Bill Ayers spoke at the University of Oregon last week on the subject of teaching and organizing for “social justice.” His speech was not free of the radical sentiments he is well-known for espousing (especially in the company of America’s youth). Case in point: he spoke of the end of America, a new world, and what our role ought to be in all of it.
(Related: Bill Ayers: ‘I Get Up Every Morning and Think…Today I’m Going to End Capitalism)
Almost as interesting as Ayers’ speech itself, perhaps, was how the leftist radical was introduced by the university students. One girl, who described herself as a doctoral student at the university, spoke of the privilege they would have with their honored guest, in an “evening [of] radical imagination.”
“The bombings in Boston today were horrible, and I do not intend to suggest anything else. But I cannot help thinking that at least hundreds of such street-side bombings, some of them much more powerful and lethal, have occurred in Baghdad during the past decade. I very much doubt whether many Americans have any real idea of how it feels to live in such an environment. Of course, Baghdad has scarcely been unique except in its size, and many, many such bombings have also occurred elsewhere in Iraq and in Afghanistan during these years. No wonder mental disturbances have become extremely common among the Iraqi people.” — Robert Higgs
By Elise Labott
The State Department has put a multimillion-dollar bounty on the heads of two Americans who the United States claims belong to an al Qaeda affiliate in Somalia, CNN has learned.
Posters and matchbooks in Somali and English emblazoned with the names and pictures of Omar Shafik Hammami and Jehad Serwan Mostafa tout rewards up to $5 million each for information leading to their arrest or conviction. Both men are on the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists List.
…no matter what some “libertarians” think.
By Gavin McInnes
With the passing of Hugo Chávez, we got a lot of crocodile tears from liberals claiming we had “lost a friend” who “lifted the poor and helped them realize their dreams.” Jimmy Carter told us that he “never doubted Hugo Chávez’s commitment.” The Nation lamented that “he wasn’t authoritarian enough.” I haven’t seen this much love for a Latin American tyrant since Che Guevara became a T-shirt.
But if we’re going to perform oral sex on every despot who can’t pronounce the letter “J,” why not Pinochet?
Hell no, says Pat Buchanan.
Ten years ago today, U.S. air, sea and land forces attacked Iraq. And the great goals of Operation Iraqi Freedom?
Destroy the chemical and biological weapons Saddam Hussein had amassed to use on us or transfer to al-Qaida for use against the U.S. homeland.
Exact retribution for Saddam’s complicity in 9/11 after we learned his agents had met secretly in Prague with Mohamed Atta.
Create a flourishing democracy in Baghdad that would serve as a catalyst for a miraculous transformation of the Middle East from a land of despots into a region of democracies that looked West.
Not all agreed on the wisdom of this war. Gen. Bill Odom, former director of the National Security Agency, thought George W. Bush & Co. had lost their minds: “The Iraq War may turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in American history.”
by John Pilger
What is modern propaganda? For many, it is the lies of a totalitarian state. In the 1970s, I met Leni Riefenstahl and asked her about her epic films that glorified the Nazis. Using revolutionary camera and lighting techniques, she produced a documentary form that mesmerized Germans; her Triumph of the Will cast Hitler’s spell.
She told me that the “messages” of her films were dependent not on “orders from above,” but on the “submissive void” of the German public. Did that include the liberal, educated bourgeoisie? “Everyone,” she said. More…
By Kevin Carson
Since Hugo Chavez’s death last week, predictably, the cable news talking head shows and the editorial pages of the major newspapers of record have been full of head-shaking about the dictatorial nature of his regime.
To be sure, the Chavez regime was dictatorial. But another thing is equally sure: The U.S. hates dictators, and the official media vociferously condemn them, only when they don’t toe Washington’s line.
Here’s the plain truth of the matter: The United States has probably installed more puppet dictators in the period since WWII than any other Empire in history. And it played a major role, in particular, in installing dictators that it only noticed were dictatorial when they stopped taking orders from Washington and became an inconvenience. A good example is Saddam Hussein. The CIA backed the 1968 al-Bakr coup that installed Saddam’s wing of the Baath party in power. The United States tacitly endorsed Saddam’s invasion of Iran (you know, that “launched aggressive wars against his neighbors” thing Bush later talked about). The Reagan administration provided Saddam with military intelligence and sold him arms via third-country intermediaries. The Commerce Department licensed the sale of anthrax, as well as insecticides which could be converted into nerve agents. I’m sure you’ve heard the old joke: How did the US government know Saddam had weapons of mass destruction? They’d saved the receipts.
By Justin Raimondo
The response to Rand Paul’s historic filibuster against the nomination of John Brennan met with rapturous applause from civil libertarians and anti-interventionists on the right and the left – followed by harsh denunciations from Democratic party partisans and their neocon allies. It was a moment when the political landscape redefined itself, traditional categories of “left” and “right” underwent a seismic shift – and the true friends, and enemies, of liberty stood revealed.
On the right, Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham took to the floor the next day, livid with rage. “To my Republican colleagues,” lisped Lindsey:
“I don’t remember any of you coming down here suggesting that President Bush was going to kill anybody with a drone, do you? They had a drone program back then, all of a sudden this drone program has gotten every Republican so spun up. What are we up to here?
“People are astonished that President Obama is doing many of the things that President Bush did. I’m not astonished. I congratulate him for having the good judgment to understand we’re at war. And to my party, I’m a bit disappointed that you no longer apparently think we’re at war.”
By Dr. Stephen Sniegoski
phen Sniegoski March 8, 2013 6
While traditional conservatives welcomed neoconservatives as allies in their fight against Soviet Communism and domestic liberalism, the neocons in effect acted as a Trojan Horse within conservatism: they managed to secure dominant positions in the conservative political and intellectual movement, and as soon as they gained power, they purged those traditional conservatives who opposed their agenda, particularly as it involved Israel. Support for Israel and its policies had become, and remains, a veritable litmus test for being a member of the multitudinous political action groups and think tanks that comprise the conservative movement.
Interesting insights from Robert Kaplan
Ancient and medieval mapmakers would better understand the world of 2100 than would the politicians of 2000. Nations as we know them have existed for only a few hundred years. But cities have been with us since the dawn of civilization. And while the future of the city is not Robert D. Kaplan, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, is the author of “The Coming Anarchy,” a forthcoming book.
While the future of the city is not in doubt, modern nations will probably continue to weaken in the 21st century. By 2100, the organizing principle of the world will be the City-state, along with the urban radials of prosperity that follow major trade routes.
Indeed, loyalty toward the polis will gradually overwhelm the traditional state patriotism of the 20th century. Empires will be agglomerations of urban areas. Cities and their hinterlands will make alliances and fight wars with and against each other – less over territory than over bandwidths in cyberspace and trade privileges. Power politics will prove eternal.
By Dave Hummels
Do you ever get the feeling that progressives have run out of ideas? This thought crossed my mind when I read Thom Hartmann’s “The Draft: A War-Killer” on Truthout. Hartmann advocates reinstatement of conscription in a “new and improved form.” He proclaims that the military industrial complex “would finally be held in check if we were to re-instate a draft.” Hartmann seems oblivious to the fact that the military industrial complex grew and prospered with a draft in place.
The hook for Hartmann’s piece is the upcoming tenth anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq. “Would we still be in Iraq today,” he asks, “or even have gone to war with Iraq — if there was a military draft in this country?” He claims that the war in Iraq has lasted longer than other major US wars where a draft was in place, such as the Civil War, World War I, World War II, Korea and Vietnam.
By Justin Raimondo
Bradley Manning has slipped off the media’s radar, and not because he isn’t newsworthy: his “trial”—which has now reached its 1000th day – has been conducted largely in secret, with motions classified and testimony not available to the general public. This underscores the significance of and motive behind Manning’s “crime,” and highlights the fear his heroism inspires in his persecutors: the “crime” of truth-telling, and the terror truth inspires in our political class.
By Khadijah Umayyad
I myself am an ardent reader of antiwar.com and have spent untold hours listening to the Scott Horton show. As my initial post on WWI historical revisionism might indicate I take war-revisionism, historical and theoretical, to be of great importance to breaking down a primary buttress of the nation-state ideology: “national defense”. That being said I see very little of use coming from the left on antiwar, simply because most of them are basically more-radical social democrats and liberals who will simply toe the popular line in a modified form. Liberal-tarians like Glenn Greenwald are rare, perhaps even rarer than right-wing anarchists, and they continue to be surprised when the readership of Salon and Mother Goose immediately stops calling things ‘fascist’ when a Democrat is doing them. I think if they could really grasp the nature of politics and political reasoning – as power gaming, social signaling and mating rituals – they would abandon political leftism altogether and simply become anarchists. Look at Paul Gottfried’s excellent article Is a Left-Right Antiwar Coalition Possible? for an evaluation of the possibilities.
I think there is some possibility for a coalition of interests with the left, but not within or oriented toward the existing political and ideological paradigms. Only the anti-liberal left displays serious discontent with the politics of the American state and its anti-racist/anti-sexist totalitarian agendas, and they are a marginalized minority within leftist circles. So long as the left remains staunchly liberal they will remain staunchly useless and counter-productive.
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) wants to bring back the military draft and require women to register for the Selective Service.
On Friday, Rangel reintroduced the so-called “draft bill,” known officially as “The National Universal Service Act” (H.R. 747), and “The All American Selective Service Act” (H.R. 748), which would require all women between 18 and 25 to register.
“Now that women can serve in combat they should register for the Selective Service alongside their male counterparts,” Rangel said in a statement. “Reinstating the draft and requiring women to register for the Selective Service would compel the American public to have a stake in the wars we fight as a nation. We must question why and how we go to war, and who decides to send our men and women into harm’s way.”
Rangel said if America’s young women were forced to fight, citizens would be more reticent to go to war.