"The wealthy, not only by private fraud but also by common laws, do every day pluck and snatch away from the people some part of their daily living. Therefore, when I consider and weigh in my mind these commonwealths which nowadays do flourish, I perceive nothing but a certain conspiracy of rich men in procuring their own commodities under the name and authority of the commonwealth.

They invent and devise all means and crafts, first how to keep safely without fear of losing that which they have unjustly gathered together, and next how to hire and abuse the work and labor of the people for as little money and effort as possible."

Thomas More, Utopia

Monday, September 10, 2007

The American Dream

It's nice to see that George Carlin is still at the top of his game.

Sunday, September 09, 2007

Osama Said...

Well it seems that Osama bin Laden's latest taped missive has the moderators over at Second City Cop Blog in a tizzy. As is generally the case over there whenever the brain trust puts their heads together to think over an important issue, the resultant "analysis" is never remotely in context with reality. The Bin Laden tape shows scant improvement in this regard. In their post of 8 September 2007 ["Osama Tape"] they jump down the Democrat's throats for alleged acts of "aid and comfort" to the enemy. The following is my post on that thread which is unlikely to see the light of day since I've been effectively banned from there due to my recurrent "thought crimes". Enjoy.


"People of America: the world is following your news in regards to your invasion of Iraq, for people have recently come to know that, after several years of tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped. Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning. On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there."—Osama bin Laden

Well…he certainly seems to have his facts straight. I mean the world IS following very closely the events in Iraq, and since the beginning has opposed our actions there. Check the polls if you still harbor doubts. Point 1: Osama

“…after several years of tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped”--OBL

Hmmm, yes it would also appear that our murderous occupation has indeed been “very bad” for the people of Iraq seeing as how it has reduced much of the country to rubble and killed perhaps 1 million of TWSNBN*. Oh, it also has killed over 3000 American cannon fodder and promises to add many more—in addition to the thousands who have been maimed and psychologically scarred for life. That counts as a tragedy doesn’t it? It would also appear from polls of American opinion across the political spectrum that most Americans are against our continued presence there. Point 2: Osama.

“Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning”—OBL

Wow! Osama is even hip to the bipartisan nature of American Empire, that there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two wings of the Business Party when it comes down to fundamentals. Both wings believe America to be uniquely qualified to violate the sovereignty of other nations at will in order to promote “democracy” [at gun point] where we find it lacking. The fact that these “failed states” also happened to be the source of stupendously profitable natural resources is the merest coincidence of course. Point 3: Osama.

“On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there”—OBL

Yep, I’m afraid he’s right again SCC. Bush asked for a supplemental budget of 100 billion dollars to continue the imperial campaign in Mesopotamia and the “opposition” party gave him an extra 24 billion for the surge. This of course was AFTER the public, in an anti-war fever voted the Democrats to the majority in the House and Senate. The first thing Pelosi did upon assuming power in the House was to take the impeachment of Bush and the draw down of US forces in Iraq off the agenda. The Democrats rode a wave of anti-war sentiment to power in the November 2006 mid-term elections and promptly voted for every funding increase or appropriation Bush asked for in prolonging the assault on Iraq. How’s that for “representative democracy” at work? Point 4: Osama.

It's really bad when THIS guy makes more sense than you do SCC. On second thought, scratch that...you've never made much sense when the subject is US foreign policy. Let's examine the following example:

“Every single time the democrats beat the drum to surrender in the War on Terror, Osama bin Laden himself pops up to remind everyone just what is at stake”—SCC

What’s at stake SCC? What was at stake in March of 2003? Osama and Saddam were oil and water. Secular Iraq would not tolerate Al Qaeda, in fact did not tolerate it. There was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. None, nada. There were no WMD in Iraq, as the UN weapons inspectors had long ago confirmed. Saddam had been effectively disarmed during Desert Storm and further weakened by the murderous sanctions regime maintained by the Clinton administration. It’s important to recall that conditions in Iraq during this time approached genocide, killing as many as 5000 children per month. The first two directors of the UN Oil-For-Food program, Dennis Halliday, and Hans von Sponeck resigned in protest over the issue followed soon after by Jutta Burghart, the director of the UN World Food Program. All realized how radically the sanctions violated the UN Charter as it sought to punish the Iraqi people for Saddam’s crimes [committed with US assistance]. When we invaded Iraq it posed a threat to no one, not her neighbors and least of all the US. This would help explain why Arab nations weren’t flocking to join in—not even Iran or Kuwait both of which suffered at Saddam’s hands in the past [the former with US assistance].

Here’s what’s at stake SCC: our democracy [such as it is] and the prospects for peace on earth. The US can continue down its present course of militarism and conquest in increasing isolation as a rogue state thus marshalling the world against it OR it can help restore respect for international law and the treaties and institutions that ensure peace. The solution is quite simple. If we wish to stop the spread of terrorism then we must stop committing acts of terror ourselves on an unprecedented scale. If we support the rule of law then we must no longer lead the world in violations of international law.

Sorry SCC, you’re all wet again.

* Those Who Shall Not Be Named, thus TWSNBN. This refers to the estimated 700,000 to 1 million Iraqis who have perished as a result of America’s invasion of their country. SCC finds the unwelcome implications of these numbers so distressful that any mention of them sends the moderators into apoplectic rage. As a result of their peculiar sensibilities regarding this matter I agreed to forevermore refer to the Iraqi dead as TWSNBN in my correspondence with them.