The left is now so animated by the belief that President Bush is the greatest menace in the world today that it has become morally bankrupt. How else to explain the Not In Our Name campaign, which crystallizes the left's reaction to both the atrocities of Sept. 11 and our government's response.

NION (www.nion.us) has issued a statement opposing war with Iraq that has been published in newspapers across the country. Those behind it include academics (including Harvard University's Richard Lewontin and Stanford University's Joel Beinin), entertainers (including John Cusack and Danny Glover), writers (including Russell Banks and Barbara Kingsolver) and aging 1960s radicals (Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden protesting together again!). They all reject what they call Bush's "simplistic script of `good versus evil.' " Instead, their simplistic script is about how all the world's horror flows from the United States.

The "brutal repercussions" of the administration's war on terror "have been felt from the Philippines to Palestine," the statement says. The Philippines? Apparently the signers are offended that the United States is providing military assistance to the Philippine government in its efforts to root out the Abu Sayyaf guerrillas. This is the Islamic terrorist organization that specializes in slaughtering Christians and beheading tourists.

The petition also deplores our war against the Taliban, which resulted in the liberation of Afghanistan from one of the world's most brutal regimes. Feminist Gloria Steinem, Vassar College President Frances D. Fergusson and Harvard women's studies director Juliet Schor have signed the petition. Are they troubled that Afghan girls can now leave their homes and go to school? That women are not publicly executed for such crimes as infidelity? That females can show their faces?

NIONists seem to have a special abhorrence for democracies. Besides the United States, the only other country that receives their opprobrium is Israel. Again, in some unexplained way, the administration's response to Sept. 11 has resulted in "Israeli tanks and bulldozers (leaving) a terrible trail of death and destruction." Never mind that Yasser Arafat walked away from a Camp David peace deal in 2000 to oversee his society's embrace of suicide bombing.

The petition has a blithe, even solipsistic view of human misery. The statement says, "Peoples and nations have the right to determine their own destiny, free from military coercion by great powers." Apparently Saddam Hussein's use of his military to determine his people's destiny is of no concern to the signers. NION has no references to Saddam's terror state, where political prisoners are persuaded to confess by seeing the eyes of their children being gouged out.

While the statement repeatedly returns to the theme of repression, the repression these people with tenure at universities or Hollywood production deals seem most concerned with is their own. "Dissident artists, intellectuals and professors find their views distorted, attacked and suppressed," they write. Well, to the artistic soul, being criticized must feel as bad as having your eyes gouged out. Their charge of suppression is perhaps undercut by the wide publication of their statement.

Want to see "lip service" defined? Read NION's condemnation of Sept. 11. The signers "mourned the thousands of innocent dead," of course, but while the buildings still smoldered, their minds were immediately drawn, the statement says, to memories of "the carnage" of American military action in Iraq, among other places. In this they concur with the man responsible for Sept. 11: Osama bin Laden. In his statement of purpose, "Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders," bin Laden declares, "We -- with Allah's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah's order to kill the Americans" -- in part because we stopped Saddam's march across the region 12 years ago.

NION also has an unusual perspective on just how to characterize al Qaida and its ilk. In describing Bush's "deadly trajectory," NION writes, "Groups are declared `terrorist' at the stroke of a presidential pen." Others might say it is masterminding the smashing of planes into buildings that declares a group "terrorist."

Certainly, there are cogent arguments to be made against war with Iraq. Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., for one, argues that an Iraq war would distract us from our fight to dismantle terror networks such as al-Qaida and Hezbollah. But such cogent arguments are not made by those who are more acutely affronted by their imagined repression by Bush than they are concerned about monstrous acts committed by monstrous people.

This right wing-nut morality always seems to have quite a bit of amnesia mixed in. Dare I mention the "democratic" dictators that we have also supported....like Pinochet, Suharto, Shah of Iran. Or the fact that both Saddam and Osama were buddies of the United(right wing) States Or the right wing morality of Prescott Bush(Dubya's granddaddy) dealing with the Nazi's during WW II. Or the right wing morality of Ronald Reagan's Iran-Contra Affair. Or the right wing morality of the US usually selling arms to both sides of a conflict. Or the right wing morality of the US when it supports Cuban terrorists who were Batista backers(Batista...a right wing glowing flame of freedom). Or the right wing morality of sending troops to fight in Desert Storm then ignoring all their physical and psychological problems when they get back home. How about the right wing morality of the CIA flooding Southern California in crack cocaine to get the money to help them support their idea of freedom fighters. I guess the right wing is only moral outside of the United States.

Im sure glad that pinko 'stormin" Norman Shwartzkoff isn't a general anymore.

His outragous opposition to the war in Iraq would probably have him leading a brigade of fairy warriors armed with patriot missles into washington.

thank god he's now in retirement in florida. I wonder if he lunches regularly with castro.

Ummmmm, what the "left" is saying shit vox, is that War is a bad idea for anyone. Being an Israeli, I know from relatives that they could've taken Sadam out as many times as they needed to. You have a president with the best technology, best weapons, best surveillance and he can't or hasn't done shit. Instead of handling things quietly, mafia style, he dragged this out because his family makes money in arms, oil, and a lot of other disgusting things. He is trying to rob the international community of oil contracts and he is trying to cover up for the fact that he and his father, like his grandfather before, sold arms to bad people, if that's not fucking stupid and morally bankrupt, I don't think you can read the dictionary. I am so sick of your rhetoric of failure. You people who peruse an honest media outlet with comments that insult your own intelligence and ours. Get a life, get a job where daddy doesn't have to shake hands for you, and get a car that doesn't guzzle oil! You cannot hide the truth behind big bogeyman Sadam, he is a monster of Bush' family creation and we have all seen the pictures of Rumsfeld shaking hands and the Haliburton contracts to prove it. The only reason why the CIA is being accused of hiding evidence is because that evidence implicates our own corporations which would bring down this farce of a fascist government. Remember Bush's grandaddy is and always will be a traitor and so is he. Those are facts you can't hide no matter who else you accuse of being evil, I don't want our boys paing for Iran Contra, Bush should go and get killed himself. I would rather like to see him and Sadam kick the shit out of each other for eternity because they both suck!

...this is an example of a typical BushBlower article spam post...

1) Post bullshit article

2) Heap gushing praise over same bullshit article you just posted

3) Jerk-off over results...sit back feeling smug and self-satisfied, believing you have SHOOK UP THE WORLD...

4) Repeat ad nauseum


..BushBlower, you're a legend in your own mind...

Than the tee, monkeyboy.
FORE!!!

Trivial argumentative articles such as this tend to clutter LA Indymedia. Shallow fallacies constructed to gain attention for the lonely purpose of later ridiculing anyone (admit myself ) dumb, bored, or argumentative enough to respond.

This is a heedless effort.

You cannot simultaneously embrace a political position and be morally bankrupt.

It is a regrettable fact that there is a group of people that actually think they are clever when throwing around this little catch phrase.

The people that post such ruinous fiddle-faddle surely are a vain lot.

Yes, I suppose so. Guilty.
However, rational mind and
krankyman had some valid
points to bring up about
EMILY YOFFE's clumsy attempt
of trivialization and threadbare
labeling. Besides it's good
practice to encounter such exchange
(minus the mud of course, but sometimes
it's just fun to poke the monkey)
for future dialogue reguarding similar
issues.

Look at the graph for M2 in the same time printing. They were "running the printing presses overtime".

Let's continue with the right wing beacons of freedom....Henry Kissinger,architect of the secret bombing of Cambodia and the coup that help murder Allende. The George W.'s recent attempted coup of Hugo Chavez, because(this gives right wingers the shivers)of his policy of giving landless peasants farm land taken from the ruling elites. The right wing support of Sharon,labeled a war criminal,by a Israeli tribunal. Listing all this stuff is making my radical stomach nauseous.......arrrrgggghhhh!!!!

um, that chart is dumb, if terrorists took out the economic stronghold of america, the twin towers, during clintons time, there would be NO surplus, dirty liberals, maybe if you guys actually took out al gayda, the economy wouldnt suck so bad, so there! its YOUR fault, fricking lag the dog and then SUDDEN outrage when bush tries to protect america, if we ever die in a nuclear holocaust we can thank three groups, radical muslims, commies, and then LIBERALS!

The very low quality, that is.

America is a symbol of shit, know why?

Because democracy and capitalism are fucking horrible examples of how countries should act. We need more righteous countries, not CAPITALIST COUNTRIES.

How can we tell other countries how to behave? Sure, Iraq committed atrocities, but they have a right to exist and behave however they want.

FUCK DEMOCRACY, LONG LIVE COMMUNISM/SOCIALISM

> Lie Teller -- Did you actually post the following load of crap?

> " We need more righteous countries, not CAPITALIST COUNTRIES. How can we tell other countries how to behave? Sure, Iraq committed atrocities, but they have a right to exist and behave however they want. FUCK DEMOCRACY, LONG LIVE COMMUNISM/SOCIALISM."

You and Timothy are so fucked up that you can't even
tell when you're being baited. Obviously whoever
wrote that is some fucked up right winger like yourself
who is trying to parody the views of people who
oppose the war. If you had a clue you could tell the
difference.

Well Bush Admirer finally step into his own load of crap. The capitalist system is magic. Damn right. F***ing sleight of hand. Do I have to list the capitalist magic shows...Enron, World Com, Tyco, Harken(with Bush doing the sleight of hand),Arthur Andersen. Yea capitalism is an enabler,it enables people to take advantage of other people's labor under the guise of progress. And, government does more than just tax and spend. Most scientific discoveries are initially funded by government money(especially drugs and especially the ground-work laid for the Internet,which was a government program in the 70's,dumb-ass) which then allow wealth addicts like Bill Gates and Larry Ellison to make their particular fortunes.
And capitalism doesn't give anyone shit. The 8 hour day(now pretty much gone)health care, 3 week vacations,collective bargaining, pension plans(also pretty much gone) were fought for by regular working people. If capitalism had it's way, we would all be working 80 hour weeks for absolute minimum wage(another idea that capitalism has fought with ferocity).Andrew Carnegie is a perfect example of the psychoticness of capitalism. Toss aside workers that lose limbs doing the dirty work he never did (and don't forget his second in command Fricke having Pinkerton men shoot striking steel workers) then take your fortune and build libraries and stick your stinking name on them and your a great guy. Capitalism is another term for monetary slavery. Enough about capitalism you didn't answer my previous post about right wing morality. Hitting a little too close to home? So then change the subject were did you learn your debating skills from Rash Low-Brow. Oh that's right he doesn't engage in debate. He just let's his ditto-heads flagellate over him.

Let's get our terms straight:

Capitalism is nothing more than free people freely exchaning their labor and goods in an open market.

It is not a perfect system. One of the problems with Captitalism is that, unregulated, it allows for the concentration of power via the accumulation of wealth and control in ever fewer hands.

When the power of a polity is vested in the hands of a small group of individuals you have an Oligarchy. When that Oligarchy consists of wealthy individuals operating the political machinery for their own personal benefit you have rule by the Rich or Plutocracy.

In an ideal world, which we do not have their would be sufficient checks and balances to prevent the formation of a Plutocracy. However, unfortunately, the safeguards that we did have were subverted and we now live in a Plutocracy.

Communism/Socialism are not a solution. They sound really pretty on paper but result only in tyranny worse than what we now face in the U.S.A.

Read Georgre Orwell's Animal Farm.

Communism/Socialism was responsible for the murders for political reasons of over ONE HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE in the Twentieth Century.

Communism/Socialism as a replacement for our current corrupt Plutocracy is a case of the cure being worse than the disease.

Let's try Freedom for a change.

" Capitalism is nothing more than free people freely exchaning their labor and goods in an open market"

No, that's free enterprise. Here's the dictionary definition
of Capitalism:

"An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market."

And you've confused Communism/Socialism
with Stalinism. Here's the dictionary definition
of socialism:

"Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."

Point granted.

However, Communism/Socialism in practice are conducive to the rise of a Lenin (who gets second billing to Stalin for muderous rampages but did carry his share of the load), a Stalin, or a Mao. It is an inherent structural flaw in that type of political organization. It is, in practice not theory, a highly regulated unfree system of social organization. Once the monsters are in power they do not give it up. And 100 Million Dead People can't be all wrong.

And the term is commonly combined as "Free-Market Capitalism". Capital is nothing more than the means to perform some sort of economic endeavor (writ broadly that is not limited to making money).

A Plutocratic system is one wherein a small group of wealth individuals control the system - rule by the rich. Which is what we have in the United States. The only thing to reccomend it over communism is that the Plutocrats want to continue to go on making, obsessively, more money and have to have some cooperation and so do not clamp down quite as hard as the communists. Although that would seem to be changing with the introduction of the un-Patriot Act and Der Vaterland Sekurity Act.

-"A Plutocratic system is one wherein a small group of wealth individuals control the
system - rule by the rich."-
Now we're back to the magna carter.

"free-market capitalism" is a complete oxymoron;
it's silly to talk about "inherent structural flaw" and
ignore how that applies to Capitalism -- see the
definition again. Private ownership of the means of
production inherently leads to accumulation,
because whoever has more also has the most means
to acquire more. Of course the answer is not to
replace private ownership with private control by
the bureaucrats, but despite your baseless claim
that's *not* inherent, as a number of European
societies make clear. The whole world could be
like Sweden if it weren't for the overwhelming
dominance of American Capitalism.

Sounds like a slacker's paradise.

If you're smart, energetic, and able to compete, then you have to love Capitalism. It gives you a track to run on.

If you're slow, lazy, and unable to compete, then you have to love Socialism. It let's you ride on someone elses back.

but that doesn't stop me from yammering my ignorant
crap about it.

The myth of Sweden is that it is the place where Socialism works. It doesn't. Due to failures in the system and lack of incentive for a Socialist System to innovate Sweden has had to allow partial re-privatization of Medicine (not that I support the Western treat the symptoms with toxic pharmaceuticals approach.)
As well you will find that Sweden has a VERY large underground, Black Market, economy. Why - the punitive tax load of socialism has resulted in two prices for many goods and services. There is the above ground, fully taxed, price; and then there is the under the table, much lower, cash price.

"When the means of subsistence are in the hands of the government opposition means death by slow starvation." Friedrich Von Hayek

When Stalin tried to collectivize in Russia he starved to death about 6 million free small family farmers because they wanted to remain free. Socialism only works at the point of a gun. When it does work at all it is because a few people work and a lot of people live off of their work.

Check your history. Show me even one counter example where a socialist system has worked without the imposition of armed guards.

The West did not build the Berlin Wall.

I live in America, but am a lazy drunken coach potato. Hence I call for the complete communization of America. Now I get to be lazy, while at the same time earn money for doing absolutely nothing! Capitalism is for individualistic, freedom people.

Since I have pointed out one flaw in capitalism, that automatically makes communism better 123412321534535768796 times better, even though I have not started to list the millions of fallacies associated with communism.

Once again, I am smarter than you, because I actually buy the bullshit that my college professor tells me.

Uh, gee whillikers. I'm just so shattered by your post I just don't know what to say.

I think I'll just leave you with some old folk wisdom: "Never argue with an idiot. People might not be able to tell the difference."

BushBlower has obviously lost it..

...what a fuckin' douchebag!

who posed as Diogenes. Timothy probably wonders how
I know, but Timothy isn't very bright.

I kinda was surprised when you found out it was me posing as Diogaynes, when he always uses the same propaganda as Hussein, and i always use subtle sarcasm, nice detective work. You should become a private eye. Haha, just kidding, youre dumb, but anyways, i was hoping, kind of how you guys overlook Husseins weapons, that you would be retarded enough to overlook my posing as him. Damn, you guys are smart. (Once again subtle sarcasm). I mean just look at the shit that Diogenes puts out, that 9-11 was some sort of conspiracy, so fucking gay, but thats how you guys are, mental retarded up the ass.

Idiot : "kind of how you guys overlook Husseins weapons"

Are you talking about the non-existent one's that no one can find in Iraq, or are you talking about the one's that reside in da Shrubs limited imagination?

No weapons found huh? What do you call their new missles? Capable of hitting our allies Isreal, Turkey, Kuwait? Fake? Empty chemical warheads? Just for show? These are all breaches in the UN resolution. Plus we know they have chemical weapons buried all over the place. They had 12 years to hide them in a state the size of Cali. Your ignorance truly amazes even me.

Hmm, boring, I think Im quiting this conversing with idiots for good for a few weeks until when we finally liberate Iraq, with few casualities and mass celebrations in Iraq. Then I'll come back and shit on your face. You'll enjoy it, don't worry.

For real, I'll be back in a few weeks when we win and LIBERATE iraq.

--> Private ownership of the means of production inherently leads to accumulation, because whoever has more also has the most means to acquire more.

As if that were bad (sigh)

(dis) honest man is attacking the American dream -- the idea that one can become successful, wealthy in fact, and provide security for himself an his family.

I had lunch at the St. Regis Resort in Dana Point yesterday. This gave me a first hand opportunity to check up on the rich and see how they're doing. The grub was great. The surroundings were gorgeous. Life is good for the rich. They're doing OK. Becoming wealthy seems to me a good thing, not a bad thing.

Rich guys seem to live in the best houses, attract the prettiest girls, eat the best food, drive the best cars, take the best vacations, and enjoy the most security.

So you might be smart to make a personal a decision not to become whining, complaining, unemployed street-rabble type person fighting the system, but instead to embrace the system, work within the system, accumulate some wealth, and enjoy life. If you're young, smart, and talented, America affords you that opportunity.

But if you're not up to the challenge -- if you know you don't have that kind of talent or motivation, then you might do well to anticipate failure in your career, and to build a case that this is not your own fault. A good way to start would be to become a left wing protester, an Anarchist, or a Socialist.

However, the mere accumulation of material wealth does nothing for the spirit. Some of the nastiest and unhappiest people I have known have been VERY comfortable materially. The old saw that money can't buy happiness is quite true.
That does not mean I want to live in a Socialist Gulag either. Socialism is for Suckers. Even at the height of the Soviet Union's power they had their WEALTHY elite and their Dachas. The illusion of Socialism and Communism is that everybody will willingly take up the slack for the slackers. Not true.
The Lie of Corpratism (as distinguishe from a Laissez Faire Economy) is that the Corporation "will take care of you". It is just Socialism in private hands. Same result a few live extravagantly at the expense of others. Again I have to qualify that by saying I don't care as long they stay hell out of my life. It is when some goon with a gun whether Socialist or Corpratist shows up that I start getting annoyed.