Re: capitalism = progressive?

[Mike Ballard]

Ted Winslow wrote:
>
> As I've said before, I think this view of the
> development of rational
> self-consciousness is mistaken.  In general, I think
> Marx
> underestimates the tenaciousness of irrationality
> and misunderstands
> its roots in social relations.  Misogynist
> patriarchalism, for
> instance, tends to reproduce itself through its
> effect on infant and
> child development.
>

*

I agree, Ted, especially about the reproduction of
patriarchy through childhood indoctrination and the
all round educational development and nurturing which
goes along with the socialization of children.
Obviously, Marx was not privy to anthropological and
psychological insights and analysis of subconscious
determinates which were developed after he died e.g.
Fromm's work in the early 30s on the development of
authoritarian character structure.  He was as much a
prisoner of his own history as we are.

My personal view is that the instinct to be free is
submerged under layers of learned ideological
rationalization which, in general, condition us to
accept our places in the hierarchies of political
power, as long as these power structures remain
stable.  This is why most humans are and remain
conservative even in the most absurd of
political-economic circumstances.  When these layers
are disrupted by some sort of crisis which threatens
humans in these societies existentially--wars,
depressions and the like-- and are subsequently
de-legitimized in time, the instinct to be free can
and often does combine with newly unfolding reasons,
ways and means to survive and so to speak, "break on
through to the other side". I see these eruptions as
having occured during the Paris Commune, the Russian
Revolution and its emerging workers' councils, the
Spanish Civil War and to a lesser extent within other
brief moments in time e.g. Paris in '68.

I think that history shows us that class conscious
praxis did not spread far and deep enough to make the
social revolution a reality for more than brief
moments during these times.  However, in my opinion,
it would be irrational to believe that such
existential crises will not occur in the future.  And
on a world scale, I think the human race has made some
progress on the rational level out of superstition.
It's not all the way there yet, by any means.
Therefore, the revolutionary consciousness  and the
"dictatorship of the proletariat" which Marx saw and
reported on in his "Civil War in France" will most
likely happen again.Like Marx, I wouldn't venture
to predict when that will be.  However, as this list
attests, there are plenty of crises on the horizon,
some of which could be just the spark needed.
Perhaps, next time, we'll succeed.


Best,
Mike B)

=
"Love and freedom are vital
to the creation and upbringing
of a child."

Sylvia Pankhurst

http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover

Talk Left, Walk Right

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

A short entry on corrupt conservatives and neoliberals who talk left
and walk right (borrowing the title of Patrick Bond's new book):
"Talk Left, Walk Right,"
.
--
Yoshie
* Critical Montages: 
* Bring Them Home Now! 
* Calendars of Events in Columbus:
,
, & 
* Student International Forum: 
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: 
* Al-Awda-Ohio: 
* Solidarity: 

52 British diplomats publicly criticise Blair

[Chris Burford]

For diplomats, British career diplomats, it is remarkable. They are
retired, and they can be amiably dismissed by Blair's supporters as
Arabists - people who often had worked in embassies in Arab countries,
but the overall picture is severe.

It is presented as a policy question but really it comes close to
articulating a fault line between two imperialist blocs. Britain (and
Europe) has little interest in maintaining Israel as a garrison state
in the near and middle east. The USA has domestic political pressures
plus regional strategic reasons for doing so. The USA has  or had the
military and economic power both to arm a garrision state, and to buy
off its rivals. Now that the USA has overstretched itself, this is
coming into question even within the USA's closest apparent ally,
Britain in the most public way - even by elements that by class
position would be closer to the British Conservative party.

It is remarkable that there should be such a public challenge from
within the Establishment to what is normally a given of Brtish foreign
policy since the end of the Second World War: however much teeth may
be ground in private, it is in Britain's geopolitical interests to be
in strategic alliance with the USA.

This letter is therefore an unprecedented public attack on Bush by
implication.


Chris Burford
London

Re: mixed economic signals

[Sabri Oncu]

Tim:

> If the "vast majority" of the traders behave
> irrationally and deny the uncertainty through
> conventional forecasting practices that make
> their actions predictable by the small number
> of traders able to behave rationally (i.e able
> to understand and predict the irrationality),
> then for the latter rational trading will be
> possible as "speculation" in Keynes's sense
> of "forecasting the psychology of the market"
> and "aping unreason proleptically."

Thank you Tim,

As a Turkish saying goes:

"You have been the translator of what I have been
thinking!"

However, I am not even sure if "forecasting the
psychology of the market" is possible.

At least, I am not the one who can do that.

This bloody housing bubble is still not bursting and I
have been waiting for it like waiting for Godot.

Am I the rational one now?

Best,

Sabri

Re: Bush, the lesser evil?

[Carrol Cox]

Joel Wendland wrote:
>
> C> The mistaken notion that an abandonment of Iraq after 13 years of war and
> sanctions will better the lives of anyone anywhere is completely mistaken.
> So let's assume that we do not favor abandoning the people of Iraq. What is
> the sensible and meaningful (i.e. has to be something that can be
> practically achievable as things are now) way forward?
>

I suppose  you also want rape-crisis centers to be 'manned' by rapists?

This line of argument will justify eternal war. All the U.S. has to do
is bomb the hell out of some country, send in some troops to do more
damage and to kill a few thousand random civilians, and all the leftist
of your sort will turn into rabid defenders of _this_ particular crime,
because the criminal must stay to make up for the crime.

Disgusting.

Carrol

Re: Bush, the lesser evil?

[k hanly]

But at the present juncture both Kerry and Bush take a multilateralist
stand. Bush is not multilateralist just in terms of a coalition of the
billing but also wants the UN to participate and bless US control of
security through a UN force with the US in command. Bush also seems to have
accepted the State department line rather than the Pentagon and is not
complaining that the UN will sideline Chalabi and many of the present IGC.
For his part Chalabi and others are no doubt trying to use the UN oil
for food scandal as a means to discredit the UN and advance their own
agenda. Obviously the hiring of some former Baath generals will not sit well
wtih the INC which always pushed for a wholesale de_Baathification. Chalabi
spouts off that allowing Baathists element back in is like allowing Nazis to
govern post-war Germany. Well heck Heisenberg was OK for US rocket
programmes

Cheers, Ken Hanly
- Original Message -
From: "Chris Burford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: Bush, the lesser evil?


> - Original Message -
> From: "Mike Ballard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 9:54 AM
> Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Bush, the lesser evil?
>
>
> > Chris,
> >
> > Does this mean that you don't think it mattered
>
> In my opinion the difference between Kerry and Bush is not of this
> magnitude. It is a policy difference not a class difference. They are
> both imperialists and both hegemonic imperialists. But Bush's policy
> has been to use the massive preponderance of US military might
> unilaterally to impose its hegemony. Kerry would obviously use this,
> but appears by his background, his utterances, and his position on
> Iraq to favour a more multi-lateralist hegemonic position. This may
> matter more outside the US than within it. Even outside it is a matter
> of judgement whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages for the
> progressive forces of the world versus international finance capital
> headed by US capital, to have Empire consolidated under the more
> complex hegemonic leadership of a Kerry type figure rather than
> fragmented and dramatised by a Bush type figure.
>
> Chris Burford

Re: Bush, the lesser evil?

[Michael Perelman]

I don't see what we can learn from the anybody but Bush debate.  Kerry is atrocious
-- Bush is a danger to humanity; Kerry may be better on a few issues, such as
abortion.

But we know all that.  Our choice seems to be whether to vote for someone to the
right on Clinton so that things don't get that much worse, while helping the Dems
move further to the right or whether we demand an opposition party, even if it means
more Bush.

I can't imagine that we could come to an agreement here and even if we did, we have
to face the question as to whether elections matter.

I would rather we try to learn from each other rather than rehash old stuff -- unless
we have something very new on the subject -- which I doubt.

I would rather hear from David Barkin on Mexico or from Johathan or Steve about
Mexico or from one of the many people from other parts of the world rather than
rehash Kerry.

 --
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu

Re: Bush, the lesser evil?

[Chris Burford]

- Original Message -
From: "Mike Ballard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Bush, the lesser evil?


> Chris,
>
> Does this mean that you don't think it mattered
> whether FDR or one of his Republican opponents became
> President in the 30s and 40s?
>
> Cheers,
> Mike B)

I was mainly making the point that the small manoeuvres between
bourgeois, imperialist, candidates are trivial as a lesser evil
argument. I did however point out that other aspects of the NYT
editorial suggested to me, a strategy to put the skids under Bush's
unilateralist war of aggression against Iraq, over a period of months,
by studiously not using the word conscription, but bringing the
argument up to that point.

No I don't know about FDR. The truth is always concrete. But when I
listen to some of Paul Robson's songs from that era it seems to me
there was a scope for progressive politics that there was not at other
times.

I have a soft spot for Ken Livingstone, even though he makes alliances
with the finance capitalism of the City of London for some of his more
socially coherent initiatives.

I cannot see from Google that Lenin ever advocated a lesser evil type
argument for choosing one bourgeois party over another. He did
famously in one concrete political formation call for support as a
rope supports a hanging man.

I do myself think there are sometimes arguments for supporting the
election of one bourgeois party over another provided this is not done
in such a way as to promote any faith or illusion in the bourgeois
party, but for reasons that actually shift the balance of power in
some way towards working people.

A far more difficult concrete situation was at the time of the rise of
Nazism when in retrospect perhaps all progressives got it wrong.
Google brings up the following argument by Trotsky in FOR A WORKERS'
UNITED FRONT AGAINST FASCISM by Leon Trotsky Written in exile in
Turkey, December 8 1931

>>>

IS BRUENING THE "LESSER EVIL"?


The Social Democracy supports Bruening, votes for him, assumes
responsibility for him before the masses-on the grounds that the
Bruening government is the "lesser evil." Die Rote Fahne attempts to
ascribe the same view to me-on the grounds that I expressed myself
against the stupid and shameful participation of the Communists in the
Hitler referendum. But have the German Left Opposition and myself in
particular demanded that the Communists vote for and support Bruening?
We Marxists regard Bruening and Hitler, Braun included, as component
parts of one and the same system. The question as to which one of them
is the "lesser evil" has no sense, for the system we are fighting
against needs all these elements. But these elements are momentarily
involved in conflicts with one another and the party of the
proletariat
must take advantage of these conflicts in the interest of the
revolution.
<<<

In my opinion the difference between Kerry and Bush is not of this
magnitude. It is a policy difference not a class difference. They are
both imperialists and both hegemonic imperialists. But Bush's policy
has been to use the massive preponderance of US military might
unilaterally to impose its hegemony. Kerry would obviously use this,
but appears by his background, his utterances, and his position on
Iraq to favour a more multi-lateralist hegemonic position. This may
matter more outside the US than within it. Even outside it is a matter
of judgement whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages for the
progressive forces of the world versus international finance capital
headed by US capital, to have Empire consolidated under the more
complex hegemonic leadership of a Kerry type figure rather than
fragmented and dramatised by a Bush type figure.

Chris Burford

Re: 2000 GOP Warnings of Gore Victory

[Devine, James]

what's the source of this, Michael? 
Jim D.
(Alas, I can't get to my office because they found a  2000 pound bomb nearby (left 
over from WWII in the old Hughes Helicopter land). I can't get to my car to leave 
campus, either. War is Hell.) 

-Original Message- 
From: Michael Hoover [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Mon 4/26/2004 1:30 PM 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Cc: 
Subject: [PEN-L] 2000 GOP Warnings of Gore Victory



The GOP (Republicans) warned us what would happen
if Gore was elected in 2000:

1. We would go to war.

2. The national debt would soar.

3. The US economy would plummet.

4. The stock market would plunge.

5. Unemployment would be rampant.

6. The US dollar would quickly decline in value.

7. We would have a huge budget deficit.

They were right.

Gore won and all those things happened.

2000 GOP Warnings of Gore Victory

[Michael Hoover]

The GOP (Republicans) warned us what would happen
if Gore was elected in 2000:

1. We would go to war.

2. The national debt would soar.

3. The US economy would plummet.

4. The stock market would plunge.

5. Unemployment would be rampant.

6. The US dollar would quickly decline in value.

7. We would have a huge budget deficit.

They were right.

Gore won and all those things happened.

Women of Color Expand Movement Beyond Pro-Choice Agenda

[Michael Hoover]

Date: Fri, April 23 2004
Subject: Women of Color Expand the Movement Beyond Pro-Choice Agenda

Women of Color Take Lead in Pro-Choice Rally
By Ginger Adams Otis
WeNews correspondent
Run Date: 04/22/04

Women of color are joining and taking a leadership role
in this Sunday's major rally for reproductive rights.
In doing so, they have broadened the agenda to include
such goals as better access to health care, day care,
nutritious food and clean water.


(WOMENSENEWS)--In cities and towns across the country,
students, unionists, environmentalists and others are
gearing up to attend the March to Save Women's Lives, a
massive reproductive-rights rally in Washington, D.C.,
this Sunday, April 25.

Unlike previous pro-choice rallies, this one is being
led by women of color and organizations that represent
them and this new approach is expected to greatly boost
attendance. But the real impact of this historic change
will extend beyond the crowd count of the march itself.

The leadership role of the women of color has pushed
the focus of the rally beyond a defense of a women's
legal right to terminate a pregnancy and created a call
for a broader range of goals, such as better and
broader access to day care and child care.

Loretta Ross, executive director of the National Center
for Human Rights Education and the first African
American woman to co-direct a national protest for
choice, says that putting the reproductive issues that
matter most to women of color on center stage Sunday is
going to forever change the women's movement.

"Women of color are going to be joining other women in
really large numbers to show their outrage at what's
being done to their reproductive rights," Ross says.
"When we approached the principal organizers about
being included, they invested a lot of money in
mobilizing among communities of color and making sure
the message got out to a lot of people. That hard work
is going to pay off on Sunday."

Broad Spectrum of Issues
A key rallying point is, of course, to defend Roe v.
Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that guaranteed women
the right to decide--free from government
interference--whether to end a pregnancy. But all agree
the march is about more than that.

"The right to have a child and get health care, an
education, safe drinking water, day care--these are the
issues Latinas link to reproductive rights," says
Silvia Henriquez, director of the Brooklyn-
headquartered National Latina Institute for
Reproductive Health. "It's as much about taking care of
their families as it is being able to terminate a
pregnancy."

Many of the immigrant women who turn to the National
Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, according to
Henriquez, come from countries where reproductive
healthcare was profoundly constrained.

"They come from countries where forced sterilization is
still common and where an abortion is really dangerous
and can land you in jail. They've seen their health
care providers criminalized and jailed just for giving
them birth control pills."

As a result, Henriquez says, many Latinas are anxious
to attain reproductive justice in this country and see
it as an integral human right. With the Hispanic
population set to be the largest U.S. minority within
the next several decades, says Henriquez, the women's
movement has much to gain by broadening its agenda to
include this very large population of women.

Also marching with the Women of Color delegation--
bearing a large "Women of Color for Reproductive
Justice" banner--will be members of the National Asian
Women's Health Organization and some key activists
within Native American communities.

Men are invited too. Marcus Scott, director of The Fre
Foundation, a D.C.-based organization dedicated to
promoting human-rights awareness in public schools, was
asked by Loretta Ross to write a letter to black men
explaining why they need to come out and show their
support for black women on Sunday.

"Black men have to be consistently present in support
of black women's health and reproductive efforts as
well as all facets of their work, leadership and
lives," says Scott, who mailed his letter to more than
50 organizations nationwide, including those who
organized and participated in the 1995 Million Man
March. So far he has gotten more then 500 letters of
support in return.

More Similarities Than Differences
Some activists would prefer to keep sights sharply
focused on last fall's passage of the so-called
partial-birth abortion ban, which outlaws most
abortions beyond the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and
makes no exception to protect the health of women. It
gives parents little chance to make decisions based on
fetal health, because the most common test for birth
defects--an amniocentesis--is not usually performed
until 15 to 18 weeks after a woman's last menstrual
period. Those results can take two more weeks.

President Bush signed the ban into law even though the
Supreme Court had previously labeled a similar ban
unconstitutional. Activis

Plowshares 8

[Michael Hoover]

The Plowshares 8
Twenty years after they broke into the Martin Marietta plant in the name
of
peace, anti-war activists revealed the name of their secret organizer
and
planned a new protest -- against the war in Iraq.

By Rich McKay | Sentinel Staff Writer
Posted April 23, 2004

They called themselves the "Pershing Plowshares," and for a time 20
years ago they were the biggest story in Orlando: long-haired
peaceniks who broke into a weapons plant, poured their own blood on
Pershing II missile parts and hit them with hammers to symbolically
disarm machines of war.

The eight of them -- including a Roman Catholic nun -- then walked out
onto the damp lawn of the then-Martin Marietta Corp.'s Sand Lake Road
plant, held hands and said prayers, waiting more than 45 minutes for
startled guards to notice them as the Easter morning sun rose.

As they swatted away fire ants, all eight knew it could be their last
moment of freedom for years to come.

On Thursday, the 20th anniversary of their arrest, two of the original
Plowshares, Patrick O'Neill and Paul Magno Jr., returned to Orlando
for a reunion with a loose-knit collection of peace activists who gave
them moral support.

Still in the mode of peace, love and protest at a Quaker meeting
house, they were in full form. Over a potluck supper and Key lime pie,
about 20 activists planned a new protest against the war in Iraq.

About 8 a.m. today, they'll return to the "scene of the crime" with
cardboard signs protesting the war as well as the company, now called
Lockheed Martin, for profiting on war.

"At this time, when the world is imperiled by violence and war, it's
just business as usual at Lockheed Martin," O'Neill said.

The group, taking its name from the Biblical passage, "They will beat
their swords into plowshares . . . " (Isaiah 2:4), said that they
don't plan to break any laws today.

This time, they won't snip through a chain-link fence and defile a
Pershing II missile -- which at the time was being made at the Martin
Marietta plant and deployed by President Reagan in Western Europe.

Reagan's move touched off protests worldwide. While many today credit
Reagan's policies and the powerful Pershing missile for ending the
Cold War, the peace activists say the key was years later, when Reagan
removed the missiles.

Magno quipped: "Reagan got [plaudits] for taking the Pershing missiles
out of Europe, while all I got was three years in prison."

But he says it was well worth it.

"There's never been a time in my life that I felt so focused and so at
peace with myself," he said. O'Neill revealed a 20-year secret -- the
name of the unknown 9th conspirator in the Pershing Plowshares -- the
person who drove them to the plant.

It was the late Philip Berrigan of Baltimore, who also was the brains
behind the group, he said. Berrigan hand-picked the activists from
various peace movements of the 1970s and '80s.

"He won't mind me spilling the beans," O'Neill said.

While local law enforcement -- which a year earlier had sent an
undercover agent to spy on religious peace protesters -- thought that
locals must have planned the attack, the Plowshares said Berrigan
picked Orlando because of the missiles built here to carry nuclear
warheads.

"All we did was go out and buy a map book," Magno added. "There was no
local conspiracy."

But some activists wanted the authorities to know that they honored
the undercover cop for years after he was uncovered by the Orlando
Sentinel. They would set a place at their table for him and bring
Kentucky Fried Chicken dinners -- the same food the agent brought to
the mostly vegetarian meals when he was spying on them.

Local peace and anti-nuclear groups rallied behind the Plowshares
after the fact, including local activist Jim Willard, 58, of Winter
Haven.

"Jim, you've gotten too old since I last saw you," O'Neill told him,
although O'Neill, now 48 and the father of seven children, also feels
the years that have grayed his ponytail, wrinkled his brow and swelled
his once-trim waistline.

Magno, also a bit grayer and heavier, recalled when he first saw
Willard, at the Orange County Courthouse, watching from the audience
as the eight Plowshares were marched in all handcuffed together.

Mango said the world today is even more "dense and impervious to our
peace action."

Kristine Iverson, 25, of Orlando who came to the meeting to meet them,
said, "I bet if it happened today they'd be called terrorists and
shipped off to Guantanamo [Bay, Cuba]."

In July 1984, all eight were sentenced to three years in prison for
destroying government property, a sentence considered harsh even by
longtime court observers. They were sent to federal prisons in several
states. Over the years, many of them remained active in the peace
movement.

Mango said he wished he had brought his old hammer down from D.C. so
he could hand it off to some of the newer faces in the peace movement
who showed up.

"Looking at this 20 years later, it's still up to us to protest and t

Facing South/April 22 2004

[Michael Hoover]

F A C I N G   S O U T H
A progressive Southern news report
April 22, 2004 * Issue 79
 _  
INSTITUTE INDEX * Earth Day, Everyday
Number of U.S. residents who live in areas the EPA considers "too smoggy to be 
healthy," in millions: 170
Percent that federal prosecution of criminal pollution cases has dropped since 2001: 30
Acres of wetlands removed from Clean Water Act protection since 2001, in millions: 20
Number of babies born each year with enough mercury pollution to cause "severe health 
problems" including brain damage: 630,000
Number of states and territories with fish consumption advisories due to mercury 
pollution: 44
Percent by which current administration proposals would increase allowable mercury 
pollution: 500 
Number of ex-National Park Service workers who last January charged Bush 
administration with "short-changing, ignoring, or violating" conservation policies: 183
Number of scientists who in April charged current administration with "manipulation 
and abuse of science" for political ends: 62
Number of senior EPA officials that have resigned in protest since 2001: 2

Sources on file at the Institute for Southern Studies.
 _  

DATELINE: THE SOUTH * Top Stories Around the Region

AIR POLLUTION COMPLIANCE LOWEST IN THE SOUTH
The number of US counties that fail to meet new EPA ozone pollution standards is 
highest in the south of the country, according to a new report. Under the new 
standards, "non-attainment" areas have more than doubled to 474. (GreenConsumerGuide, 
4/20)
http://www.greenconsumerguide.com/index.php?news=1846

PROFESSORS CAUGHT DOING PR FOR NUCLEAR INDUSTRY
When Sheldon Landsberger, a professor of nuclear engineering at the University of 
Texas-Austin, was caught signing his name to an Op Ed ghost-written by a nuclear 
industry group, it exposed a covert campaign by nuclear boosters to use academics to 
tilt public opinion. (Austin Chronicle, 4/16)
http://tinyurl.com/2989t

WORKERS AND SHAREHOLDERS UNITE TO REIN IN CEO POWER
In the face of a stalled economy with few jobs -- yet rising pay for corporate 
executives -- workers and shareholders are finding common ground in challenging the 
growing wealth and power of CEOs (In These Times, 4/15)
http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=690_0_1_0_C

GREENSBORO, NC TRIES ITS OWN TRUTH COMMISSION
Greensboro, N.C. -- where, in November 1979, five communist labor activists were 
killed by the KKK -- is moving to create a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to 
review documents and hear testimony to determine the truth of what happened, then 
suggest opportunities for the individuals involved and the entire city to reconcile 
and heal. (NNPA, April 04) 
http://tinyurl.com/yshxb

U. OF ALABAMA MOVES TO ADMIT SLAVERY TIES
Acknowledging its historical ties to slavery, the University of Alabama will erect a 
marker near the graves of two slaves on the campus at Tuscaloosa, and place others on 
buildings where slaves once worked and lived. President Robert Witt said the 
university, founded in 1831, will also commission a history that includes the early 
contributions of minorities, and campus recruitment tours will mention campus sites 
linked to slavery and integration. (Associated Press, 4/16)
http://tinyurl.com/267zo

PREGNANT PRISONERS IN ARKANSAS NO LONGER SHACKLED
Pregnant state prisoners will no longer be shackled while they are in labor under a 
new state Department of Correction policy. The department reached the compromise after 
meeting with legislators and inmate advocates this week, following a complaint by an 
inmate who gave birth and said she was shackled during much of her labor and chained 
again shortly after she had her baby. (Associated Press, 4/15) 
http://tinyurl.com/2d28x

THE BIBLE COLLEGE THAT LEADS TO THE WHITE HOUSE
At Patrick Henry College in rural Virginia, students must sign a statement saying they 
believe in a literal interpretation of the bible, and they can't hold hands with the 
opposite sex unless they're moving. The College is also a leading supplier of interns 
to the Bush Administration. (The Independent/UK, 4/21)
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0421-09.htm

White Whine

[Michael Hoover]

Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004
Subject: White Whine:  Reflections on the Brain-Rotting Properties of
Privilege

White Whine:  Reflections on the Brain-Rotting
Properties of Privilege
By Tim Wise
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2004-04/12wise.cfm

To truly understand a nation, a culture, or its people,
it helps to know what they take for granted.

After all, sometimes the things that go unspoken are
more powerful than the spoken word, if for no other
reason than the tendency of unspoken assumptions to
reinforce core ways of thinking, feeling and acting,
without ever having to be verbalized (and thus
subjected to challenge) at all.

What's more, when people take certain things for
granted, anything that goes against the grain of what
they perceive as "normal" will tend to stand out like a
sore thumb, and invite a hostility that seems
reasonable, at least to those dispensing it, precisely
because their unspoken assumptions have gone
uninterrogated for so long.

Thus, every February I encounter people who are
apoplectic at the thought of Black History Month, and
who insist with no sense of irony or misgiving that
there should be no such thing, since, after all, there
is no White History Month--a position to which they can
only adhere because they have taken for granted that
"American history" as told to them previously was
comprehensive and accurate, as opposed to being largely
the particular history of the dominant group.

In other words, the normalcy of the white narrative,
which has rendered every month since they popped out of
their momma's wombs White History Month, escapes them,
and makes the efforts of multiculturalists seem to be
the unique break with an otherwise neutral color-
blindness.

Sorta' like those who e-mail me on a semi-regular basis
to insist, as if they have just stumbled upon a truth
of unparalleled profundity, that there should be an
Ivory Magazine to balance out Ebony, or that we need a
White Entertainment Television network to balance out
BET, or a NAAWP to balance out the NAACP.

Again, these dear souls ignore what is obvious to
virtually all persons of color but which remains unseen
by those whose reality gets to be viewed as the norm:
namely, that there are already two Ivory Magazines--
Vogue and Cosmopolitan; that there are several WETs,
which just so happen to go by the names of CBS, NBC and
ABC; and that the Fortune 500, U.S. Congress and
Fraternal Orders of Police are all doing a pretty good
job holding it down for us white folks on the
organizational front. Just because the norm is not
racially-named, doesn't mean it isn't racialized.

Likewise the ongoing backlash against affirmative
action, by those who seem to believe that opportunity
would truly be equal in the absence of these presumably
unjust efforts to ensure access to jobs and higher
education for persons of color.

We are to believe that before affirmative action things
were fine, and that were such efforts abolished now,
things would return to this utopic state of affairs: to
hell with the persistent evidence that people of color
continue to face discrimination in employment, housing,
education and all other institutional settings in the
U.S.

So if the University of Michigan gives applicants of
color twenty points on a 150-point admission scale, so
as to promote racial diversity and balance out the
disadvantages to which such students are often
subjected in their K-12 schooling experience, that is
seen as unfair racial preference.

But when the same school gives out 16 points to kids
from the lily-white Upper Peninsula, or four points for
children of overwhelmingly white alumni, or ten points
for students who went to the state's "top" schools (who
will be disproportionately white), or 8 points for
those who took a full slate of Advanced Placement
classes in high schools (which classes are far less
available in schools serving students of color), this
is seen as perfectly fair, and not at all racially
preferential.

What's more, the whites who received all those bonus
points due to their racial and class position will not
be thought of by anyone as having received unearned
advantages, in spite of the almost entirely ascriptive
nature of the categories into which they fell that
qualified them for such bonuses. No matter their
"qualifications," it will be taken for granted that any
white student at a college or University belongs there.

This is why Jennifer Gratz, the lead plaintiff in the
successful "reverse discrimination" suit against
Michigan's undergraduate affirmative action policy,
found it a supreme injustice that a few dozen black,
Latino and American Indian students were admitted ahead
of her, despite having lower SATs and grades; but she
thought nothing of the fact that more than 1400 other
white students also were admitted ahead of her and her
co-plaintiffs, despite having lower scores and grades.

"Lesser qualified" whites are acceptable, you see,
while "lesser qualified" people of color must be
eliminate

Re: Intelligentsia and Empire - in Iraq and the world

[Devine, James]

some of the neo-cons were (or are) members of Social Democrats, USA, which inherited a 
sectarian pseudo-Marxism from Max Schachtman (who had once been a Trotskyist).
JD.

-Original Message- 
From: Devine, James 
Sent: Mon 4/26/2004 8:16 AM 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Cc: 
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Intelligentsia and Empire - in Iraq and the world



Chris B: >Now I do not know how many of the neo-cons ever had sufficiently
left-leaning Democrat affiliations to think of themselves as
"liberals" or still worse, as "socialists", but ideas are only
partially conscious reflections of reality according to the
dialectical materialist theory of knowledge.<

a lot of them backed US Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson (Dem-Boeing) for 
President back in the early 1970s, when they were in their formatie years. He combined 
advocacy of "New Deal" domestic policies with heavy Cold-War military/diplomatic 
attitudes. The people that I knew who were like this were very pro-Israel and 
anti-George McGovern.
Jim D.

Re: Bush, the lesser evil?

[Joel Wendland]

Chris Burford wrote:
Louis Proyect effectively demonstrates how the concept of "the lesser
evil" becomes nonsense, even on the most pragmatic opportunist
tactical level, as two bourgeois candidates for President, and their
supporters, circle round each other, trying to avoid giving the other
side opportunity for attack.
Louis Proyect has demonstrated nothing with his post under this thread
except to show that he knows how to paint images with broad strokes that are
not designed to help us understand anything about the situation in Iraq or
the positons that people or organizations hold about the situation in Iraq
and the best way forward.
The mistaken notion that an abandonment of Iraq after 13 years of war and
sanctions will better the lives of anyone anywhere is completely mistaken.
So let's assume that we do not favor abandoning the people of Iraq. What is
the sensible and meaningful (i.e. has to be something that can be
practically achievable as things are now) way forward?
Best,
Joel Wendland
http://www.politicalaffairs.net
http://classwarnotes.blogspot.com
_
From must-see cities to the best beaches, plan a getaway with the Spring
Travel Guide! http://special.msn.com/local/springtravel.armx

Re: "What's the difference?"

[Joel Blau]

This isn't surprising. Beers coteaches a class at Georgetown in national
security issues with Richard Clarke.
Joel Blau
Louis Proyect wrote:
Boston Globe, April 26, 2004
Kerry faces PR fight over foreign policy
By Farah Stockman, Globe Staff  |  April 26, 2004
Their main goal: ''To show that we can protect America better than
George Bush," said Rand Beers, Kerry's chief national security adviser.
In a presidential race dominated by national security issues, Kerry's
success may hinge on whether voters are convinced that his ability to
forge ties with allies can make America safer than President Bush's more
unilateral approach. Lately, the differences between the candidates have
sometimes been hard to detect.

The new Occupation Flag in Iraq

[k hanly]

This seems to be a stupid act. Surely this a total insult to the dignity of
Iraqis that they now have a flag opposed upon them. The liberation holiday
didnt work out..Neither will this. Maybe some US company has the contract to
make them and thus will have an endless contract as they are burned up and
have to be replaced..

Cheers, Ken Hanly

BAGHDAD: Iraq's Governing Council has adopted a new national flag to replace
the one flown by Saddam Hussein, with emblems to represent peace, Islam and
Iraq's Kurdish population, spokesman Hamid al-Kefaae said today.

The new flag consists of a pale blue crescent on a white background and has
a yellow strip between two lines of blue at the bottom. It will be raised
over government buildings within days, he said.

http://www.hipakistan.com/en/detail.php?newsId=en62743&F_catID=&f_type=source

Iranian influence in Iraq

[k hanly]

Analysis: Iran's influence in Iraq

An official Iranian delegation is in Baghdad at Washington's request to hel=
p
resolve the impasse between the US occupation authorities and Shia cleric
Moqtada Sadr. Middle East analyst Dilip Hiro says this underlies the
influence that the predominantly Shia Iran has on the neighbouring Iraqi
Shias.

The Iranian influence is exercised through different channels - a phenomeno=
n
helped by the fact that there is no single, centralised authority in Iran.

The different centres of power include the offices of the Supreme Leader an=
d
the President; the Majlis (parliament) and the judiciary; the Expediency
Council; and offices of the Grand Ayatollahs in the holy city of Qom, and
their social welfare networks throughout the Shia world.

It was the decision of Grand Ayatollah Kadhim Husseini al-Hairi - an Iraqi
cleric who had gone to Qom for further theological studies 30 years ago,
never to return - to appoint Moqtada Sadr as his deputy in Iraq in April
2003 that raised the young cleric's religious standing.

The more senior Ayatollah Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, a member of the US-appointed
Iraqi Governing Council (IGC), is even more beholden to Iran. He is the
leader of the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Sciri), which
was established in 1982 in Tehran by the Iranian government. He returned to
Iraq after spending 22 years in Iran.

Shia militia

Sciri's 10,000-strong militia, called the Badr Brigades, has been trained
and equipped by Iran.

Ayatollah Hakim underscored his continued closeness to Iran on 11 February,
the 25th anniversary of Iran's Islamic revolution. Opening a book fair in
Baghdad, sponsored by the Iranian embassy, he praised the Vilayat-e Faqih
(ie Rule of Religious Jurisprudent) doctrine on which the Iranian
constitution is founded.

Sooner or later, the Americans will be obliged to leave Iraq in shame and
humiliation

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei

Then there is Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the most senior Shia cleric, who
is now being routinely described by the Coalition Provisional Authority
(CPA) as a moderate, even pro-Western, even though he refuses to meet eithe=
r
the CPA chief Paul Bremer or any of his envoys, limiting his contacts
strictly to IGC members.
Ayatollah Sistani was born and brought up in the Iranian city of Mashhad,
and despite his 53 years in Iraq, speaks Arabic with a Persian accent.

Most of his nine charitable ventures, primarily providing housing for
pilgrims and theology students, are in Iran. So too are the four religious
foundations sponsored by him.

Increasing influence

Outside official circles, there are signs of growing Iranian influence amon=
g
Iraqi Shias.

The religious foundations run by pre-eminent clerics in Iran are funding
partially the social welfare services being provided to Iraqi Shias by thei=
r
mosques at a time when unemployment is running at 60%.


Iran's present co-operation with Washington is a tactical move. They want t=
o
help stabilise the situation in Iraq to facilitate elections there so the
Shia majority can assume power through the ballot box, and hasten the
departure of the Anglo-American occupiers

If there is any day-to-day Iranian involvement in the workings of the Sadr
network in Iraq, it is in the sphere of social welfare.

There is no need for Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard to train the
militiamen of Sadr's Mehdi Army since all Iraq males have received three
years of military training under the Baathist regime and the country is
awash with small arms and ammunition.

Also, Iranian Shias are pouring into Iraq, which has six holy Shia sites,
across the unguarded border at the rate of 10,000 a day.

They are thus bolstering the Iraqi economy to the tune of about $2bn a year=
,
equivalent to two-fifths of Iraq's oil revenue in 2003.

Covert activities

Then there are covert activities purportedly sponsored by Iran.

Soon after Saddam's downfall, some 100 "security specialists" of the
Lebanese Hezbollah arrived in Basra, at the behest of the Iranian
intelligence agency, according to the Anglo-American sources.

Since then two groups of Iraqi Shias calling themselves Hezbollah have
emerged, one of them allegedly sponsored by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary
Guard, with its headquarters in Amara and branches in other cities.

This is widely seen as a move to establish an Iranian intelligence
infrastructure in Iraq. However, such a network can hardly compete with its
Anglo-American rival.

Until a few days ago, conceding any role to the Islamic Republic of Iran ha=
s
been anathema to the George Bush administration.

It is hell bent on seeing that the Iraqi politicians refrain from declaring
Iraq an Islamic republic. Paul Bremer publicly announced that if those
writing the transitional constitution made any such move, he would veto the
document.

But present signs are that a large majority of Shias, led by Ayatollah
Sistani, favour an Islamic entity of some sort for Iraq. About

FW: What Daddy does for work

[Devine, James]

[forwarded and edited]

David was in his 7th grade class when the teacher asked the children what
their fathers did for a living. All the typical answers came up --
firefighter, police officer, sales rep, doctor, lawyer, etc. David was being
uncharacteristically quiet and so the teacher asked him about his father.

"My father's an exotic dancer in a gay cabaret and takes off his clothes in
front of other men. Sometimes, if the offer's really good, he'll go out to
the alley with some guy and make love with him for money."

Shaken by this statement, the teacher hurriedly set the other children to
work on some exercises and took David aside to ask him, "Is that really true
about your father?"

"No," said David, "He's an economist, but I was too embarrassed to say that 
in front of the other kids."

Jim D. 

Re: Intelligentsia and Empire - in Iraq and the world

[Devine, James]

Chris B: >Now I do not know how many of the neo-cons ever had sufficiently
left-leaning Democrat affiliations to think of themselves as
"liberals" or still worse, as "socialists", but ideas are only
partially conscious reflections of reality according to the
dialectical materialist theory of knowledge.<

a lot of them backed US Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson (Dem-Boeing) for President back 
in the early 1970s, when they were in their formatie years. He combined advocacy of 
"New Deal" domestic policies with heavy Cold-War military/diplomatic attitudes. The 
people that I knew who were like this were very pro-Israel and anti-George McGovern. 
Jim D.

Re: Bush, the lesser evil?

[andie nachgeborenen]

Or, more to the point, whether Johnson or Goldwater
won in 64. Kerry may get stuck as a Johnson unless he
finds a face-saving exit, fighting an unwinnable war
he didn't believe in. We can quote his own best line
at him. But the war apart, LBJ presided over The Great
Society, the expansion of the welfare state, appointed
the real Warren Court, gave us the 1964 Civil Rights
Act (Title VII) and the Voting Rights Act, a tolerably
decent NLRB, and aggressive desegregation policies --
just for starters. I don't minimize his crimes, but
there were real differences between Johnson and
Goldwater, awful as LBJ's foreign policy was. Maybe
these didn't justify "Part of the way with LBJ" in
1964 or early '68, and Kerry's no LBJ. Hell, Kerry
makes Nixon look like a red. But the total balance of
the decision can't rest on just the war policy. jks


--- Mike Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chris,
>
> Does this mean that you don't think it mattered
> whether FDR or one of his Republican opponents
> became
> President in the 30s and 40s?
>
> Cheers,
> Mike B)
>
> --- Chris Burford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Louis Proyect effectively demonstrates how the
> > concept of "the lesser
> > evil" becomes nonsense, even on the most pragmatic
> > opportunist
> > tactical level, as two bourgeois candidates for
> > President, and their
> > supporters, circle round each other, trying to
> avoid
> > giving the other
> > side opportunity for attack.
>
>
> =
> "Love and freedom are vital
> to the creation and upbringing
> of a child."
>
> Sylvia Pankhurst
>
> http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal
>
>
>
>
> __
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for
> 25¢
> http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash





__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash

1,150,000 March on Washington, D.C...

[Diane Monaco]

1,150,000 March on Washington, D.C. to Voice Opposition to Government
Attacks on Women's Reproductive Rights and Health

Sunday April 25, 4:43 pm ET

Official Crowd Count Largest Ever for Women's Rights Rally in The
Nation's Capitol

WASHINGTON, April 25 /PRNewswire/ -- An estimated 1,150,000 descended
on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. today to give an urgent
wake-up call to government leaders and the nation-women's lives are at
risk and lawmakers stop intruding on a woman's right to access critical
reproductive health services and make deeply personal decisions about
her health and life.

The March for Women's Lives was led by seven organizing groups:
American Civil Liberties Union, Black Women's Health Imperative,
Feminist Majority, NARAL Pro-Choice America, National Latina Institute
for Reproductive Health, National Organization for Women and Planned
Parenthood Federation of America.

Following are highlights excerpted from remarks given by the
organization's leaders at the March:

"The government does not belong in our bedrooms. It does not belong in
our doctors' offices. It does not belong in the bank accounts of
innocent Americans, and should not have the power to monitor their
e-mail, or track their bookstore purchases, or scrutinize the books
they check out of local libraries," said Anthony D. Romero, executive
director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). "Our fundamental
right to privacy is under serious attack by this government."

"This historic march is sending an unmistakable message: women's rights
and women's lives are non-negotiable," stated Eleanor Smeal, president
of the Feminist Majority. "We are building an expanded and inclusive
movement that will make women's reproductive rights-just like social
security-a third rail of politics."

"My friends -- make no mistake. There is a war on choice. We didn't
start it, but we are going to win it!" said Gloria Feldt, president of
Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "They're not just after
abortion rights. This is a full-throttle war on your very health-on
your access to real sex education, birth control, medical privacy, and
life-saving research."

"My greatest wish is that there would never be another political debate
about the right to choose," said Kate Michelman, president of NARAL
Pro-Choice America. "But history teaches us that every right-no matter
how basic-is always at risk. And I'm confident that the young people
who have lead this march today will lead our movement in a new wave of
activism that will keep the right to choose alive for the next
generation."

"This March is a giant wake up call," said Kim Gandy, president of the
National Organization for Women (NOW). "We won't go back to 1968 when
women couldn't buy birth control; we won't go back to 1972 when women
were dying from illegal abortions. We're marching for our rights before
it's too late."

"The reproductive health of Black women is in a state of crisis. Black
women are suffering and dying too often, too soon and needlessly," said
Dr. Lorraine Cole, president and CEO of the Black Women's Health
Imperative. "When we leave here today, let's turn pain into promise,
let's turn promise into partnership and let's turn partnership into
power."

"We demand an end to coercive and punitive policies that prevent us
from making informed decisions about our health, our lives and our
futures!" said Silvia Henriquez, executive director of the National
Latina Institute of Reproductive Health. "We envision a day when no
Latina will live in a climate of fear and oppression, when every person
has access to comprehensive and affordable health care. That is
reproductive justice!"

Using standard crowd estimate methods, March participants were counted
in designated grids on the National Mall, which are designed to hold a
predetermined number of people. The March also verified this count by
assigning 2,500 volunteers to stand at key entry points to the March
area and at bus drop-off locations and count people by placing March
stickers on participants as they entered these entry points.

For more information on the March for Women's Lives, visit:
www.marchforwomen.org

"What's the difference?"

[Louis Proyect]

Boston Globe, April 26, 2004
Kerry faces PR fight over foreign policy
By Farah Stockman, Globe Staff  |  April 26, 2004
WASHINGTON -- If elected president, John F. Kerry would move to increase
the US military by 40,000 troops. He would send more soldiers to Iraq if
commanders said they were needed. He would stay in Iraq as long as it
took to get the job done.
Those are the policies that Kerry's inner circle of foreign policy
advisers must work with every Monday at lunchtime when they meet to
discuss ways to take the Democratic candidate's ideas to the American
public.
Their main goal: ''To show that we can protect America better than
George Bush," said Rand Beers, Kerry's chief national security adviser.
In a presidential race dominated by national security issues, Kerry's
success may hinge on whether voters are convinced that his ability to
forge ties with allies can make America safer than President Bush's more
unilateral approach. Lately, the differences between the candidates have
sometimes been hard to detect.
But in public opinion surveys, Bush trumps the Massachusetts senator on
those issues. A USA Today/ CNN/ Gallup poll released last week indicated
that 41 percent of respondents said they thought ''only Bush" would do a
good job handling terrorism, while 20 percent said ''only Kerry" would.
On the situation in Iraq, 40 percent indicated ''only Bush," while 26
percent indicated Kerry. Those numbers come in one of the most
troublesome news cycles for the Bush administration, as the Sept. 11
commission hearings and the rising violence in Iraq have raised
questions about Bush's conduct on both issues.
The poll numbers also come as Bush and Kerry have increasingly echoed
each other's statements on foreign policy, complicating Kerry's struggle
to distinguish himself in voters' minds and maintain the support of
antiwar Democrats.
Bush is beginning to adopt measures that Kerry has long advocated:
giving the United Nations a far greater role in Iraq, emphasizing the
importance of welcoming NATO to Iraq, and beefing up the number of US
troops in Iraq.
The president's moves have generated a mixed reaction among Kerry's
advisers, some of whom have urged him to take credit for the change.
''It is the greatest form of flattery in a sense, isn't it?" Beers said.
But others see a danger for Kerry in Bush's new pronouncements.
''The nightmare for Kerry is that all of his criticisms become moot,
except the woulda-shoulda-coulda criticism about the war," said Walter
Russell Mead, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. ''In this
sense, voters are going to say to themselves: 'What's the difference? If
I vote for Kerry, I will get a war in Iraq and someone who doesn't
believe in the war but is going to have to fight it anyway. If I vote
for Bush, I get a war in Iraq, fought by somebody who believes in the war.'
full:

--
The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

Out Now -- Before It Is Too Late

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Out Now -- Before It Is Too Late
Now that resistance to the US occupation of Iraq has begun to unite
Sunni and Shiite Iraqis across the allegedly deep religious divide
and to show the sign that it may grow into a viable national
liberation movement sooner than many outsiders -- including myself --
anticipated, US public opinions, in turn, have begun to change.
According to the Pew Research Center, "Just 50% of Americans favor
keeping troops in Iraq until a stable government is established
there, while 44% support bringing the troops home as soon as
possible. In January, the public by nearly two-to-one favored
maintaining U.S. troops in Iraq until a stable government is formed
(63%-32%)" ("After Falluja," April 5, 2004). In coming weeks and
months, the proportion of Americans who favor immediate withdrawal of
US troops is likely to become larger, as 52% of Americans are more
concerned that "the U.S. will wait too long to withdraw its troops
from Iraq," while only 36% say that they are more concerned that "the
U.S. will leave Iraq before a stable democracy is in place" ("After
Falluja"). Nevertheless, the Newsweek poll released around the same
time revealed that a whopping 63% of Americans say that they would
"support increasing the number of U.S. military personnel in Iraq, if
necessary, in response to the recent attacks on coalition forces by
Iraqi militants," more than twice the proportion (31%) of those who
would not support it ("NEWSWEEK POLL: Sixty Percent Say Bush
Administration Underestimated Terrorist Threat Prior To September
11," April 10, 2004). What are anti-occupation activists to make of
seemingly contradictory US public opinions?
On one hand, we have good news: "'There's a lot of sentiment against
the war,' said Eric Swank, who has been studying the peace movement
as a sociologist at Morehead State University in Kentucky. . .
.'[T]he protests respond more to the political climate [in the United
States]. Republicans and Democrats are starting to challenge the
president more,' Swank said. 'It gives clues that if you're doing
activism, someone's listening to you'" (Sam Tranum, "Small Group in
West Palm Answers National Call from Anti-war Groups," South Florida
Sun-Sentinel April 14, 2004). Though the anti-war movement
predictably lost its momentum after the invasion began, its core
organizers never disappeared, and the movement has been steadily
rebuilding itself, having already organized two sizable mobilizations
(a protest in D.C. on October 25, 2003 and an international day of
action on March 20, 2004) and planning more. Continued dissent at
home, in addition to Iraqi resistance, has made it possible for
pundits and politicians to challenge the president from left and
right; and even though much of the mainstream pundits and
politicians' challenges concern only how the invasion and occupation
has been handled, rather than whether Washington should have invaded
Iraq or should continue to occupy it despite Iraqis' resistance, the
very fact that the president's wisdom is being questioned publicly,
as Swank notes, validates concerns about the occupation and allows
more Americans to speak out.
On the other hand, the high level of support for the idea of
"increasing the number of U.S. military personnel in Iraq" to defeat
the Iraqi resistance is worrisome. The US power elite -- committed to
defense of the "credibility" of US imperial might and therefore
unable to countenance any possibility of appearing to retreat in
defeat -- may very well market the escalation of counter-insurgency
by exploiting ambivalence in the public's fear of "quagmire." Their
propaganda might go like this: "Without more troops to defeat Iraqi
terrorists decisively, the occupation would become a bottomless
quagmire. We must strengthen our military presence in Iraq, so we can
support our troops, put down the terrorists, provide security to the
people of Iraq, and help them establish a stable democratic
government. Only by sending more troops now can we end the occupation
and bring them home soon." Given that much of the questioning of the
Bush administration in the mainstream media has focused only on the
hows of the occupation, rather than the whethers and whys, it won't
be easy for the anti-occupation movement, itself ambivalent on the
question of lack of security, to counter such propaganda sharply.
How can we effectively fight the seductive propaganda that says,
"Send More Troops Now to End the Occupation Sooner"? . . .
[The rest of the article is available at
.]
--
Yoshie
* Critical Montages: 
* Bring Them Home Now! 
* Calendars of Events in Columbus:
,
, & 
* Student International Forum: 
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: 

Re: Bush, the lesser evil?

[Mike Ballard]

Chris,

Does this mean that you don't think it mattered
whether FDR or one of his Republican opponents became
President in the 30s and 40s?

Cheers,
Mike B)

--- Chris Burford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Louis Proyect effectively demonstrates how the
> concept of "the lesser
> evil" becomes nonsense, even on the most pragmatic
> opportunist
> tactical level, as two bourgeois candidates for
> President, and their
> supporters, circle round each other, trying to avoid
> giving the other
> side opportunity for attack.


=
"Love and freedom are vital
to the creation and upbringing
of a child."

Sylvia Pankhurst

http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash