my comments would draw the ire of most true conservatives.”

Surely not. You have revealed yourself to be a troll, capable of using the most important thing in a father’s life against him - his children. Your posts are gone - as they should be. Again, you have revealed yourself to be a troll. Its just that simple. I don’t make excuses for trolls. You’ll have to find a way to live with it. Oh the horror of it all.

jscott said: “I guess that’s all that I have to say. I can’t imagine returning to your site or recommending my family, friends, or anyone else read your site. The inherent dishonesty you’ve shown is far too great. In my last comment to you, I questioned when did the ends justify the means philosophy become an ethical modus operandi. I guess you’ve shown me that ethics or not, it’s not only Ms. Powell’s tactic but also yours.”

I’m not the one who lied about my actions and then badgered someone by email. And then lied some more. You demanded I kick Powell off the blog or you are going to publish an attack piece questioning my credibility. You have continued to hide behind a vague screen name and used fake email addresses to post there. Further, you repeatedly used insults like “sad,” “egotistical” and informed me that you are “through with” me in your series of emails to me.

And you have the nerve to claim the moral high ground while you continue to hide behind a vague screen name and multiple fake email addresses. What exactly is wrong with you? Where to do get the right to demand that others bow to your will, else you reserve the right to skewer them falsely?

jscott said: “Oh, please. My comments were not directed to your children as much as your morality and ethics. Simply asking how your children would respond to those postings shouldn’t cross a line when other people’s children may visit your site. (That’s a technique of arguing, trying to use empathy so that someone might be able to understand another’s point of view.) If you can’t see that hypocrisy, then you are deluding yourself.”

Quit lying. That isn’t what you said. You claimed that I was teaching my children to be bullies and bigots who would be unable to function as rational human beings. You further mocked me when I objected. You’ve been busted and now you’re lying. Its cute, but contrary to your assertions, that doesn’t qualify as “intellectual debate.”

jscott said: “You operate one of the few multiracial sites on the Internet.”

Umm, I know. I put it together with my own two hands.

jscott said: “How many young people like myself do you think are searching for knowledge and come upon your site?”

Quite a few. I help out with papers for high school and college students on a regular basis.

jscott said: ” I used the Ann Coulter case to show that other editors in your position know when to draw the line. You have a responsiblity to your readers. You don’t seem to know that. If it hurts for me to point that out to you, that might just be your conscience telling you that you’ve done wrong.”

Or it could just be that in your youth you’ve gotten quite arrogant. There was a time in my youth when I knew everything too. I urge you, cash in on that before you become stupid again like the rest of us. Some day, when you have real responsibilities to attend to, you’ll look back on this episode with a twinge of shame. Now that I know your relative age, I can understand why you feel compelled to order people around. Its that sense of entitlement that has taken hold among your generation. It will continue to hold you down until you recognize it for what it is - a self-imposed shackle blinding you to the fact that no one owe’s you anything.

Damn. I wish had noticed that earlier. I could have saved myself a good deal of time.

This entry also posted at A Mixed Blog.

Comments (0)

Submitted For Your Approval

Apparently, I am about to be censured in print. Or on the web. Or somewhere. Someone calling themself “J. Scott” or “J.P. Scott” (jpscott@post.com) has been demaning that I answer a series of questions and disassociate myself from a long-time friend or else he/she/it will skewer me in print, publish blatant lies and proclaim me unethical, sad and egotistical. I don’t know who this person’s publisher is, but they will be hearing from me and the truth about J. Scott’s conduct will be revealed.

Well, I’ve been on the receiving end of hate mail and threats from apologists for Bob Jones University, “white” supremacists, anti-miscegenationist hotheads, rabid one-drop rule enforcers and Farrakhan devotees many times since founding The Multiracial Activist in 1997. I can take whatever this person is threatening to dish out. That said, a word to the wise, free speech is one thing, fabrications and lies are quite another. It would behoove my self-appointed censor to mind every single word, comma and inflection. I will deal with falsehoods in an expeditious and expensive manner.

This disgruntled former commenter to A Mixed Blog, who posted there with multiple fake email addresses until kicked off for a completely uncalled for attack on my parenting abilities, has further demanded that I:

– answer a string of unsolicited questions via email

– kick one of the regular bloggers off the website

– and hurry up about it

First off, can anyone tell me where one person gets to claim dominion over me and my time? Perhaps I missed something, but last time I checked, I wasn’t anyone’s property. Questioning my fatherhood and making demands isn’t the way to get my positive attentions. Demanding that I submit to their will or be skewered in public is called blackmail.

Apparently, if I don’t submit to these demands then I am also “egotistical” and “sad.” That’s fascinating. I’m the one being told what to do as if I am mere property, yet that makes me egotistical.

I feel like I’m in the Twilight Zone. I certainly hope this episode ends soon.

This entry also posted at A Mixed Blog.

Comments (2)

Trouble Down The Road

Arnold Abrams of Newsday on Stop-Loss, an Army about-face:

Stop-Loss could force thousands of soldiers to remain in uniform for a year or more after their contracts expire. As a result, many frustrated and angry people would have to put lives on hold. “This is a time bomb,” said a Defense Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “And, like so much else the administration has done in connection with Iraq, it could produce some very bad results.”

But, of course, to uber-Patriots who don’t honor their Guard requirements or had “other priorities", this is a non-issue. They lack the capacity to comprehend the seriousness of this situation they’ve created. Its morale, retention, military professionalism and troop readiness that will pay the ultimate price for what these geniuses have wrought. But who cares, they’re Republicans and that good enough for the extra chromosome conservatives. To Hell with rational thought, analysis and foresight.

So a practical answer, according to the Pentagon, lies in its present policy of stopgap measures to meet present needs that, hopefully, are limited in term.

No, a “practical answer” would be for us to stop bombing and invading one nation (Iraq) for the crimes of another (Saudi Arabia) and spilling American blood in surreal Inigo Montoya style revenge crusades. You defied my father, prepare to die.

Another “practical answer” might require conservatives to actually live up to their word (read: stop lying) with regard to no longer commiting this nation to more big government interventionist wars that cost precious American lives and steal money from American taxpayers . That would, unfortunately, require some integrity, backbone and consistency - three traits sorely lacking in the upper echelons of the Republicat-Demopublican Big Government Party of Doom.

Jo Fish’s (Naval Aviator) perspective is available here.

Comments (0)

Other Priorities And Ramblings

Senator Tom Harkin takes the gloves off (where have I heard that before?):

Vice President Dick Cheney’s questioning of John Kerry’s war record and his ability to protect America is “cowardly,” Sen. Tom Harkin said Monday.

“It just outrages me that someone who got five deferments during Vietnam and said he had ‘other priorities’ at that time would say that,” said the Iowa Democrat, a former Navy fighter pilot.

Allow me to co-sign the Naval Aviator’s sentiments. Nothing chafes my ass more than some self-righteous cowardly little chickenhawk, furiously beating his own chest while questioning the patriotism or qualifications of a veteran who gave while said chickenhawk had “other priorities.” That said, do I believe that you have to be a veteran to be president or vice president? Absolutely not.

But, pardon my French, I don’t want to fucking hear someone who took five deferments while American men and women were dying in one of the nasty wars in American history getting self-righteous and arrogant about his own qualifications to lead over that of a veteran who didn’t have “other priorities.”

As many bones as I have to pick with liberals over taxation, social tinkering and “racial” classifications, its conservatives and the “patriotism” issue that really get under my skin the most. Its infuriating to no end to see the same bunch of cowards who called Clinton a draft-dodger (but never served themselves) or compare disabled veterans like Max Cleland to Saddam Hussein, refer to Skipped Out On Drills Bush and Fucking Five Deferment Cheney as revered uber-patriots over actual combat veterans. Its Newspeak 2004, big government conservative style.

And no, that last paragraph is not an endorsement of Kerry’s, Clinton’s or Cleland’s policies, nor does it constitute a vote for Kerry in November. Its a condemnation of cowards who demonize those who gave more than their share, while ignoring their own shameful records of deferments and leisurely Guard service. For the record, Michael Badnarik has my vote.

I owe neither of the collectivist big government parties my undying love. Nor will I sign some shameful un-American loyalty oath. I am not a goose-stepping, big government sellout or apologist. I will vote my conscience. I am a libertarian.

Comments (0)

2004 Election Results

This sums it up nicely.

Comments (0)

Does Your Government Really Have an Interest in Protecting You from Terrorism?

American athletes at the heavily fortified Olympic games in Athens have been assigned bodyguards by the U.S. State Department and have practically had to assume secret identities in an attempt to remain safe. Fearful of a terrorist attack, American spectators have stayed away from the games in droves. Both the Republicans and the Democrats seem to be throwing up their hands and capitulating to the notion that the world has simply become more dangerous. But this more dangerous world is very much one of the U.S. government’s making.

At an international event where pride of origin is usually encouraged, U.S. athletes are apparently being told not to wear t-shirts that would identify them as Americans. In a great understatement, one Olympic coach was quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle as saying, “How the world is now, America isn’t the favorite country.” One might ask how the “Home of the Free and the Land of the Brave”-a model of political and economic freedom geographically removed from most centers of conflict-has put its citizens in mortal danger by becoming so generally despised.

The answer is simple. Although the U.S. government repeatedly warns its citizens of imminent terrorist attacks and takes draconian measures-both at home and abroad-in the name of “national security,” it really does not have many incentives to actually make those citizens safer. According to an anonymous active intelligence official, who has almost two decades of experience in the fields of terrorism, militant Islam, and South Asia and who is the author of Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror, “One of the greatest dangers for Americans in deciding how to confront the Islamist threat lies in continuing to believe—at the urging of senior U.S. leaders—that Muslims hate and attack us for what we are and think, rather than for what we do.” Yet President Bush continues to tell the American public that the terrorists “hate us for our freedoms.” The president’s statements fly in the face of the opinions of experts on Osama bin Laden’s motivations—such as the aforementioned author and Peter Bergen, one of the few Western reporters who have interviewed the head of al Qaeda. President Bush’s rhetoric also contradicts poll after poll in Islamic countries (and much of the world), which indicate that those populations don’t hate U.S. culture, freedoms, wealth, or technology, but U.S. foreign policy. So why does the president keep making such statements?

Like the Bush administration’s misleading statements concerning a collaborative relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, such deception hides what really drives U.S. government policy. But no wacky conspiracy theories need be conjured up. Research by political scientists and public choice economists indicate that in the absence of adequate public scrutiny, highly organized and well-connected vested interests-both inside and outside of the government-drive government policies. Because such policies concentrate their benefits on those interests, the pressure groups care greatly about them and lobby the U.S. government for their implementation. Unfortunately, the policies’ costs are less noticeable because they are distributed widely among taxpayers and the general public. Also, the smokescreen thrown up by politicians masks what is really going on. So even though the U.S. government is more often concerned with defending vested interests than with protecting the bulk of its citizenry, only rarely is there a public uproar.

For example, in the case of the invasion of Iraq, vested interests benefited from destroying an enemy of Israel and getting new U.S. military bases on the oil-rich Persian Gulf to replace those being lost in Saudi Arabia. The Bush administration rhetorically exaggerated the threat from Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction” and implied a false connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein to hide the real reasons for the invasion. Unfortunately, the common citizen is left with the bill: $200 billion and counting, the unnecessary deaths of many U.S. servicemen and Iraqis, and inflamed world opinion against the United States that will very likely lead to more-not less—terrorism against American citizens at home and abroad.

More generally, special interests, such as the oil companies, lobby the U.S. government for intervention overseas to serve their interests. When this results in blowback terrorism against American citizens-for example, the September 11 attacks-something has to be done to hide the government’s own generation of demand for its provision of “security.” The intense anti-U.S. hatred of al Qaeda has to be ascribed to American freedom, culture, wealth, or technology, all of which cannot be changed desirably or easily. By contrast, American citizens-including U.S. athletes and spectators at future Olympics-could be made much safer by rapidly making a meddling U.S. foreign policy overseas more humble. But then the latter change would be a new form of terror-striking fear into the hearts of the U.S. foreign policy elite and the interests they represent.

——————————————————————————–
Ivan Eland is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute in Oakland, CA., and author of the book, Putting “Defense” Back into U.S. Defense Policy. For further articles and studies, see OnPower.org.

Comments (0)

Real Music

And they said it would rain. And that rain would be purple.

I just got home from a night out with Mrs. Glove Taker Offer. We saw a little man from Minnesota rock the MCI Center. And then some. The entire concert was excellent. The highlight of Prince’s show was clearly his acoustic set. He could have done three hours of just his vocals and guitar and I’d have been impressed. The NPG backup was just an added bonus.

As the man said early in the evening, “this isn’t a lip-sync show.” It was well worth the time and money.

Comments (0)

Veterans for Common Sense News Update

Not Scared Yet? Try Connecting These Dots
Posted: 2004-08-09 11:33:00.000

VCS Action Alert: Take Action to Prevent Torture
Posted: 2004-08-09 19:43:00.000

An American Hiroshima
Posted: 2004-08-11 07:16:00.000

Iraq incident requires answers
Posted: 2004-08-12 08:00:00.000

They saw no evil, heard no evil, and certainly will not speak of it
Posted: 2004-08-11 19:19:00.000

Pieces of Iraq: A soldier’s e-mails to his family
Posted: 2004-08-11 11:46:00.000

Comments (1)

Rebecca Walker

Rebecca Walker, author of Black, White, and Jewish: Autobiography of a Shifting Self (excerpt available here), has finally launched her official website, which for eons (or so it seems) contained only a “coming soon” notice.

Check it out, it has a nice design, a weblog and several features for her readers and fans to follow her work.

This entry also posted at A Mixed Blog.

Comments (0)

wanna be on TV?

See the following announcement (forwarded by Mavin Foundation) for a new talk show looking to cover biracial families.

From: Amanda Erekson amanda@mavinfoundation.org
Subject: [mavin] wanna be on TV?

Michelle Niger called me this morning. She is an associate producer for a new women’s talk show called “Life & Style.” I have pasted the text of a press release below which has information about the show and its co-hosts.

She is currently preparing for a segment about biracial families which will be recorded in New York City NEXT WEEK! She is looking for biracial children and their parents who are willing to discuss the challenges they face. Travel expenses will be covered.

MAVIN does not promote this show but is just helping by forwarding the opportunity to mixed race families.

If you are interested, please contact Michelle toll free at 1.877.791.9118 or michellen@sonypicturestv.com ASAP!!!

Amanda Kay Erekson
Operations Manager
MAVIN Foundation
600 First Avenue
Suite 600
Seattle, WA 98104
Ph: 206 622 7101
Fx: 206 622 2231
amanda@mavinfoundation.org
www.mavinfoundation.org

MAVIN Foundation creates innovative projects that celebrate mixed race people and families.

---

Meet the women of “Life & Style": Jules Asner, Cynthia Garrett, Lynne Koplitz and Kimora Lee Simmons. The one-hour strip from Sony Pictures Television will be the ultimate guide to life and style issues for women, identifying the newest trends and hottest topics in pop culture, relationships, fashion and celebrity news, as well as telling compelling, edgy stories about important issues from a modern, honest point of view. “Life & Style” will offer expert advice and how-to segments for viewers to incorporate into their daily lives, featuring a mixture of first-person, narrative field pieces, along with in-studio interviews. Hosts include: Jules Asner, who most recently served as host of “Revealed With Jules Asner,” a one-hour celebrity profile series for E! Entertainment Television; Single mother Cynthia Garrett, who has served as correspondent for a number of series and specials for VH1, and was also host of NBC’s late-night interview series “Later” from 1998-2000; Comedienne Lynne Koplitz most recently served as co-host of “How to Boil Water,” a humorous cooking show airing on The Food Network, and has been a featured comic at New York City’s most prestigious comedy clubs; and Kimora Lee Simmons, wife of Russell Simmons and the chief executive officer and creative director of Baby Phat, an aspirational lifestyle clothing line specializing in sexy, urban fashion for women.

Through the four co-hosts, the show will reflect the passions and concerns of the modern woman, addressing the lifestyle issues that real women talk and care about, talking to women the way they talk to themselves.

©2004 Sony Pictures Television Inc. All Rights Reserved.

NEW YORK
PRODUCTION OFFICES:
“Life & Style”
226 West 26th Street
New York, NY 10001
(646) 230-5700 PHONE
(800) 820-8288 TOLL FREE
(646) 230-5821/2 FAX
www.sonypicturestelevision.com

This entry also posted at A Mixed Blog.

Comments (0)

Improvements

Announcement:

There will be more bloggers added to this venom screed. Well, sort of.

As longtime readers know, this blog regularly links to commentaries from the Independent Institute. Well, all that is going to change. From here on out, this blog will feature the full length versions of the commentaries with links back to the original, filed under the name of the author.

Okay, okay, settle down. We’re all a little excited ourselves here.

Anyway, thanks for reading, and keep sending in your links, letters and hate mail.

I even read some of it.

Comments (0)

Bringing Back Saddam (Almost)

The Saddam-al Qaeda connection has fizzled and no nuclear, biological or chemical weapons have been unearthed in post-invasion Iraq. So the Bush administration’s fallback, ex post facto rationale for invading Iraq is that the country is better off without Saddam. But the U.S.-backed Iraqi government seems to be ruling more like Saddam everyday.

Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi has recently ordered the arrest of political opponents, closed a prominent media outlet reporting stories that were embarrassing to the Iraqi government, and taken up aggressive tactics vis-a-vis the opposition guerrillas, including reinstating the death penalty against them.

After the cosmetic changeover of power from the U.S. occupation to a hand-picked Iraqi Prime Minister, Allawi’s behavior is predictable. With an Iraqi glove now on the fist of U.S. power, Iraqis can get away with much harsher policies toward other Iraqis than could a foreign occupier—especially the leader of the free world, which has billed its invasion as bringing democracy to an autocratic country. Thus, the U.S. government, as it has done so many times during the Cold War and after, is masking with high flying democratic rhetoric the substitution of an unfriendly dictator with a friendly one.

The Iraqi government has ordered the arrest of political opponents Ahmed Chalabi and his nephew Salem, who is leading the prosecution of Saddam. They were originally darlings of the Pentagon and American neo-conservatives but have since fallen out of favor with the Bush administration. The Chalabis did too much consorting with the theocrats in Iran for U.S. authorities to stomach.

In another Saddam-like move, Allawi has closed the Iraq office of Al Jazeera, the pan-Arabic television network, for broadcasting images that embarrassed the Iraqi government. Apparently, the network’s coverage was placing too much emphasis on the rampant kidnappings that have recently paralyzed Iraq.

Finally, Allawi is attempting to show that he will be aggressive against the opposition guerrillas. He has vowed that the fierce offensive in the holy city of Najaf by U.S. troops and Iraqi security forces against the militia of cleric Moktada al-Sadr would continue with no cease fire. Given the sorry state of the Iraqi security forces, the U.S. military is really the one that has decided that no quarter will be given to the insurgents.

And the aggressive tactics will continue even after guerrillas are captured. After the invasion, to signal that a new benevolent era had arrived in Iraq, the U.S. occupation authority under L. Paul Bremer III suspended the death penalty. Of course, “suspended” is the key word. A suspension, rather than elimination, would allow a future Iraqi government to bring the ultimate penalty back if things got rough. Things got rough.

Allawi has cast the death penalty so widely that it covers almost any type of guerrilla attack. The death penalty can be applied to Iraqis who engage in ambushes, hijacking, kidnapping, attacks on infrastructure and murder. Of course, killing someone when defending the home country from an unprovoked and unnecessary foreign invasion and occupation is defined as murder. Even in World War II when the stakes were much higher, the United States did not execute captured German or Japanese soldiers for defending their homeland. In fact, after the war, the vast majority of them were given their freedom. Furthermore, although Iraqi officials have claimed that the list of capital offenses excludes any possibility that the death penalty will again be used for political reasons, the ultimate sentence can be meted out for the vague offense of “endangering national security.” Such Orwellian wording has to make Iraqis—accustomed to Saddam’s terror—very nervous about the direction the new Allawi government is heading.

Americans should be nervous too. One of the many emerging parallels between the current Mesopotamian mess and the Vietnam War is the use of autocratic tactics by U.S.-installed puppet governments that lacked popular legitimacy. That strategy failed in Vietnam and it is likely to fail in Iraq. The only way out for the United States is to allow Iraqis to have genuine self-determination soon.

——————————————————————————–
Ivan Eland is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute in Oakland, CA., and author of the books, The Empire Has No Clothes (forthcoming in October) and Putting “Defense” Back into U.S. Defense Policy.

Comments (0)

Veterans for Common Sense News Update

British Legislative Report Claims Afghanistan is Fragile and Likely to Implode
Posted: 2004-07-31 13:50:00.000

Patriot game, media shame
Posted: 2004-07-31 14:01:00.000

Kerry’s Battle Cry
Posted: 2004-08-01 21:43:00.000

Attacks Against U.S. Troops in Afghanistan Rise Steadily
Posted: 2004-08-01 21:46:00.000

Marine’s Comments in Fahrenheit 9/11 Investigated by Military
Posted: 2004-08-01 21:49:00.000

Army Veteran Claims Experimental Anthrax Vaccine Associated with Illness
Posted: 2004-08-01 21:51:00.000

New Terror Warnings for NYC and DC on 14th Anniversary of Iraq Invasion of Kuwait
Posted: 2004-08-01 22:17:00.000

Public Letter to 9/11 Commission Chairman from FBI Whistleblower
Posted: 2004-08-02 18:43:00.000

Few injured, ill troops get disability pay they sought
Posted: 2004-08-02 18:50:00.000

Another Marine Lands in Film, Collides With Superiors
Posted: 2004-08-02 18:55:00.000

A soldier’s new life
Posted: 2004-08-02 19:07:00.000

Balancing Security and Liberty
Posted: 2004-08-03 06:17:00.000

Justice IG Supports FBI Whistle-Blower
Posted: 2004-08-03 06:18:00.000

Veterans Now Major Presidential Campaign Voting Block
Posted: 2004-08-03 17:43:00.000

Abu Ghraib General Claims Conspiracy
Posted: 2004-08-03 22:16:00.000

Six More U.S. KIA in Iraq; Total KIA Stands at 919
Posted: 2004-08-03 22:18:00.000

$1.9 Billion of Iraq’s Money Goes to U.S. Contractors (Halliburton)
Posted: 2004-08-04 19:27:00.000

Investigators Concluded Shelby Leaked Message
Posted: 2004-08-04 21:50:00.000

Rebel Cleric Declares ‘Revolution’ in Iraq
Posted: 2004-08-05 16:39:00.000

US Abuse Could be War Crime
Posted: 2004-08-05 19:52:00.000

US scientist challenges UK on Gulf war illness
Posted: 2004-08-05 19:55:00.000

Iraq Update, Meetups and Outfoxed: VCS Update August 5, 2004
Posted: 2004-08-05 23:01:00.000

U.S. Commanders Order Soldiers to Leave Tortured Iraqis in the hands of Iraqi Prison Guards
Posted: 2004-08-08 00:49:00.000

Agent Orange, The Next Generation
Posted: 2004-08-08 00:59:00.000

Vietnam Veterans on Election Center Stage
Posted: 2004-08-08 01:57:00.000

The Iraq Reconstruction Fiasco
Posted: 2004-08-09 06:57:00.000

Oregon guardsmen’s tale brings call for inquiry
Posted: 2004-08-09 07:00:00.000

Iraq seeks arrest of former U.S. ally
Posted: 2004-08-09 07:05:00.000

Comments (0)

Rush Concert

I saw a trio of Canadians at the Nissan Pavilion last night. That makes the third time I’ve experienced the nirvana of a live Neil Peart drum solo.

I’m tired today, but not as tired as this lunatic, who drove eight hours roundtrip to make the same show.

Last night’s show was as good or better than the performances I attended in 1988 and 2002. On the way out, I picked up an overpriced hat, which I shall wear until the last remaining threads loose themselves and fall away, and a copy of their new release of covers called Feedback. Excellent.

My review of the Vapor Trails concert in 2002 is here.

Comments (1)

Rediscovering the Bill of Rights

Mister Jacob G. Hornberger (some men just rate a Mister in front of their names), founder and president of the libertarian Future of Freedom Foundation on Pentagon Learns About the Sixth Amendment:

The Pentagon is learning that things work differently here in the United States than they do in Iraq. In this country, when the judiciary issues an order, the Pentagon is required to obey it. That’s why the government is now permitting Ali Saleh al-Marri to meet with his attorney as part of his habeas corpus proceeding in federal district court in South Carolina.

Let’s hope that other parts of the Administration rediscover the rest of the Bill of Rights. For instance, our lovely singing Attorney General needs a crash course of in How Not To Be A Rights Squashing Fascist 101. Some may find that assessment harsh, but then I’m a libertarian, not a “surrender your freedom for security” sellout pretending to be a libertarian. Read the rest of Mr. Hornberger’s piece here.

Comments (0)

Get to Wagging!!!

Dan Eggen and Dana Priest of The Washington Post on Pre-9/11 Acts Led To Alerts:

Most of the al Qaeda surveillance of five financial institutions that led to a new terrorism alert Sunday was conducted before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and authorities are not sure whether the casing of the buildings has continued, numerous intelligence and law enforcement officials said yesterday.

More than half a dozen government officials interviewed yesterday, who declined to be identified because classified information is involved, said that most, if not all, of the information about the buildings seized by authorities in a raid in Pakistan last week was about three years old, and possibly older.

“There is nothing right now that we’re hearing that is new,” said one senior law enforcement official who was briefed on the alert. “Why did we go to this level? . . . I still don’t know that.”

The alerts issued gave the impression that this was a brand-new gonna-happen-any-second-threat. Apparently, that is not the case. I’d hate to be cynical and call this new alert a campaign ploy, but then, how many times to I have to be lied to, chickenlittled, or “half-truthed” before I stop listening.

Comments (0)

What Color Is the Wolf Today?

Orange is the color currently in fashion in the nation’s capital and its main financial center. The U.S. government has once again raised the terror alert level from yellow to orange—this time in Washington, D.C. and New York City—based on information obtained from the arrest of a computer engineer in Pakistan several weeks ago. Yet by frequently changing its colors, the government has cried wolf too many times.

New Yorkers and Washingtonians are justifiably skeptical and nonchalant about the heightened warning level. Although urging Americans to “keep shopping” during all prior orange alerts, the government has never told us how to behave differently at various “threat” levels. The rhetoric by Tom Ridge, the nation’s Secretary of Homeland Security, and other anonymous U.S. officials would have us believe that the current threat level is very severe. Yet, they didn’t change the alert system to red, its highest color, probably because people would be too frightened to leave their homes for the shopping mall.

Come to think of it, since the inception of the alert system, the government has toggled the levels only between yellow and orange. We’ve never seen blue or green either. Maybe it’s because these lower levels might encourage the terrorists to attack by signaling that U.S. defenses were relaxed. More important, no self-respecting cautious bureaucracy would open itself to the risk of future post-attack criticism for not sufficiently warning the American people. To cover their backsides, the tendency of security bureaucrats has been to “over-warn” Americans by crying wolf with unneeded episodes of heightened alert. So there is plenty of room for suspecting that the system has been politicized, especially in the wake of Attorney General Ashcroft’s recent manipulation of terrorist threats for political gain and John Kerry’s unexpected challenge to President Bush’s record on security issues at the Democratic National Convention.

There may well be a real threat this time, but the information picked up in Pakistan indicated that al Qaeda had been conducting surveillance on financial buildings in these two cities for years and it apparently provided no specific intelligence of an imminent attack on a particular date. Al Qaeda conducted surveillance on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania for four years before striking. Is the government going to keep the alert system at the orange level for another four years or only until the November election? Given the sorry performance of the U.S. intelligence agencies prior to September 11(as noted by the 9/11 Commission) and on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (as exposed by the Senate Intelligence Committee), how do we know that the “treasure trove” discovered in Pakistan is not false information deliberately planted by al Qaeda either to scare the American public or to tweak a response from U.S. defenses so that al Qaeda can better learn how they react?

If President Bush and his security apparatus really want to make us safer, they should use the alert system differently. Every time the U.S. government meddles overseas—for example, needlessly invading the Islamic country du jour—and enlarges the bull’s eye already painted on us here at home, the alert level should be raised a notch. Thus, in this election year, voters would have a better idea of exactly how safe government actions overseas were making all of us here at home. Gauging from the sheepishly revised State Department report showing that terrorism has recently been on the rise, the threat to America posed by the Bush administration’s foreign policy is clearly in the red zone.

——————————————————————————–
Ivan Eland is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute in Oakland, CA., and author of the books, The Empire Has No Clothes (forthcoming in October) and Putting “Defense” Back into U.S. Defense Policy.

Comments (0)

Veterans for Common Sense News Update

Alone
Posted: 2004-07-29 16:03:00.000

Whistle-Blowing Said to Be Factor in F.B.I. Firing
Posted: 2004-07-29 18:47:00.000

Iraq Funds Are Focus of 27 Criminal Inquiries
Posted: 2004-07-30 07:28:00.000

Homeland Security Given Data on Arab-Americans
Posted: 2004-07-30 09:16:00.000

Doctors and Torture
Posted: 2004-07-29 18:52:00.000

VA yanks troubled computer system
Posted: 2004-07-30 08:09:00.000

VCS Weekly Update July 29, 2004
Posted: 2004-07-29 18:11:00.000

Kerry’s Rise Lifts Fellow Vietnam Vets
Posted: 2004-07-29 18:41:00.000

Comments (0)

Genius

Its almost 3:00 am and I’m still up. Even though I’ve seen it about 50 times and own the DVD, I’m watching Fear of a Black Hat again.

“Yo, on the serious three and a half percent tip, the second letter of the English alphabet is B. Think about it.”

All I can say is Rusty Cundieff is a genius.

Comments (0)