SHAMWOW

In honor of Black History Month, here are some short bios on a bunch of revolutionaries

2012-02-01T20:14:00.001-06:00

I personally find the idea of condensing the history of Africans into a single month to be pretty damn condescending, and it sort of implies that we have permission to ignore the history for the remaining 11 months. And plus, whenever we learned about black history month in school, it was just so damn neutered. It was always Martin Luther King and the peanut dude. Nothing else. And it was a completely false image of King, they played him as if race was the only issue that mattered to him. They didn't tell us he was a socialist, or a revolutionary, or how strongly he opposed Vietnam, or how he considered the U.S. government to be "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today." They never told us that he was an enemy of our government, or how the FBI tried to blackmail him into killing himself. Popular culture has completely whitewashed who King really was. He was a dissenter, and we can't have schoolchildren learning about dissent. And King isn't alone. The history of Africans in the Americas is a history of oppression, revolution, and struggle. And we need to damn well start acknowledging it.

Toussaint L'Ouverture

I won't delve deeply into Toussaint here, you can read my post about the history of Haiti for that, but long story short, Toussaint was a god among men. Defying Napoleon and the French empire, he led Haiti through the only successful slave revolution in the history of the world. This man will get the monuments he deserves someday.

Nat Turner

Slaveowners eventually caught on to the fact that an educated mind breeds dissent. Southern states made it illegal to teach slaves how to read, and Nat Turner is why. It all started when a free black man in the north, David Walker, published his "Appeal to the Colored Citizens of the World" in 1829. Here's an excerpt.

See your Declaration Americans!!! Do you understand your own language? Hear your language, proclaimed to the world, July 4th, 1776—“We hold these truths to be self evident—that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL!! that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!!” Compare your own language above, extracted from your Declaration of Independence, with your cruelties and murders inflicted by your cruel and unmerciful fathers and yourselves on our fathers and on us—men who have never given your fathers or you the least provocation!!!!!! …Now Americans! I ask you candidly, was your sufferings under Great Britain, one-hundredth part as cruel and tyrannical as you have rendered ours under you?

Yeah. Serious shit. Slaves got a hold of this, and it angered and empowered them. And it scared slaveowners shitless. The state of Georgia put out a $10,000 bounty for Walker's capture, and $1,000 for his death.

There's no hard evidence for this, but a slave named Nat Turner likely read Walker's words. Whites certainly believed he did. Like John Brown a few decades later, Turner believed he was acting on the will of God. He was often seen fasting, praying, and he claimed to have had visions. Believing two solar eclipses were a sign from God, he decided to act, and in August 1831, rose up in rebellion. His small band traveled from house to house, freeing all slaves they encountered, and killing all whites.

It's difficult to call Turner a hero. The killing of men and women might be understandable, because grown adults were obviously complicit in upholding the American slave society; but the rebels also murdered children. They didn't spare many. After his capture, Turner said that his goal was to spread "terror and alarm" in order to bring slavery's brutality to the attention of whites.

The rebellion was put down within two days. It included at least 70 blacks, who killed around 60 whites. In the aftermath, 56 additional blacks were accused to being a part of it and hanged, and hundreds were beaten and killed by white mobs. American slaveowners had always been wary of slave rebellions, but this put the fear of god into them. They would never forget it, and one of the main arguments they would use to support slavery afterwards, was that they feared retaliation and mass killings by former slaves. It would become a common talking point to accuse abolitionists of attempting to incite slave rebellions.

Frederick Douglass

"The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle... If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."

When Douglass was twelve years old, his master's wife began teaching him to read, which was illegal by this time. When his master found out, he scolded his wife and forbid her from teaching him any further. In his memoirs, Douglass explained that this only fueled him. Once his master forbid it, he knew it was something he needed to pursue. And so over the years, he managed to sneak in lessons of his own, and he taught himself. For the rest of his life, he proclaimed the path towards any kind of freedom was knowledge. Once he tasted it, he could no longer stand being a slave. He decided that if he couldn't succeed in escaping, he would kill himself.

If you want to get an idea of what slavery was actually like, you need to read his memoirs. I never had a history class that had me read them, so I went and picked them up myself not too long ago.

"Master… was not a humane slaveholder… He was a cruel man, hardened by a long life of slaveholding. He would at times seem to take great pleasure in whipping a slave. I have often been awakened at the dawn of day by the most heartrending shrieks of an own aunt of mine, whom he used to tie up to a joist, and whip upon her naked back till she was literally covered with blood. No words, no tears, no prayers, from his gory victim, seemed to move his iron heart from its bloody purpose. He would whip her to make her scream, and whip her to make her hush; and not until overcome by fatigue, would he cease to swing the blood-clotted cowskin."

When Douglass published his memoirs, southerners didn't think that any black man could write so eloquently and thoughtfully, and so they convinced themselves that it was a fraud written by a white abolitionist. After his escape, Douglass threw his life into the abolitionist movement.

Douglass was asked to give a speech on the Fourth of July, 1852. He almost saw it as an insult:

Fellow-citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here to-day? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us? [...] Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common. The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought life and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth [of] July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony. Do you mean, citizens, to mock me, by asking me to speak to-day? If so, there is a parallel to your conduct. And let me warn you that it is dangerous to copy the example of a nation whose crimes, lowering up to heaven, were thrown down by the breath of the Almighty, burying that nation in irrecoverable ruin! I can to-day take up the plaintive lament of a peeled and woe-smitten people!

Once the war broke out, he became disillusioned at the reluctance of the north, even of Lincoln, to make it a war about slavery. We're taught in school that the Civil War was about slavery, but that's both right and wrong. It was obviously about slavery, but nobody, neither the north, nor the south, wanted to admit it. Most northerners were only fighting to unite the country, and were just as racist as southerners. Douglass considered Lincoln "our friend and liberator" and "great and good man," but he stressed that we should not forget how he treated slavery as a secondary issue. At the unveiling of the Lincoln Monument in 1876, Douglass said:

"He was preeminently the white man’s President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men. He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people to promote the welfare of the white people of this country. In all his education and feeling he was an American of the Americans. He came into the Presidential chair upon one principle alone, namely, opposition to the extension of slavery. His arguments in furtherance of this policy had their motive and mainspring in his patriotic devotion to the interests of his own race. To protect, defend, and perpetuate slavery in the states where it existed Abraham Lincoln was not less ready than any other President to draw the sword of the nation. He was ready to execute all the supposed guarantees of the United States Constitution in favor of the slave system anywhere inside the slave states. He was willing to pursue, recapture, and send back the fugitive slave to his master, and to suppress a slave rising for liberty, though his guilty master were already in arms against the Government."

Malcolm X

"When a person places the proper value on freedom, there is nothing under the sun that he will not do to acquire that freedom. Whenever you hear a man saying he wants freedom, but in the next breath he is going to tell you what he won’t do to get it, or what he doesn’t believe in doing in order to get it, he doesn’t believe in freedom."

Malcolm X's childhood is your typical tragic story of an extremely intelligent youth growing up without any kind of support. His father was brutally murdered by the Klan when he was a young boy. This drove down his mother's mental health, and put her into an institution. He was one of the best students in his junior high school, but he dropped out after a white teacher told him that his aspirations to become a lawyer was "no realistic goal for a nigger." Without parents and without an education, Malcolm went into crime. He was arrested for burglary at the age of 20 and thrown into prison. While incarcerated, he earned the nickname "Satan" for his hostility towards religion. But he soon met an educated inmate named John Elton Bembry, who Malcolm would later describe as "the first man I had ever seen command total respect ... with words." Bembry introduced Malcolm to the Nation of Islam.

The Nation is Islam is not "normal" Islam. It's actually considered heretical by conventional Muslims. And they're actually pretty insane. According to the Nation of Islam, all races are descended from the black race (which may possibly be true anyway). A black scientist named Yakub was able to develop a special method of birth control to produce the white race. They believe that the black race is genetically superior to whites, and they support the complete separation of the two races. I don't listen to a lot of speeches of Malcolm's during this period in his life, because, well, they're racist as shit.

But Malcolm evolved. There was a split within the Nation of Islam, between its leader Elijah Muhammad and Malcolm X. Malcolm discovered that Elijah had fathered a number of illegitimate children, often with girls who were underage. Malcolm left the church, and it created a huge rift. The FBI had agents within the Nation during this time, and may have played a role in fueling the fire.

Malcolm X went on a pilgrimage to Mecca, and saw people of all races worshipping Islam. He had an epiphany, and calmed down a bit, at least in terms of the conflict between races. This is the period when his speeches are worth listening to. The Nation of Islam was a black separatist movement, just like how the Ku Klux Klan is a white separatist movement. As unbelievable as it may be, Elijah Muhammad actually reached out to the Klan at one point, and the Klan was on board. They felt they were after the same goal: total separation of the races. Malcolm didn't like this at all, and now that he was free of Elijah's leash, he spoke quite candidly about what he intended to do to these cowards. He sent this to George Lincoln Rockwell, leader of the American Nazi Party, in 1965.

"This is to warn you that I am no longer held in check from fighting white supremacists by Elijah Muhammad’s separatist Black Muslim movement, and that if your present racist agitation against our people there in Alabama causes physical harm to Reverend King or any other black Americans who are only attempting to enjoy their rights as free human beings, that you and your Ku Klux Klan friends will be met with maximum physical retaliation from those of us who are not hand-cuffed by the disarming philosophy of nonviolence, and who believe in asserting our right of self-defense — by any means necessary."

Fuckin' A. The Nation of Islam began making death threats against him. And soon enough, he was publicly assassinated right in front of his wife and children. Here's the scene from Spike Lee's movie in case you want to get an idea of what it may have been like.

One of the biggest tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was that he wasn't able to reach his full potential before he was murdered. The history books record that it was a hit by Elijah Muhammad, and that very well may be how it went down. But there's plausible speculation that the FBI may have had a hand in it. And if you think that sounds a bit too conspiratorial, wait 'til you get to Fred Hampton up next.

Fred Hampton

"You don’t fight fire with fire. You fight fire with water. We’re gonna fight racism with solidarity. We’re not gonna fight capitalism with Black capitalism. We’re gonna fight capitalism with socialism. Socialism is the people. If you’re afraid of socialism, you’re afraid of yourself."

Fred Hampton was the chairman of the Chicago chapter of the Black Panthers. The Black Panthers are an extremely misunderstood organization. Whereas the Nation of Islam used religion to empower blacks in America, the Panthers used marxism. They organized communes where they fed the homeless and educated children and dropouts. There were white members and asian members, it was not a black separatist movement. They were politically aware and they were sick of bullshit. And Fred Hampton was one of their greatest leaders.

The FBI had (and still do have) informants and agents inside activist groups. This included the Nation of Islam and the Black Panthers. On December 3, 1969, one of these agents slipped a sleep-inducing drug into Hampton's drink at a party, so he would not wake up when the Chicago police raided his apartment later on that night. When they broke in, they immediately fired on a Panther who was on guard duty, sitting in a chair with a shotgun across his lap. The shotgun fired, but it was later determined to have been caused by a reflex when he was shot. This was the only shot the Panthers fired.

They then converged into Hampton's bedroom, where he lay asleep with his pregnant girlfriend, unable to wake. They shot him. When they determined that he was still alive, they pulled him out and shot him in the head.

Wikipedia:

“That’s Fred Hampton.”
“Is he dead?… Bring him out.”
“He’s barely alive.
“He’ll make it.”

Two shots were heard, which it was later discovered were fired point blank in Hampton’s head. According to Deborah Johnson, one officer then said:

“He’s good and dead now.”

This was a planned assassination. He was never brought into a courtroom. He never committed any crime. They broke into his home and shot him in the head in his sleep. Tactics straight out of the Gestapo. This guy was younger than me.

This assassination was part of the FBI's COINTELPRO program, a series of illegal infiltrations, harassments, wrongful imprisonments, and assassinations throughout American activist groups. Terrorism. When COINTELPRO was leaked to the public, we were given an unapologetic "oops," and reassured that it would never happen again. But most evidence points to it still going on to this day. The name "Fred Hampton" remains a rallying cry for leftist movements around the country.

Mumia Abu-Jamal

"Politics is the art of making the people believe that they are in power, when in fact, they have none."

With the mention of Nat Turner, I can actually say that Mumia Abu-Jamal is not the most controversial person on this list! In 1981, journalist and former Black Panther Mumia Abu-Jamal was convicted of the murder of officer Daniel Faulkner and sentenced to death. He's been sitting on death row ever since.

On December 9, 1981, Officer David Faulkner pulled over Abu-Jamal's brother at a traffic stop. Abu-Jamal was sitting in his taxi across the street, and he got out and ran over. Then there was an exchange of gunfire. Both Faulkner and Abu-Jamal were wounded. A .38 revolver with five spent cartridges was found on Abu-Jamal's person.

If you ask me, I'd speculate that Faulkner got spooked when he saw the big scary black man approaching him, and fired on Abu-Jamal. If Abu-Jamal decided to fire back, then I honestly wouldn't hold it against him at all, since the Supreme Court case John Bad Elk vs. U.S. ruled that you can resist a police officer, even with deadly force if that officer is doing something unlawful towards you. I wouldn't recommend you try that out though.

In any case, we're likely never going to know exactly what happened, because it all depends on who you decide to believe. The good news is that just seven weeks ago, Abu-Jamal was taken off death row. He was just taken out of solitary, and transported to a medium security prison, where he will be allowed to hug his wife for the first time in 30 years. He will now serve a life sentence without the possibility of parole.

So why is he on this list? Well, I mentioned he was a journalist, and a Black Panther. Over the last thirty years, Mumia has been sitting in prison writing books and giving historical and political commentary over the phone to Prison Radio. And the guy is fucking brilliant. Here are his commentaries, click around and listen for a bit. It's also a podcast on iTunes. Abu-Jamal has acquired a huge mass of support over the years, including from commentators like Cornel West and Amy Goodman, and from artists like Immortal Technique and Rage Against the Machine.

More clashes at Occupy Oakland

2012-01-29T15:53:00.007-06:00

Just when you think the Occupy movement has died down, it comes and pops back up again. Here's some protesters in Oakland yesterday burning a symbol of what is destroying our civil rights. Once you say one form of speech is off limits, you don't believe in free speech at all.

That guy with the lighter whose face was photographed is fucked.

Footage from yesterday:

A press release from Occupy Oakland:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

January 29, 2011 – Oakland, CA – Yesterday, the Oakland Police deployed hundreds of officers in riot gear so as to prevent Occupy Oakland from putting a vacant building to better use. This is a building which has sat vacant for 6 years, and the city has no current plans for it. The Occupy Oakland GA passed a proposal calling for the space to be turned into a social center, convergence center and headquarters of the Occupy Oakland movement.

The police actions tonight cost the city of Oakland hundreds of thousands of dollars, and they repeatedly violated their own crowd control guidelines and protester’s civil rights.

With all the problems in our city, should preventing activists from putting a vacant building to better use be their highest priority? Was it worth the hundreds of thousands of dollars they spent?

The OPD is facing receivership based on actions by police in the past, and they have apparently learned nothing since October. On October 25, Occupiers rushed to the aid of Scott Olsen who was shot in the head by police, and the good Samaritans who rushed to his aid had a grenade thrown at them by police. At 3:30pm this afternoon, OO medics yet again ran to the aid of injured protesters lying on the ground. Other occupiers ran forward and used shields to protect the medic and injured man. The police then repeatedly fired less lethal rounds at these people trying to protect and help an injured man.

Around the same time, officers #419, #327, and others were swinging batons at protesters in a violation of OPD crowd control policy, which allows for pushing or jabbing with batons, but not the swinging of them.

In the evening, police illegally kettled and arrested hundreds of protesters. Police can give notices to disperse, if a group is engaged in illegal activity. However, if the group disperses and reassembles somewhere else, they are required to give another notice to disperse. Tonight, they kettled a march in progress, and arrested hundreds for refusing to disperse. Contrary to their own policy, the OPD gave no option of leaving or instruction on how to depart. These arrests are completely illegal, and this will probably result in another class action lawsuit against the OPD, who have already cost Oakland $58 million in lawsuits over the past 10 years.

[...]

At least 4 journalists were arrested in this kettling. They include Susie Cagle, Kristen Hanes, Vivian Ho who were arrested and then released, and Gavin Aronsen who was taken to jail.

[...]

Numerous protesters were injured: some shot with “less lethal” rounds, some affected by tear gas, and some beaten by police batons. There are no totals yet for the numbers of protesters injured. One 19 year old woman was taken to the hospital with internal bleeding after she was beaten by Officer #119.

Cathy Jones, an attorney with the NLG gave the following statement to Occupy Oakland’s media team: “Through everything that has happened since September, from Occupy to the acceleration of “Bills” — NDAA, SOPA, PIPA, ACTA — never have I felt so helpless and enraged as I do tonight. These kids are heroes, and the rest of the country needs to open its collective eyes and grab what remains of its civil rights, because they are evaporating, quickly. Do you want to know what a police state looks like? Well, you sure as hell still do not know unless you were watching our citizen journalists.”

[...]

Once again, Oakland shows the country how it's done. From the picture and videos I've seen, most, if not all, of these demonstrators look like anarchists. Anarchism and socialism essentially call for the exact same things, so I'm typically very sympathetic towards them. The west coast has a pretty big anarchist movement, and I'm sure the reason why Oakland has become so feisty is because they're all descending there.

More video:

See that sign? What they were wanting to set up in that vacant building is a commune. Originally, I thought communes were what this Occupy movement was going to be all about (it's called "occupy" for crying out loud). This is what we need to see.

History lesson. The Paris Commune of 1871 was the first major socialist experiment in the history of the world. France had just suffered a defeat by Germany, and it left the agitated, politically aware citizenry in Paris extremely bitter. They were dragged into a war they didn't even want, and then their city was fucking bombarded. They were pissed. The newly elected National Assembly (which had a large royalist majority) decided that Paris was too turbulent for them to meet there. They moved several miles southwest of Paris. What this created for the Parisians was a power vacuum.

The Paris National Guard (basically a citizen militia) was getting increasingly radical. The French government decided that they should not be allowed to have cannons. But when regular troops arrived to seize them, they began to fraternize with the National Guard and Paris residents. When a general ordered them to open fire on the Guard and civilians, he was dragged from his horse by his own troops and later shot, along with a hated former National Guard commander. The rebellion was now in full swing.

The Central Committee for the National Guard was now the only thing in Paris resembling a government. It arranged elections for a Commune. The Commune was not allowed to exist for very long before it was crushed, but here's some of the things they were able to implement in that short time:

Complete separation of church and state
Abolition of night work
The granting of pensions to the widows and children of National Guards killed on active service
The right of employees to take over and run an enterprise if it were deserted by its owner
Education for women
Free clothing, food, and school materials for children

This is what socialism is: extremely weak central government; a culture based around caring for your fellow man; workers in control of their own lives; democracy in its purest, most beautiful form. The Commune was accepting of everyone, regardless of their political alignment. Reformist royalists were allowed to participate with open arms, and the socialists looked back to the left wing Jacobins of the Revolution of 1789. This is the blueprint we should strive to emulate.

It only last for a week before clashes with regular troops began. Fighting would take place over the course of about a month, and the Commune was finally crushed for good on May 28. Regular troops began slaughtering and executing Guardsmen and civilians almost at random.

These are exactly the kinds of tactics we need to be implementing. With things like the NDAA, Citizens United, the Patriot Act, SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA, the American people are no longer in control of their government (if they ever were at all). Voting is so strongly emphasized in our country, because it brings about the smallest amount of change. Activists, meanwhile, are equated to terrorists. This kind of rhetoric is going to become a standard talking point very soon.

Here's Howard Zinn talking briefly about the Paris Commune, and why Marxists and Anarchists should ally with each other.

Sunday Youtube Post

2012-01-29T01:10:00.002-06:00

This is important to know.

Ralph Nader on Democracy Now, completely destroying Obama's State of the Union

2012-01-25T18:40:00.003-06:00

Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful.

"Well, I think his lawless militarism, that started the speech and ended the speech, was truly astonishing. I mean, he was very committed to projecting the American empire, in Obama terms, force projection in the Pacific, and distorting the whole process of how he explains Iraq and Afghanistan. He talks about Libya and Syria, and then went into the military alliance with Israel and didn’t talk about the peace process or the plight of the Palestinians, who are being so repressed. Leaving Iraq as if it was a victory? Iraq has been destroyed: massive refugees, over a million Iraqis dead, contaminated environment, collapsing infrastructure, sectarian warfare. He should be ashamed of himself."

Obama's Crackdown on Whistleblowers

2012-01-25T00:07:00.007-06:00

In December 1772, Benjamin Franklin was living in England. He was spending his time negotiating fragile compromises between the crown and the colonies. An anonymous source leaked to Franklin some letters that had been written by the governor of Massachusetts, Thomas Hutchinson. Hutchinson had written of his concerns about the growing dissent in the colonies, and made a number of suggestions of how to quell it. He went so far as to suggest they begin taking away rights. Franklin felt that his friends in Boston should know about this, and so he passed them along, asking that they not be published. His friends published them anyway against his wishes.

The British government was outraged. Three people were soon accused of leaking the letters, but Franklin came forward to protect them. He was called before the Privy Council in January of 1774, accused of attempting to incite riots and unrest. This was treason, and punishable by death. For the whole hour-long spectacle, Franklin stood there and watched the council berate and slander him, refusing to utter a single word in response.

"[Franklin] stood conpicuously erect, without the smallest movement of any part of his body. The muscles of his face had been previously composed as to afford a placid tranquil expression of countenance, and he did not suffer the slightest alteration of it to appear."

Edward Bancroft, observing the hearings

Had he not fled England for America immediately afterwards, he likely would've been arrested and hanged. Franklin and the colonists couldn't comprehend why the British government was focusing on the whistleblowing, while completely ignoring the content of the letters. The suggestions in it were clearly illegal, and yet there wasn't any amount of outrage over them. Franklin felt betrayed. It's when he chose his side.

238 years later, the corporate police state that the American colonies became have just charged ex-CIA officer John Kiriakou with revealing confidential information to a journalist. He revealed that the CIA tortured Abu Zabaydah.

Torture is illegal. But that's not what this government is focusing on. This government, Barack Obama, granted full immunity to the war criminals who conducted this torture. They're going after the guy who was courageous enough to tell the rest of us about it. Kiriakou faces up to 20 years in prison. He threw away his life for us.

Kiriakou is the sixth person the Obama administration has charged with the Espionage Act. This traitorous act has a long and distinguished history. In its heyday in World War I, it was used to suspend the first amendment, and lock up anyone who spoke out against the war, including socialist presidential candidate Eugene Debs (he ran his 1920 campaign from prison and still managed to get nearly a million votes).

The act is now being used to go after whistleblowers. In 2010, Bradley Manning leaked the infamous "Collateral Murder" video, which showed U.S. troops murdering innocent people. They looked for any excuse to open fire, claiming that a small camera was in fact an RPG launcher. Once they were given the 'okay' to shoot, they uttered disgusting comments such as "Nice" and, upon seeing that they had just shot children, "Well it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle." It actually wasn't a "battle" because they were killing civilians. Bradley Manning's reward for revealing a war crime is a psychological torture, a show trial, and calls for his death.

Manning could possibly face a life sentence. Meanwhile, a marine who led the massacre of two dozen civilians, including five children, gets 90 days. 90. Days. Needless to say, the Iraqi people are pissed.

This is what tyrannical governments do. They punish the heroes, and give the war criminals medals. Business as usual under Obama, just as it was under Bush.

Sunday Youtube Post

2012-01-22T13:27:00.001-06:00

Two friends have told me this drove them to tears.

Alex Molnar: "If My Marine Son Is Killed . . . I Won't Forgive You, Mr. President" (August 29, 1990)

2012-01-20T21:35:00.004-06:00

Source

---

Dear President Bush: I kissed my son goodbye today.

He is a 21-year-old Marine.

You have ordered him to Saudi Arabia.

The letter telling us he was going arrived at our vacation cottage in northern Wisconsin by Express Mail on Aug. 13. We left immediately for North Carolina to be with him. Our vacation was over.

Some commentators say you are continuing your own vacation to avoid appearing trapped in the White House, as President Carter was during the Iran hostage crisis. Perhaps that is your reason.

However, as I sat in my motel room watching you on television, looking through my son's hastily written last will and testament and listening to military equipment rumble past, you seemed to me to be both callous and ridiculous chasing golf balls and zipping around in your boat in Kennebunkport.

While visiting my son, I had a chance to see him pack his chemical-weapons suit and try on his body armor. I don't know if you've ever had this experience, Mr. President. I hope you never will.

I also met many of my son's fellow soldiers. They are fine young men.

A number told me that they were from poor families.

They joined the Marines as a way of earning enough money to go to college.

None of the young men I met are likely to be invited to serve on the board of directors of a savings and loan association, as your son Neil was.

And none of them have parents well enough connected to call or write a general to ensure that their child stays out of harm's way, as Vice President Dan Quayle's parents did for him during the Vietnam War.

I read in the Raleigh News and Observer that, like you, Quayle and Secretary of State James Baker were on vacation. Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Dick Cheney was in the Persian Gulf.

I think this symbolizes a government that no longer has a non-military foreign-policy vision, one that uses the military to conceal the fraud that American diplomacy has become.

Yes, you have proved a relatively adept tactician in the last three weeks. But if American diplomacy hadn't been on vacation for the better part of a decade, we wouldn't be in the spot we are today.

Where were you, Mr. President, when Iraq was killing its own people with poison gas? Why, until the recent crisis, was it business as usual with Saddam Hussein, the man you now call a Hitler?

You were elected vice president in 1980 on the strength of the promise of a better life for Americans, in a world where the United States would once again ''stand tall."

The Reagan-Bush administration rolled into Washington talking about the magic of a "free market" in oil. You diluted gas-mileage requirements for cars and dismantled federal energy policy.

And now you have ordered my son to the Middle East.

For what?

Cheap gasoline?

Is the American "way of life" that you say my son is risking his life for the continued "right" of Americans to consume 25 percent to 30 percent of the world's oil?

The "free market" to which you are so fervently devoted has a very high price tag, at least for parents like me and young men and women like my son.

Now that we face the prospect of war, I intend to support my son and his fellow soldiers by doing everything I can to oppose any offensive American military action in the Persian Gulf. The troops I met deserve far better than the politicians and policies that hold them hostage.

As my wife and I sat in a little cafe outside our son's base last week, trying to eat, fighting back tears, a young Marine struck up a conversation with us. As we parted he wished us well and said, "May God forgive us for what we are about to do."

President Bush, the policies you have advocated for the last decade have set the stage for military conflict in the Middle East. Your response to the Iraqi conquest of Kuwait has set in motion events that increasingly will pressure you to use our troops not to defend Saudi Arabia but to attack Iraq.

And I'm afraid that, as that pressure mounts, you will wager my son's life in a gamble to save your political future.

In the past, you have demonstrated no enduring commitment to any principle other than the advancement of your political career.

This makes me doubt that you have either the courage or the character to meet the challenge of finding a diplomatic solution to this crisis.

If, as I expect, you eventually order American soldiers to attack Iraq, then it is God who will have to forgive you. I will not.

Pastor Jeremiah Wright's response to 9/11: America's Chickens are Coming Home to Roost

2012-01-20T02:26:00.000-06:00

More pastors need to start speaking like MLK and Wright. People respect clergy. Occupy sure could use them.

Chris Hedges is suing the Obama administration

2012-01-18T17:43:00.002-06:00

One of my favorite writers (who's about on par with Zinn and Chomsky, imo) is suing Barack Obama over the constitutionality of the NDAA. It's obvious to anyone who has read the constitution that indefinite detention is illegal; but the Patriot Act, which is also illegal, has been upheld so far, so I'm not exactly getting my hopes up. Here's an interview with Hedges on Democracy Now from yesterday.

And here's his excellent article out the day before, "Why I'm Suing Barack Obama"

I suspect the real purpose of this bill [NDAA] is to thwart internal, domestic movements that threaten the corporate state. The definition of a terrorist is already so amorphous under the Patriot Act that there are probably a few million Americans who qualify to be investigated if not locked up. Consider the arcane criteria that can make you a suspect in our new military-corporate state. The Department of Justice considers you worth investigating if you are missing a few fingers, if you have weatherproof ammunition, if you own guns or if you have hoarded more than seven days of food in your house. Adding a few of the obstructionist tactics of the Occupy movement to this list would be a seamless process. On the whim of the military, a suspected “terrorist” who also happens to be a U.S. citizen can suffer extraordinary rendition—being kidnapped and then left to rot in one of our black sites “until the end of hostilities.” Since this is an endless war that will be a very long stay.

This demented “war on terror” is as undefined and vague as such a conflict is in any totalitarian state. Dissent is increasingly equated in this country with treason. Enemies supposedly lurk in every organization that does not chant the patriotic mantras provided to it by the state. And this bill feeds a mounting state paranoia. It expands our permanent war to every spot on the globe. It erases fundamental constitutional liberties. It means we can no longer use the word “democracy” to describe our political system.

The supine and gutless Democratic Party, which would have feigned outrage if George W. Bush had put this into law, appears willing, once again, to grant Obama a pass. But I won’t. What he has done is unforgivable, unconstitutional and exceedingly dangerous. The threat and reach of al-Qaida—which I spent a year covering for The New York Times in Europe and the Middle East—are marginal, despite the attacks of 9/11. The terrorist group poses no existential threat to the nation. It has been so disrupted and broken that it can barely function. Osama bin Laden was gunned down by commandos and his body dumped into the sea. Even the Pentagon says the organization is crippled.

So why, a decade after the start of the so-called war on terror, do these draconian measures need to be implemented? Why do U.S. citizens now need to be specifically singled out for military detention and denial of due process when under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force the president can apparently find the legal cover to serve as judge, jury and executioner to assassinate U.S. citizens, as he did in the killing of the cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen? Why is this bill necessary when the government routinely ignores our Fifth Amendment rights—“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law”—as well as our First Amendment right of free speech? How much more power do they need to fight “terrorism”?

Fear is the psychological weapon of choice for totalitarian systems of power. Make the people afraid. Get them to surrender their rights in the name of national security. And then finish off the few who aren’t afraid enough. If this law is not revoked we will be no different from any sordid military dictatorship. Its implementation will be a huge leap forward for the corporate oligarchs who plan to continue to plunder the nation and use state and military security to cow the population into submission.

Newsweek: Why Are Obama's Critics So Dumb?

2012-01-16T17:14:00.009-06:00

Here's the article. I doubt Andrew Sullivan himself would be okay with that headline, because the actual article is called "How Obama's Long Game Will Outsmart His Critics." The head honchos at Newsweek did a great job with that cover, though. It definitely drew me in. I don't like being called dumb. Fuckers.

Sullivan takes it upon himself to take all the arguments against Obama from both the right and the left, and debunk them. He did a great job talking about the right's arguments, because it's impossible not to. The right is made up of a bunch of fucking morons and none of their arguments make any god damn sense. That's always the fun part, and I'm not going to talk about it. The hard part is liberals debating liberals, because that requires actual intelligent debate.

[Leftists] miss, it seems to me, two vital things. The first is the simple scale of what has been accomplished on issues liberals say they care about. A depression was averted.

Not everyone would agree with that. Paul Krugman doesn't: "It’s time to start calling the current situation what it is: a depression." More children are living in poverty now than any other time in American history: one in five. One in five kids in America are below the poverty line. American ghettos are looking like third world countries. Just because this isn't being shown on the news doesn't mean it isn't happening. This situation is fucking bad. When Sullivan says "a depression was averted," what he really means is that the only people left with any money still have their money. "The economy" is just some vague term describing how confident the upper classes are about their own security. The poor are still being left behind, as they always have been in the United States.

The Iraq War—the issue that made Obama the nominee—has been ended on time and, vitally, with no troops left behind.

This is just flatout false. 5,500 private security forces were left behind. A massive CIA station, with Special Ops troops operating out of uniform, were left behind. Tens of thousands of troops were left behind across the border in Kuwait, and the U.S. still has dominance over Iraq's coastlines and airspace. We haven't left. And Obama does not deserve credit for withdrawing our main troops from Iraq. He tried to keep anywhere between 10,000-20,000 troops in Iraq. He wanted to break the deal. The Iraqi Prime Minister fought him on it, and he thankfully won. This is important. Why doesn't anybody fucking know about this? I keep repeating it to everyone I talk to about Iraq, and I'm always met with the same level of shock and confusion. It's Obama's critics who are "dumb" though.

Defense is being cut steadily, even as Obama has moved his own party away from a Pelosi-style reflexive defense of all federal entitlements.

This is meaningless. "Defense" spending is still higher than any time during the Cold War. Still higher than any other time in American history in fact, even surpassing World War II. We are living in the military industrial complex nightmare Eisenhower warned us about. Obama has no power over this, the forces around him are too great.

Under Obama, support for marriage equality and marijuana legalization has crested to record levels. Under Obama, a crucial state, New York, made marriage equality for gays an irreversible fact of American life.

Great. I think what we should be celebrating is these things happening in spite of the president. Obama is against same sex marriage and marijuana legalization.

Gays now openly serve in the military, and the Defense of Marriage Act is dying in the courts, undefended by the Obama Justice Department.

Absolutely right. Thank you.

Torture was ended.

No it wasn't. Waterboarding was ended. That is one form of torture. Psychological torture is still taught in army manuals. Bradley Manning was tortured. Torture is still going on under Obama. And it's not like his administration ever cared about torture, beyond how it effects him as a political issue. Obama's administration threatened to stop sharing information with the UK if they revealed that one of their citizens was tortured in a CIA blacksite during the Bush years. He was hung from a ceiling and his testicles were slashed with a razor. Just shut up and pretend it didn't happen, Obama '12.

Or take the issue of the banks. Liberals have derided him as a captive of Wall Street, of being railroaded by Larry Summers and Tim Geithner into a too-passive response to the recklessness of the major U.S. banks. But it’s worth recalling that at the start of 2009, any responsible president’s priority would have been stabilization of the financial system, not the exacting of revenge. Obama was not elected, despite liberal fantasies, to be a left-wing crusader. He was elected as a pragmatic, unifying reformist who would be more responsible than Bush.

None of these arguments addresses the fact that his administration is in bed with Wall Street.

Nothing in his first term—including the complicated multiyear rollout of universal health care—can be understood if you do not realize that Obama was always planning for eight years, not four. And if he is reelected, he will have won a battle more important than 2008: for it will be a mandate for an eight-year shift away from the excesses of inequality, overreach abroad, and reckless deficit spending of the last three decades. It will recapitalize him to entrench what he has done already and make it irreversible.

Personally, I'd rather have 4 years of getting shit done than 8 years of strengthening the system that caused the collapse in the first place. To be perfectly honest though, I am a little curious to see how an Obama presidency would turn out when it's not spent campaigning for another election years away. I really don't see how Obama can lose 2012. Romney's going to be 2004's Kerry.

Yes, Obama has waged a war based on a reading of executive power that many civil libertarians, including myself, oppose. And he has signed into law the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial (even as he pledged never to invoke this tyrannical power himself).

So Obama signed away two amendments of the Bill of Rights, and we're all at risk of being rounded up in concentration camps and tortured. Yawn.

But he has done the most important thing of all: excising the cancer of torture from military detention and military justice. If he is not reelected, that cancer may well return. Indeed, many on the right appear eager for it to return.

Torture has not ended, and thanks to Obama's half-assed political gestures, waterboarding will probably return after he leaves office in 2016 anyway.

If I sound biased, that’s because I am. Biased toward the actual record, not the spin...

Uh huh.

“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle,” George Orwell once wrote. What I see in front of my nose is a president whose character, record, and promise remain as grotesquely underappreciated now as they were absurdly hyped in 2008.

So you end the article by quoting a non-moderate socialist. This is a joke. I'm getting a little sick of these holier-than-thou Jon Stewart moderates acting like the gatekeepers of what we can say and how far we can go. I'm sorry if torturing, child murdering Democrats upset me just as much as torturing, child murdering Republicans. Excuse me.

I posted this Newsweek cover in my tumblr yesterday before it was out, and left the comment "Can’t wait to read this and have an aneurysm." (success!) A follower of mine replied. I didn't reply back because I try not to make a habit of getting into arguments with strangers on the internet, but this is what she said:

No politician will ever be perfect, so I’d rather take the person I agree with on the most issues. I’m not okay with all of his strategies, but it’s better than disagreeing with those plus even more I don’t agree with considering other options

I can't even tell you how many times this has been said to me. The systematic murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent people is a little more than an "issue" to me. Seriously. Why doesn't war fucking bother anyone? Right in this very article, you got a war apologist claiming Orwell. What the actual fuck. I can't be the only one who feels like he's a survivor in a zombie apocalypse. Liberals get their panties in a bunch over some racist newsletters from 20 years ago that Ron Paul didn't even fucking write, but you never see nearly the same kind of outrage over Obama murdering of thousands of women and children. Doesn't anyone notice this? I really feel like giving up. If liberals are willing to sacrifice habeas corpus and thousands of innocent lives for a few feel-good tidbits about gay rights, then there's absolutely nothing I can say to them. They're nationalistic partisans and they're not going to think.

Sunday Youtube Post

2012-01-15T14:23:00.001-06:00

Fox News' John Stossel: Young people are stupid and shouldn't vote

2012-01-13T17:42:00.002-06:00

"I’m not saying we should have a test or something. But this endless cheerleading — let’s go to the rock concerts and register the kids. And the kids aren’t paying attention. And it’s important in a democracy, it’s important to vote. And these are important issues. The people who participate ought to be the ones who pay attention…I’m just saying we shouldn’t have these “Get Out The Vote” campaigns and make these statements: “Everyone has to vote. It’s your patriotic duty!” Well if you’re not paying attention, I think it’s your patriotic duty not to vote."

He was essentially arguing that if you're misinformed about issues and if you have no idea what you're voting for, then you should just stay home. And I wouldn't necessarily disagree with him. But then he exclusively targets "the kids," as if people in their 20s who fight and die and go to war are children. This is just unbelievable. When there are seven separate polls showing that Fox News viewers -- baby boomers -- are the most misinformed demographic in the country, he says it's "the kids" who don't know what the hell is going on. There are some real dumbshits in my age group, but fuck this ageist dickbag for presuming that they only preside in a single generation. "The kids" aren't the ones who got us into fucking Iraq. They're not the ones who fall for Cold War propaganda and Southern Strategy anti-black, anti-Muslim racist bullshit. They're the ones who support equal rights for gay people. They're're the ones who are at least open to socialism (or as I like to call it, democracy). Young people are the ones who spearheaded the Arab Spring. I'm really not trying to turn this into a circle jerk, but some of the most intelligent and informed people I've ever met in my life have been people my own age.

There are historical records going all the way back to ancient Rome, where people bag on "the young people" as hopelessly lost and stupid; so this kind of thinking is really human nature (they're not exactly like me in every way, what's happening to this world!?). The real truth of the matter is that nobody ever really "grows up," and the people who pretend to, like John Stossel, just want to be bullies and pick on others because they're "bigger" than them. God damn moron. I'll end this with a Joe Rogan quote.

Remember back when you were a kid, and you thought there were actually people that knew what this thing we call “life” was really all about? Remember when you thought there really were “grown ups?” Then, all of a sudden one day you become a “grown up” yourself and the terrifying revelation occurs to you that there really are no “grown ups,” just kids that got old and had kids of their own, and no one really knows what the fuck is going on.

Video leaked of U.S. soldier urinating on dead Afghans sparks outrage

2012-01-12T13:53:00.004-06:00

I don't think I'm going to give any commentary of my own this time, because Hamilton Nolan said everything.

A video emerges showing US Marines pissing on three Taliban corpses in Afghanistan. The outrage machine grinds into motion. The media bestirs itself from its slumber. Americans momentarily pay attention to the war in Afghanistan again. Politicians rush to add their names to the chorus of identical statements. All inflamed over the least bad thing that soldiers do in war.

Do you know what is worse than having your dead body urinated upon? Being killed. Being shot. Being bombed. Having your limbs blown off. Having your house incinerated by a drone-fired missile that you don't see until it explodes. Having your children blown up in their beds. Having your spouse killed. Having your hometown destroyed. Being displaced. Becoming a refugee. Having your entire life destroyed as a consequence of political forces far, far beyond your control.

War is horrible. War is sickening. Wars started for supremely righteous causes are just as horrible and sickening in their consequences as wars started for less than righteous causes. Politicians who sit in office chairs and start wars and wave flags as young men and women go off to kill and die and be psychologically and emotionally damaged for life are the most sickening of all. Politicians start wars and are rewarded with an appearance on weekend talk shows and Very Respectable Discussions with Very Respectable media figures and jokes at the White House Correspondent's Dinner and appearances on Leno and ghostwritten self-glorifying memoirs and lavishly catered fundraising parties with corporate executives. They should be rewarded with outrage. They should be rewarded with scorn. Starting a war is a monstrous, monstrous crime against humanity, as we know when it begins that no matter how cleanly it is conducted it will result in thousands upon thousands of bullets smashing men's skulls and arms and legs blown off by shrapnel and mothers and children incinerated by high explosives. And every extra day that a war is perpetuated unnecessarily is a crime anew.

And we as a nation could not be more bored by the unceasing industrial strength violence being carried out in our names in nations where none of us will travel, or vacation, or think about much at all as long as sports and American Idol and Downton Abbey are on TV. We skim past those stories of the latest bombing or drone strike or gunfight or civilian massacre. We joke about the personal foibles or funny accents or minor gaffes of the politicians who hold it in their power to stop war, but won't. We're bored and petulant and self-absorbed until that video of some soldier pissing on dead bodies comes along, at which point we can have an outrage contest and feel good about ourselves for being more outraged than the next completely uninvolved person, for a day or two, until the big game comes on.

Here's what else happened in Afghanistan this week: "The Department of Defense announced today the deaths of four Soldiers who were supporting Operation Enduring Freedom. They died Jan. 6 in Kandahar province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked their vehicle with an improvised explosive device. Killed were: Staff Sgt. Jonathan M. Metzger, 32, of Indianapolis, Ind.; Spc. Robert J. Tauteris Jr., 44, of Hamlet, Ind.; Spc. Christopher A. Patterson, 20, of Aurora, Ill.; Spc. Brian J. Leonhardt, 21, of Merrillville, Ind."

"The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom. Pfc. Michael W. Pyron, 30, of Hopewell, Va., died Jan. 10 in Parwan province, Afghanistan. He was assigned to the 25th Signal Battalion, 160th Signal Brigade, 335th Signal Command Theater, East Point, Ga."

"The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom. Pfc. Dustin P. Napier, 20, of London, Ky., died Jan. 8 in Zabul province, Afghanistan, of injuries sustained from enemy small-arms fire. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry Regiment, 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, Fort Wainwright, Alaska."

"The Department of Defense announced today the deaths of three airmen who were supporting Operation Enduring Freedom. They died Jan. 5 in Shir ghazi, Helmand province, Afghanistan, when their vehicle was struck by an improvised explosive device. Killed were: Senior Airman Bryan R. Bell, 23, of Erie, Pa. He was assigned to the 2nd Civil Engineer Squadron, Barksdale Air Force Base, La.; Tech. Sgt. Matthew S. Schwartz, 34, of Traverse City, Mich. He was assigned to the 90th Civil Engineer Squadron, FE Warren Air Force Base, Wyo.; Airman 1st Class Matthew R. Seidler, 24, of Westminster, Md. He was assigned to the 21st Civil Engineer Squadron, Peterson Air Force Base, Colo."

And all of the dead bodies on the other side. We just don't have the names.

Piss on that.

Guantanamo Concentration Camp turns 10

2012-01-11T14:50:00.005-06:00

Well. Okay. I was reluctant to use that term, "concentration camp," only because that might invoke some holocaust imagery that Guantanamo doesn't entirely fit. It is a concentration camp though. It is a camp where people are concentrated. And it definitely is not a "prison" camp. The actual definition of a prison is "a building (or vessel) to which people are legally committed as a punishment for crimes they have committed." Guantanamo is not legal, and no one there has been convicted of any crimes. Of the 171 prisoners currently being held there, 89 have been cleared for release. And they won't be released, at least until after the 2012 election. Can't be seen as the president who released a bunch of terrorists, you understand.

We committed torture there. Japanese war criminals were hanged for doing what we did to Guantanamo prisoners. In 2009, Barack Obama granted full immunity to all the war criminals involved in waterboarding, from the policy-makers, to the guards who directly participated in and committed torture. Everyone.

Here's Christopher Hitchens getting waterboarded. Hitchens was a sharp guy, but on America's war on terror, he could be a real dumbshit. He argued that waterboarding was not torture, until his boss at Vanity Fair challenged him to undergo it himself. Hitch may have been a moron in some regards, but he was a man of integrity. This is what waterboarding looks like.

Now imagine if your captors didn't kindly stop when you asked them to. Imagine if you were waterboarded 183 times. Imagine that once your torture session was complete, you were forced back into your cell where the lights were always on, and you were subjected to another form of torture known as sleep deprivation. Imagine if you were then beaten, electrically shocked, forced to be naked, or raped. It's okay. It's for freedom.

Full. Immunity. Not only has Barack Obama let war criminals go free, all but guaranteeing that these tactics will be used in the future, but he has abolished the fifth amendment. You no longer have a right to a trial. You can be rounded up and put into a concentration camp. And guess what? No one gets in trouble for committing torture. Thanks to Barack Obama, you can be legally put into a concentration camp and tortured.

The CIA is made up of a bunch of right wing fascists, and they still have black sites up all over the world. You can bet your buckle there's shit going on there. An American detainment facility in Afghanistan was just accused of torturing prisoners. Psychological torture is still taught in army manuals, which Bradley Manning was subjected to. So torture is still going on under Obama.

I don't see how any person who claims to have respect for this country, even anyone who claims to have conventional morality, can vote for the Republicans or Democrats after the last eleven years. There is supposed to be a point, somewhere, where the "lesser of two evils" is so bad that you just can't fucking take it anymore. The Democratic party is now further to the right than George W. Bush. Both American political parties commit torture. Both political parties are players in perpetual war. Both have taken steps to destroy the Bill of Rights. Say you vote third party, and those mean ol' Rethuglicans win because of it. How will anything at all be different? Anything? It's going to be Romney no matter what, let's not kid ourselves. Romney is seen as a "moderate" Republican. Well. Barack Obama is a moderate Republican. This isn't fucking rocket science.

But don't take my word for the horrors that go on in this camp. Here's an article written by Lakhdar Boumediene, an innocent man who was imprisoned there from 2002 to 2009.

I went on a hunger strike for two years because no one would tell me why I was being imprisoned. Twice each day my captors would shove a tube up my nose, down my throat and into my stomach so they could pour food into me. It was excruciating, but I was innocent and so I kept up my protest.

Or how about Murat Kurnaz, another innocent man who was held there for five years?

I was taken to Kandahar, in Afghanistan, where American interrogators asked me the same questions for several weeks: Where is Osama bin Laden? Was I with Al Qaeda? No, I told them, I was not with Al Qaeda. No, I had no idea where bin Laden was. I begged the interrogators to please call Germany and find out who I was. During their interrogations, they dunked my head under water and punched me in the stomach; they don’t call this waterboarding but it amounts to the same thing. I was sure I would drown.

At one point, I was chained to the ceiling of a building and hung by my hands for days. A doctor sometimes checked if I was O.K.; then I would be strung up again. The pain was unbearable.

After about two months in Kandahar, I was transferred to Guantánamo. There were more beatings, endless solitary confinement, freezing temperatures and extreme heat, days of forced sleeplessness. The interrogations continued always with the same questions. I told my story over and over — my name, my family, why I was in Pakistan. Nothing I said satisfied them. I realized my interrogators were not interested in the truth.

Despite all this, I looked for ways to feel human. I have always loved animals. I started hiding a piece of bread from my meals and feeding the iguanas that came to the fence. When officials discovered this, I was punished with 30 days in isolation and darkness.

You should read this piece by Andrew Cohen. He cites part of an interrogation which took place at Guantanamo, that is strikingly similar to the interrogation scene in 1984.

Recorder: [Item 3.a.4.] While living in Bosnia, the Detainee associated with a known Al Qaida operative.

Detainee: Give me his name.

Tribunal President: I do not know.

Detainee: How can I respond to this?

Tribunal President: Did you know of anybody that was a member of Al Qaida?

Detainee: No, no.

Tribunal President: I'm sorry, what was your response?

Detainee: No.

Tribunal President: No?

Detainee: No. This is something the interrogators told me a long while ago. I asked the interrogators to telI me who this person was. Then I could tell you if I might have known this person, but not if the person is a terrorist. Maybe I knew this person as a friend. Maybe it was a person that worked with me. Maybe it was a person that was on my team. But I do not know if this person is Bosnian, Indian or whatever. If you tell me the name, then I can respond and defend myself against this accusation.

Tribunal President: We are asking you the questions and we need you to respond to what is on the unclassified summary. If you say you did not know or you did know anyone that was a part of Al Qaida, that is the information we need to know.

Detainee: I have only heard of Al Qaida after the attacks in the United States. Before that, I had never heard of Al Qaida. Even after I heard of Al Qaida, I felt that Al Qaida was the Taliban and the Taliban was AI Qaida. Then after watching the news, I knew Al Qaida was associated with Bin Laden and the Taliban was associated with the Afghans.

From the same article:

Mr. Ait Idir's resistance during the episode of religious-physical abuse described above led to a further, unprovoked attack, which ultimately resulted in partial facial paralysis and a life-long disability. One day shortly after the pants related beating, guards told him they wanted to search his cell. There had been no intervening disciplinary issues. He sat on the floor as instructed. Despite his full cooperation, he was sprayed in the face with chemical irritant, and put into restraints. Guards then slammed him head first into the cell floor, lowered him, face-first into the toilet and flushed the toilet -- submerging his head. He was then carried outside and thrown onto the crushed stones that surround the cells. While he was down on the ground, his assailants stuffed a hose in his mouth and forced water down his throat. Then a soldier jumped on the left side of his head with full weight, forcing stones to cut into Mr. Ait Idir's face near his eye. The guards twisted his middle finger and thumb on his right hand back almost to the point of breaking them. The knuckles were dislocated. As a result of this incident, the left side of Mr. Ait Idir's face became paralyzed for several months. The symptoms from that attack continue to plague him two years later.

On yesterday's Democracy Now, Amy Goodman interviewed Omar Deghayes, an innocent man who was held in Guantanamo for five years. She also talks to a Guantanamo prosecutor who was fired after speaking out. Deghayes was tortured in Pakistan before being transferred to Guantanamo, where guards gouged his eyes and left one eye permanently blind. He comes on at about 21:40.

People are locked up in isolation camps... People lost their hands, lost their eyes, lost their limbs... Some people were subjected to sleep deprivation. They weren’t allowed to sleep... And they had to live under those conditions for six years ... without being convicted of any crime, which is the most unacceptable thing."

"Hello. I'm going to read a declaration of a state of war... Within the next 14 days we will attack a symbol or institution of American injustice."

2012-01-08T17:55:00.002-06:00

Here's a 2002 documentary on The Weather Underground, an anti-war extremist group that bombed government targets throughout the 1970s in retaliation of "American injustice." They took extreme care to avoid hurting people. Gonna be honest, I went into this suspecting I might come out thinking of them as sorta romantic revolutionaries. Nope. They were just doped up and fucking insane.

Embedding is disabled, here you go.

Sunday Youtube Post

2012-01-08T12:49:00.002-06:00

Never trust any American news source, ever. Here's the court case that ruled that media outlets can legally lie to you.

Here's a video showing what Obama supporters are voting for

2012-01-07T12:53:00.012-06:00

Don't look away. Skip to 3:25, this video starts out stupid and sensationalist. I wish I could kidnap every Obama supporter in the country, tie them down, and force them to watch this.

2011: The Year of Global Revolution

2012-01-06T16:11:00.003-06:00

2011 was one of the greatest years of my life, but not for anything I actually did, or what happened to me directly. I got to witness international revolution. It was also fairly torturous for me, because more than anything else, I wanted to actually be at these places. I got to protest in Madison before Occupying was cool, which was pretty fucking rad, but labor struggles in first world countries just don't seem as important when people elsewhere are being shot in the streets.

I've been told before that I should major in history, and others have told me I should major in political science. But to be perfectly honest, I'm starting to feel like my hidden calling might be journalism. The greatest political writers -- Paine, Orwell, Hitchens -- were all journalists (not that I'm even hinting at comparing myself to those giants, I just admire them). Every one of them saw revolution firsthand. Paine personally travelled with the continental army during the New Jersey campaign. Orwell travelled to Spain amidst civil war as a BBC correspondent; but once he got there, he knew he couldn't just stand by and let the fascists win, so he picked up a gun. And Hitchens, the former socialist, travelled to Cuba and covered Castro's revolution. Even Matt Taibbi spent time in Russia, not to mention Chris Hedge's career as a journalist in the most dangerous parts of the planet, on the edges of the American empire.

I feel like such a dweeb sometimes just giving my criticisms behind a computer about things I've never actually seen. I mean, I do like graphic design. I can do it. It's a job. And besides, journalism is a for-profit industry, I highly doubt I would be able to deal with those hacks. Taibbi is stuck writing politics for the illustrious Rolling Stone Magazine because no one else can deal with the fact that he isn't a partisan, and Hedges had to leave the New York Times after he started reporting facts; he hasn't been in journalism for years, he just writes books now. The media has been purged of dissenting thought, it's only real role anymore is to manufacture consent. Maybe I'll just save up and travel around someday.

I digress. This is a year of revolution in review. Meet Mohamed Bouazizi. Mohamed Bouazizi was not only the greatest person of 2011. So far, he was the greatest person of the 21st century.

On December 17, 2010, Bouazizi set himself on fire in protest of the Tunisian government. He died 18 days later, on January 4. Here's the former president of Tunisia visiting him in the hospital.

Inspired by Bouazizi's selfless sacrifice in their name, the people of Tunisia rose up.

It didn't take long for the cowardly fascists holding that nation hostage to flee in terror. They just held their first democratic elections. Egyptians soon poured into their own streets chanting "We are next!" They organized, and occupied Tahrir Square. Another regime fell.

Then Libya rose up. A third dictator is gone.

People have been protesting in many other countries throughout the Middle East. We shouldn't forget that Iran rose up with its Green Movement an entire year before the Arab Spring. The people of Iraq have been protesting against their oppressive government, and in many cases have been shot, but you likely didn't hear about that since Iraq is a U.S. ally. Tunisia and Egypt were U.S. allies too, not to mention Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, which the U.S. is still supporting (Saudi Arabia's oil exports through the gulf are why war drums are currently thumping against Iran). The Chinese government unfortunately is doing an excellent job at putting a lid on the protests arising there. In Europe, people have risen in countries like Spain, England, Italy and Greece. A friend of mine just got back from studying abroad in Italy, she saw some of the protests firsthand. Iceland had itself an entirely peaceful revolution, where communities elected their own representatives to write their new constitution, and the country got to read it and make suggestions over the internet as it was being formed (read more about that here, it's pretty incredible).

Greece's protests have been particularly intense. Europe is basically blaming them for the entire continent's crisis, and the Greek people don't want to put up with foreign debts being pushed on them. Some protesters simply want their government to default so they can start all over, and possibly even leave the European Union, and others want the entire government to collapse so they can institute a more socialist government. Greece went through a civil war after WW2 that resulted in three decades of bitter political rivalry between leftists and rightists. It finally climaxed into the brutal military junta of the 60s and 70s, in which thousands of leftists were systematically rounded up and tortured (the junta was backed by the U.S. for the whole seven years, they were anti-communist after all!). So yeah, needless to say, Greece has had a rough 20th century. The leftists are finally able to come out of hiding, I remember hearing a poll somewhere saying over 90% of Greeks are supporting these protests. It's good to see the inventors of democracy showing the world how it's done.

Up to 50,000 Russians went to the streets to contest their stolen elections last month, making them the largest demonstrations since the fall of the Soviet Union.

South America hasn't been left out either. Protests have erupted in Venezeula and Chile. The Chilean protests are mostly led by students demanding a restructuring of their education system (in addition to the obligatory concerns about income inequality). If only Americans cared so much about learning.

Are you noticing a pattern? Most of these countries, particularly in the Middle East, are U.S. allies. That's why these protests are making the American government so nervous. It's why the CIA won't disclose their involvement in the Occupy crackdowns. British police just labeled Occupy London protesters as "terrorists." If you haven't been concerned about the impact that the Patriot Act and the NDAA could have on American protests in the future, you haven't been thinking hard enough. They're scared shitless, and there is nothing they won't do to put a lid on this.

Which is exactly why I don't understand why the Occupy movement is still the only part of these global protests that have a cult-like devotion for nonviolence. We know how evil our government is. We know it opposes democratic movements. We know it overthrows democratic countries and installs dictators (this isn't limited to the Cold War, they are still doing this). We know it is supporting and supplying totalitarian regimes that are shooting protesters in the streets. These things are in the public record. So why are these hippies acting like their government is something to be tolerated? Shouldn't we try to be a little more aggressive, if not for ourselves, then at least to support those who our government are murdering and torturing overseas? Even the Egyptians sent Occupy a letter warning them against "fetishizing nonviolence." And I'm not even talking about violence against police officers, that's detestable and should be avoided. I'm talking about violence against property, if breaking non-sentient objects can be considered "violence." Destroying property was one of the most effective tactics the American colonists had. Jesus Christ destroyed property.

But I guess if these hippies aren't willing to use methods beyond nonviolence against a fascist government that installs and supports fascist dictators, I suppose it's a bit too much to ask them to raise their fists against class warfare and wage slavery. As far as I know, Oakland has been the only city that has shown the slightest bit of courage to resist. They defended themselves when the police attacked them. They're also the ones who successfully implemented a city-wide strike for an entire day. And shut down one of the largest ports in the most powerful nation on the planet. That's how you fucking protest. These heroes showed the world who Oakland really belongs to.

I think I'm being a bit too hard on Occupy. They've done a lot to change the conversation in this country, and no one likes violence. But nonviolence is simply not an effective means of changing this system. The problem with nonviolence is that it only works if you're appealing to people who have a conscience. Many police officers still have those things, so this tactic is not entirely useless, but the people who the police defend - the 1% - most certainly do not. We are not dealing with individuals here. We are dealing with enormous, abstract organizations and corporations which are made up of many, many people. When groups of like-minded people get together, and they are given a sense of unlimited power, without fear of repercussion, the entity they form will be sociopathic. This is practically a scientific law by now. I'm sure you've heard of the Stanford prison experiment. Look at Abu Ghraib. Look at the history of the Catholic Church. Human beings are fucked up. Questions of morality do not effect these people because they're conveniently able to deflect their own responsibility onto the system as a whole. The system can't be reasoned with.

I follow a blog on tumblr called cultureofresistance, and someone asked a wonderful question earlier. A vague form of this idea has sort of been floating around in my head for a while, but I'm glad someone else thought of it before me so they could put it into better words than I could.

This might be a stupid question, but what is the difference between an underground and aboveground movement? Why is DGR so vehemently against association with an underground?

Deep Green Resistance’s strategy involves two separate parts of the movement - an aboveground and an underground. The aboveground works for sustainable, just, and participatory institutions, and assists the aboveground frontline activists with loyalty and material support. And in any resistance scenario, the underground dismantles the strategic infrastructure of power. This is a basic tactic of both militaries and insurgents the world over for the simple reason that it works. But such actions alone are never a sufficient strategy for achieving a just outcome. This means that any strategy aiming for a just future must include a call to build direct democracies based on human rights and sustainable material cultures. Which means that the different branches of resistance movements must work in tandem: the aboveground and underground, the militants and the nonviolent, the aboveground frontline activists and the cultural workers. We need it all.

We are strictly an aboveground movement and will not answer questions regarding anyone’s personal desire to be in or form an underground. We do this for the security of all involved with Deep Green Resistance.

One of the main roles of the Aboveground is to be the public face of the movement. We stand publicly and say “I support this strategy and I advocate for DGR,” for example.

Time Magazine chose 2011's person of the year to be "the protester." I'm not sure how I feel about it.

By all rights, that title belongs to Mohamed Bouazizi, who single-handedly sparked this worldwide revolution. But this is also coming from a magazine whose 2010 Person of the Year was the facebook movie, so I don't put much weight on what they think. Seriously, what the fuck did Mark Zuckerberg even do last year?

And then there's this too. This is 100% real.

That friend who lived in Italy I mentioned earlier? She picked up one with the real cover when she was over there, and showed me when I visited Chicago last weekend. I am super jealous.

It's incredibly sad to me that I'm forced to do all my own research on these protests. I shouldn't have to. But American media is just so unbelievably incompetent. As I watched these protests happening over the course of the year, I was just fucking stunned at how little our media was covering it, and how little they understood it. In the closed off circles of American right wing politics, the protesters in Egypt are "radicals" and "Islamists," as made clear by Rick Santorum on Meet the Press this week. I don't even know what the fuck an "Islamist" is. Doesn't he mean Muslims? "Islamist" isn't a word.

"The Muslim Brotherhood is not--is not about democracy. The Muslim Brotherhood are Islamists. The Muslim Brotherhood are going to impose Sharia law."

And it's not like David Gregory actually corrected him about any of this. Because he doesn't know what the fuck is going on either: "They were popularly elected, I think."

He thinks. The people on Sunday talk, the best American journalism has to offer, think Egypt's protests are democratic. Unbelievable.

Democracy Now, undoubtedly the best news source in the country, dedicated Monday's show to reairing their coverage of the global protests throughout the year. Watch it. Good luck not getting teary.

TYT: Why defenders of Obama and the NDAA are wrong

2012-01-04T03:01:00.002-06:00

Cenk mentions it's the "fifth amendment" being destroyed. I've been saying the sixth amendment over the last few weeks. I've been getting my amendments mixed up. Oops. Cenk graduated from Columbia Law School, I think I'll believe him.

You are now living in a police state

2012-01-02T01:32:00.033-06:00

"There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people."
-William Adama (...so say we all)

Barack Obama signed the NDAA into law yesterday. The NDAA is passed once a year to help fund the military. This year, a provision was attached that would allow the military to detain American citizens indefinitely with no trial. The wording is vague, and it doesn't say that directly, but there is plenty of room for interpretation, and that is exactly what our government is best at. It should be noted, as Glenn Greenwald has been pointing out, that this changes absolutely nothing about what the government has already been doing for the past ten years. The Bush Administration and the Obama Administration have both been illegally detaining citizens indefinitely already, and even assassinating them. This bill adds nothing new except for immunity for the president from U.S. courts. As if those cowards would prosecute war criminals anyway.

The sixth amendment of the Bill of Rights says:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The Patriot Act effectively destroyed the fourth amendment, and thanks to the NDAA, these words are now meaningless as well. The military can now kidnap you, and there's nothing you can do about it. The Bill of Rights is traditionally used only to protect U.S. citizens, but that was not the intention when it was written. These are unalienable rights, relevant to all human beings, regardless of which invisible line you happened to be born behind. They are always in effect, for all people, whether a government recognizes them or not. This was one of the main ideas championed by John Locke, which propelled the Enlightenment, and the American and French revolutions. You have rights that no manmade institution of government can take away. As soon as your country's government tries to take away your rights as a human being, that government is no longer legitimate, and you no longer have any obligation to recognize its authority over you.

A hundred years after Locke, Thomas Paine said in his Rights of Man:

There is a single idea, which, if it strikes rightly upon the mind either in a legal or a religious sense, will prevent any man, or any body of men, or any government, from going wrong on the subject of religion; which is, that before any human institution of government were known in the world, there existed, if I may so express it, a compact between God and Man, from the beginning of time: and that as the relation and condition which man in his individual person stands in towards his Maker, cannot be changed, or any ways altered, by any human laws or human authority, that religious devotion, which is a part of this compact, cannot so much as be made a subject of human laws; and that all laws must conform themselves to this prior existing compact, and not assume to make the compact conform to the laws, which, besides being human, are subsequent thereto. The first act of man, when he looked and saw himself a creature which he did not make, and a world furnished for his reception, must have been devotion, and devotion must ever continue sacred to every individual man, as it appears to him; and governments do mischief by interfering.

All this talk of "God" could seem a little confusing to 21st century atheist revolutionaries, but the main idea is still valid. Paine was not a Christian, and he was not talking about Yahweh of the Bible; whenever deists of this era mention "God," they are talking about what they see as the "natural order," seen through scientific observation, and this could easily be translated into secular humanism.

I'm not even making my own arguments here, I'm simply reciting philosophers from 300 years ago. If you disagree with this and you start to think of me as some pissy privileged white boy angry at THE MAN, then you'll likely find more comfort with the bourgeois fucks like Hobbes and Burke who argued against these guys. Go read their stuff and take the coward's way out, favoring security and "order" at the cost of enslavement.

On the issues that really matter, on the questions of state-sanctioned imprisonment, wage slavery, and murder, there is absolutely no difference whatsoever between the Democratic and Republican parties. If you are still in a mindset contrary to this, then you are a slave. America is a one-party state, and that party is corporatism. In 1774, the richest one percent in Philadelphia owned 50% of the wealth. Right now they own 40%. Mussolini said, "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." America is a fascist state.

We should've been talking about this stuff when George Bush passed the Patriot Act. We should've talked about this when Obama renewed it. Fuck me for not getting as angry then as I am now. It is no exaggeration to say that under an NDAA-empowered America, concentration camps are now theoretically legal. Barack Obama is a traitor. Do not recognize this law, and do not recognize this government. Chomsky said the other day that the Occupy movement needs to proceed to "the next step." If OWS doesn't grow a fucking backbone and escalate into something like the Arab Spring -- if the passage of the NDAA does not spark nationwide protests in which people are no longer afraid to fight back against the state, with the goal of severely altering or even abolishing this government -- then we'll deserve everything that's coming to us.

Zinn on Obama: If you want to end terrorism, you have to stop being terrorists

2011-12-27T03:21:00.000-06:00

Sunday Youtube Post

2011-12-25T12:27:00.001-06:00

My inner gun enthusiast has been reawakened

2011-12-21T02:50:00.002-06:00

I've never owned a gun. I didn't grow up around guns. Until fairly recently, I was scared shitless of guns. Inspired by a top thread in /r/politics that may or may not have implied that we should start arming ourselves to possibly defend against an NDAA-empowered government (really, front page of /r/politics, I'm proud of them), I suddenly have gun fever again. As most people who read this blog are probably aware, I've spent three years teaching shooting sports to boy scouts. That's right. I ran ranges. I was a sort of big deal. And it was just... a blast.

I haven't fired a gun since. I miss it. Maybe being prepared to overthrow a fascist police state would be a nice perk, but I'm really just thinking of shooting shit because it's fun as fuck. I'm thinking of a long ways off, but eventually I might want to purchase a personal firearm of my own. Or two. Or three. Can't decide if I want a pistol, a rifle, or a shotgun. So I think I might want all three someday. Maybe even more. If you think that's excessive, you haven't met some of the people I've met.

I've been doing research tonight, and I think I've narrowed down what sort of pistol, shotgun, and rifle I would want -- a glock 19, a Remington, and maybe a motherfucking AK. Camp Bunn had a Remmy, it kicked ass. These choices are anything but final, but I'll definitely have my eye on them once I actually start looking. Again, that won't be any time soon. It's a dream of mine. Once I get a lot of money I can waste. They're really not so scary guys. Once you get all the safety procedures and mechanical know-how drilled into your head, they're just like any other tools. Don't be a pussy hippie librul. America.

You should watch these. You have no idea how much gun shit is on youtube. Here are some videos about the guns I want. Gun porn.

I think I favor the AK-47 over the AR-15 (or M-16, whathaveyou) because it's just simply more powerful. People say that the AR's accuracy is a lot better, and while I won't deny that, that doesn't mean the AK's accuracy is anything to laugh at. Plus, it's a lot heavier, so there's a lot less kickback. And it looks fucking badass.

There's a debate between shotguns that's similar to the AK-47 vs. M-16 feud, and it's between the Remington 870 and the Mossberg 500. Google them, you'll recognize them. Camp Bunn had both, so I can attest personally that they're both fantastic firearms, and in all honesty, there's actually very little difference between them. You really can't go wrong with either, but in the end I think I'd prefer a Remington, because... well, just look at that fuck. Classy as shit. I'm pretty sure this would be my first purchase. If you're a smart shopper, you could probably pick one up for as little as a couple hundred bucks. Treat it well, and it'll be your pal for the rest of your life.

U.S. Marine who served in Iraq throws his medals to the ground

2011-12-20T16:14:00.002-06:00

This is from 2009.

Iraq war "ends"

2011-12-18T18:09:00.045-06:00

"We need to decide that we will not go to war, whatever reason is conjured up by the politicians or the media, because war in our time is always indiscriminate, a war against innocents, a war against children."

Howard Zinn

"I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne. What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics."

Barack Obama, 2002

"Because you sacrificed so much for a people that you had never met, Iraqis have a chance to forge their own destiny. That’s part of what makes us special as Americans. Unlike the old empires, we don’t make these sacrifices for territory or for resources. We do it because it’s right. . . . Never forget that you are part of an unbroken line of heroes spanning two centuries—from the colonists who overthrew an empire, to your grandparents and parents who faced down fascism and communism, to you—men and women who fought for the same principles in Fallujah and Kandahar, and delivered justice to those who attacked us on 9/11."

Barack Obama, addressing troops at Fort Bragg last Wednesday

Barack Obama wanted to alter the deal that George Bush made with the Iraqi government, so he could keep up to 20,000 troops in Iraq. The Iraqi Prime Minister fought him, and thankfully won. 5,500 private contractors will be left behind. A massive CIA station will be left behind. Special Operations troops operating covertly out of uniform will be left behind. Tens of thousands of US troops will be left behind across Iraq’s border in Kuwait and elsewhere in the Persian Gulf, while the US Navy and the US Air Force remain in control of the country’s coastlines and airspace. Source. 4,487 Americans have been killed. Just as many have committed suicide, and an untold number of others will live with post-traumatic stress disorder for the rest of their lives. More female soldiers have been raped by their fellow soldiers than have been killed in combat. Iraqi civilian deaths vary wildly, but most estimates put it in the hundreds of thousands. Civilians. All based on lies. Lies like Obama mentioning "9/11" in the same breath as "Fallujah."

Americans are still dying in Afghanistan. The few remnants of al Qaeda are not in Afghanistan, and they are no longer operational. Osama bin Laden is dead. And yet Barack Obama finds it necessary to insert a provision the NDAA that will demolish the Sixth Amendment, just as he ignored the Fourth with his extension of the Patriot Act. Once he signs the NDAA, there will be literally nothing preventing the government from doing whatever the fuck it wants to us; meanwhile there's been virtually a total media blackout discussing this, and even a few cases of censorship. Two amendments of the Bill of Rights are no longer in effect, based on lies about "safety." I don't know what's scarier: the fact that this is happening, or the fact that the American people can be so easily manipulated, as to allow it to happen -- liberals stop speaking out against violations of civil liberties once Democrats start doing it, and conservatives opposed the bombing of Libya, which was based on similar reasons for their invasion of Iraq. War is peace.

Sunday Youtube Post

2011-12-18T02:28:00.001-06:00

This is important.

Dan Carlin - The Bitter Harvest of Fear

2011-12-16T20:58:00.006-06:00

Dan Carlin's Common Sense is the best political podcast out there. He's an extremely independent person, famous for attacking all opinions, and for his controversial thought experiments you wouldn't normally think of. When I first started listening to him back when I was a Democrat fanboy, I both loved him and wanted to strangle him at the same time. But he was the only political commentator who made me think and question myself, so I kept coming back. I just started listening to him again after a long while, and I don't know if it's because he's softened, or if my opinions have just shifted a lot, or maybe both, but I find myself agreeing with him much more often.

His newest episode, out yesterday, is about the absolute most important issue in the country at the moment: the NDAA, and the further erosion of our civil liberties.

What happens to "The Land of the Free" when it is no longer "The Home of the Brave"? You get the evisceration of constitutional protections in the name of fighting terrorism. Dan wonders why everyone is surprised.

An extremely important point Dan makes, which I really don't think is being said enough, is that the NDAA doesn't surpass anything the past two administrations have already been doing. All the the NDAA does is make indefinite military detentions of citizens "legal." He went on near the end of the episode to do something extremely drastic, and he's getting a lot of flak for it on his forums: he's actually throwing in his support for a presidential candidate. He stated very explicitly that he's going to vote for Ron Paul, and for the exact same reasons that I lined out earlier this week. He sees an extremely scary future if this shit isn't stopped now, and since Paul is the only person who's speaking out about these things at all, we should probably try to support him, in spite of how much we might disagree with him on all his other issues.

Carlin makes another great point -- he highly doubts the GOP would ever pick Paul, and the only thing he hopes to accomplish by doing this is simply to get civil liberties in the national discussion. The Bill of Rights is in ruins, the 4th amendment is practically gone, the NDAA will do the same for the 6th after Obama signs it, and nobody is talking about any of it. If nothing else, Paul would be able to call Obama out on his fascist bullshit, since the liberal "pro-liberties" class has mysteriously gone missing.

I think this is a wonderful episode, and if you were at all confused or angry about my Ron Paul post, I would strongly recommend you listen to it, if only to get a better understanding of where I was coming from. It's about 50 minutes. You should also subscribe to both of his podcasts (he also runs a history podcast called Hardcore History, simply fantastic, can't recommend it enough). And in closing I think I'll just leave this right here to scare the fucking shit out of you.

2009 The Intelligence Squared Debate

2011-12-16T14:01:00.000-06:00

Motion: The Catholic Church a force for good in the world.

Arguing against is Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry. This is Hitchens at his best. Part 2 through 5 are up on youtube.

Christopher Hitchens dead at 62

2011-12-16T01:31:00.003-06:00

“Death is certain, replacing both the siren-song of Paradise and the dread of Hell. Life on this earth, with all its mystery and beauty and pain, is then to be lived far more intensely: we stumble and get up, we are sad, confident, insecure, feel loneliness and joy and love. There is nothing more; but I want nothing more.”

Hitch has had cancer for a while now, and I've sort of been preparing myself for this, but it doesn't make it any less painful. This is a typographic portrait of Hitchens I designed sometime earlier this year. I loved that man.

Hitchens and I had something major in common. We both had a mutual hero: Thomas Paine. I've seen Hitch describe him once as "the greatest Briton, and the greatest American." In addition to being the most passionate advocate of freedom and liberty among all the founding fathers (he supported equal rights for both blacks and women; travelled to France after the Revolutionary War, taking part in two revolutions), Paine was also an extreme critic of organized religion. I see a lot of left-leaning secularists nowadays saying "the founders were all deists!" and as much as I'd like that to be true, it's really a huge exaggeration. They were mostly Christian. Thomas Jefferson rarely shared his opinions about his deism, because he knew it would be political suicide. And his opponents used the rumors about his religious opinions to attack him. Thomas Paine was the only founder to publicly come out strongly, and radically, against organized religion, and it cost him dearly. When he died, he hardly had any friends at all, with only Jefferson writing him letters every once in a while (Jefferson distanced himself once his political opponents discovered they were still friends).

Hitchens wrote a wonderful little biography about Paine, and I'd strongly recommend it. It's a short, easy read, and mainly focuses on summarizing all of Paine's greatest writings. Hitch's love for him just shines right off the pages:

Paine's closing years, pitiful as they were, contained one closing triumph. He might have become a scarecrow-like figure. He might have been forced to subsist on the charity of friends. He might have been denied the right to vote by a bullying official, when presenting himself at the polling station, on the grounds that the author of Common Sense was not a true American. But as the buzzards began to circle, he rallied one more time. It was widely believed by the devout of those days that unbelievers would scream for a priest when their own death-beds loomed. Why this was thought to be valuable propaganda it is impossible to say. Surely the sobbing of a human creature in extremis is testimony not worth having, as well as testimony extracted by the most contemptible means? . . . Dying in ulcerated agony, he was imposed upon by two Presbyterian ministers who pushed past his housekeeper and urged him to avoid damnation by accepting Jesus Christ. 'Let me have none of your Popish stuff,' Paine responded. 'Get away with you, good morning, good morning.' The same demand was made of him as his eyes were closing. 'Do you wish to believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God?' He answered quite distinctly: 'I have no wish to believe on that subject.' Thus he expired with his reason, and his rights, both still staunchly defended until the very last.

I think I loved Hitchens so much because he reminded me a bit of Thomas Paine. Hitch was notably vicious as a debater, but underneath, you could always tell that he was just having a blast. His unrelenting wit is something to be admired, and it's something he and Paine had in common. This sort of vicious wit can be seen in even the most casual reading of Thomas Paine's argumentative writings (The Age of Reason, especially). It's just beautiful. They would've been amazing friends.

So without further ado, here comes the 'best of' video. Fuck, I'll miss this guy.

Want a lawyer? Shut up.

2011-12-15T14:35:00.002-06:00

"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." -George Orwell, 1984

White House announces the president will not veto the defense bill that will allow the military to detain citizens indefinitely

2011-12-14T16:26:00.004-06:00

Source.

Just slowly chip away at rights, no one will notice. Patriot Act, Citizens United, NDAA. Little by little. It's how Germany did it.

I'll just leave this here.

I am seriously considering throwing in my support for Ron Paul

2011-12-14T01:37:00.002-06:00

GOD DAMN IT

HELP ME

FUCK

So what did it? What pushed me over the edge? It was this.

Ron Paul furious over indefinite detention act

With the approval from the Oval Office the only thing keeping a terrifying law that will allow for the indefinite detention and torture of Americans from passing, presidential hopeful Ron Paul has finally unleashed on the legislation.

Although President Barack Obama had originally insisted that he would veto the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin revealed recently that the bill in its current wording was drafted after the current administration asked for changes.

Already making its way through the House and Senate, the Act in its current wording will allow for Americans suspected of any “belligerent” act to be detained in Guantanamo Bay-style military prisons indefinitely for any alleged crimes without trial. With it now being revealed that the president put forth suggestions to draft the latest version of the legislation, Levin told the press Monday night, "I just can't imagine that the president would veto this bill.”

"I very strongly believe this should satisfy the administration and hope it will,” added Levin.

Outside of the independent media, opposition to NDAA has remained almost nonexistent, with the mainstream neglecting to discuss the colossal implications the bill would have if it is signed into law. Speaking to radio host Alex Jones on Tuesday, however, Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul finally became one of the first main figures to attack the act.

“This is a giant step – this should be the biggest news going right now – literally legalizing martial law,” said Paul. The congressman from Texas also appeared flabbergasted that the bill managed to escape discussion in any of the recent GOP debates, despite its provisions being detrimental to the US Constitution and the freedom of every man, woman and child in America.

“This is big,” continued Paul, adding “This step where they can literally arrest American citizens and put them away without trial….is arrogant and bold and dangerous.”

The bill could be on the desk of Barack Obama as early as Wednesday of this week.

Congressman Paul has been continuously critical of the Obama administration as of late, and although his fellow candidates for the GOP nomination have been equally as opt to attack the president, Paul has largely been the only one to tackle the sacrifice of civil liberties that Obama and the Republican Party frontrunners seem unconcerned with.

“Today it seems too easy that our government and our congresses are so willing to give up our liberties for our security,” Paul said during a presidential debate earlier this election season. “I have a personal belief that you never have to give up liberty for security. You can still provide security without sacrificing our Bill of Rights.”

Paul has also condemned the Patriot Act for crushing the freedoms of Americans, while top-tier candidate and former-House Speaker Newt Gingrich has insisted on finding a “balancing act between our individual liberties and security.”

This provision in the NDAA has been pushed to my #1 issue. While the few liberals who are actually aware of it are anxiously waiting to see what Obama does, Paul goes on the radio and denounces it in the strongest language one could hope for. What do the other candidates have to say about it? Nothing. No one else has even mentioned it. And Obama's silence speaks louder than all of them. Throw me a fucking bone here guys. If only one candidate agrees with me on the only damn issues I care about, what else am I supposed to do?

I have a confession to make. I'm a libertarian. No, not that kind of libertarian. I'm a leftist libertarian.

That lower right quadrant is what most of us think of when someone says "libertarian." They're the anti-authoritarian capitalists like Ron Paul. Authoritarian left is home for the communists and Stalinists. Authoritarian right is home for religious extremists, fascists, and America's "two" major parties. The lower left is where anarchists and socialists reside. I'm pretty sure I'm in there somewhere. If you are anywhere south of that horizontal line, I am going to respect you. Simple. I respect the fuck out of anarchists. My love for freedom is a whimper, when it's held up next to theirs. And as much as we like to laugh at Ron Paul, it's important to remember that he loves freedom too. We simply disagree on the means to achieve it. (I personally don't think capitalism is compatible with freedom at all, but that's a whole other post).

I haven't caught very many Republican debates, but during the few I've watched, I always caught myself with a big fucking grin on my face whenever Ron Paul was allowed to speak. He's an idiot in many ways, and his supporters are fucking unbearable, but his feet are on planet earth. He's the one logically consistent person in a room full of fools and hypocrites.

And Dennis Kucinich seriously considered him as a running mate. Bet you didn't know they're actually really good friends.

Ron Paul is a lot of things, but he doesn't wrap flags around maimed and murdered children, and call it patriotism. At least he speaks out against fascist legislation like the Patriot Act and the NDAA. You can't say the same things about any other major candidate in the United States, especially Barack Obama. But don't worry about me. I'm not turning into one of his zombies. At best, Ron Paul is only a step in the right direction. If Dennis Kucinich or Bernie Sanders were running, I would support them over Paul in a heartbeat. I'm simply swallowing my pride and taking what I can get. I'm meeting the other side halfway. And I'm only open to meeting anti-authoritarians halfway. I'm not going to do the same with Obama or traditional Republicans, because I don't compromise with child murderers and fascists.

I'm sure as hell going to root for him, but I honestly don't know if I could vote for Ron Paul. Luckily, reality will prevent me from ever having to face that conundrum. The GOP is never going to pick him. It doesn't matter how much of a majority he might get in the primaries. Ron Paul would refuse to be the GOP's water cooler, and that's just unacceptable.

No, I'm still going to vote for a leftist third party. I was thinking either Green or Socialist, but then I heard about Rocky Anderson this morning. The former mayor of Salt Lake City just launched a presidential campaign running on the new "Justice Party" ticket. Amy Goodman interviewed him this morning. He's opposes war. He stands for things like environmental sanity, economic justice, and war criminals going to jail. You know, the things I thought the Democratic Party stood for when I voted for them. Maybe not as "radical" as some of the things I've been warming up to in recent months, but the guy has some amount of experience governing. I'd like to see what he can do, and I'm going to be following him.

Vatican Cardinal says Christians in the United States are 'well on the way' to being persecuted

2011-12-13T01:15:00.004-06:00

WAAAAAAHHHH

One of the highest ranking cardinals in the Vatican has said that the United States is “well on the way” to the persecution of Christians.

Cardinal Raymond Burke, former Archbishop of St. Louis and now the head of the Vatican’s highest court, told Catholic News Agency that he could envision a time when the Catholic Church in the U.S., “even by announcing her own teaching,” is accused of “engaging in illegal activity, for instance, in its teaching on human sexuality.”

Asked if the cardinal could even see American Catholics being arrested for their faith he replied, “I can see it happening, yes.”

In his remarks to several U.S. Bishops meeting with him Saturday, Pope Benedict XVI made similarly emphatic warnings about the U.S. The pope told the bishops that “the seriousness of the challenges which the Church in America, under your leadership, is called to confront in the near future cannot be underestimated.”

He added: “The obstacles to Christian faith and practice raised by a secularized culture also affect the lives of believers.”

In the interview published today, Cardinal Burke declared that “it is a war” and “critical at this time that Christians stand up for the natural moral law.” Should they not, he warned, “secularization will in fact predominate and it will destroy us.”

[...]

Nevermind the fact that more Christians live in the United States than in any other country on the planet you guys. Just ignore the fact that 3 in 4 Americans are Christian. Ignore this recent study which shows that nonbelievers overwhelmingly don't give a shit if someone else believes in God. Or how that same study shows that believers distrust atheists as much as rapists. Nevermind the fact that the government of the United States disobeys its own constitution by endorsing Christianity.

I'm going to take a wild guess and assume this Cardinal has never taken an introductory sociology class. See, there's this thing called "privilege." Privilege belongs to the dominant group. As a white male, I am a member of probably the most privileged group in the country. But as an agnostic-atheist, I am also part of a separate minority. Most individuals in the dominant group are not aware of their privilege, because they have never lived their lives without it.

Everyone accepts privilege because it's practically invisible. "Chivalry" is an example of accepted privilege. It's sexist. It implies that men should be nice to women, not because they should act like normal human beings, but because women are weak and powerless and they'll hopefully give up sex. I hold doors for men too, but nobody thinks better of me for it. Nor should they.

When a persecuted group is given more rights, some amount of privilege is taken away from the majority. And when that happens, the majority group starts feeling like they're the ones being persecuted. There are a ton of examples of this throughout American history.

And it hasn't stopped. Here's some irrelevant racist feeling persecuted because the president of the United States is black.

And here's some bigot whining that it's no longer socially acceptable to beat up faggots.

Let me give an example of how privilege has negatively affected me as an atheist. According to the Bylaws of the BSA, Declaration of Religious Principle:

"The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God. In the first part of the Scout Oath or Promise the member declares, ‘On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law.’ The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship and are wholesome precepts in the education of the growing members."

They don't bother explaining why atheists and agnostics can't be the "best type" of citizen. They just assume it's fact, and don't question it. That's privilege. I've never done drugs or been arrested. I've never been pulled over. Shit, I don't even drink. Not that these things have anything to do with morality, I'm just going by what I'm assuming are their standards. I'd like to hear what their "best type" of citizen is, and why I don't fit it.

I'm an Eagle, and I've worked at a boy scout camp for three years. I've had to hide my lack of belief. And I'm not even complaining about that, I would never think of bringing that shit up at my job anyway, because it's completely irrelevant. Privileged groups don't have the same opinion though. Encouraged by likeminded people around them, they have a constant need to repeat their own opinions and stroke their egos. And they're not even aware they're doing it. As a result, their beliefs were constantly pressed on me. I once had to bullshit my way through a prayer that my boss asked me to lead so I wouldn't be fired. I was expected to go to a camp-wide religious service held once every week. When these issues are brought to the attention of a believer, they're often so unaware of their own privilege that it just doesn't compute. If someone says "Under God should not be in the Pledge of Allegiance because it's illegal for the government to endorse a religion," they warp that around to "What, so I can't believe in God now?" Whenever a persecuted group asks for equal rights, the privileged group suddenly thinks they are the ones whose rights are being attacked.

YOU POOR THING.

But as much as I'm whining about being expected to treat men and women differently, or about how people look at me as an atheist, I really don't have it that bad. At least I'm not constantly bombarded with advertisements telling me how worthless I am, or catcalls that make me fear for my safety. I've never been looked down on because of my race. And hey, it's incredibly easy to fake belief. All you gotta do is smile and nod. I worked with someone at camp who was fired and kicked out of the boy scouts for being gay. There was another gay dude who was fired a year or two before I joined. I've never met him, but I was told he was very loved among both the staff and the scouts (the gay dude I worked with was kind of an ass). The boy scouts are a great organization, and they gave me the best years of my childhood, but I'm am fucking ashamed to be associated with them.

And if you're curious, the reason why this policy is in place is because religious institutions provide over 60% of the funding for the BSA, mostly from the Mormon church. Literally every single person within scouting I've ever talked to about these things have told me that they consider homosexuality and atheism complete nonissues, and they want this policy changed. I've even had a 12 year old kid tell me it shouldn't matter if someone is gay. Religious institutions have enough money to bribe the BSA into discriminating against gays and atheists, and yet they are the ones claiming to be persecuted. It's just staggering.

America is becoming a fascist state

2011-12-11T15:33:00.009-06:00

It's good that people automatically tune out whenever the word "fascist" is used, because it's used so often and so without merit that it's ultimately become meaningless. But it's bad because when there is actually a legitimate comparison to be made, nobody pays attention.

Nazi Germany was not the only fascist government. Let's go back and put the politics of the 1930s into context. Fascism was a legitimate political system. There were 'moderate' fascists like Franco in Spain. Italy (which was not as extreme as Nazi Germany) would constantly urge Franco's regime in Spain to be more 'fascist' so they would not come off simply as conservative reactionaries against the socialist government they overthrew (which they were). Franco murdered and tortured political dissidents and threw them into camps, and yet he had widespread support all the way up to his death in 1975 (he remained in power after World War II because he was neutral during the war. Spain had just gotten out of a brutal civil war when WWII broke out, and they didn't have the capacity to wage another one).

I watched a six-part documentary series on the Spanish Civil War a couple months back, up on youtube (~~I think it's been taken down.~~ Nevermind, here it is). It was made in 1980, and they interviewed supporters of both sides. You have no idea how weird it is to see old grannies talking about how much they love monarchy and totalitarianism, with portraits of Spanish fascist military leaders hanging up on their wall in the background.

The reason I'm going through all of this is because I want to get the point across that it is very easy for normal people to fall in love with fascism. This seems like common sense with everything we learn about fascism in history, but when it actually starts happening, the dots just never connect. World War II is often considered to be "the good war," but the United States government actually cared very little about stopping fascism, as a government. U.S. corporations supplied Franco and the fascists during the Spanish Civil War. The CIA brought in hundreds of Nazi spies after the war ended. Richard Nixon, founder of the modern Republican party, once toasted Franco, and said upon his death that he "was a loyal friend and ally of the United States." Utilizing the tactics of the Nazi Gestapo, the FBI once drugged and murdered a man in his bed because they didn't like his political opinions. I'm not typically a conspiracy theorist, but the circumstances surrounding MLK's and Malcolm's deaths are extremely suspicious. King's own family doesn't think Ray was the shooter. Seriously, read that. They took out Fred Hampton, I see no reason why they wouldn't have the capacity to do the exact same things over again.

FDR said:

"The first truth is… a democracy is not safe if people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by… any controlling private power."

Sound familiar? How 'bout now? Click to enlarge.

The United Nations says the U.S. is not protecting the rights of the Occupy protesters. Barack Obama does not support the Occupy movement. He made a few gentle words towards it at the start, and then he immediately backed off once his donors on Wall Street got mad at him. It seems like the only argument Obama apologists have left is "At least he's not a Republican, and at least I'm doing something." This is extremely dangerous and self-manipulative. It's the last refuge of someone who actually believes he holds some amount of power in the way our government works. You have no power. When a petition to free Bradley Manning popped up on the White House's website, the White House simply removed it. Right now, Senator Bernie Sanders is pushing for a constitutional amendment that will overturn Citizens United and establish that corporations are not people. He has a petition on his website with over 110,000 signatures right now. It's not going to happen. It will never happen.

The sooner everyone realizes that we do not live in a democracy, the sooner we can focus our attention on the real enemy: every person who holds a position of power in the government. The House of 'Representatives' voted 406-17 to keep the NDAA conference committee closed to the public. This, of course, is the act that will allow the government to lock up anyone they want on American soil, for as long as they want, by simply calling them "terrorists." Obama was threatening to veto this, but the language his administration used seems to imply that it's for the wrong reasons: that it doesn't go far enough.

"We have said that the language in this bill would jeopardize our national security by restricting flexibility in our fight against al Qaeda… Any bill that challenges or constrains the President’s critical authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the nation would prompt his senior advisors to recommend a veto."

But he likely won't veto it at all, since he's the one who wanted the provision in there in the first place.

I've tried being tolerant of Obama supporters (among friends at least) but if he signs this, there are no longer any excuses. If this happens, and if you vote for Barack Obama anyway, you are giving him permission to take away your rights. This goes way beyond what George Bush ever did, but I suppose Obama apologists wouldn't care, because they never raised a peep when he extended illegal wiretappings and assassinated American citizens either. I think I'll end this with a fitting quote from George Orwell (who opposed strict pacifism, and who actually had the courage to fight against fascism when he carried a gun for the socialists in the Spanish Civil War)

All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side. . . . The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.

Sunday Youtube Post

2011-12-11T03:21:00.001-06:00

This is why I think Star Trek is the greatest franchise ever made, and why I think it may have been a mistake for the new movie to replace "yay humanism!" with "yay lens flare!"

Favorite albums of 2011, part 2

2011-12-08T22:03:00.005-06:00

As promised from the first part from back in July, here's the rest and/or things that have been released since then. The Mars Volta pushed their new album back to next year, but that's okay because we're still left with a lot of other great stuff.

Maybeshewill - I Was Here For A Moment, Then I Was Gone

Maybeshewill has an interesting style. They're very Mogwai-ish, but often with the precise electronics and drumming of math rock, like with 65daysofstatic or Toe. This is pretty stereotypical post-rock, so if you're not into the genre you probably won't find it very interesting. Explosion in the Sky's Take Care, Take Care, Take Care is still probably my favorite post-rock CD out this year (and probably my favorite CD overall, to tell the truth) but this is still pretty great.

Arms and Sleepers - The Organ Hearts

Now this is a real gem. I just found out about these guys a couple months ago, and they've become one of my favorite new bands. This performance comes from a great website called WeArePostRock, but to be honest it's a little hard to put them in that genre. "Post-Rock" is kinda hard to pin down anyway, people usually just take instrumental music and call it "post-rock" to sound more hipster. But it usually has the same elements: somewhat minimalist, and if vocals are ever used, then they're used as just another instrument, and lyrics are irrelevant. Arms and Sleepers don't really do those things, this is more ambient and trip hop. I suppose they're all just labels anyway, ask any person on the street and I guess he wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

The Black Keys - El Camino

I actually haven't listened to this yet, but I thought I'd put it here in case anyone doesn't know about it. I'm sure it's great because it's the god damn Black Keys.

M83 - Hurry Up, We're Dreaming

M83 take their name from the Messier 83 galaxy, which is awesome, because that's one of my personal favorites too. I've read in interviews that M83 is inspired a lot by the 1980s. I hate 80s music. Unfortunately for me, they've sort of grasped onto that feeling a little more in recent years. I fell in love with their earlier songs on Dead Cities and Before the Dawn Heals Us -- the ambient stuff, the stuff that made me want to play Mass Effect and go stargazing. And some of that's still there, but Hurry Up, We're Dreaming feels very 80s pop. It's still not too bad because you can still pick up their style in it. You will love this CD if you're into this kind of music.

Pretty Lights - Unreleased 2010 Remixes

Pretty Lights is fucking good. The Sunday Youtube Post this week is off of this album. It's all remixes, he takes from James Brown, to Kanye West, and even Pink Floyd. And it's weird, because I'm usually not all that into this music, but it's just catchy as hell and I can't stop listening. It's very Daft Punk. Pretty Lights makes his money playing shows, so he puts all of his music up on his website for free.

Immortal Technique - The Martyr

Recently I've started listening to Rage Against the Machine for the first time, so I was wondering what other sort of revolutionary music is out there. It didn't take me long to find Immortal Technique. This guy is an arrogant jackass, and somewhat of a conspiracy theorist, but he does his fucking research and his lyrics usually hit the nail on the head. The Martyr was released in support of the Occupy movement (he's personally been visiting the encampment at Wall Street a lot), and he put it up online for free.

Sun Rise Above - Every Day I Wake Up on the Wrong Side of Capitalism

I discovered Sun Rise Above through the same search. He seems a lot more grounded than Immortal Technique, which is good, because it feels like Immortal Tech's obsession with keeping with his 'hardcore' image sort of undermines his central message. Sun Rise Above's talent as a lyricist is pretty damn impressive, and it seems like only a matter of time until this guy takes off.

International Socialist Organization's Year In Review

2011-12-08T21:29:00.002-06:00

Good year guys.

ISO Year In Review 2011 from N Alexander on Vimeo.

Sunday Youtube Post

2011-12-04T15:03:00.000-06:00

Pretty Lights - "Finally Moving" Live Visual Display from Anders Rostad on Vimeo.

lol

2011-11-28T19:45:00.005-06:00

I don't know if anyone remembers a post I made back in July about my favorite albums of the year so far, but I named the Hole Punch Generation among them. Well, I was wondering if the band was up to anything new, so I just checked their site. And I see this right on their front page.

YOU'RE WELCOME, HOLE PUNCH GENERATION, GLAD I COULD HELP.

Here's the Waco you'll never hear about

2011-11-28T14:18:00.001-06:00

Sunday Youtube Post

2011-11-27T03:09:00.002-06:00

We don't live in a democracy.

Arab Spring / OWS Update

2011-11-22T15:58:00.008-06:00

For the fourth day now, Egyptian protesters in Tahrir Square are demanding an end to military rule, and a transition to civilian government. In the protests over the last few days, at least 33 people have been killed, many with live gunfire, and at least 1,500 people have been injured. Here's some footage.

But they held on. You want to know why the protesters are still able to remain in Tahrir Square after the military and police tried to evict them? Because they refused to be stepped on, and fought back. What a concept. Here's an excerpt from a letter that a group of Egyptian activists sent to the Occupy movement:

It is not our desire to participate in violence, but it is even less our desire to lose. If we do not resist, actively, when they come to take what we have won back, then we will surely lose. Do not confuse the tactics that we used when we shouted “peaceful” with fetishizing nonviolence; if the state had given up immediately we would have been overjoyed, but as they sought to abuse us, beat us, kill us, we knew that there was no other option than to fight back. Had we laid down and allowed ourselves to be arrested, tortured, and martyred to “make a point”, we would be no less bloodied, beaten and dead. Be prepared to defend these things you have occupied, that you are building, because, after everything else has been taken from us, these reclaimed spaces are so very precious.

They're absolutely right, and it's a shame we're not listening. Here's a bunch of protesters at UC Davis sitting on their asses allowing themselves to be maced.

As Orwell said, "Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense." The result of this nonviolence? Everyone was arrested and the protest ended. Good job guys. I'm all for using nonviolence to win over the public, but my patience is really running thin. Police have no more right to hurt you than any other man in the street. If someone attacks you, then you defend yourself. This isn't hard.

Ward Churchill, in "Pacifism as Pathology," writes:

Pacifism, the ideology of nonviolent political action, has become axiomatic and all but universal among the more progressive elements of contemporary mainstream North America. With a jargon ranging from a peculiar mishmash of borrowed or fabricated pseudospiritualism to "Gramscian" notions of prefigurative socialization, pacifism appears as the common denominator linking otherwise disparate "white dissident" groupings. Always, it promises that the harsh realities of state power can be transcended via good feelings and purity of purpose rather than by self-defense and resort to combat.

Pacifists, with seemingly endless repetition, pronounce that the negativity of the modern corporate-fascist state will atrophy through defection and neglect once there is a sufficiently positive social vision to take its place ("What if there was a war and nobody came?"). Known in the Middle Ages as alchemy, such insistence on the repetition of insubstantial themes and failed experiments to obtain a desired result has long been consigned to the realm of fantasy, discarded by all but the most wishful or cynical (who use it to manipulate people).

If these protesters want change, then pacifism is extremely ineffective in accomplishing it. You know what Egypt accomplished by fighting back? Their interim government offered to resign yesterday. That's change. The military finalizes this, so it's unlikely to happen, but it's still an extremely significant step. Three days of real protests: Egyptian government resigns. Two months of peaceful protests in America: nothing. Absolutely nothing.

This photograph, which has become famous at this point, shows Jennifer Fox, 19, being carried off at Occupy Seattle after being maced in the face by police.

When Jennifer tried explaining to the police that she was pregnant and she wanted to leave, the police responded by kicking her in the stomach, hitting her with a bike, and spraying mace in her eyes with two separate spray cans simultaneously. Her baby miscarried. Here's video of Jennifer immediately after her chemical attack. Don't look away.

I don't know what the hell it's going to take for people to start taking this seriously. If "fetishizing nonviolence," as the Egyptians put it, is what this movement is about, then we've already lost. Dancing around in drum circles and allowing women to be assaulted seems to be the fun thing to do, but it will never give us our freedom. Ever.

Game Review - The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

2011-11-20T18:41:00.005-06:00

Once or twice in a console generation, there comes along a game that just blows everything out of the fucking water, and sets a new bar. NES had Super Mario Bros. 3; SNES had Yoshi's Island or Starfox; N64 had Goldeneye and Ocarina of Time; sixth gen had Knights of the Old Republic and Grand Theft Auto; now we have Skyrim. It's going to be very hard to put this into words. Because after putting god knows how many hours into this, I'm pretty sure I can say that I've never played a better video game in my entire life.

Bethesda first hit it big with Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind in 2002. I've never met anyone who has played the first two Elder Scrolls, but Morrowind is what put them on the map. Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion came out in 2006, which took place in Cyrodiil, capital province of the empire. All these games take place on the continent of Tamriel, all part of the same empire. Skyrim takes place 200 years after Oblivion.

I've spent at least a couple hours on the Elder Scrolls wiki reading about this world's lore and history and politics. It's fucking insane. You don't have to read about it at all if you don't want to, the games never explain any of these things in the story. The way you find out about them is by reading books within the game. I'm not talking about "using" a book and then pretending like your character read it, like what you would expect from a video game, I'm talking about Bethesda literally wrote books, and you can read them if you find them.

I spend a lot of time just hunting down books to place in my library in my house. There are history books, instruction manuals, books of the dark arts, and choose-your-own-adventures (really) and even smut. Smut. Here's the classic Lusty Argonian Maid. Argonians are the lizard people.

Act IV, Scene III, continued

Lifts-Her-Tail: Certainly not, kind sir! I am here but to clean your chambers.

Crantius Colto: Is that all you have come here for, little one? My chambers?

Lifts-Her-Tail: I have no idea what it is you imply, master. I am but a poor Argonian maid.

Crantius Colto: So you are, my dumpling. And a good one at that. Such strong legs and shapely tail.

Lifts-Her-Tail: You embarrass me, sir!

Crantius Colto: Fear not. You are safe here with me.

Lifts-Her-Tail: I must finish my cleaning, sir. The mistress will have my head if I do not!

Crantius Colto: Cleaning, eh? I have something for you. Here. Polish my spear.

Lifts-Her-Tail: But it is huge! It could take me all night!

Crantius Colto: Plenty of time, my sweet. Plenty of time.

END OF ACT IV, SCENE III

It's the little things like that that make the game. And the history is really interesting too. Going through the game, you'll see a lot of racial tension between the Nords and the Elves. If you never opened an in-game book, you'd never understand why. All humans in Tamriel are descended from the Nords of Skyrim. Led by Ysgramor, the humans originally landed in Skyrim from some vague continent way up north, fleeing a civil war. The Elves were already living in Tamriel. The Nords and the Elves initially lived peacefully, but the Elves got scared because they thought the Nords would eventually become too powerful. So they waged a war of extermination, and when they burned the last human city to the ground, only Ysgramor and his family survived to flee back to their continent. When they returned, the civil war was over and there was peace. So Ysgramor gathered up an army, sailed back, and conquered Skyrim.

And this history feels real. You can go and visit Ysgramor's tomb. You can hold Ysgramor's battleaxe. Unf.

And the great thing is, if this stuff seems boring or nerdy, you don't have to pay attention to any of it if you don't want to. You could just wander around killing people and be a dick and ignore the story entirely. And sometimes that's exactly what I do. And Skyrim makes it very easy to do such things, because you are Dovahkiin, Dragonborn. You wield the magic that dragons use -- shouts -- which don't use mana like typical magic, there's simply a 15-30 second cooldown. The first time I acquired Fus Ro Dah, this is what I spent an hour doing.

It's awesome when you get about five or six enemies right in front of you, and you just effortlessly send them all plummeting off a cliff. BEST.

The main plot of the game is that dragons are coming back. They went extinct centuries ago, and nobody knows why they've returned. As Dovahkiin, you sort of become their main target, since you are the only one capable of stopping them. Once you reach a certain point early on in the story, dragons will start attacking you in completely random places at completely random times. They could attack you when you're wandering on the road, or they could attack you when you're in a city. You're not safe anywhere. Okay, tired of reading? Wanna see some gameplay? Watch what happens out of fucking nowhere when this guy starts fucking with some giants and their mammoth herd. This is completely unscripted.

To help you truly grasp what this game is about, let me describe what happens every time I sit down to play it. Last night, I decided I needed to work on my blacksmith skill. To do that, I need ore to work with. So I went off to the mines. A few hours later, after I stopped playing for the night, I still had not reached those mines. I could've reached them fairly easily if I had just made a straight shot, but the world of Skyrim is so utterly massive, with so many things to do and find and explore, that I got sidetracked probably a dozen times on my stroll.

The first thing that stopped me was some ancient ruins I stumbled on. I decided to check them out. When I entered, a fucking ghost walked up to me and told me that some long dead warlord who's buried there is gathering power, and he's planning his return to conquer the world. So then I spend an hour or more traversing through these ruins gathering the ancient relics I need to stop this guy, before the final climactic battle to shut him up for good. This wasn't part of any quest. I was never told about these ruins. I wandered in just because I could. These random scripted events are spread everywhere throughout the game, and it's like a drug. You're constantly wondering what you're going to see next.

What stopped me next was a city which was fairly close to these mines I'm trying to get to. The first thing I see after wandering in? Some guy murdering a woman right in the middle of the street. I couldn't do anything to stop it, but I immediately ran up to the murderer and ran my sword through his back, which may or may not have been a good idea, I didn't know if I could've questioned him or what, but in the heat of the moment I felt I needed to kill him right then and there, and so that's what I did. Instead of going to the mines, I'm sidetracked for another hour or two trying to track down what the hell just happened. The city guard tried intimidating me to look the other way. When I refused to do so, they killed the man I was working with to solve this murder, framed me for it, and locked me up. They threw me into their mines to work slave labor for life (not necessarily the type of mining I had in mind when I set out from my home in Whiterun). And the thing is, this game gives you so much freedom, that you didn't even have to go quietly if you didn't want to. And I didn't at first. I must have killed at least five city guards before finally sheathing my sword and going peacefully. I just wanted to see what would happen if I did. I could've escaped the city if I wanted to, and I would've never been arrested.

On the inside, I ended up meeting the man responsible for the murder I saw on the street. He was a revolutionary leader fighting against the Nords, who was giving orders from prison. After getting all buddy-buddy and earning his trust, I shanked him in the back, and used the secret passage he meant for both of us to escape in.

The string-puller of this city greeted me at the exit, the man responsible for framing me. He had received word that the revolutionary was dead, thanked me for it, gave me a full pardon, and even gave me his family ring for the trouble. The moment he turned his back to walk away, I slit his fucking throat and ran like hell. I'll probably never return to that city again. Nobody crosses me and lives. Nobody.

See that? "Nobody crosses me and lives." This game is making me develop an entirely new personality for my character to use. This is typically called "role playing," and I usually make fun of gamers who do it. Here I am doing it, and I can't even control it. For example, one time I met a very old orc along the road. He told me that he doesn't want to pass away in a bed like a coward, and his only wish is to die with honor in battle. I agreed to fight him to the death. After I had done the deed, I felt so proud for him that I wanted to stop and bury him, and then I got pissed that the game doesn't allow me to dig holes. Then I felt a little weird for wanting to do this anyway, because it wouldn't affect the story in any way, and as soon as I walk away, the body would despawn and never be seen again. I felt a little better once I saw what the redditors did when they came across him. One guy said he took the body to an outdoor shrine nearby, laid him on it, and then put his weapon in his hands. Another guy said he dragged him into the river, and shot an arrow out at him to give him an old Nordic funeral. They felt just as weird about it as I did. What the fuck are you doing to us, Skyrim. This game does that to you. It immerses you inside of an entirely new world, and you feel like you're a part of it. Every time I stop playing Skyrim, I feel like Neo waking up from the Matrix, disappointed at how much this world sucks. Here's a short video from Bethesda describing just how much effort they put into creating this world.

Oh and did I mention you can get married? The game even lets you get teh gay married, if that's your thing, gender doesn't matter. There are dozens of people you can marry, and if you don't mind cheating, you can use the console to open up the marriage dialogue with literally any person in Skyrim. Me? I chose Aela the Huntress. She calls me "dear" and "love," and she also cooks me dinner. She also happens to be a werewolf. We went on our honeymoon crawling through an ice cavern underneath an lighthouse, killing giant bugs.

And I haven't even mentioned mods yet. The Elder Scrolls modding community is fucking insane, and it doesn't help that Bethesda releases all the tools the need, encouraging it all. The nude mod was out only three days after the game's release. Three. Days. But there are still a lot of cool mods out there worth downloading. There are ones that improve performance, others that improve textures and graphics. A couple days ago, a mod was released enabling you to kill children, who were previously invulnerable. I need to check that one out. In the last game, Oblivion, the modding community completely rebuilt the province of Morrowind in Oblivion's engine. They remade the entire fucking game. And you want to know what's even better? Skyrim players were messing around with noclipping, and discovered that south of Skyrim, the entire province of Cyrodiil is inside the game. And what's more, they even found the gate leading to it. It's locked. This screams expansion pack, which Bethesda says they're going to be doing instead of typical DLC. And if not, then the modding community will take care of it.

I don't really know how to end this. I could keep talking about this forever, and I sort of want to. I think this is the best game I've ever played. It's perfect. I guess I'll just end it with a bunch of screenshots I've taken. I don't even know why the fuck I wrote this, I'm going to go play Skyrim.

Sunday Youtube Post

2011-11-20T03:38:00.000-06:00

Here's a short lecture introducing existentialism

2011-11-19T03:24:00.004-06:00

Best philosophy all philosophies.

Monday Youtube Post

2011-11-14T02:51:00.000-06:00

"Terrorism Over Tripoli" by Howard Zinn

2011-11-10T21:18:00.001-06:00

In April of 1986, a bomb exploded in a discotheque in West Berlin, killing two people, one an American soldier. It was unquestionably an act of terrorism. Libya's tyrannical leader, Muammar Khadafi, had a record of involvement in terrorism, although in this case there seemed to be no clear evidence of who was responsible. Nevertheless, President Reagan ordered that bombers be sent over Libya's capital of Tripoli, killing perhaps a hundred people, almost all civilians. I wrote this piece, which could not find publication in the press, to argue against the principle of retaliation. I am always furious at the killing of innocent people for some political cause, but I wanted to broaden the definition of terrorism to include governments, which are guilty of terrorism far more often, and on an infinitely larger scale, than bands of revolutionaries or nationalists. The essay became part of a collection of my writings entitled Failure to Quit, published in 1993 by Common Courage Press.

"Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." Thomas Jefferson wrote that in Notes from Virginia.

Those words came to mind as I listened to the announcement from our government that it had bombed the city of Tripoli.

We live in a world in which we are asked to make a moral choice between one kind of terrorism and another. The government, the press, the politicians, are trying to convince us that Ronald Reagan's terrorism is morally superior to Muammar Khadafi's terrorism.

Of course, we don't call our actions that, but if terrorism is the deliberate killing of innocent people to make a political point, then our bombing a crowded city in Libya fits the definition as well as the bombing-by whoever did it-of a crowded discotheque in Berlin.

Perhaps the word deliberate shows the difference: when you plant a bomb in a discotheque, the death of bystanders is deliberate; when you drop bombs on a city, it is accidental. We can ease our conscience that way, but only by lying to ourselves. Because, when you bomb a city from the air, you know, absolutely know, that innocent people will die.

That's why Defense Secretary Weinberger, reaching for morality (his reach will never be long enough, given where he stands) talked of the air raid being organized in such a way as to "minimize" civilian casualties. That meant there would inevitably be civilian casualties, and Weinberger, Schultz and Reagan were willing to have that happen, to make their point, as the discotheque terrorists were willing to have that happen, to make theirs.

In this case, the word "minimize" meant only about a hundred dead (the estimate of foreign diplomats in Tripoli), including infants and children, an eighteen-year old college girl home for a visit, an unknown number of elderly people. None of these were terrorists, just as none of the people in the discotheque were responsible for whatever grievances are felt by Libyans or Palestinians.

Even if we assume that Khadafi was behind the discotheque bombing (and there is no evidence for this), and Reagan behind the Tripoli bombing (the evidence for this is absolute), then both are terrorists, but Reagan is capable of killing far more people than Khadafi. And he has.

Reagan, and Weinberger, and Secretary of State Schultz, and their admirers in the press and in Congress are congratulating themselves that the world's most heavily-armed nation can bomb with impunity (only two U.S. fliers dead, a small price to pay for psychic satisfaction) a fourth rate nation like Libya.

Modern technology has outdistanced the Bible. "An eye for an eye" has become a hundred eyes for an eye, a hundred babies for a baby. The tough-guy columnists and anonymous editorial writers (there were a few courageous exceptions) who defended this, tried to wrap their moral nakedness in the American flag. But it dishonors the flag to wave it proudly over the killing of a college student, or a child sleeping in a crib.

There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people for a purpose which is unattainable. If the purpose is to stop terrorism, even the supporters of the bombing say it won't work; if the purpose is to gain respect for the United States, the result is the opposite: all over the world there is anger and indignation at Reagan's mindless, pointless, soulless violence. We have had presidents just as violent. We have rarely had one so full of hypocritical pieties about "the right to life."

In this endless exchange of terrorist acts, each side claims it is "retaliating." We bombed Tripoli to retaliate for the discotheque. The discotheque may have been bombed to retaliate for our killing 35 Libyan seamen who were on a patrol boat in the Gulf of Sidra—in international waters, just as we were.

We were in the Gulf of Sidra supposedly to show Libya it must not engage in terrorism. And Libya says—indeed it is telling the truth in this instance—that the United States is an old hand at terrorism, having subsidized terrorist governments in Chile, Guatemala, and El Salvador, and right now subsidizing the terrorism of the contras against farmers, their wives and children, in Nicaragua.

Does a Western democracy have a better right to kill innocent people than a Middle Eastern dictatorship? Even if we were a perfect democracy that would not give us such a license. But the most cherished element of our democracy—the pluralism of dissenting voices, the marketplace of contending ideas—seems to disappear at a time like this, when the bombs fall, the flag waves, and everyone scurries, as Ted Kennedy did, to fall meekly behind "our commander-in-chief." We waited for moral leadership. But Gary Hart, John Kerry, Michael Dukakis and Tip O'Neill all muttered their support. No wonder the Democratic Party is in such pathetic shape.

Where in national politics are the emulators of those two courageous voices at the time of the Gulf of Tonkin incident in Vietnam—Wayne Morse and Ernest Gruening—who alone in the Senate refused to go along with "our commander-in-chief" in that first big military strike that launched the ten-year shame of Vietnam?

And where was our vaunted "free press"? After the bombing, a beaming Schultz held a press conference for a group of obsequious reporters in Washington who buttered him up, who licked at his flanks, who didn't ask a single question about the morality of our action, about the civilians killed by our bombs in Tripoli. Where are the likes of I.F Stone, who did in his little newsletter for so many years what no big American daily would do—raise hard questions? Why did Anthony Lewis and Tom Wicker, who sometimes raise such questions—melt away?

Terrorism now has two names, world-wide. One is Khadafi. One is Reagan. In fact, that is a gross simplification. If Khadafi were gone, if Reagan were gone, terrorism would continue—it is a very old weapon of fanatics, whether they operate from secret underground headquarters, or from ornate offices in the capitols of the superpowers.

Too bad Khadafi's infant daughter died, one columnist wrote. Too bad, he said, but that's the game of war. Well, if that's the game, then let's get the hell out of it, because it is poisoning us morally, and not solving any problem. It is only continuing and escalating the endless cycle of retaliation which will one day, if we don't kick our habits, kill us all.

Let us hope that, even if this generation, its politicians, its reporters, its flag-wavers and fanatics, cannot change its ways, the children of the next generation will know better, having observed our stupidity. Perhaps they will understand that the violence running wild in the world cannot be stopped by more violence, that someone must say: we refuse to retaliate, the cycle of terrorism stops here.

--

Zinn died last year at the age of 87. As shown in that last paragraph, when everyone else his age demeans younger people as brainless idiots, Zinn puts all his faith into us. He said things like that a lot. It's very empowering. It's such a shame he died when he did. The Arab Spring and the Occupy movement was his life's dream. He dedicated Voices of a People's History of the United States:

TO ROSLYN ZINN (1922-2008)

AND TO THE REBEL VOICES OF THE COMING GENERATION

Documentary on the Haitian Revolution

2011-11-09T16:46:00.001-06:00

The uploader labeled the videos wrong, part 3 is actually part 4 and part 4 is actually part 3

Happy Birthday, Carl Sagan

2011-11-09T01:49:00.006-06:00

On this day 77 years ago, Carl Sagan was born. He would become one of the greatest promoters of science, curiosity, and outright happiness that the world has ever known. His life is one we should all strive to emulate: a never-ending thirst for knowledge, and thus, perpetual childhood. There's probably no god, and even less of a chance of an afterlife, so this is ultimately meaningless, but I guess it just makes me feel a little better to type it out: thank you.

Ann Druyan, widow of Sagan:

“When my husband died, because he was so famous & known for not being a believer, many people would come up to me — it still sometimes happens — & ask me if Carl changed at the end & converted to a belief in an afterlife. They also frequently ask me if I think I will see him again. Carl faced his death with unflagging courage & never sought refuge in illusions. The tragedy was that we knew we would never see each other again. I don’t ever expect to be reunited with Carl. But, the great thing is that when we were together, for nearly twenty years, we lived with a vivid appreciation of how brief & precious life is. We never trivialized the meaning of death by pretending it was anything other than a final parting. Every single moment that we were alive & we were together was miraculous — not miraculous in the sense of inexplicable or supernatural. We knew we were beneficiaries of chance… That pure chance could be so generous & so kind… That we could find each other, as Carl wrote so beautifully in Cosmos, you know, in the vastness of space & the immensity of time… That we could be together for twenty years. That is something which sustains me & it’s much more meaningful…

The way he treated me & the way I treated him, the way we took care of each other & our family, while he lived. That is so much more important than the idea I will see him someday. I don’t think I’ll ever see Carl again. But I saw him. We saw each other. We found each other in the cosmos, and that was wonderful.“

Stephen Colbert goes to Occupy Wall Street

2011-11-06T19:26:00.003-06:00

dresses up like che guevara lol

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Colbert Super PAC - Stephen Colbert Occupies Occupy Wall Street Pt. 1

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

Video Archive

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Colbert Super PAC - Stephen Colbert Occupies Occupy Wall Street Pt. 2

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

Video Archive

Sunday Youtube Post

2011-11-06T02:24:00.000-06:00

Occupy protests get chaotic; police put a second veteran in the hospital, nearly kill him

2011-11-05T01:13:00.014-05:00

On Wednesday, largely in response to the police shooting Iraq veteran Scott Olsen in the fucking face, the people of Oakland launched the first general strike in the United States in 65 years. They marched on the fifth largest port in the United States and shut it down.

Elsewhere in the city, a small group of anarchists attacked a couple banks (both were closed due fear of the protests, nobody was inside).

Aside from the window smashing, which was condemned by the majority of protesters (many gathered to clean and sweep up glass) the day was peaceful and heralded by the movement as a success. That was the day. Then night came.

The man you see in that car ran a red light and tried to nudge his way through a large group of people on the street. One guy got annoyed and started pounding on his hood, so he floored it. Here's video.

Police questioned him for a few minutes and then let him go. He ran over two people on purpose and the police let him go.

Elsewhere, a group of protesters decided to occupy a vacant building.

They got word that police were moving in to kick them out. They hastily constructed a barricade and set it on fire. The police cracked some skulls.

A retired Army Ranger who served in Afghanistan and Iraq named Kayvan Sabehgi was in the area. He knew shit was about to go down, and he wanted nothing to with it. He set off on his own and left. On 14th street, he ran into a group of police officers.

"They told me to move, but I was like: 'Move to where?' There was nowhere to move."

The cops beat the shit out of him. He was handcuffed and left in a police van for three hours. He was not detained with other protesters. He was detained while walking alone.

By the time he reached the jail, he was in such "unbelievable pain" that he could barely stand.

"My stomach was really hurting, and it got worse to the point where I couldn't stand up. I was on my hands and knees and crawled over the cell door to call for help."

Sabehgi was unable to stand or walk, and so he was allowed to crawl into the cell next to him, where he filled its already clogged toilet full of vomit and diarrhea. He laid there in excruciating pain for hours.

When bail was posted he was unable to leave because he still couldn't stand on his own two feet. An ambulance was finally called, 18 full hours after his arrest, and he was taken to the same hospital that initially treated Scott Olsen. His spleen had been lacerating and his stomach was full of blood. He underwent surgery today. He almost died. Full story here and here.

Since these Occupy protests began, I've been censoring myself a little. I don't want to openly advocate a fresh revolution on the internet because I don't want to end up on a watchlist. But there were some redditors who didn't even hold back.

How much longer, America?
Ok seriously? Is anyone still wondering what purpose the 2nd amendment is? There is a reason why crazy tea party folks are left the hell alone. California introduced stricter gun control in order to disarm blacks during the civil rights era. Makes it a lot easier to crack someone over the skull or use a firehose when you know, when you straight up know that no one can do shit. I am not advocating violence, not by any means. All I am saying is that perhaps we have allowed ourselves to get to this point.
Non-American here, when are you American folks going to go Tunisia style on your government's ass? Like does someone need to get killed first? What would you say is going to tip the scales in America?
Non-violent resistance is a long road to no gains that are worthwhile. This country is not going to change unless people do what our forefathers had to do ... fight. Until that is realized we stand no chance. People will simply continue to be arrested, be beaten, and be abused all the while generating revenue and wasting more tax dollars
We wrote a formal declaration of independence, and as a result, the British sent an army over here to beat us back into submission. We didn't remain peaceful and try to play it by the rules. We hid behind trees and shot them in the face while they had their weapons down. I'm all for peaceful protest. But when you're having the shit kicked out of you on a regular basis, it's time to stand up and defend yourself.

Someone who knows him also posted in the thread.

Kayvan is a friend of mine, we worked together. He is a good guy and in spite of his status as Ranger, he is a peaceful guy. My gf just went to the hospital to see him and he was still in ICU, knocked out after his surgery. I will post more if I hear anything.

Someone posted this sign on a broken bank window earlier in the day.

Right now seeing that sign calling for peace angers me more than than the thought of Kayvan Sabehgi sitting in a hospital. Malcolm X said:

"Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery."

Now I take issue with that "cemetery" part, we should generally try to avoid killing people. But we need to start defending ourselves. Class warfare is being waged against 99% of Americans, and we shouldn't just lie down and take it. Peaceful protest will only take us so far. When government cannot be reasoned with, when they refuse to carry out the democratic process, there needs to be a change. As George Orwell said:

"As an ex-Indian civil servant, it always makes me shout with laughter to hear, for instance, Gandhi named as an example of the success of non-violence. As long as twenty years ago it was cynically admitted in Anglo-Indian circles that Gandhi was very useful to the British government. So he will be to the Japanese if they get there. Despotic governments can stand ‘moral force’ till the cows come home; what they fear is physical force."

More windows need to be smashed and more property needs to be destroyed. The Oakland PD needs to know that this is not fucking okay and their brutality is not going to be tolerated. I actually ran into someone on tumblr who is a Christian anarchist. He argued that the destruction of property is not "violence" at all, and he cites Matthew 21:22 to back himself up.

"Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves."

That's cool. I'm not terribly religious, so when I mindlessly appeal to authority, I look towards the actions of humanity.

I think I'll end this with a some words from Brother Malcolm:

And this:

Before Occupy Wall Street, there was Seattle

2011-11-03T01:11:00.003-05:00

"This Is What Democracy Looks Like"

This film, shot by 100 amateur camera operators, tells the story of the enormous street protests in Seattle, Washington in November 1999, against the World Trade Organization summit being held there. Vowing to oppose, among other faults, the WTO's power to arbitrally overrule nations' environmental, social and labour policies in favour of unbridled corporate greed, protestors from all around came out in force to make their views known and stop the summit. Against them is a brutal police force and a hostile media as well as the stain of a minority of destructively overzealous comrades. Against all odds, the protesters bravely faced fierce opposition to take back the rightful democratic power that the political and corporate elite of the world is determined to deny the little people.

An Appeal to Vote Third Party in 2012

2011-11-01T16:26:00.012-05:00

Hi. I'm going to try to convince you to vote for a third party candidate in 2012. I know this is going to be difficult, and I probably won't be successful, but you should at least hear me out. Go ahead and watch this video real quick. Yeah, remember this?

This video shows the murder of Iraqi civilians, and two Reuters journalists. As the video explains, the media worked with the government at the time to cover it up, and said they had all been combatants. This video was leaked to Wikileaks by a soldier named Bradley Manning. Manning said in an online chat: "God knows what happens now. Hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms… I want people to see the truth… because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public."

He was arrested for releasing this video in May 2010. Since then, Manning has been held in conditions that have been compared to Abu Ghraib. He has been stripped of his clothes, forced to sleep naked, harassed and humiliated by guards, and at one point he was placed on suicide watch. A United Nations investigator on torture submitted an inquiry to the U.S. State Department, and was answered with evasiveness. A spokesman for the State Department resigned. In April, 295 scholars signed an open letter saying this was violating the Constitution. Only then, did the State Dept. have enough fun, and finally transfer Manning to a prison with slightly more humane conditions. He's still being held and he still has not been convicted of any crimes.

Daniel Ellsberg, the man who leaked the Pentagon Papers, which exposed the government's massive campaign of lies over Vietnam, considers Manning a hero. "[Manning] is being held essentially in isolation, solitary confinement, for something over nine months, something that is likely to drive a person mad and may be the intent of what’s going on here."

Barack Obama has supported this every step of the way. He said of Manning, "If I was to release stuff, information that I’m not authorized to release, I’m breaking the law. … We’re a nation of laws. We don’t individually make our own decisions about how the laws operate. … He broke the law.” You know what else is against the law? Torture.

I don't understand the American left right now. Liberals are acting frighteningly similar to Bush apologists. They either don't comment on Manning at all, or they're with the president and they don't give a shit about psychologically torturing an army veteran.

And they've completely forgotten about the wars. When did these stop being an issue? The Occupy protests are only about jobs and a corrupt economic system? What about fucking thousands of innocent people being killed, and countries being leveled? Isn't this still important? I saw most liberals hailed the troop withdrawal in Iraq as a great victory, and they promptly thanked Obama for it. But none of them seem to know or care that Obama wanted to keep 10,000 troops in Iraq, and it was only the Iraqi Prime Minister's insistence on American troops being held accountable for crimes they commit, that forced Obama to cut his losses. Had American troops stayed, they would've had to stand trial in Iraqi courts if they murdered civilians. Obama tried to fight that, but he lost. His failed foreign policy is the only reason we're finally getting out of Iraq. That's your great president.

We went into Afghanistan to get al-Qaeda. Now, Osama bin Laden is dead, al-Qaeda likely has less than a hundred members left, and they're not even in Afghanistan anymore, they're in Pakistan. So what the fuck are we doing?

The fight in Afghanistan is hopeless. More and more Afghans are siding with the Taliban, not because they like the Taliban, but because they just want the U.S. and Afghanistan's corrupt puppet drug lord government to stop bombing their fucking families. And the thing is, there are democratic movements emerging from Afghanistan, and the U.S. refuses to support them. There are 1.5 times more contractors on the ground in Afghanistan then there are U.S. soldiers. This is about nationbuilding contracts. It's about getting people rich, no different from Iraq, no different from Libya. Afghanistan is not a war that's meant to be won. It's meant to be sustained.

Obama is proposing a troop drawdown from Afghanistan. But when that drawdown is complete, there will still be more troops left there than at any other time under Bush. There is no fucking plan. Afghanistan and Iraq never stopped being the most important issues for me. Doesn't anybody fucking care about this anymore? Have we just become so numb, that perpetual warfare is now the norm? Remember when we were pissed off about meaningless wars, guys? Remember the good ol' days when we were all "George Bush, you fascist, not my president, rah rah!" What changed?

Josh Stieber served with the army in Iraq from February 2007 to April 2008, but has since left as a conscientious objector. He said of the wikileaks "Collateral Murder" video, "This was not by any means the exception. It is inevitable given the situation we were going through. We were going through a lot of combat at the time. A roadside bomb would go off or a sniper would fire a shot, and you had no idea where it was coming from. There was a constant paranoia, a constant being on edge. If you put people in a situation like that where there are plenty of civilians, that kind of thing was going to happen as long as our nation does not challenge these things. Now that this video has become public, it is our responsibility as a people and a country to recognize that this is what war looks like on a day-to-day basis."

Afghanistan has been going on for a decade. This shit happens all the time. If you vote for Barack Obama in 2012, you are going to accept that and keep the process continuing. I don't know how I could live with myself.

And it's not just Afghanistan we need to be worrying about. Obama has stepped up drone strikes all around the region, and hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent people have been murdered by them. The majority are women and children. And if empathy for other human beings won't convince you, then how about your own survival? Do you recognize this guy?

Anwar al-Awlaki was born in New Mexico. He was a recruiter for al-Qaeda, and may have been involved in the botched terrorist attack on Flight 253 on Christmas Day, 2009 (the "underwear bomber"). He was assassinated by a drone strike a few weeks ago. And that needs to worry us all. Even George W. Bush tried to apprehend terrorist suspects. Obama just kills them, and their American citizenship is irrelevant. Do you even understand what this means? The rights we're supposed to enjoy as American citizens are now null and void. If the government deems you a terrorist, it's going to come and kill you. You won't get a trial. You won't be convicted of a crime. You will be murdered, and you will be swept under the rug. What are you going to do about it?

Abdulrahman al-Awlaki couldn't do anything about it. Two weeks ago, Anwar's 16-year-old son was sitting down to eat dinner with his friends. Then a drone missile killed them all. He was also an American. He was from Denver.

The few media outlets that actually acknowledged Obama's bombing of innocent teenagers simply lied about it. They said Abdulrahman was 21. His grandfather released a statement: "To kill a teenager is just unbelievable, really, and they claim that he is an al-Qaeda militant. It’s nonsense. They want to justify his killing, that’s all."

This is inexcusable. I voted for Barack Obama in 2008 expecting this shit to stop. Not only has it not stopped, it has been escalated. The military-industrial complex is more powerful than ever, with trillions of dollars being sucked into it every year. These things are going to continue no matter who you vote for. And if you vote for Obama, you will hold a degree of responsibility. I voted for Barack Obama in 2008. I'm responsible for Abdulrahman al-Awlaki's murder. I refuse to get any more blood on my hands. And maybe if a Republican got into office, liberals would actually start caring about this shit again.

And what of the accomplishments Obama has made? Well, Don't Ask Don't Tell is repealed, which is a wonderful thing. But it's not like Obama fought terribly hard for it. I don't want to demean him too much on this issue, because he really has been good with LGBT rights, but it's just that public opinion concerning DADT began swaying in the other direction, and so Obama rode it. And what about the healthcare bill? Well, it's a Republican bill. When Bill Clinton tried to do this in the 90s, Bob Dole and a group of Republicans put together their own health care plan to answer to him. It's almost exactly similar to what Obama got passed. Clinton decided not to accept it, and fight. He lost. So we're left Obama's bill, basically written by corporate interests. There's no public option, and it forces people to buy shitty deals, which doesn't help the poorest, sickest of Americans. It's a mess. He didn't even fight for the public option. As soon as Republicans raised a peep, he backed off. And there's a reason for this. This is from Samuel Huntington, a political science professor at Harvard, and a long-time consultant to the White House during the war in Vietnam:

The day after [a President’s] election, the size of his majority is almost—if not entirely—irrelevant to this ability to govern the country. What counts then is his ability to mobilize support from the leaders of key institutions in a society and government… . This coalition must include key people in Congress, the executive branch, and the private sector ‘Establishment.’

Truman made a point of bringing a substantial number of non-partisan soldiers, Republican bankers, and Wall Street lawyers into his Administration. He went to the existing sources of power in the country to get help he needed in ruling the country. Eisenhower in part inherited this coalition and was in part almost its creation… . Kennedy attempted to re-create a somewhat similar structure of alliances.

Advocates of the two-party system say that third parties split the vote. Ralph Nader got a lot of shit for this in 2000. They say that if everyone who voted Green had voted Democrat, then Al Gore would've won.

First of all, the 2000 election was stolen. George Bush didn't win. These people are also overlooking a very important fact: people who voted for Nader did not want Al Gore to be President. What makes you think they would've voted for Gore at all, had Nader not been running? They just would've sat it out. And furthermore, sitting there and demeaning a candidate--not because of actual policies, but simply because he's not your candidate--is pretty damn childish.

And what makes you think either of the two major parties even care about you? Barack Obama received more money from Wall Street this year than all nine GOP candidates combined. He doesn't fucking answer to you. Neither party gives a shit about you, and neither gives a shit about democracy. George W. Bush stole the election in 2000, but you're kidding yourself if you think Republicans are the only party that hates democracy. In 2004, the Democratic Party sued the Green Party 24 separate times, in only 12 weeks, to get them off ballots. They don't give the slightest shit about what people actually want.

America is a one party state. Have you ever wondered why American elections have degraded into a personality contests, where nobody ever talks about anything that's fucking important? It's because they don't want to. And the media's complacent in this. As soon as they start talking about important topics, the American people will see just how little they differ on them. Here's Noam Chomsky talking about this:

Voting in the 2012 election will have the exact same impact as not voting at all. Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000, and George W. Bush still won. And our elections are still being stolen to this day. So if voting is meaningless, then why bother vote for a third party at all? The reason I'll be doing it personally, is that there's a stigma attached to not voting. People think that if you don't vote, you don't care. I don't think there's any other topic in my life that I think more about, really. So I don't want to be attached to those statistics that say only half the country votes, therefore half the country is ignorant and doesn't care. And I won't even be voting for Green I don't think, I'll be writing in the Socialist candidate. There are a lot of options out there, do a little research. Going about as if you live in a democracy, while living in an undemocratic state, is probably the most revolutionary act you can do as a law-abiding citizen. I'm basically just trolling by doing this. Fuck them.

And even if you do vote for one of the two major parties, it still won't make any difference. U.S. policy is bipartisan. The president doesn't even have all that much power to decide what U.S. policy is. The president answers to corporate business interests, and to some extent, the military and the CIA. A couple months ago, a report was released claiming the Obama Administration feared a military coup if he pursued Bush for his war crimes. I'm not sure if I believe that, but with the shit the CIA's done, I wouldn't put it past them. At the end of Eisenhower's administration, he began to seriously worry about the power and influence of the CIA, and even spoke about it openly in his farewell address. During the Cuban missile crisis, the commander of the Air Force put the U.S. military on the second-to-highest alert without telling anybody. What this means, is that he put the entire military into attack position. This is only one alert away from pulling the trigger, and it was not meant to be secret. The Soviets clearly saw what the Americans were doing, and it was meant to provoke them into attacking. The commander did this entirely on his own, without asking Kennedy, and he would've sparked World War III had the Soviets risen to the bait. Luckily, they were scared shitless of us and wanted to avoid a war at all costs. And during Kennedy's administration, the CIA just got out of fucking control, going so far as to propose committing terrorist attacks against American citizens. No, really. Go read that. And I don't think the CIA killed Kennedy, so don't try to blow this off as conspiracy bullshit. These things happened. That was 50 years ago, and the CIA's power has only increased. That agency has no oversight, their leadership is made up of racist neocon fanatics, and with the Patriot Act continuing unopposed, they're practically in control the government. What are you going to do about it?

Chris Hedges, in Death of the Liberal Class, talks about something called "inverted totalitarianism."

The liberal class refused to resist the devolution of the U.S. democratic system into what Sheldon Wolin calls a system of inverted totalitarianism. Inverted totalitarianism, Wolin writes, represents "the political coming of age of corporate power and the political demobilization of the citizenry." Inverted totalitarianism differs from classical forms of totalitarianism, which revolve around a demagogue or charismatic leader. It find its expression in the anonymity of the corporate state. The corporate forces behind inverted totalitarianism do not, as classical totalitarian movements do, replace decaying structures with new, revolutionary structures. They do not import new symbols of iconography. They do not offer a radical alternative. Corporate power purports, in inverted totalitarianism, to honor electoral politics, freedom, and the Constitution. But these corporate forces so corrupt and manipulate power as to make democracy impossible.

Inverted totalitarianism is not conceptualized as an ideology or objectified public policy. It is furthered by "power-holders and citizens who often seem unaware of the deeper consequences of their actions or inactions," Wolin writes. But it is not necessary to rewrite the Constitution, as fascist and communist regimes would. It is enough to exploit legitimate power by means of judicial and legislative interpretation. This exploitation ensures that the courts, populated by justices selected and ratified by members of the corporate culture, rule that huge corporate campaign contributions are protected speech under the First Amendment. It ensures that heavily financed and organized lobbying by large corporations is interpreted as an application of the people's right to petition the government. Corporations are treated by the state as persons, as the increasingly conservative U.S. Supreme Court has more and more frequently ruled, except in those cases where the "persons" agree to a "settlement." Those within corporations who commit crimes can avoid going to prison by paying large sums of money to the government without "admitting any wrongdoing," according to this twisted judicial reasoning. There is a word for this: corruption.

[...]

There is no national institution left that can accurately be described as democratic. Citizens, rather than authentically participating in power, have only virtual opinions, in what Charlotte Twight calls "participatory fascism." They are reduced to expressing themselves on issues that are meaningless, voting on American Idol or in polls conducted by the power elite. The citizens of Rome, stripped of political power, are allowed to vote to spare or kill a gladiator in the arena, a similar form of hollow public choice.

Voting in a serious way is actually counterproductive in my opinion, because it gives you a false sense of security. It makes you think you actually hold some degree of power. You don't. You don't live in a democracy. You don't pick the candidates. Political parties financed and influenced by private capitalists pick your candidates. If I'm making you feel a little hopeless right now, then good. I went through that phase, and it lasted for a couple weeks. Then I accepted it, and the hopelessness was channeled into anger. It's difficult to describe just how fucking angry I've become over the last couple months, and that's probably been resonating in this post. And I only get more angry the more I read about this shit, and I can't stop reading about it. Did you know I'm beginning to understand Marxist revolutionaries, and even anarchism? I don't want to understand those people. That's how bad it's gotten. In an undemocratic society, anger is a gift. It's yours, and it's the only amount of power you can ever hope to have.

Interesting TED Talk on what income inequality does to a society

2011-10-31T16:22:00.000-05:00

Sunday Youtube Post

2011-10-30T02:38:00.006-05:00

Ireland just elected a socialist president!

2011-10-28T22:04:00.004-05:00

Here's a great speech he gave last year on the minimum wage. Oh, to live outside a one-party state...

Amy Goodman and Chris Hedges interviewed by Charlie Rose about the Occupy Movement

2011-10-28T03:05:00.008-05:00

Can't find any embed code, but here's the video. These are two of the best minds in politics right now, and I'm pretty ecstatic about both of them being in the same room at once. Guess who has a signed Amy Goodman book (sunglasses.gif)

In addition, he had Slavoj Žižek on a couple days later. Good week, Charlie Rose, good week.

Mumia Abu Jamal, on the Occupy movement, the Tea Partiers, and the original 1773 Boston Tea Party

2011-10-28T02:28:00.001-05:00

Nailed it.

Police smash Occupy Oakland

2011-10-26T15:15:00.015-05:00

Early yesterday morning, police in full riot gear descended on the occupiers in Oakland, tossing smoke canisters and flashbang grenades, and shooting at them with rubber bullets. The protesters were peaceful and did nothing to instigate this. Here's some footage. At about a minute in, you'll see a protester being carried off who was shot in the face with a rubber bullet.

In this video, when protesters attempt to help a man lying injured in front of a police line, the police toss a flashbang grenade right in the middle of them. The injured man is a Marine who served two tours in Iraq. Edit: The man on the ground here is the same guy being carried away in the last video. It wasn't a rubber bullet, a tear gas canister hit him in the head. He's in the hospital with a fractured skull in critical condition. Doctors aren't sure whether he'll suffer permanent brain damage.

And here are cops tearing down the camp.

The crackdown is understandable. Protesters shut down Chase Bank a few days before (the black flags suggest anarchists). You got tens of thousands of people being forced out of their homes, but the moment you step into the home of the people doing the foreclosing, you get a tear gas canister shoved up your ass.

In addition, Google says that cops tried to get them to take down videos of police brutality from youtube. We got them scared shitless. Be prepared to see more things like this very soon.

Edit: Democracy Now covered Occupy Oakland today. If you don't watch this show regularly, there's never been a better time to start, they upload the show to their website and onto their podcast every day. Turn off the cable.

Hero of the Egyptian Revolution makes surprise visit to Occupy Wall Street

2011-10-26T02:39:00.007-05:00

Everybody watch this, it had me nearly in tears

Occupy Wall Street also received a statement today from Cairo, making it clear that Egypt is with us. This is so beautiful, new york is calling me I'd give anything to be there right now holy fuck with the freedom

"Why Socialism?" by Albert Einstein

2011-10-24T03:34:00.005-05:00

Originally published in the Monthly Review in May of 1949

Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.

Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has—as is well known—been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.

But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called “the predatory phase” of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.

Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and—if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous—are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.

For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.

Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supra-national organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: “Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?”

I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?

It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas.

Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept “society” means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is “society” which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word “society.”

It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished—just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human being which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.

Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society. Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.

If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly-centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time—which, looking back, seems so idyllic—is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption.

I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.

For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call “workers” all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production—although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is “free,” what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists’ requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the “free labor contract” for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from “pure” capitalism.

Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers’ goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?

Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition. Since, under present circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo, I consider the foundation of this magazine to be an important public service.

Sunday Youtube Post

2011-10-23T16:34:00.000-05:00

Heroes.

A Brief History of Imperialist Interests in Haiti

2011-10-21T19:09:00.002-05:00

Last year's earthquake in Haiti brought that little nation to the world's attention. After the initial reactions of horror and sympathy brought on by the pictures of that disaster, I'm sure a lot of people began wondering about the country's poverty. Just why was that country so poor? There's no real police force in their capital Port-au-Prince, and it is considered one of the most dangerous places on earth. How did this happen? Why are they in this situation to begin with?

It's a little-known and complex history, but everyone needs to understand it. Haiti's history is a shining example of the horrifying and unjust evils of imperialism. But Haiti's courageous mothers and fathers have also set an example for the rest of us, begging to be admired by freedom fighters all around the world.

Haiti occupies the western one-third of the island of Hispaniola, to the east of Cuba. Within fifty years of the Spanish arrival at Hispaniola, not a single Taino or Ciboney Indian was alive. Their civilizations were wiped off the earth. You may want to check out the writings of Bartolomé de las Casas for a first hand account of how this took place. Las Casas was ahead of his time. He was horrified by the atrocities he witnessed, and fought hard for aboriginal rights. But most people in his age considered him a fanatic. There are drawbacks to browsing through his writings. Your hands may ball into fists and shake with rage against your will, and you'll probably lose sleep. But you won't regret it.

Sugar would make the fortunes of the Caribbean. But farming and refining of sugarcane in the Caribbean's heat was torturous, backbreaking work, and no free man would do it. Slaves started arriving from Africa in 1502, only ten years after Columbus's arrival. The lucky ones who survived the boats were forced to work 12 hours a day, 6 days a week. On the seventh day, they were forced to grow their own food, or else starve to death. These slaves would die out just as quickly as the Taino and Coboney, but the supply from Africa seemed inexhaustible, so it mattered little to the Europeans. In Saint-Domingue alone (modern Haiti), slavery is estimated to have killed 1 million people.

In 1776, a revolution broke out in America. France eventually allied with the rebels, and Saint-Domingue, being French territory, sent over a regiment of black slaves and freedmen to fight with the Americans. They saw action at Saratoga and Savannah. When they returned, they brought back with them the idea that people don't have to put up with being dominated.

On the night of August 22, 1791, drumming was heard all over the north of Saint-Domingue. It heralded the Haitian Revolution. A Vodou priest declared that all whites must die. "We must not leave any refuge, or any hope of salvation." Over a thousand plantations were burned, and tens of thousands of people were massacred.

The United States sent arms to the black army. This move was not idealistic. Like the French, the Americans did not think of black Haitians as human beings like themselves. America simply wanted the French out of the Caribbean. President John Adams noted of the Haitians in 1799, "Independence is the worst and most dangerous condition they can be in for the United States."

A hero emerged for the Haitians, and he brought order, stability, and respect to the new army - Toussaint L'Ouverture. Born into slavery, Toussaint learned to read, and was inspired by Julius Caesar's commentaries for his political and military education. He gained control of the entire country by 1800, and declared independence. He banned slavery, annexed the Spanish side of the island to the east, Santo Domingo, and at least for a brief time, Hispaniola was united again. The Haitian Revolution remains the only successful slave revolution in the history of the world.

From the very beginning, Europe and America refused to consider Haiti a legitimate government. In February 1802, Napoleon Bonaparte sent his brother-in-law, General Charles Leclerc, to retake Haiti. Leclerc promised the Haitians that French rule in the future would be free and equal. Many of Toussaint's best generals betrayed him, and defected to the French. Toussaint was captured a few months later, his family kidnapped along with him. They were shipped to France. Toussaint defiantly told his captors,

"In overthrowing me you have cut down in Saint Domingue only the trunk of the tree of liberty; it will spring up again from the roots, for they are many and they are deep."

He was imprisoned high in the Alps. Toussaint was found dead the following spring, cold body huddled sadly next to the fireplace in his cell. His colossal monuments remain unbuilt.

France's inevitable betrayal came in July. Slavery was reimposed throughout the French empire, and Haitian blacks were thrown back into shackles. At once, black soldiers who had fought for the French rose up again. Leclerc told Napoleon that he "shall have to wage a war of extermination" if slavery was made into law again. Luckily, a yellow fever epidemic wiped out most of the French army, including Leclerc himself, and the Haitians soundly defeated what remained. They renamed the country Haiti, after it's Taino name, Ayiti, land of the mountains. General Jean-Jacques Dessalines (who remained loyal to Toussaint, and continued with the revolution) said "I have given the French cannibals blood for blood. I have avenged America."

The United States Congress banned trade with Haiti in 1806. President Thomas Jefferson felt that non-Europeans were not yet "capable" of enjoying liberty. In 1821, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams said that the United States "goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence to all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." Two years later, he formally notified Spain of America's interest in acquiring Cuba.

In 1825, the French sent warships to encircle Haiti's coastlines. That land - and slaves - was stolen French property. Now she demanded reparations: 150 million francs, in gold.

This violated the Monroe Doctrine. Issued in 1823, the Monroe Doctrine stated that any attempts at colonization or interference in the Americas by European powers, would be considered an act of aggression against the United States. Americans would've cared that this violated the Monroe Doctrine, had Haiti been ruled by white people. The U.S. did nothing.

150 million francs was ten times Haiti's annual revenue. But with French guns aimed at Port-au-Prince, they didn't have much of a choice. Haiti needed to take on loans to cover the first payment--30 million francs. Interest for 20% of this loan was demanded in advance. The entire Haitian treasury had to be emptied simply for that. Haiti finally completed paying off these "reparations" in 1947. 1947. In 1947, France, post-World War II, still considered human enslavement legitimate.

For most of Haiti's history, it would see outside influences mucking up its sovereignty, and inserting their illegitimate leaders, under the threat of military occupation. In 1915, the U.S.-backed dictator Vilbrun Guillaume Sam saw a revolution on his hands. He ordered his soldiers to massacre 167 political prisoners the moment the first rebel bullet was fired. And thus, 167 people were murdered when that bullet was fired. One soldier gouged out a child's eyes, and pried out his teeth one by one, before finally murdering him.

Sam meanwhile fled to the French embassy, where he had been so nobly granted asylum. A mob, enraged at the massacre that had just taken place, stormed the embassy, pulled him off the toilet on which he was trembling in fear, and beat him to death in the streets. Sic semper tyrannis, you son of a fuck.

News of these events soon reached the American ships anchored in the harbor of the capital. Haiti descended into anarchy, and when Woodrow Wilson ordered the invasion, the protection the American troops offered was actually fairly welcomed. But there was a problem. The U.S. didn't like the man the Haitians wanted to be president, Rosalvo Bobo. So the U.S. picked Haiti's president for them, and forced them sign a constitution they didn't want. American troops would remain in Haiti for the next nineteen years, crushing democratic movements, installing puppet governments, and running their economy. During their occupation, the United States decided to just take land from the Dominican Republic on the eastern side of the island. As soon as the U.S. left in 1934, the Dominican dictator sent over troops and massacred 20,000 Haitians who lived on the disputed land.

Don't think for a second that Haiti is an isolated case. The U.S. has a long and distinguished history of overthrowing Latin American governments for its own interests. Just yesterday, President Alvaro Colom of Guatemala apologized to his nation for a "great crime." That crime was the CIA's overthrow of Guatemala's democratic government in 1957. It was on behalf of the American monopoly, United Fruit Company. It was for bananas.

And don't think these tactics have stopped. In 2004, the U.S. once again ousted Haiti's democratically elected president. That's right. Only seven years ago. Since it's so recent, the details of course remain sketchy, but considering the fact that President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was forcibly removed from power on an American plane, guarded by American troops, it's not all that crazy to make presumptions.

Starting his life as a priest, Aristide founded an orphanage in Haiti in the 80s, and encouraged the children he served to participate in politics and democracy. This earned Aristide a lot of enemies. He's survived at least four assassination attempts, one of which was the St. Jean Bosco Massacre. On September 11, 1988, as the army and police stood by and watched, over a hundred armed men wearing red armbands entered Aristide's church during mass, and fired machine guns into the congregation. Those who tried to escape were butchered with machetes. The exact death toll is unknown, but estimates put it at 50 at the most, with even more injured.

Catholics in Rome ordered Aristide to leave Haiti, expelled him from the Salesian Order, and called his political activities an "incitement to hatred and violence." Tens of thousands of protesters blocked Aristide's access to the airport. On his expulsion, Aristide said, "The crime of which I stand accused is the crime of preaching food for all men and women."

In 1990, he won the presidency with 67% of the vote. Aristide got to work initiating substantial reforms, infuriating Haiti's business and military elite. He attempted to bring the military under civilian control, initiated investigations into humans rights violations, and banned the emigration of elite Haitians until their bank accounts could be examined.

The military overthrew him in September 1991. The Haitian National Intelligence Service (SIN) played a prominent role in this coup. The CIA set up and financed SIN in the 1980s. Emmanuel Constant, who had been on the CIA's payroll, established death squads to murder and terrorize Aristide supporters. It's important to remember that this evidence of CIA involvement is circumstantial, there's nothing concrete, and Haiti's elite wanted Aristide out from the beginning. It very well could've been internal. Aristide himself travelled around the world in his exile, building international support. The UN established a trade embargo against Haiti. George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton considered the U.S. exempt from this embargo.

In 1994, with building pressure from the UN and the U.S., the regime in Haiti backed down. With U.S. troops accompanying him, Aristide stepped back onto Haitian soil, and he was once again welcomed into office. He disbanded the army of Haiti, and established a civilian police force. This wasn't unconditional. He was forced to reverse many of his reforms thanks to U.S. pressure. Noam Chomsky says:

"When Clinton restored Aristide - Clinton of course supported the military junta, another little hidden story... he strongly supported it in fact. He even allowed the Texaco Oil Company to send oil to the junta in violation of presidential directives; Bush Sr. did so as well - well, he finally allowed the president to return, but on condition that he accept the programs of Marc Bazin, the US candidate that he had defeated in the 1990 election. And that meant a harsh neoliberal program, no import barriers. That means that Haiti has to import rice and other agricultural commodities from the US from US agribusiness, which is getting a huge part of its profits from state subsidies. So you get highly subsidized US agribusiness pouring commodities into Haiti; I mean, Haitian rice farmers are efficient but nobody can compete with that, so that accelerated the flight into the cities."

In December 2003, Aristide boldly demanded $21 billion dollars from France in reparations - the modern day sum of those 150 million francs, which launched Haiti into its current state of poverty and violence. Aristide's courageous actions to give power back to the Haitian people violated the first rule of leading nations within America's sphere of influence - shut the fuck up and do what you're told.

Two months later, in February 2004, the brutal murder of a gang leader sparked a rebellion. The brother of the assassinated gang leader blamed Aristide, took over the gang, and renamed it from the "Cannibal Army," to the "National Revolutionary Front for the Liberation of Haiti." Immediately, Aristide's lawyers claimed that the U.S. began to supply them with weapons. On February 28, Aristide was kidnapped and flown out of the country.

Three days later, US Congresswoman Maxine Waters, and Aristide family friend Randall Robinson, both reported that Aristide had called them from the plane, and told them that he had been abducted, and was being held hostage by an armed military guard. He said that someone from the U.S. Embassy came to his house and told him that he would be killed "and a lot of Haitians would be killed" if he did not leave with them immediately. He was taken to Jamaica, and then to South Africa. Wikileaks cables have since revealed that the U.S. pressured South Africa to take and hold Aristide, or else face the loss of a UN Security Council seat. When asked for an explanation, Colin Powell practically admitted it: "it might have been better for members of Congress who have heard these stories to ask us about the stories before going public with them so we don't make a difficult situation that much more difficult."

Aristide remained in exile until earlier this year. He stepped foot on Haitian soil again on March 17. Barack Obama asked the South African president to delay his departure until after the Haitian elections, fearing it would be "destabilizing." You know what else is destabilizing? Military coups.

Aristide's party was not allowed to run in the election. Stepping off the airplane, he told the thousands of supporters waiting for him, "The exclusion of Fanmi Lavalas is the exclusion of the Haitian people. In 1804, the Haitian revolution marked the end of slavery. Today, may the Haitian people end exiles and coup d’états, while peacefully moving from social exclusion to inclusion."

Amy Goodman of Democracy Now was with Aristide on the plane when it landed. Here's that tearjerking episode in its entirety. Aristide himself is interviewed near the end.

It's a little surprising that the U.S. government suddenly started pretending to care about the Haitian people when the earthquake struck in 2010. Professional fatass and racist Rush Limbaugh said that Obama was going to use the crisis to "boost his credibility with the black community." He blamed Haiti's poverty on "communism," and said "We've already donated to haiti, it's called US income tax." HERP DERP.

Televangelist joke Pat Robertson said the earthquake struck Haiti because they are "cursed" and they signed a "pact to the devil." Here are Keith Olbermann's brief, but brilliant comments concerning these sorry excuses for human beings.

But more importantly, here are comments from the Haitians themselves. It starts out with Robertson's comments, and a Haitian gives his reaction at 1:05.

So. This is why Haiti is Haiti. It's because of us. We did this to them. So, as the rest of America continues to wave their flags in blissful ignorance of the atrocities their government continues to commit in their names, there's a quiet phrase uttered in Godspeed's song, The Dead Flag Blues, which observant men and women have the mental capacity to reflect on:

"I open up my wallet. And it's full of blood."

Chris Hedges interviewed at Occupy Wall Street

2011-10-18T21:12:00.002-05:00

Read this guy's books

Marine vet who stood up to cops at Times Square interviewed on Countdown

2011-10-17T22:27:00.007-05:00

If you haven't seen this yet, you should watch it.

Olbermann interviewed him tonight, ~~here are parts of it:~~EDIT: The whole thing's up on youtube:

Also, when I went to Current's website to get that video, I saw this

YEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS.

We're finally getting a television station with a liberal voice. MSNBC's okay, but they're too dependent on the two-party system, and they never criticize the Democrats for being a moderate conservative party. Current now has two of the three liberal media figures I truly love. Come on over, Rachel. You know you want to.

Sunday Youtube Post

2011-10-16T11:41:00.000-05:00

Meet the Guy Who Snitched on Occupy Wall Street to the FBI and NYPD

2011-10-16T02:24:00.010-05:00

A fat middle aged white conservative has infiltrated Occupy Wall Street!

Thomas Ryan is a self-described "security expert." He's a conservative. He's an American. He showed up to Occupy Wall Street meetings, got on their mailing list, and forwarded their emails to the NYPD, NBC, his buddy at the FBI, and yellow journalist Andrew Breitbart. Of course, nobody asked for them except for Breitbart, he just sort of did it. You're exposed, Occupy Wall Street. More like OCCUPY COMMUNISM.

Ryan is such an expert with security, that he accidentally exposed himself as the “snitch” when he forgot to delete his own forwarded emails, upon releasing everything. Hey Thomas Ryan, great job infiltrating an organization that welcomes everybody and has nothing to hide. Kudos.

Of course, nobody gives a shit about this because there’s nothing incriminating. OR IS THERE? One email:

"We’re in this for the long haul. There are no “solutions” that can be presented quickly to make us go away. And so there will be moments where our presence is no longer an uncomfortable and unknown variable, but rather is normalized and integrated. It’s in those moments that we have to push the envelop [sic], pry open the space of possibility even farther. We go as far as we can to destabalize [sic], but maintain momentum. And when that’s the new “normal” then we go farther. That’s how change happens, how we shift the terrain and the terms of the game."

Andrew Breitbart sees this for what it really is — Communism. Occupy Wall Street is actually trying to “destabilize global markets.” It doesn’t matter that the words “global markets” are not included in this email. Andrew Breitbart can read between the lines. But that’s not all. Thomas Ryan himself goes on to say that Occupy Wall Street is in league with Al-Qaeda. It's funny because conservatives say these protesters are the ones who have nothing better to do, and live in their parents' basements.

Ryan:

My respect for FDNY & NYPD stems from them risking their lives to save mine when my house was on fire in sunset park when I was 8 yrs old. Also, for them risking their lives and saving many family and friends during 9/11.

Don’t you find it Ironic that out of all the NYPD involved with the protest, [protesters] have only targeted the ones with Black Ribbons, given to them for their bravery during 9/11?

I am sorry if we see things differently, I try to look at everything as a whole and in patterns. Everything we do in life and happens in life, there is a pattern behind it.

Occupy Movement goes worldwide tomorrow

2011-10-14T22:33:00.003-05:00

So the protest in New York dodged a bullet. The mayor backed off and the park wasn't stormed. Which is a good thing, because they weren't moving, and it would've been a bloodbath. I can't believe how easy it was though. The unity and decisiveness of the people there is really inspiring, they just drew a line and said "no." A quote from Gene Sharp comes to mind: "Dictators are never as strong as they tell you they are — and the people are never as weak as they think they are."

Tomorrow is where it's happening though. Protesters all around the world are taking to the streets in solidarity with the Occupy movement. Italy couldn't wait. Here's protesters in Milan today tossing fruit at riot police, and storming the offices of Goldman Sachs.

FUCK YEAH!

There's one going on in downtown Springfield tomorrow. But they're only wanting about 200 people, and actual numbers usually go well below estimates, so you know... meh. Springfield's sort of a moderate conservative town, so I doubt this will really do anything, aside from mental masturbation, and getting my Republican parents pissed off at seeing my face on the nightly news. I'd rather watch the bigger protests over the internet, where things matter. The real action's in New York and D.C. Here's a photo from the one in D.C., where protesters have been signing this huge banner.

John Adams, reflecting on his life in his old age, once estimated how much of the American population supported the revolution. He guessed that about a third of Americans supported it, a third opposed it, and a third remained neutral. That seems sort of similar to the Occupy movement. A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll (WSJ is conservative) shows that 37% of Americans support the movement. But hey, only 18% oppose it! That's much better than Tea Party numbers, where only 28% support it, and 41% oppose it! Why the hell doesn't this "I don't know" 50% get off their damn fence, are they damn idiots or something?

A few organizations are throwing in their support, and I'm putting up their statements. You should take the time to read them. Here's one from a group of intellectuals, activists, and leftists in China, who oppose China's oppressive capitalist government:

The eruption of the “Wall Street Revolution” is an historical indicator that the popular democratic revolution that will soon sweep the world is set to begin. It is an especially significant and important event for this movement. Before this most recent action, street protests had virtually been exclusively used as a tool by US elite groups to subvert other countries. Now, however, the “Wall Street Revolution” – with its goals of shared prosperity and popular democracy – has launched protests in the country that is the self-proclaimed defender of democracy. This will inevitably strike a hard blow against the US elite group, itself responsible for the plunder and oppression of people all over the world, and the group that pushed the world into crisis and instability. The protests ring the death knell of the rule of capital. Popular democracy will replace elite democracy in the 21st Century, and the curtain has lifted on the movement from elite politics to popular politics. Using the language of the “Wall Street Revolution,” this is a struggle of the popular 99% against the corrupt 1%, a struggle of the popular 99% against the elite 1%,and is the final struggle of the popular forces against elite capitalist rule.

The world belongs to all of the people of the world. Countries belong to the entire people of those countries. Even moreso, wealth is produced by the entire people, and therefore should be shared by the entire people, it cannot be monopolized by the 1% – or even less than 1% – that is made up of an extremely small number of elites. The demand for common prosperity in economics, and popular democracy in politics has become an unstoppable historical trend! The rapid expansion of a fictitious economy and the massive flow of social wealth has created an amply reliable material foundation for the realization of the common wealth of all people. The development of internet technology and political civilization has created the conditions for human society to make the transition from capitalist democracy to popular democracy. Human society is fully capable of transforming, on the foundation of the past democracy of slaveholders, the democracy of feudal lords, and the democracy of the capitalist class, to make the fundamental shift from the democracy of the elites to real popular democracy. Common prosperity and popular democracy will become the main content of the historical transformation of the 21stCentury. No matter how brutally the American riot police will attempt to suppress the participants in the Wall Street revolution, no matter how much the global elites – especially those in the U.S. and China –try to suppress news of the Wall Street revolution, they cannot stop the vigorous growth and ultimate victory of the democratic revolution of the people of the world.

The violent repression and virtual blockade of news about the “Wall Street Revolution” by elite groups led by the US proves that the fate of oppressed people around the world is the same, regardless of whether they are from developed or developing countries, whether they are from so-called democracies or authoritarian countries. The international elite was the first class to link-up internationally via globalization. Their plunder of public wealth and repression of popular democratic movements is cruel and far-reaching, and utterly lacking in freedom and democracy. So-called freedom and democracy in modern society is nothing more than democracy for capitalism, an elite democracy. Freedom is another word for the elite to plunder, oppress and violently suppress others. Popular forces have been completely excluded from the freedoms and democracy of modern society, and the extent of democratic rights is to choose between presidential candidates that have already been vetted by capital. You can vote once every four years, but you have no way of affecting the people above you who directly determine your fate: your boss or superior. And there is no way of constraining the capitalist oligarchs who can take away the wealth of the majority of the population with the slight of hand of fictitious capital. Freedom and democracy have become a virtual game, nothing more than a tool to subvert other countries. Now the popular and democratic world revolution – symbolized by the “Wall Street Revolution”- demands an end to this political game, and that freedom and democracy be returned to the people. Democracy is not just a check on the president, but a check on government officials; democracy is not just a check on power, but a check on capital. If the rights and privileges of feudal and absolute rulers are understood to be a sin and abomination, then giving those rights to capital is also a travesty.

Securities and computer networks should have been two crucial elements of our shift from an industrial society to an information society, from a material economy to a virtual economy, from capitalism to a human-centered economic system, and from elite politics to popular politics. But the elite class has turned securities into a tool of appropriation akin to the ‘indulgences’ issued by middle-age church functionaries in Europe. In the new securitized economy, all the public’s wealth can easily melt into thin air – including their houses, wages, labor power and even their hope for the future. All these things have become the targets of appropriation by a tiny elite minority. Both the white-collar middle classes in developed countries – owners of fictitious property, and the blue-collar workers in developing countries who cannot afford housing or health care, belong in point of fact to the same class: modern proletariat. When the people protest the unprecedented plunder and vast income gap perpetrated by fictitious capital, they are met with violent repression – both in so-called democracy countries that claim to be defenders of human rights such as the US, and in authoritarian countries that are said to lack freedom and democracy. Faced with street protests erupting from the Balkans to North Africa, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have repeated over and over, “The rights of peaceful protest and the occupation of public space should be respected at all times.” Yet when US citizens attempt to exercise this right they immediately are faced with violent repression by armed police, and a blockade by the news media. If this is reaction of the US – the self-proclaimed leader in human rights – then we can imagine what the reaction will be in other capitalist countries. Rule by the capitalist elite is just as described by the “Wall Street Revolution” – everywhere. There is nowhere left were we can live and die as people.

The eruption of the “Wall Street Revolution” in the heart of the world’s financial empire shows that 99% of the world’s people remain exploited and oppressed – regardless of whether they are from developed or developing countries. People throughout the world see their wealth being plundered, and their rights being taken away. Economic polarization is now a common threat to all of us. The conflict between popular and elite rule is also found in all countries. Now, however, the popular democratic revolution meets repression not just from its own ruling class, but also from the world elite that has formed through globalization. The “Wall Street Revolution” has met with repression from US police, but also suffers from a media blackout organized by the Chinese elite.

The same fate, the same pain, the same problems, the same conflict. Faced with a common enemy in an elite global class that has already linked-up, the people of the world have only one option: to unite and in a unified and shared struggle overturn the rule of the capitalist elite, to ensure that everyone enjoys the basic human rights of work, housing, health care, education, and a secure old-age. But we must go further if we are to realize shared prosperity and popular democracy in a new socialist world historical framework, If we are to fully escape and neutralize the crises and disasters that capitalism has brought the human race, and realize harmonious social development.

The great “Wall Street Revolution” and the great popular “Chilean Winter” that preceded it signal that the day when we realize shared prosperity and popular democracy is approaching. It signals that worldwide popular and democratic socialist movement – dormant since the 1970s – is waking up again. But this time, it will be the final battle to put capitalism in its grave. The victory of popular democracy and death of elite rule are inevitable! The embers of revolt are scattered amongst us all, waiting to burn with the slightest breeze. The great era of popular democracy, set to change history, has arrived again!

Resolutely support the American people in the “Wall Street Revolution”!

Resolutely support all street protests pushing for shared prosperity and popular democracy!

Long live the “Wall Street Revolution”!

Long live the global movement for popular democracy!

Long live popular international solidarity!

FUCK. YEAH.

Here's a statement the Socialist Alliance released today:

The Occupy Wall Street protest started small. But it has now become a global movement, with occupy events planned in about 1500 cities worldwide.

It’s born out of the recognition that, in country after country, ordinary people are being made to pay for an economic crisis caused by the super-rich. The 99% are being told they must surrender their livelihoods, their future, their security and their dignity to keep a broken system afloat.

In contrast, the 1% are having a wonderful crisis. The world’s biggest corporations have emerged stronger, more profitable and more powerful than ever before.

To add insult to injury, the 1% want to convince us that we, the 99%, are to blame for the crisis. They say our wages are too high and that we don’t work hard enough. They say our social security systems are not affordable and that our rights at work are should be done away with. They say our public education and health systems are not efficient and that our public services must be privatised.

The occupy movement is raising a challenge to the power of the 1%. Its strength lies in its diversity, breadth, unity and grassroots democracy.

In New York, after two weeks of discussion, the protesters agreed on a declaration that said none of our big problems can be overcome unless the 99% can unite in a movement for real democracy.

The occupy movement has spread to Australia, with protests planned to start here from October 15.

It’s true the economic situation here is not yet as dire as in the US, where the richest 400 Americans have more wealth than the poorest 150 million.

But Australia is headed in the same direction. We should not wait to protest until things get as bad as the US, Spain or Greece, where inequality reigns supreme.

Inequality in Australia is large and growing. Already, the richest 20% of Australians have 61% of the wealth. The poorest 20% have just 1% of the wealth. Australia’s richest 11 individuals have more than the poorest 800,000 households combined.

Further, there are many reasons why we should take this opportunity to start to bring Australia’s own 1% to account.

We should occupy because White Australia has occupied stolen Aboriginal land for more than two centuries. The dispossession of Aboriginal land and culture continues today with the infamous Northern Territory intervention, which is forcing Aboriginal people from their traditional homelands. Today, Aboriginal Australians are the most imprisoned people in the world. To Australia’s eternal shame, their life expectancy is still 19 years lower than other Australians.

We should occupy cities in Australia because the richest mining and energy corporations already occupy our atmosphere, pumping it full of greenhouse gases and ignoring the warnings from scientists that climate change threatens to destroy life as we know it.

We should occupy because coal seam gas and other fossil fuel companies already occupy our farmlands, our forests, our drinking water catchments and our communities. With government support, the fossil fuel industry has free reign across the country, regardless of the serious health and pollution risks.

We should occupy because the Australian military already occupies other countries, and is bringing endless war and countless civilian deaths to Afghanistan.

We should occupy because Australian governments, Liberal and Labor, have occupied Australia with refugee detention centres — modern-day concentration camps that bring immense suffering to desperate asylum seekers that deserve our help.

We should occupy because government laws already occupy our relationships, denying the right of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people to marry if they choose and making queers second-class citizens without equal rights.

We should occupy because restrictive anti-union laws already occupy our workplaces, denying the right of working people to organise to defend their rights at work.

We should occupy because governments have helped corporations occupy our public assets, turning services for the public good into profit machines for the 1%.

And we should occupy because Australia’s richest corporations already occupy our parliaments, state and federal.

The best democracy capitalism can deliver today is the right to tick a box once every few years. Between elections, corporations have open access to politicians while the rest of us are shut out, expected to bear the consequences in silence.

The 1% give millions to the big political parties each year and they demand a return on their investment. They skew the mainstream media debate in their interests because they are the mainstream media. They pour millions into cynical public relations and advertising campaigns. Corporate power over the political process is growing relentlessly.

The global 1% will not change their ways on their own account. Profit and greed are their only gods. Only the 99%, acting together, can put an end to the system of corporate rule and build something new in its place, a system that puts human need before corporate greed.

We won’t be silenced. Our power lies in our numbers. United as communities, with our unions and with each other, we can raise a challenge to corporate power.

FUCK. YEAH.

And this last one isn't from a group, but it's a great article about tomorrow's events. It sort of borders on propaganda, but hey, it gets the blood pumping.

It is five minutes to dawn and the wind smells like freedom

It is no longer five minutes to midnight. After Arab Spring leaps to Spain, and Greece, and on to New York’s Wall Street, it suddenly feels like five minutes to dawn.

We no longer need assume that there is no time to stop the world going to shit. There is an opening and we are flooding into it.

We are suddenly in a moment that is not marked by exhausted routine protests that speak for no one and speak to no one.

The oppressors (our common enemies) are no longer unchallenged — or more no longer unchallengeable. They are instead rocked backward, confused, bewildered, furious. The billionaire mayor of New York can’t clear a tiny park — and suddenly the question is not how to force the occupiers out, but whether he may be forced out of power if he pursues that course.

For so long, all of the things that leave people crying at night: the numbing global poverty itself, the painful loneliness of atomized non-community, the discarding of the old and the young, endless war for dominance, global structures of empire, the ravaging of nature, the manufacture of ignorance, intolerance and bigotry, the rape and casual daily brutality toward women — all of these things have seemed untouchable and permanent.

Now suddenly….a different day is approaching — where we can increasingly see and act in in startling ways, with rippling new impact. Ears perk up. Sights are raised. The pulse quickens. Suddenly we recognize the faces of others — once unknown to us — animated and awake with a common spirit. The powerful look discredited and vulnerable.

Morning is coming…. Go and wake the sleeping ones.

The hope of a radically new society, of abolishing capitalism, reveals it is far from exhausted. No, it suddenly springs from every pore. These occupations of dozens of city squares are a wind that heralds a coming storm.

This is a mood that produces actual revolutionary movements and dedicated militants of a new truth process.

Advanced, radical and discontented people who felt alone and isolated — suddenly realize they are millions. Allies emerge out of shadows, attracted by each early flame.

Networks congeal almost overnight. New thought jumps from human to human, morphing in each passage, adapting and refining. The forms of expression shake off the old and exhausted…A new generation invents its language from the messaging in the air.

Let’s understand what this is. Let’s recognize where we stand. Let’s embrace the possibilities within the new.

This break in the norm reveals what has already moved into place, and had long been building. And that revelation transforms everything — especially because we all see it together, in common, and recognize ourselves in that picture.

Be relentlessly impatient with this criminal system.

Be lovingly patient with each other — as we find the common language to act and transform.

Listen for the new. And grasp firmly to the truths that has so long been hidden and denied — but that we are now speaking from center stage.

Let’s seize the high moral ground (a precious position to hold), and never give it up. And be aware that thugs with suits and video cameras will be coming to snatch that ground away and portray us as fools, or dupes, or barbarians at the gate.

Above all: Let’s consciously go for the whole thing!

The change we want is about taking the accumulated wealth, technology, hard work, science, and connections of a complex global civilization — and finally (finally!) putting it into the service of us all, including the very least and previously powerless among us. It is about the voiceless suddenly speaking, and the wealthy suddenly becoming silent.

This is not about “budget financing” (!) but about power in the most fundamental sense. We don’t want to tax the zillionaires of finance capital — we need to rip their zombie hands from the throats of us all…. so we can breathe, perhaps for the first time in our lives. And so we can change the whole direction of the world.

The “freedom” we want is not the individual license promoted by smug Republican ideologues (the freedom of “up with me, you suck”). Instead, we need to seek the freedom of people, together, to shape their common world — an ethos of mutual caring and solidarity That is the freedom (the ability and possibility) that comes when new power of the people wrenches everything from the very few.

A revolution starts in ideas and mutual recognition. It then moves to the terrain of power.

At this moment: we can get a glimmer of how empires break, and how armies start to unravel. They don’t die on the battlefields, at least not at first — but in sudden re-allegiances of the young and awakening.

We cannot “take America back” — we never had it. But we can take over our own lives, our own planet and our common future — wrenching them away from sinister and hostile forces.

This moment of occupations is not about some concept of “America” anyway. It is global — because our society, our future and our biosphere are all global. This wave of contagious occupations and manifestations is about who will shape this beautiful blue orb as a whole. And we cannot allow that to be diminished and corrupted by slogans of America First.

The old “American dream” promised each one the ability to climb up upon the others. This new coming dream can be about a global community of mutual flourishing among human beings — about substituting community for the sale of humanity.

Let’s go for the whole thing. Let’s go for the future itself. Let’s save the only earth we have. Let’s aim to wipe out together the poverty of the many and the suffering of the abused.

Here at dawn, let’s envision the day we want, and make that revolutionary vision the center of debate, for once, and perhaps from now on.

FUCK. YEAH.

In closing, I think I'll just post this amazing video again from the other day

"But things can change—and sometimes they change very fast. Take the Civil Rights Movement in the United States: over a ten-year period, it was just a sea-change. Or take the feminist movement, which a lot of you are involved in: the changes came very fast. It went from being virtually nothing, a little nitpicking about activist groups having the women licking the stamps, and within a couple years it was a major movement, swept the country. When the time is right, things happen fast. They don’t happen without any basis—things have to have been happening for a long period. But then they can crystallize at the right time, and often become very significant."
Noam Chomsky

Occupy Wall Street Update

2011-10-13T21:08:00.006-05:00

A couple weeks ago, Sean Hannity told an OccupyWallStreet protester on his radio show “you don’t believe in liberty, you don’t believe in freedom.” When the woman explains that her father would've died from lack of medical attention under Hannity's utopia, Hannity ignores everything she says and calls her a Marxist. Here's the exchange if you can bear it.

This video was uploaded on the internet a couple days ago. Here's a couple Marines giving their thoughts about Sean Hannity calling them anti-freedom and anti-liberty.

The woman he interviewed said that "you can merge socialism together with capitalism" (a pretty courageous thing to say on Hannity's show, if you ask me). Hannity, without bothering to inquire what this system would entail, goes on to spew that she's calling for "an elite class, like under Marx." I've heard people like Taibbi and Chomsky say that they don't go after right wing idiots because it's just too easy. I respect them more for that, but this is therapeutic for me okay?

First of all, there wasn't anything "under Marx." Karl Marx was never the leader of a country. Marx was a philosopher who lived in Germany. He never called for an "elite class." He called for the destruction of the elite class (the bourgeoisie) which develops naturally under the capitalist system. In an attempt to bash Marxism, Sean Hannity uses the exact argument that Marxists use against capitalism. Welcome to the club, comrade.

Hannity tells this woman she doesn't believe in freedom or liberty. The definition of freedom is "the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint." The definition of liberty is "the state of being free within a society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views."

People have much more freedom and liberty under socialism. Capitalism depends on a system called wage slavery. Many abolitionists and freed slaves felt that this was just as oppressive as actual slavery, and in fact, it's exactly what former slaveowners used to drive blacks back onto the plantations after the Civil War. In its most oppressive form, capitalism is literally slavery. All too often, this system gives you no choice but to endure backbreaking work for the bare essentials of survival. 77% of Americans are now living paycheck to paycheck.

Under true socialism (not the totalitarian regimes that people claim are "socialist"), people decide for themselves how many hours they work. The amount of money you earn fluctuates depending on how many hours you choose to put in. There are no "bosses" because everyone is equal, as the Declaration of Independence states, and company decisions are made by democratic process through the workers. Workers control the means of production. This frees you from the "oppressive restrictions imposed by authority" and gives you control over your own life. The man who tells you this isn't liberty and freedom is trying to get you back onto the plantation and shut up.

Hannity isn't the only bourgeoisie trying to destroy democracy. Here's a quote from professional drug addict Rush Limbaugh:

Interesting words, coming from a fat fuck parasite whose life doesn't matter.

We all need to pay attention to Wall Street tomorrow. Tomorrow, as early as 6:00 am, Brookfield Properties will be sending in cleaning crews to Zuccotti Park. Zuccotti Park is where the protesters have been sleeping for the past month, and Brookfield Properties owns it. If the protesters aren't gone by the time the cleaning crews arrive, then the police will be sent in to forcibly remove them. Upon "being allowed to return," the protesters will no longer be able to bring equipment into the park, or tents, or water proof tarps, and there will be no lying down of any kind.

This is it. They're finally trying to break it up. The same thing is happening in Austin, and if I remember right, I think they also tried it in Wisconsin. Protesters are now in the process of cleaning up the park themselves before morning, so the crews will have no excuse to enter. This is very timely, considering there's a massive worldwide protest in solidarity with OccupyWallStreet scheduled for Saturday.

The New York chapter of the National Lawyers Guild sent Brookfield Properties a letter.

There is no basis in the law for your request for police intervention, nor have you cited any. Such police action without a prior court order would be unconstitutional and unlawful.

The opinions that make up the Occupy movement vary, but how incredibly fitting, that they send in the one entity that everyone there is unified against -- business and government intertwining to limit freedoms.

EDIT: Politico's reporting Brookfield is backing down!

Malcolm X: If You're Black, You Were Born in Prison

2011-10-13T04:03:00.001-05:00

I Am Not Moving - A Short Film About OccupyWallStreet

2011-10-12T15:58:00.002-05:00

Happy International Day of Solidarity with Indigenous People

2011-10-11T03:41:00.005-05:00

Here's some classic pro-Columbus propaganda from god knows when. Really pisses me off. I noticed a few inconsistencies.

First off, this claims that white people had "learned how to build houses," while Native Americans only lived in "huts." What?

And second, everybody in 1492 knew the world was round. That had been a proven fact since the ancient world, and as far as we can tell, nobody ever truly believed that the world was flat. The reason why nobody would fund Columbus' journey is because they thought his calculations for the size of the earth were wrong, and he'd starve to death before he reached India. And they were right. If he hadn't hit the Americas, that's exactly what would've happened.

The video did get one thing right, the Indians were extremely friendly. They swam out to meet Columbus' ships when he arrived. Columbus wrote they "are so naive and so free with their possessions that no one who has not witnessed them would believe it. When you ask for something they have, they never say no. To the contrary, they offer to share with anyone..." Columbus repaid their kindness by kidnapping and killing them. At 4:20 it shows the Indians waving to Columbus in a friendly goodbye, but I'm not sure they would've been that happy to see Columbus kidnapping their friends and family, convinced they would lead him to gold. At Hispaniola, two Indians were stabbed to death when they refused to trade as many bows and arrows as Columbus wanted. When Columbus set sail for Spain again, his prisoners froze to death on his ships.

This video neglected to mention that Columbus' only goals were acquiring slaves and gold, and "discovery" was the last thing on his mind. They didn't show the Europeans taking women and children as slaves, and forcing them into sex and labor. They didn't show the mass suicides by the Arawaks once they realized that resistance would only mean certain death. They didn't show the Arawak mothers drowning their infants to save them from the Spaniards' brutality. They didn't show Columbus saying, "Let us in the name of the Holy Trinity go on sending all the slaves that can be sold." They didn't mention that within two years of Columbus' "discovery," half of Haiti's 250,000 inhabitants were dead.

America was not a "new" world, and it was not "discovered." It had millions of people in it before the Spanish arrived to slaughter, enslave, and rape everyone. It was just as populous as Europe, and a thousand times more cultured. They treated their women with respect, valued their opinions in government, and allowed them to separate from their partners if they chose. They had democratic governments centuries before the United States was founded. They had a society that valued kindness, and encouraged taking care of one another, a sort of proto-socialism. Christopher Columbus set the foundations for the American slave trade, the most brutal system of slavery that has ever existed. The brutal and horrendous racism that resulted bleeds the nation to this day. Columbus apologists, by claiming that it's "progress" to commit genocide against some of the most advanced cultures that have ever appeared on earth, are no better than the Spaniards who put them to the sword.

Monday Youtube Post

2011-10-10T21:24:00.000-05:00

SHAMWOW

In honor of Black History Month, here are some short bios on a bunch of revolutionaries

More clashes at Occupy Oakland

Sunday Youtube Post

Ralph Nader on Democracy Now, completely destroying Obama's State of the Union

Obama's Crackdown on Whistleblowers

Sunday Youtube Post

Alex Molnar: "If My Marine Son Is Killed . . . I Won't Forgive You, Mr. President" (August 29, 1990)

Pastor Jeremiah Wright's response to 9/11: America's Chickens are Coming Home to Roost

Chris Hedges is suing the Obama administration

Newsweek: Why Are Obama's Critics So Dumb?

Sunday Youtube Post

Fox News' John Stossel: Young people are stupid and shouldn't vote

Video leaked of U.S. soldier urinating on dead Afghans sparks outrage

Guantanamo Concentration Camp turns 10

"Hello. I'm going to read a declaration of a state of war... Within the next 14 days we will attack a symbol or institution of American injustice."

Sunday Youtube Post

Here's a video showing what Obama supporters are voting for

2011: The Year of Global Revolution

TYT: Why defenders of Obama and the NDAA are wrong

You are now living in a police state

Zinn on Obama: If you want to end terrorism, you have to stop being terrorists

Sunday Youtube Post

My inner gun enthusiast has been reawakened

U.S. Marine who served in Iraq throws his medals to the ground

Iraq war "ends"

"We need to decide that we will not go to war, whatever reason is conjured up by the politicians or the media, because war in our time is always indiscriminate, a war against innocents, a war against children."Howard Zinn

Sunday Youtube Post

Dan Carlin - The Bitter Harvest of Fear

2009 The Intelligence Squared Debate

Christopher Hitchens dead at 62

Want a lawyer? Shut up.

White House announces the president will not veto the defense bill that will allow the military to detain citizens indefinitely

I am seriously considering throwing in my support for Ron Paul

Vatican Cardinal says Christians in the United States are 'well on the way' to being persecuted

America is becoming a fascist state

Sunday Youtube Post

Favorite albums of 2011, part 2

International Socialist Organization's Year In Review

Sunday Youtube Post

lol

Here's the Waco you'll never hear about

Sunday Youtube Post

Arab Spring / OWS Update

Game Review - The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

Sunday Youtube Post

Here's a short lecture introducing existentialism

Monday Youtube Post

"Terrorism Over Tripoli" by Howard Zinn

Documentary on the Haitian Revolution

Happy Birthday, Carl Sagan

Stephen Colbert goes to Occupy Wall Street

Sunday Youtube Post

Occupy protests get chaotic; police put a second veteran in the hospital, nearly kill him

Before Occupy Wall Street, there was Seattle

An Appeal to Vote Third Party in 2012

Interesting TED Talk on what income inequality does to a society

Sunday Youtube Post

Ireland just elected a socialist president!

Amy Goodman and Chris Hedges interviewed by Charlie Rose about the Occupy Movement

Mumia Abu Jamal, on the Occupy movement, the Tea Partiers, and the original 1773 Boston Tea Party

Police smash Occupy Oakland

Hero of the Egyptian Revolution makes surprise visit to Occupy Wall Street

"Why Socialism?" by Albert Einstein

Sunday Youtube Post

A Brief History of Imperialist Interests in Haiti

Chris Hedges interviewed at Occupy Wall Street

Marine vet who stood up to cops at Times Square interviewed on Countdown

Sunday Youtube Post

Meet the Guy Who Snitched on Occupy Wall Street to the FBI and NYPD

Occupy Movement goes worldwide tomorrow

Occupy Wall Street Update

Malcolm X: If You're Black, You Were Born in Prison

I Am Not Moving - A Short Film About OccupyWallStreet

Happy International Day of Solidarity with Indigenous People

Monday Youtube Post

"We need to decide that we will not go to war, whatever reason is conjured up by the politicians or the media, because war in our time is always indiscriminate, a war against innocents, a war against children."

Howard Zinn