Pat Robertson began publicly criticizing the drug war in December 2010, and he has become more vocal since. Unlike the vague critiques often heard from prominent figures—even Barack Obama has called the drug war a failure—Robertson’s insights have been precise, and consistent, and deeply-rooted. “We here in America make up 5 percent of the world’s population, but we make up 25 percent of jailed prisoners,” he noted in March, appearing genuinely moved by the issue. “I really believe we should treat marijuana the way we treat … alcohol,” he told the New York Times. Beyond the practical argument, Robertson sees the moral dimension: “I believe in working with the hearts of people, and not locking them up.”
Or was it something worse?
The murder of US ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other US diplomats at the hands of rioters probably wasn’t just another case of Islamists-gone-wild. The circumstances surrounding this horrific incident — the riot was in reaction to a “film” supposedly made by a mysterious Israeli-American director under what is probably a pseudonym — point to a carefully staged and well-thought out event. The question is: staged by whom?
By Lee Ferran
One of the Americans killed alongside Ambassador Christopher Stevens in an attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya Tuesday told ABC News before his death that he was working with the State Department on an intelligence mission to round up dangerous weapons in the war-torn nation.
Please turn on annotations: My Previous youtube video was censored! it got 10,000 views on vimeo before it was also taken down. I have re uploaded it on Liveleak http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3c6_1347615364 . It is about torture and execution of unarmed prisoners by the FSA.
I make a comment on recent events where the US Ambassador to Libya, one of the spear heads to the war on Libya was ironically lynched by the very same people who he put into power. The plan for a clash of civilisations.
Christian communities in Aleppo have taken up arms and formed their own militias for the first time, the Daily Telegraph can disclose.
A fighter with the Free Syria Army (FSA) fires his weapon during skirmishes in the contested neighborhood of Izza in the northern city of Aleppo. Photo: Zac Baillie/AFP/Getty Images
By Ruth Sherlock, Carol Malouf in Beirut
Christian Science Monitor
What’s the number one reason we riot? The plausible, justifiable motivations of trampled-upon humanfolk to fight back are many—poverty, oppression, disenfranchisement, etc—but the big one is more primal than any of the above. It’s hunger, plain and simple. If there’s a single factor that reliably sparks social unrest, it’s food becoming too scarce or too expensive. So argues a group of complex systems theorists in Cambridge, and it makes sense.
Wisdom Dancer expresses scepticism about the Szaszian project…
Reading on the internet has probably already introduced you to the anti-psychiatric movement, which appeals to the dislike people have for the “disease model” and fear of medication for mental illness, which relates to their fears of being out of control of their own minds. Although they will have already experienced this as human beings, if not also as sufferers of particular disorders, they may not have accepted it any more than people can accept the fact of their future death.
In short, the anti-psychiatric movement, and specifically its anti-psychopharmacological message, appeals to the folk rejection of the mind or “soul” people think of as their unitary self being in some way integrated or derived—to some debatable degree—without conscious control, and being subject instead to the evolution, development, oddities and dysfunctions of a physical electrochemical brain, a compound, complex adaptive system. Despite mountains of scientific evidence, folk beliefs about the brain prefer to believe it is merely the seat of consciousness. This is just as true of secularists, who won’t use the word “soul,” but still believe in a metaphysical notion about the mind, falsely distinguishing the experience from the brain from which it emerges.
ZOG Heil, I guess….
From Global Research.
By Tom Carter
Last month, the California State Assembly passed a resolution urging state educational institutions to more aggressively crack down on criticism of the State of Israel on campuses, which the resolution defines as “anti-Semitism.” The anti-democratic resolution is the latest step in the broader campaign to stifle and suppress dissent on California’s increasingly volatile campuses.
The California State Assembly is the lower house of the state legislature, consisting of 80 members. The resolution—H.R. 35: “Relative to anti-Semitism”—was passed by a vote of 66 to 80, including a majority of both Republicans and Democrats in the Assembly.
Among those who think they comprise “the free world,” many speak well of keeping an open mind. In these lands many have spoken up over the centuries for a free exchange of ideas, and free speech. Modern, “Western” societies are defined in part by the adoption of such principles as fundaments. The more historically-minded have been inclined to appraise this celebrated, continuing tradition as a remarkable testament to modernity, to the triumph of Western values as vehicles of enlightenment. In those same countries of the West where progressive individuals once developed these principles with much deliberation, and envisioned these values so distinctly and firmly as to stamp them indelibly on Western thought for centuries, free ideas and free thought unquestionably remain worshipped icons of Progress today.
So, I should not be controversial at all to reiterate the above from a different angle: there are those who like the notion of the power and importance of ideas, and all the social preparations to trade them. Academic intellectuals in particular have reason to endorse such formulations professionally, to serve the reputation and impact of their own profession. But all intellectuals, in fact all who ever mull over ideas or tinker with them, have a reason: promoting grand perceptions of ideas flatters them through their pastime.
It looks like both the Democraps and Repugnicans both realize the US population has moved significantly leftward in recent years. Right on schedule.
On the symbolism front, in what even leading Democrats admit was a spectacular display of self-inflicted stupidity, they managed to scrub any mention of God from the Democratic platform. They also removed support for Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. When they realized how grievously idiotic these unforced errors were, they tried to fix them by amending the document. The result was an ugly moment where the delegates voted three times against, in effect, God and Jerusalem, until the chairman of the convention, L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa simply steamrolled his own party like some Politburo bully.
The Democratic National Convention has been tagged with a number of womb-centric nicknames over the past couple days, including, most notably, “Abortion-palooza” and “The Vagina Monologues.” The New York Daily News mulled “The Democrats’ Big Abortion Gamble” and Fox News asked in a headline on Friday, “Has the Democratic Party become the party of abortion?”
Following the spat his post generated on this-here site, Mojo scribes a follow-up…
My post ‘Fuck white nationalists,’ which was recently reposted at Attack the System, has generated some anger from – wait for it – white nationalists!
I should reiterate that I consider many WN grievances to be legitimate, but their proposed solutions would be even worse. For more on that, see the original article.
Former President Bill Clinton tried to get former senator Ted Kennedy to endorse Hillary Clinton for president in the 2008 election by describing Barack Obama this way: “A few years ago, this guy would have been carrying our bags.”
This anecdote is revealed in a New Yorker article on the relationship between Bill Clinton and Obama:
Tim Russert told me that, according to his sources, Bill Clinton, in an effort to secure an endorsement for Hillary from Ted Kennedy, said to Kennedy, “A few years ago, this guy would have been carrying our bags.”
I have no idea whether any of this is true or not, but it would be consistent with my own understanding of Obama as a manifestation of a class revolution carried out by an upper middle class motivated by cultural leftist ideology. If indeed Obama was a Marxist revolutionary in his youth, it’s quite likely that he’s since modified his views to accommodate a social democratic version of capitalism but one with a strong cultural leftist orientation. That’s the general trajectory that the New Left has displayed and while Obama is too young to have been a radical in the 60s it is clear that it was in the offshoots of that ideological milieu that his political ideas were formed.
Two Indian men had no idea their new business would cause so much controversy; after all, it’s a simple clothing store – called “Hitler.”
Rajesh Shah said the title is a reference to his business partner’s strict uncle, who everyone dubbed “Hitler” for his authoritarian attitude.
[editor’s note: This is bizarrely cynical: it’s not the anti-gayness of it, it’s the fact that most of the leaders of the GOP have embraced gay friendly politics at tue upper levels except when they can score political points off of abusing it (see Dick Cheney’s endorsement of gay marriage “as a state issue” and his endorsement of those anti-gay politics on the ballot). So doing it with African lives, that just makes it easier. American pundits should avoid trying to score political points off of situations they do not understand and empower corrupt states. So much for the “wolf you know” argument.]
Kevin Carson has written an insightful piece on Obama’s new war on 3-D printers, and the threat they pose to a faux scarcity corporate economy. The attempt to stale creative destruction, one of the few useful forces within a capitalist economy, is not in the interest of the working class or new innovation: it is a recipe for stagnation. One should never forget who these Democrats serve: a slightly different managerial “elite” than the Republicans do, but still a managerial pseudo-elite nonetheless.
Recently a group of women in New York City (who apparently believe that space aliens visited their French leader – that is a bizarre story in itself) rallied for what they call ‘bare chest equality.’ Essentially, they want the right to go topless in public. And men in New York are not exactly lining up to fight this strange new front in the relentless march towards equality and sameness. In fact, crowds of people gathered around to stare and take pictures of the female protesters. To add another level of strangeness to the story, women already have the right to go topless in New York City, as the story linked below notes. What the women actually want is for communities and governments elsewhere to enact ‘bare chest equality.’ More…
After his great victory in Desert Storm, George H.W. Bush went before the United Nations to declare the coming of a New World Order.
The Cold War was yesterday. Communism was in its death throes. The Soviet Empire had crumbled.
The Soviet Union was disintegrating. Francis Fukuyama was writing of “The End of History.” Savants trilled about the inevitable triumph of democratic capitalism.
Yet, in 2012, sectarianism, tribalism and nationalism are all resurgent, reshaping a world where U.S. power and influence are visibly receding.
Syria is sinking into a war of all against all that may end with a breakup of the nation along ethno-sectarian lines — Arab, Druze, Kurd, Sunni, Shia and Christian. Iraq descends along the same path.
A U.S. war with Iran could end with a Kurdish enclave in Iran’s northwest tied to Iraqi Kurdistan, Iran’s Azeri north drifting toward Azerbaijan, and a Balochi enclave in the south linked to Pakistan’s largest province, Balochistan, leaving Iran only Persia.
[This article has been causing a bit of an uproar and has inspired Occupy Wall Street to announce: “If we do not confront, confound, and destroy white supremacy and the complex web this system of power exerts over every aspect of our lives, then we are lost. Any struggle for economic or political freedom will be in vein without a crystal clear intention of class, gender, sexuality and racial equity at the core of our values, principals and practice.”]
As a candidate, Barack Obama said we needed to reckon with race and with America’s original sin, slavery. But as our first black president, he has avoided mention of race almost entirely. In having to be “twice as good” and “half as black,” Obama reveals the false promise and double standard of integration.