Thursday, May 03, 2007

Bush ends US war while Dems try to save it

In the Iraq war spending bill, congressional Democrats sent Bush a better choice than he had a right to. Either accept an end to the Iraq mess in 12 to 18 months, or veto the bill and end the war now.

Bush vetoed the bill, which means funding runs out, and our troops will finally begin returning home, within the next 60 days. Incredibly, House Democrats have desperately attempted to keep the war going by trying to override the veto, but they failed.

So imagine my disgust this morning to see local news clips of Austin liberals actually protesting the end of the war!

Yes, I kid you not. News coverage showed a few dozen "anti-war" demonstrators who were actually angry that Bush vetoed any future spending on the Iraq debacle.

Has hatred of Bush (or knee-jerk support of pro-war Democrats just because they're Democrats) become so automatic and ingrained that liberals actually want the war to continue? Do they actually want more US troops to die in Bush's quagmire?

Apparently some do.

Let there be no confusion - thanks to Bush's veto, direct US military involvement in Iraq now does in fact *end in 60 days.* That is, unless the congressional Democrat majority actually votes to give him more money to continue the slaughter. Indications are that they're intending to do just that.

So, you want to protest, liberals? Fine. Then we need to physically occupy and shut down the local and DC offices of any Democratic congressperson who casts a vote to give Bush more funding for his illegal war. MAke sure any Democrat who votes for more funding is hounded out of office, in November 2008, or preferably long before.

Thanks to Bush's veto, the *only* people who can keep the carnage going are the Democrats. And, given the hearty support for continued war funding that the "protesters" were expressing, it looks like the Dems are actually going to get away with reviving the funding that Bush vetoed! Gee, thanks a lot. I'm sure the grunts will be grateful that thanks to the Democrats and "liberals," they'll get to spend another few years in hell.

Monday, November 07, 2005

The cart before the horse

Normally, I filter overtly racist and racialist rants from the mailing list, since there are literally thousands of other mailing lists, websites, and commercial media outlets (FOX News, Pat Buchanan on CNN, etc.) where these know-nothings not only are granted an outlet, but where they predominate.

The only time I let 'em through is as an object lesson in how racialist propagandists use highly selective and emotional appeals to the stupid and fearful to drive their agenda. This is one of those times.

Original essay here

Mr. Fred Reed (whose recent essays include a few rants against teaching science in schools) is either totally ignorant of the fundamental principles of global capitalist economics and history, or, more likely, is betting that his readers are. He certainly takes a fanciful view of the universe and not a scientific one if he thinks that the immigrant population of Europe (or the Latino and black population of the USA), like Topsy, "jest growed." Maybe that explains his disgust of Darwin (whose work he totally - deliberately?- misconstrues in these other essays). He's a Ptolomaic astronomer. If the sun *appears* to revolve around the earth, from Mr. Reed's limited and highly attenuated perspective, well then, by gum, it does!

Just where and how and why does he think the "sorts of people who belong somewhere else" ended up where they are? 21 paragraphs of vitriol and not one mention of the history and the results of five centuries of European colonialism of the "third" world. It was such a tiny, insignificant blip on the radar of world history - I'm sure he just overlooked it, in favor of his pathetic self-pity over the futility of the white man's burden. As is typical of this sort of attitude, Mr. Reed puts the cart before the horse and then bitches about the lack of efficient transport.

When a country (be it France or the similarly-situated UK) raises entire generations of "colonials" as mere fodder to be used for the extraction of raw materials, the colonial power should certainly not be surprised to note a cultural and educational gap. That was precisly the intention! To then lament that the colonized peoples' religion, social structure and worldview differs from that of white upper-class Anglos deserves little more than a loud, "well, duh!" But to blame the victims of a deliberate program of breeding for ignorance (or, worse, the offspring of the victims) is no more than the trick of the pickpocket who diverts attention from his hand reaching for your wallet. If a large adult breaks the legs of a child, it's the height of hypocrisy to complain about how badly he walks. And to then broadly hint at an advocacy of genocide or ethnic cleansing as the solution, as Mr. Reed does, crosses the line from hypocrisy to witting evil.

One doesn't have to read Marx to realize that capitalist Europe and the USA have organized their economies to deliberately create a large pool of unskilled labor to keep their own "native" workers' wages down. They admit it openly, though usually only in publications like "Foreign Affairs" and other specialty class-based publications not perused by Reed's intended audience. But then, tune into any business show on TV. When the corpulent, male, and always white talking head from (bankrupt, US-taxpayer-subsidized) Citibank starts talking about "controlling inflation," he means your hourly wage and mine are too high for the few dozen or so large shareholders who make up the not-so-invisible "hand of the marketplace." The traditional answer has always been to increase the available labor pool beyond what can be utilized by capital, either through massive layoffs (and now outsourcing), illegal immigration, or a combination of the two.

Useful idiots (the term has a specific meaning) like Mr. Reed, Pat Buchanan, etc., are then set loose to aid in the wage-reduction schemes by blaming the immigrant population for "taking jobs from Americans" or whatever set of white nationals the screed is aimed at. Mr. Reed no doubt would be the first to scream bloody murder if his grocery-store produce was actually picked by American citizens paid at living-wage, and priced at parity. Ditto his clothes, his office furniture, and his tech support when his electronic spew outlet goes down.

Deliberate ghettoization. Deliberate funding-imposed limitations on educational, nutritional, and employment options. The tacit encouragement of ignorant, reactive, fundamentalist religion, both here in the US and in the Islamic world. Think tanks and universities who spread the poison of
Sam Huntington's "clash of civilizations" just as the Islamic Wahhabi schools spread the identical doctrines, often funded from the same networks.* But, like Ptolomy, Mr. Reed and his ilk choose to see only what verifies their prejudices. Ptolomy, at least, could plead ignorance before the court of knowledge. Mr. Reed and his ilk presumably have no such defense.

*(Anyone wanna do the legwork I've done over the years, and study how Wahhabism was encouraged and who funded the schools where it was spread? You can start with the Ronald Reagan administration, his vice-president George H. W. Bush, and a young, disaffected hotel-chain heir named Osama bin Laden. Then work back to the British Tavistock Institute, with a few stops at the Israeli Mossad and Mr. Bush's past and current business partners, the ubiquitous Saudi royals - it makes for some fascinating discoveries and there are plenty of uncomfortable links to our own seemingly homegrown "Christian" advocates of radical monotheistic warfare against the "other," such as Pat Robertson and Michael Ledeen.)

Saturday, May 28, 2005

Testing this thing on?

Hi! Welcome to the Cackling Grackle blog. All the kewl kids were doing it,, here it is.

If you just found this, and need some background, I'm the founder of the Cackling Grackle email list, which started on Topica .com a few years back and moved to Yahoo! groups over ongoing unresolved technical and political censorship issues. My own political viewpoint is an (often uneasy and inconsistent) amalgam of social libertarianism, mainly left-anarchist economics, a belief in the principles embodied in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, and a evolving philosophical stance that I suppose could be called Prometheanism - people familiar with the works of Robert Anton Wilson, Dr. Timothy Leary, and R. Buckminster Fuller will probably understand the gist of it. How it all is supposed to work in practical terms - well, that's a work in progress, as is the USA, as is Homo Sapiens, etc. This blog is in part where I try to work out the kinks in the chain.

The mailing list will continue as usual, and there will probably be a lot of overlap between the list and the blog on major stories, but the blog will usually have more extended commentaries and rude remarks. So in general, if you want links to lots of breaking news stories and articles, from several different posters, join or continue with the mailing list and/or check the archives at Yahoogroups. If you want a smaller selection of stories with more context and commentary from yours truly, then check the blog regularly.

Liber OZ


"the law of
the strong:
this is our law
and the joy
of the world." AL. II. 2

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." --AL. I. 40

"thou hast no right but to do thy will. Do that, and no other shall say nay." --AL. I. 42-3

"Every man and every woman is a star." --AL. I. 3

There is no god but man.

1. Man has the right to live by his own law--
to live in the way that he wills to do:
to work as he will:
to play as he will:
to rest as he will:
to die when and how he will.
2. Man has the right to eat what he will:
to drink what he will:
to dwell where he will:
to move as he will on the face of the earth.
3. Man has the right to think what he will:
to speak what he will:
to write what he will:
to draw, paint, carve, etch, mould, build as he will:
to dress as he will.
4. Man has the right to love as he will:--
"take your fill and will of love as ye will,
when, where, and with whom ye will." --AL. I. 51
5. Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights.
"the slaves shall serve." --AL. II. 58

"Love is the law, love under will." --AL. I. 57

US Bill of Rights

Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

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

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.