An Accidental Invasion – We Love It !!

Why can’t the US do stuff like this? Well, for one, there’s way too much money and inflated ego involved in US efforts. We believe all US politicians should take mandatory mindfulness and meditation training. And the population should hold the purse-strings.

Swiss Accidentally Invade Liechtenstein
AP

ZURICH, Switzerland (March 2) – What began as a routine training exercise almost ended in an embarrassing diplomatic incident after a company of Swiss soldiers got lost at night and marched into neighboring Liechtenstein.

According to Swiss daily Blick, the 170 infantry soldiers wandered 1.2 miles across an unmarked border into the tiny principality early Thursday before realizing their mistake and turning back.

A spokesman for the Swiss army confirmed the story but said that there were unlikely to be any serious repercussions for the mistaken invasion.

“We’ve spoken to the authorities in Liechtenstein and it’s not a problem,” Daniel Reist told The Associated Press.

Read the rest here.

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

The Iraq Syndrome

Tomgram: Chernus, An American Identity Crisis in a Losing War

In recent days, we’ve have two reports on timing, when it comes to the future of the President’s “surge” plan for Baghdad. According to Richard A. Oppel of the New York Times, “The plan, which calls for 17,000 additional troops in Baghdad, will continue until at least this fall, the second-ranking commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, told CNN on Wednesday. ‘I don’t want to put an exact time on it, but a minimum of six to nine months.'” On the other hand, Simon Tisdale of the British Guardian reports that the new military “brain trust,” headed by Lt. General David H. Petraeus, which has just surged into Baghdad’s Green Zone, is operating on a more truncated schedule. Petraeus’s men, who believe themselves to be working with too little of everything, especially boots on the ground — since the Iraqi government has once again not delivered its promised full contingents — have “concluded the US has six months to win the war in Iraq — or face a Vietnam-style collapse in political and public support that could force the military into a hasty retreat.”

Give me a buck for every predicted six-to-nine month window of opportunity from the military or the White House in the last four years and I’d be rich as Croesus. Amid the hopeless chaos of Iraq, you can already hear various individuals preparing their exculpatory “exit strategies” from this war. So many key players are going to stab one another in the back with their various explanations for failure in the coming years that blood will run between the pages of the many memoirs still to be published.

Of course, for the neocons, the Bush White House, the Vice President and his crew, and various military and intelligence types, the real villains will not, in the end, be themselves. Count on this: The “weak-willed” American people will take the brunt of the official blame (with the “liberal” media, Democratic and Republican politicians who opposed the war, and the antiwar movement, as well as the incompetence of anyone but the speaker of the moment, thrown in for good measure).

As Ira Chernus points out below, we’ve heard this tune before — and once upon a time, in the post-Vietnam years, it ended up playing us for a long, long while. The question is: Will history repeat itself in the wake of an American defeat in the Middle East?

Here’s the money paragraph in the Tisdale piece, which should have a Surgeon General’s warning attached to it:

“Possibly the biggest longer-term concern of Gen Petraeus’s team is that political will in Washington may collapse just as the military is on the point of making a decisive counter-insurgency breakthrough. According to a senior administration official, speaking this week, this is precisely what happened in the final year of the Vietnam war.”

Mom, I tell you that fish I had hooked was at least as long as the boat and I was just bringing it in when you made me come home… Tom

Will We Suffer from the Iraq Syndrome? Beware of the Boomerang
By Ira Chernus

The Iraq syndrome is headed our way. Perhaps it’s already here.

A clear and growing majority of Americans now tell pollsters that that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a mistake, that it’s a bad idea to “surge” more troops into Baghdad, that we need a definite timeline for removing all our troops.

The nation seems to be remembering a lesson of the Vietnam War: We can’t get security by sending military power abroad. Every time we try to control another country by force of arms, we only end up more troubled and less secure.

But the Iraq syndrome is a two-edged sword, and there is no telling which way it will cut in the end.

Remember the “Vietnam syndrome,” which made its appearance soon after the actual war ended in defeat. It did restrain our appetite for military interventions overseas — but only briefly. By the late 1970s, it had already begun to boomerang. Conservatives denounced the syndrome as evidence of a paralyzing, Vietnam-induced surrender to national weakness. Their cries of alarm stimulated broad public support for an endless military build-up and, of course, yet more imperial interventions.

The very idea of such a “syndrome” implied that what the Vietnam War had devastated was not so much the Vietnamese or their ruined land as the traumatized American psyche. As a concept, it served to mask, if not obliterate, many of the realities of the actual war. It also suggested that there was something pathological in a post-war fear of taking our arms and aims abroad, that America had indeed become (in Richard Nixon’s famous phrase) a “pitiful, helpless giant,” a basket case.

Ronald Reagan played all these notes skillfully enough to become president. The desire to “cure” the Vietnam syndrome became a springboard to unabashed, militant nationalism and a broad rightward turn in the nation’s life.

Iraq — both the war and the “syndrome” to come — could easily evoke a similar set of urges: to evade a painful reality and ignore the lessons it should teach us. The thought that Americans are simply a collective neurotic head-case when it comes to the use of force could help sow similar seeds of insecurity that might — after a pause — again push our politics and culture back to a glorification of military power and imperial intervention as instruments of choice for seeking “security.”

Read all of it here.

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

The Cost of Privatising the US Government

From Informed Comment

Secretary of the Army Francis Harvey was forced to resign Friday over the scandal of substandard conditions at a wing of Walter Reed Hospital. Note that all the time Donald Rumsfeld was in office, and despite horrible errors, no one ever had to resign, least of all– until the Dems won Congress– Rumsfeld himself. Over the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, Rumsfeld had said that to throw someone overboard in propitiation was not the way we did things in America (i.e. no one would be punished). Robert Gates is to be applauded for restoring the idea of accountability to Washington.

But everyone should pay attention especially to this para. in the WaPo report:

‘The committee also released an internal Army memorandum reportedly written in September in which the Walter Reed garrison commander, Col. Peter Garibaldi, warned Weightman that “patient care services are at risk of mission failure” because of staff shortages brought on by privatization of the support work force at the hospital.’

The privatization of patient care services is responsible for a lot of the problem here. And so is the privatization of services for US troops in Iraq punishing them. Indeed, the privatization of guard duties through the hiring of firms like Blackwater caused all that trouble at Falluja in the first place. KRB never delivered services to US troops with the speed and efficiency they deserved. The Bush-Cheney regime rewarded civilian firms with billions while they paid US GIs a pittance to risk their lives for their country. And then when they were wounded they were sent someplace with black mold on the walls. A full investigation into the full meaning of ‘privatization’ at the Pentagon for our troops would uncover epochal scandals.

Source

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

March on the Pentagon, March 17th

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

SDS Reawakens – More History from Alice Embree

In spring 1967, six members of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) at the University of Texas in Austin ran for Student Assembly on the following platform. The original platform was mimeographed. It has been reproduced in 2007 for cyberspace consumption so that it can be a reference for students who are again organizing chapters of SDS across the nation. Alice Embree

FREEDOM PLATFORM
THIHER!
EMBREE!
REAVIS!
LULOW!
STONE!
LEOMARE!

QUESTION:
Why the hell are students second-class citizens – denied even basic Constitutional rights?
Why are so many dissatisfied students without the power to change their circumstances?
Why is education such a dull, static drag?
Why is the Student Assembly an effectual machine which merely perpetuates the present stagnation at the cost of a truly creative education?

ANSWER:
Because you the students are individuals without organization or direction.
Because you the student are subject to the manipulation of a non-educationally oriented administration.
Because you the student have never before been faced with the reality of your situation.

SOLUTION:
1) Student-Faculty Control of the University

Those engaged in higher learning and those engaged in the administration of higher learning have nothing in common. The former aim to freely pursue knowledge and share it with their fellows. The latter aim to control a large organization through the imposition of bureaucratic routines and mechanical structures. The students and faculty should control all academic matters; the administrators should be their servant.

2) Grades and Other Academic Procedures (required courses, etc.)

No single plan can adequately meet the educational needs of the majority of the students. The present mechanical routine has been created largely to facilitate the work of the administrator, not the student. It regiments rather than educates. Education of free men [sic] must be a free activity.

Grades coerce students into compliance with the routines. As a language composed of only five symbols, they have no value as a description of a human being’s educational progress.

No student should have to submit to grades or required routines in order to use the facilities of the University. Students and faculty should be free to resolve themselves into smaller groups and programs for the purpose of authentically communicating with one another, initiating new programs to fit their educational needs, and eliminating the bureaucratic routines and authority of the present system.

Practically, we will work toward immediate institution of the pass-fail system of grades and unlimited admission of special (non-degree seeking) students.

3) Bill of Rights

Students and faculty engaged in teaching and learning need the maximum amount of basic freedom in order to conduct their work. Yet, self-serving politicians and dictatorial administrators have limited their freedom even more than that of the ordinary citizen. The basic Constitutional freedoms and rights should be guaranteed to all members of the academic community.

The first step will be to secure freedom of speech for all students and their organizations and to eliminate censorship of the Daily Texan and other student publications.

4) Student Life and Housing

Students attending the University should not be considered its special charges. The University should have no authority over students’ off-campus activities. Persons living in University housing should have the freedom of movement (with no curfew), dress, etc., accorded to all persons in the society. The required nine-month contract should be abolished.

In addition, the University should provide low-cost housing both for students who cannot afford high rent and to act as a depressant on the cost of housing throughout the campus area. Therefore, dorm costs should be cut 25% across the board.

5) Texas Union and University Co-op

The Union, supported entirely by student funds, should be controlled entirely by the students. The Board of Directors, presently divided between faculty and students, should have only student members.

The University Co-op does not respond to the needs of the students as a co-operative could and should. It should be publicly investigated and reordered so as to make it a more effective servant of the students. The primary goal should be a truly co-operative price (at least 25% below the present) on textbooks.

6) The University and the Military

a. The military recruiters who frequent the campus should be put in the employment office with the other corporate recruiters.
b. The personnel of the ROTC departments have no academic freedom; their minds are the property of the Pentagon. These departments should be abolished.
c. Defense research which is done on campus is not free but purchased and directed by the military establishment. Either the results from such research should be published openly or it should be disallowed on campus.

7) Employee Wages and Working Conditions

Graduate students employed as TA’s, graders, etc., should not be required to pay money into the teacher and employee retirement funds.

All employees of the University should receive, at least, the federal minimum wage of $1.40 per hour. This includes, among others, cafeteria personnel, grounds keepers, and library employees.

8) Black History

In order to make up for an inexcusable past deficiency, the University should immediately begin a curriculum in the history of Black Americans.

9) Parking

The administration should immediately begin construction of either nearby garages or outlying parking lots with free bus service to campus to alleviate the unbearable parking situation.

10) Campus Cops

Campus Cops should not be equipped with guns.

11) Faculty Facilities

The faculty ought to form a community with the students, not a separate tribe. To help effect this, we advocate the abolition of separate faculty restrooms and cafeterias on campus.

12) Methods for Seeking These Goals

We fully recognize the powerlessness of student government. We pledge to use these channels only as long as they yield significant results. Thereafter, we will go directly to the student body and rally the strength that their position and number at the University give them. This could take the form of organizing to work for a particular goal, or formation of a permanent union of students completely independent of the administration which could bargain for the students from a position of strength.


THIHER!
EMBREE!
REAVIS!
LULOW!
STONE!
LEONARD!

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

Reawakening SDS – Some History – A. Embree

In the spring of 1966, Gary Thiher, a member of the University of Texas’ chapter of Students for a Democratic Society, ran for president of student government. He lost, but his energetic campaign changed the student dialogue. An SDS candidate, Jeff Jones, was elected president of the UT student government in 1970. Some of the ideas – radical at the time – now seem like ancient history. The cost of housing ($40 per month, the special housing rules applied to co-eds, the lack of birth control information at the health center, the demand that UT pay the federal minimum wage and eliminate questions on race and religion from housing questionnaires seem decades distant. The ideas of free tuition and a Peace Study with funding similar to R.O.T.C. seem as revolutionary as they were four decades ago.

This document appeared in a mimeographed format in 1966. It has been typed for cyberspace consumption in 2007 as SDS again organizes chapters across the nation. The 1966 campaign helped build the UT SDS chapter. While SDS was known for its antiwar activism in the 1960s, it also focused on student issues. The radical idea that students should have a say in the decisions that affect their lives was relevant then as it is today. Alice Embree

WHAT IS TO BE DONE? THIHER’S PLATFORM

I am entering this campaign to effect change in the University – to return power over academic affairs to the academic community and control over student life to the students. I am not entering in order to play the timeworn game of student politics for personal prestige.

This platform has been constructed to inject ideas into the wasteland of student government campaigns. These ideas are put forth as my conception of progressive improvements for the enrichment of the University. I have proposed planks that could be achieved by strong presidential leadership and active student support.

Decision-making concerning university life is being further removed from the academic community. The student assembly is at best an advisory body, its resolutions and judgments subject to review and veto by the administration. Powerless, it has become a plaything, the manipulative jousting ground for fraternity politicians. With the creation of a state super board invested with immense powers, the faculty’s sphere of influence is also being reduced. A unified academic community could reverse this trend.

The University should be solely concerned with education, not with students’ personal lives. The concept of the university as a parent impedes students; maturation, for maturity comes from the responsibility for decision making. Students not only have the right, but the need, to be responsible for their decisions. A system whereby the University censors student publications, restricts speech and the right to ideas, restricts living choice, and dictates student ethics produces graduates ill-quipped to deal with the responsibilities of adulthood.

Professors and students controlling their ac academic affairs in a stimulating and free environment is the vision that has given birth to this platform.

VOTE THIHER

BILL OF RIGHTS

There exists no statement of students’ and professors’ rights at the University. The professors must rely on the faculty council and their professional associations; the students are forced to rely on the good intentions of the administration.

I believe the academic community should be guaranteed all the rights granted by the United States Constitution, in particular the right to free speech, press, and assembly. I also believe that American legal procedure should apply to university disciplinary cases. Therefore, I advocate a code of basic rights and liberties for the academic community.

GENERAL STATEMENT

The jurisdiction of the University does not extend past the physical boundaries of the University and, within those bounds is limited to matters of academic concern.

ARTICLES

1. Free discussion and evaluation being vital to an academic community, the University shall make no regulation abridging the freedom of speech or of publication and distribution; nor abridge the right of persons to peacefully assemble and petition.
2. An active and interested university population being necessary for self-government, the right of persons to form associations or unions for the promotion and protection of their interests shall not be abridged.
3. Any person and his domain is excluded from unreasonable search or seizure; nor shall the University require forfeiture of any student’s academic or creative endeavors; nor shall any person be prevented form working in any area outside the university.
4. There shall be no religious or political tests or requirements for admission to the university; nor shall any person be expelled for any reason from the university; and no person shall be suspended from the university for a period of more than two years – with such suspension being subject to appeal at any time.
5. The University shall make no regulations concerning the private, moral, or religious life of any person, nor deny a y person the right to freely participate in the life of the community.
6. The University shall make no retroactive laws; nor deny any person the rights of trail commonly accepted in American jurisprudence.
7. In the exercise of his or her rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as needed for the purpose of recognition and respect of these rights and freedoms to others.

HOUSING

Freshman and sophomore male students and all female students under 21 years of age, or senior rank, are forced to live in approved housing – either University or privately owned. Approved housing is unresponsive to student needs.

In most instances it is too expensive. Two persons might share a rather small room without a private bath, each paying $40 per month. This $80 would rent a rather nice apartment in non-approved residences. This example is typical. Contracts and deposits are required which make it impossible for the student to change residence without forfeiting deposits up to $100.

University regulations concerning the approving of student housing are rarely enforced. Many of the residences are not conducive to study, at best, and dangerous to live in, at worst. In disputes, the University usually sides with the landlord, enforcing rulings against the students by disciplinary procedure, withholding credit, etc.

For women the situation is worse. If an 18-year-old girl had left home to work, she would be her own master. However, when she chooses to seek an education at the University, her going and coming, her dress and actions, are scrutinized and regulated more strictly and arbitrarily than, in all probability, they were at home. This maze of infantile restrictions can only have a detrimental effect on her becoming a responsible adult.

In many private, and all University, residences the female student is forced to pay for meals with no regard for her desire to eat any, or all, meals elsewhere. Thus, the co-ed, for some obscure reason, is subjected to even graver injustices and insults than her male counterpart.

The University also sees fit to cater to the class structure of the society by providing expensive dorms with luxurious lounges for some, while maintaining its own slums on San Jacinto St. for others. University housing is not uniformly good or cheap enough to depress exorbitant housing costs in the University area – function it should perform. On applications for housing, the University inquires as to the applicant’s race and religion –facts which should be of no concern to an academic institution.

I THEREFORE ADVOCATE that the University makes living in approved housing mandatory for no students except those under 18 years of age upon written request from their parents. It should maintain an approved housing system for students desiring it. In this system regulations should be enforced making it economical, sanitary, safe, and appropriate for study. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, or national origin should be permitted. Other regulations should be made by the residents of each unit from semester to semester. The University should build and maintain more decent, cheap, living accommodations. Inquiries as to race and religion should be eliminated form all applications for university housing. The University should encourage student-owned cooperatives with aid and advice. Transferring tickets for campus cafeterias should be offered to all students at a discounted rate.

CONTRACEPTIVES IN THE UNIVERSITY HEALTH CENTER

The Sex Research Institute at the University of Kansas estimates that an average of three to four illegitimate children are conceived per thousand co-eds annually at state universities. With modern contraceptives, the conception of undesired children need not occur.

Recognizing the fact of pre-martial sexual relationships between students, the University Health Center should provide the same services as other health centers. This plank does not condone or condemn any individual’s sexual ethics, but expresses concern about undesired conceptions which lead to hasty marriage, abortion, or illegitimate children.

I THEREFORE ADVOCATE that the University Health Center should make available birth control information and prescriptions to any student seeking them.

CO-OP

The Co-op is said to be “the students own store.” Yet books are sold at publishers’ list price, and often ordered in inadequate quantity. The Toggery carries only expensive clothing. The “students own store” appears to be removed from effective student control, and unresponsive to the student body’s will. There are indications of price fixing on the repurchase of books and discrimination in hiring practices.

I THEREFORE URGE a complete investigation of the Co-op by a group of unbiased students, culminating in a full report to the student body. This report would include an appraisal of management practices, and the extent of student power in the Co-op board.

A PEACE STUDY

It is recognized than an institution dedicated to knowledge and learning, persons should have the opportunity to study areas of knowledge and learning which they choose. Further, it is recognized that there are persons who choose to study war and its practice. This study is provided by the University R.O.T.C. Those who choose its alternative – peace – should also have the opportunity to realize their choice.

The University provides the approximately $900,000 R.O.T.C. building (in which some non R.O.T.C. courses are also held). In the area of financial support, the R.O.T.C. receives from the University of Texas approximately $50,000 per annum.

THEREFORE, I PROPOSE that a “peace study” be established with the same accreditation, freedoms, restrictions, accommodations, and financial support which R.O.T.C. receives. Each student in the “peace study” should receive, at least, as much financial support from the University as does each R.O.T.C. student.

TUITION

Education is no longer a luxury in this complex age; it is necessary. Experience with the G.I. Bill of Rights has shown that the recipients of a free education increased their earnings more than enough to pay back in taxes every tax dollar spent for their education. An opportunity for free education to the highest level of the individual’s ability is a right that must be guaranteed to all citizens.

THEREFORE, I WILL SUPPORT AND ENCOURAGE the legislature to eliminate the tuition required of residents of the state of Texas who desire to attend state educational institutions.

MINIMUM WAGE

The University should be a leader in setting wage standards. The exploitation of students now practiced is a disgrace to an academic institution. At the wages now paid to students, the University could not find non-students to fill the jobs presently held by student help. In addition, these low wages tend to depress those received by students working in the surrounding business community.

THEREFORE, I ADVOCATE and will work toward the University’s paying the federal minimum wage to all employees.

REVIEW

I ADVOCATE a general review of the requirements for admission, degree plans, and degree requirements. This review is to be executed by a faculty-student conference with department representatives elected by instructors and the student majors in each department.

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

What Is Wrong With These Morons?

We don’t need a “new generation” of these fucking things: we need to get rid of them forever.

U.S. Selects Design for New Nuclear Warhead
By H. JOSEF HEBERT, AP

WASHINGTON (March 1) – The Bush administration took a major step Friday toward building a new generation of nuclear warheads, selecting a design that is being touted as safer, more secure and more easily maintained than today’s arsenal.

A team of scientists from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory will proceed with the weapons design with an anticipation that the first warheads may be ready by 2012 as a replacement for Trident missiles on submarines.

The new weapons program, which has received cautious support from Congress , was immediately criticized by some nuclear nonproliferation groups as a signal that the government wants to expand nuclear weapons production – not move toward eliminating the stockpile.

Read it here.

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

Standing Up to the Bullies and Their Crumby War

Congress and the war [an Axis “Must Read!”]
By Sara Flounders
Mar 1, 2007, 10:13

The Democratic Party now has a majority in both houses of Congress. This new majority had promised, if elected, to act against the war. Every politician is trying to posture as if they are listening to their constituency. They are consumed with how to “spin” the war.

In questions of war, the executive, the president, has the decision-making power. But according to the Constitution only Congress may appropriate the funds for the war.

During the week of March 12 to 19, Congress is scheduled to cast the most critical vote since it voted in October 2002 to give President George Bush. full authorization to invade and occupy Iraq. That vote took place when the Democrats were also in the majority in the Senate. From the very beginning this has been a bipartisan war.

For revolutionary forces and determined opponents of the war, the question now is how to intervene in the congressional debate in a way that exposes the criminal complicity of both the Democratic and Republican parties in the war.

Is it inevitable that any struggle involving Congress will be co-opted by the Democratic Party and derailed?

Can the demand that Congress cut the funds for the war become a popular cry? Congress has the constitutional authority to do so.

As the Pentagon aims its guns at Iran, a determined struggle by the anti-war movement could open up additional demands. Millions of people in the U.S. who oppose war would learn that Congress also has full legal authority to act against the immediate threat of a new wider war on Iran. It would become clear that Congress has the authority to open a struggle against the whole gargantuan Pentagon budget, but only if masses of people in the U.S. are mobilized to demand it.

The Pentagon budget is an ever-growing monstrosity sucking in more than $1 million a minute. Every needed social program in the country—from education to health care, transportation to the environment—is being cut in order to fund a military budget that further enriches the largest corporations, especially the oil monopolies and the military-industrial complex.

If Democrats were really determined to end the war—even without a majority—a determined congressional minority could block the funding for the war. They could disrupt and filibuster. They could call on people from around the country to surround Congress. Any real resistance in Congress would inspire a response from the population and from GIs who are now opposing the war in greater numbers.

If there is no strong political intervention from below, then a weak, non-binding resolution like the one the House passed Feb. 16 will look like the best that can be done. To abstain from this struggle is to leave the arena totally to the reformists who want to pull the movement behind the Democratic Party and leave it without independent power.

The Democrats are quite willing to grandstand against the war. It is easy for them to target George W. Bush, a Republican. He is justifiably hated around the world. He is a war criminal by every standard. His popular support is now the lowest of any presidency, with the exception of Richard Nixon just before his resignation on the eve of impeachment.

These powerful Democratic politicians and their major financial backers are interested in pulling the attention of the mass anti-war movement away from the Democratic Party’s own support for the war, typified by Hillary Clinton’s refusal to state that she should not have voted for the war in the 2002 vote. She is currently refusing to take a nuclear strike at Iran “off the table.”

The Democrats are trying to focus the anger against the war exclusively on Bush. That is their entire 2008 election strategy.

It may not be popular or easy to open a struggle against all the forces—both Republican and Democratic—which support the war, as well as the interests of U.S. imperialism that they serve. Nevertheless, it is an essential struggle.

The capitalist ruling class always wants to divert the mass movement into safe channels—into lobbying and voting and trusting in the bought and paid for politicians. The challenge is to develop clear demands that move the struggle into the streets.

Read all of it here.

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

Let Them Say So and Be Damned

From Arthur Silber’s Once Upon a Time

A Nation of Stupid Children, Who Refuse to Give Up the Lies

By the age of eight or nine, most children realize that Santa Claus isn’t a real person, just as they know the Easter Bunny and similar pleasantries are only make-believe, tales of imagination offered to add a bit of fun to the holidays. The great majority of children give up these fantasies without experiencing emotional upheaval that remotely approaches serious trauma. Those very rare children fortunate enough to be raised by adults who accord them the seriousness and respect they deserve know such stories to be ones of invention from the beginning.

Unfortunately, the great majority of Americans — led by a relentlessly trivial and mendacious political class and a comparably anti-intellectual media — never approach again the psychological achievement of children who undergo this transition. Still more unfortunately, most of these same children, while able to recognize fabrications of the Santa Claus variety, become prisoners of the American mythology that I recently discussed. Their pathetic plight is understandable in one sense, since almost no one will disabuse them of the lies with which they comfort themselves. Nonetheless, one can legitimately hope and expect that upon attaining adulthood, more individuals would be prepared to exercise even limited independent powers of assessment. But if you have such expectations, you will almost always be disappointed.

Thus it is that we have repellently idiotic episodes of the following kind:

A tempest has been brewing today over something Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said while on CBS-TV’s Late Show With David Letterman.

“Americans are very frustrated, and they have every right to be,” about the situation in Iraq, McCain said. “We’ve wasted a lot of our most precious treasure, which is American lives.”

The word “wasted” drew a sharp rebuke from the Democratic National Committee:

“Senator McCain should apologize immediately for his comments,” Democratic National Committee Communications Director Karen Finney said in an e-mail to reporters. “McCain should also explain this poll-driven change in his tune. How is it that John McCain now believes American lives are being ‘wasted,’ yet he so stubbornly supports the President’s plan to escalate the war in Iraq and put more American lives in harm’s way? Clearly in looking at his sinking poll numbers, he really will do or say just about anything to win.”

McCain’s wording was similar to that of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., another presidential contender who got criticized for saying last month that “we now have spent $400 billion and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted.” He quickly apologized, saying that “even as I said it, I realized I had misspoken.”

McCain has moved to calm the waters. His staff just e-mailed a statement from the Republican senator, acknowledging that he too agrees he shouldn’t have used the word “wasted”:

“Last evening, I referred to American casualties in Iraq as wasted,” McCain says. “I should have used the word, sacrificed, as I have in the past. No one appreciates and honors more than I do the selfless patriotism of American servicemen and women in the Iraq War. We owe them a debt we can never fully repay. And America’s leaders owe them, as well as the American people, our best judgment and honest appraisal of the progress of the war, in which they continue to sacrifice.

“That does not change the fact, however, that we have made many mistakes in the past, and we have paid a grievous price for those mistakes in the lives of the men and women who have died to protect our interests in Iraq and defend the rest of us from the even greater threat we would face if we are defeated there.”

“The selfless patriotism” of those “who have died to protect our interests in Iraq…”

What “interests” are those precisely, Senator? Iraq had not attacked us and did not seriously threaten us. Both facts were known to our leaders before the invasion of Iraq began, just as they were known by many “ordinary” citizens, both here and abroad. This was a naked, criminal war of aggression, now continued by means of an equally criminal occupation, against a third-rate country that was virtually defenseless before our onslaught. We have murdered more than half a million innocent Iraqis, and destroyed an entire nation. If by “interests,” McCain and the rest of our ruling class mean the “right” of the United States to uncontested world hegemony, then let them say so and be damned. No other “right” or “interest” explains or “justifies” our monstrous acts — but that one most certainly does.

Read the rest here.

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

I Do Love Killing ….

Why Can’t We Talk about Peace in Public?
By Matt Taibbi, RollingStone.com. Posted February 28, 2007.

America’s growing economic dependence on the hi-tech defense industry is creating a culture that views peace and nonviolence as seditious concepts.

“The fellas from 121 started showing up the other day. It’s starting to sink in… I’ll have to go home, the opportunities to kill these fuckers is rapidly coming to an end. Like a hobby I’ll never get to practice again. It’s not a great war, but it’s the only one we’ve got. God, I do love killing these bastards. … Morale is high, the Marines can smell the barn. It’s hard to keep them focused. I still have 20 days of kill these motherfuckers, so I don’t wanna take even one day off. ” — letter home from an unnamed Marine F/A -18 pilot in Iraq.

The above letter arrived in my inbox via an email circular sent by an acquaintance of mine, a defense analyst and former congressional aide named Winslow Wheeler. It came alongside a pained commentary by another former Pentagon analyst named Franklin (Chuck) Spinney, who is probably best known for the famous “Spinney report” of the mid-’80s which exposed the waste and inefficiency of many hi-tech Defense Department projects.

Spinney’s career followed the classic whistleblower arc; after sending his courageous Jerry Maguire letter on Pentagon waste up the bureaucratic flagpole, he was nearly buried by his own bosses only to be saved from ignominy at the last minute by the intercession of Senator Chuck Grassley, who invited him to air his findings in Congress.

Spinney ended up on the cover of Time magazine a week later and soon thereafter began a new career as a much sought-after expert on the inner workings of the military-industrial complex. Like another famous post-Watergate whistleblower, Karen Silkwood, Spinney ended up inspiring a Hollywood feature film — although in this case no Oscars were forthcoming, as the key role in the lighthearted comedy The Pentagon Wars was played by Cary Elwes instead of Meryl Streep. Brutally, Kelsey Grammer also made an appearance as the film’s heavy.

Read all of it here.

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

The Poodle Has a Change of Heart

Tony Blair’s Pro Peace Video!!!

Read more here.

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

Ruling Class Politics

We’ve been trying to tell you that they are all just ruling class assholes. Here’s a little evidence of that for you.

U.S. House Democrats seek more war funds than Bush
01 Mar 2007 23:53:19 GMT
Source: Reuters
By Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON, March 1 (Reuters) – U.S. House of Representatives Democrats will more than fully fund President George W. Bush’s request for money to fight wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this year, but are still debating conditions that could be attached, senior lawmakers said on Thursday.

“There will be $98 billion for the military part,” about $5 billion above the Bush administration’s request, said Rep. John Murtha, chairman of a defense spending panel overseeing war funds.

Murtha told reporters Democrats were still discussing provisions he wants to attach requiring that U.S. troops have proper training, adequate equipment and enough rest before being deployed into combat. “We don’t have it yet. We keep going back and refining it,” Murtha said.

But he sketched out a certification process that could be tougher than one floated earlier this week in which Bush would have been given flexibility to “waive” Murtha’s requirements.

Republicans and many conservative Democrats have expressed opposition to adding such conditions. That has forced House Democratic leaders to try to find a compromise that allows them to say they are working to phase out the war while also fully funding troops already in Iraq.

The additional money House Democrats want to add in includes $1 billion more for U.S. troops girding for a spring offensive in Afghanistan, Murtha said, and nearly $1 billion more to treat wounded American soldiers suffering from brain injuries and psychological problems related to combat.

With other add-ons to the massive spending bill, including more U.S. Gulf Coast rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina, possible aid to farmers who have suffered crop losses and around $3 billion added in to help close some U.S. military bases and modernize others, the price tag could rise significantly above $100 billion, according to several lawmakers and congressional aides.

Read the rest here.

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment