Ron Paul Revolution: The Declaration of Arbroath

Posted on by

“Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King; for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom — for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.”

The Declaration of Arbroath, 1320, a late medieval document begging for the Pope’s intervention in a struggle between Scotland and England.

(sorry, I first wrote Ireland by accident)

Global Games: India nuke deal bites the dust…

Posted on by

“In Washington, DC, the US-India Business Council (USIBC) emerged from hibernation (it was formed in 1975) in the 1990s to lobby for US business interests in India. The USIBC is housed, conveniently, in the US Chamber of Commerce in Washington, from where it pushes against the walls erected in India to protect the national economy from those who want to make dollars out of rupees. For the nuclear deal, the USIBC and the US Chamber of Commerce’s Coalition for Partnership with India drew upon the lobbying expertise of Patton Boggs and Stonebridge International. They had a vested interest in the deal, because it would have allowed U.S. firms to gain contracts in the Indian nuclear sector. In March 2007, the USIBC hosted a 230-member business delegation to India, the Commercial Nuclear Executive Mission. Tim Richards of General Electric (GE) gingerly said of the trip, “We know India’s need for nuclear power” (there is, in fact, no such need; nuclear power would only cover a maximum of seven percent of India’s energy needs). Ron Somers, president of USIBC, said of the purported $60 billion boondoggle that would have come as a result of the deal, “The bounty is enormous.”

As the deal fizzled out, the nuclear moneymen grieved. Russia and France had also already lined up to supply India, and both had begun to lobby the Nuclear Suppliers Group to give the deal a free pass. A few days after Singh told Bush their deal was in cold storage, seventy French delegates from twenty-nine nuclear firms met with three hundred Indian delegates in Mumbai for a discussion on a potential France-India nuclear deal. French Ambassador to India Jerome Bonnafont eagerly anticipated the restarting of nuclear cooperation between the two states, which would provide substantial contracts for the French nuclear industry. They want to make Francs out of Rupees.”

Vijay Prashad, on how the communists spiked the nuclear deal in India.

Comment:

Excellent news. Nuclear energy is touted falsely as the energy of the new age. Actually, it’s wildly expensive, dangerous, and unnecessary, since merely upgrading existing infrastructure and cutting back on a few fighter jets and pointless space programs, will probably do as much for energy needs in the third world with less expenditure. But, while good nukes have nothing good about them, bad nukes (i.e., nuclear weapons) probably aren’t such a bad thing for weaker countries to pack, so long as the major powers aren’t willing to give them up themselves.

Another of those perverse contradictions of the state system.

Clarification:

In case this sounds as though I am recommending a nuke arms race in Asia, I should add that packing a few (minimal) weapons acts as a deterrent to neighbors who might otherwise feel emboldened to lob a few themselves (or to  superpower ambition, as in the case of non- nuclear Iraq). I advocate it as I advocate guns for the citizenry. That doesn’t mean I think you should be building chemical weapons in your basement, nor does it mean I think the rest of the world should be so stupid as to waste their money on endless nuclear and space boondoggles as the US – to its lasting detriment – has.

Of course, as a libertarian, I would say that any billionaire who wishes to explore space on his own (inside his head or out) should be free to do so. I am just opposed to the Feds using their toy money (it’s a toy once it’s in their hands; it’s real enough in ours) to play Darth Vader on our dime.

Econ-job: Could there be foreign exchange controls in store for the US?

Posted on by

“If an accelerating outflow of funds now held by foreigners inside the US were to start, it is a near certainty that at some point in this accelerating outflow, the US would act to institute a version of FOREIGN EXCHANGE CONTROLS. In effect, these would prohibit funds owned by foreigners from leaving the US. For all those who had lent to the US, that would be a global catastrophe.

The recent freeze-up in the global interbank payments system would be small potatoes in comparison because the flow of money across the world’s borders would also start to freeze up. Many smaller nations in this bind would promptly institute their own national versions of foreign exchange controls and some of them would simply seize American assets inside their borders and sell them in their own local markets, using the proceeds from the sale to compensate their nationals from the losses they had suffered from having their money blocked by the US. International trade and air travel would come to a shuddering halt. Factories beyond number would be standing still because required foreign components would not be arriving. Economically, most nations would be thrown backwards to function upon the productive means presently existing inside their own borders. Deep recessions and outright depressions would follow.”

More by Bill Buckler on the US dollar showdown here.

Hillary takes a hit on Bill’s gifts…

Posted on by

There is little that Ms. Clinton can say about her marriage that ever helps her. Her latest contretemps is naming a giraffe and a bracelet of cubes as romantic gifts – evoking raunchy mirth among freepers on the right and quite a few in the center too.

I dislike HRC’s politics, agree that the interview in Essence where she came up with this was probably calculated to play off against the molto married Guiliani, and also agree she doesn’t have what is usually regarded as a winning personality, but the limitless rage she evokes from people baffles me. Why not let her just be a person who’s stuck it out in a difficult marriage? Why does she have to be painted a kind of cross between Evita, Leona Helmsley and Madame Mao, whose sole motive in staying married was to keep that “Clinton” behind her name?

A more sympathetic view here at Mother Jones:

“Suddenly female voters saw in Hillary every woman who has had to put up with demeaning crap from men. And a lot of male voters simply saw an underdog standing up and rallied to her side. She crushed Lazio by 12 points. In November, John Spencer, who will be remembered only for calling Hillary ugly, went down to a defeat three times as ignominious.

It’s amazing to see just who can rush to Hillary’s side when the issue becomes the bare-naked question of trying to bring down a high-achieving woman. During a discussion of snipes at Martha and Hillary on Tina Brown’s TV show, Laura Ingraham, who once wrote a book called The Hillary Trap: Looking for Power in All the Wrong Places, confessed, “I’ve gone through that. I’m the right-wing info babe. That’s the box I’m put in…. Powerful women carry a heavier burden…. No one likes to see a woman get too powerful, too fast, too smart.”

And no, don’t tell me trashing the personal lives of politicians is some kind of public service. It simply caters to our basest appetites, letting us give free reign to our envy of the powerful, the long streak of misogyny we still harbor (coupled simultaneously with a kind of overfeminization of the general culture), a good helping of prurience and voyeurism. Ressentiment. The venom of the weak.

Mrs. Clinton is a capable, well- qualified woman, with many years of work behind her, a mother, almost 60 years old. I would not talk in private about a street- walker the way people think fit to talk publicly about a woman who is running to be president of the country.

And I dislike her politics intensely.

Bush on World War III

Posted on by

“That George W. Bush is a born-again Christian is not a national secret. Neither is the fact that his brand of Christianity, evangelicalism, embraces the notion of the “end of days,” the coming of the Apocalypse as foretold (so they say) in the Book of Revelations and elsewhere in the Bible. President Bush’s frequent reference to “the evil one” suggests that he not only believes in the Antichrist but actively proselytizes on the Antichrist’s physical presence on Earth at this time. If one takes in the writing and speeches of those in the evangelical community today concerning the “rapture,” the numerous references to the current situation in the Middle East, especially on the events unfolding around Iran and its nuclear program, make it very clear that, at least in the minds of these evangelicals, there is a clear link between the “end of days” prophesy and U.S.-Iran policy. That James Dobson, one of the most powerful and influential evangelical voices in America today, would be invited to the White House with like-minded clergy to discuss President Bush’s Iran policy is absurd unless one makes the link between Bush’s personal faith, the extreme religious beliefs of Dobson and the potential of Armageddon-like conflict (World War III). At this point, the absurd becomes unthinkable, except it is all too real….”

Scott Ritter as truthout.

Comment:

The problem is that people see this as only a Christian evangelical interpretation. Unfortunately, many other religions – Islam, Hindu, even New Age – have teachings which can be used to support an “end times” interpretation — if one chose to do so.

Again, the source of the problem is not so much religion per se as literalism…

Propaganda state: Walt and Mearsheimer on the pro-Israeli lobby

Posted on by

“Do you think the upcoming 2008 presidential campaign will provide a chance for the Israel lobby’s influence to be discussed?

Regrettably, no. The candidates will undoubtedly disagree on a wide array of domestic and foreign-policy issues: health care, education, taxes, the environment, what to do in Iraq, how to deal with a rising China, etc. But the one issue on which there will be virtually no debate is the question of whether the United States should continue to give Israel unconditional backing. Even though almost everyone recognizes that U.S Middle East policy is a disaster, no serious candidate is going to suggest anything other than steadfast and largely unconditional support for Israel. Indeed, all the major candidates (Clinton, Edwards, McCain, Obama, Romney, etc.) have already expressed their strong and uncritical backing for Israel, even though the campaign is just getting underway. Not only is this situation bad for the United States, it is also not good for Israel. The United States would be a better ally if its leaders could make support for Israel more conditional and if they could give their Israeli counterparts more candid and critical advice without facing a backlash from the Israel lobby.”

More here in an interview wit Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, authors of a best-selling book on the Israeli lobby and its influence on US foreign policy in the Middle East.

Meanwhile, Haaretz is sizing up the presidential candidates, all except Kucinich and Paul, the only two who oppose our one sided support of Israel. Coincidence?

Ron Paul Revolution – massaging the Republican debate in Orlando, Florida

Posted on by

I am writing this at 8:53 PM.

Obviously, I’m cheering for Ron Paul.

Of the rest of the condidates, I found Romney quite slick. Guiliani was also slick, but much less obviously, and he was also funny – especially when differentiating himself from Mrs. Clinton. I wouldn’t want him for president but he’d make a good stand-up comic, actually. To my mind, Thompson and McCain made a good appearance; they win the “does he look the part?” test, I guess. McCain had the best line of the night. That was also in response to the question asking him to differentiate himself from Clinton. Referring to Woodstock, he said he was “tied up” at the time – a joke about his years as a POW in Vietnam and a slam against her hippie past.

Hunter and Tancredo gave fluent answers, although brought in belatedly. And they sounded real. Huckabee didn’t get much of a chance, but when he did, he was forceful.

A note: Romney called the US government an “enterprise” – a business, which of course it simply is not. It is, as Michael Oakeshott wrote, a civil association. That misunderstanding is central to what is wrong with politics today.

Two columnists were referenced by Brit Hume (or was it a candidate?) – George Will and Charles Krauthammer. Both neoconservatives and both pro-war hawks. George Will used to get his policy line from the Jonathan Institute and Krauthammer is so influential he can singlehandedly set the tone of our public debate. I have written how these two journalists, especially, are often responsible for introducing “memes” into an apparently spontaneous public discussion, which end up taking over and shaping the debate by framing how it is conducted. You saw that at work here.

Paul fielded five questions – on gay marriage and health care, and then his difference from Hillary Clinton, and two more.

His first response was a little involved, and he slipped up by leaving the impression that he saw marriage solely as a religious institution, and not civil. Actually, he did mention the civil aspect, but it wasn’t clear.

His second answer on health care was much better. And he made the important point that our imperial policy is what makes it impossible for us to continue the managed health care system we currently have.
His third answer was boo’d – that the US empire was unsustainable and a bad idea. That threw him off a bit, but he regained footing. He’s not a candidate who thinks or talks in one-liners, which is unfortunately the way issues are decided these days.

I missed his following answera because I had to take a call, but they looked strong.
Now, some things about the debate which made me wonder how these things are presented and whether it’s all really above-board or not.

Question 1:

Why did we need to have a focus group ahead of the debate that promptly labels Hillary Clinton socialist (natural enough at a Republican debate) and Ron Paul “crazy”? And then tells us that ‘security’ and ‘being taken care of’ (presumably by an imperial president?) is the main need of the electorate? And that lets Alan Coulmes come to Paul’s defense by generously allowing he’s not crazy and Clinton’s not socialist (which she is) – a testimonial likely to be about as compelling to Republicans as a Bella Abzug make-up tip to a home-coming queen.

Update: I should add, my problem isn’t with socialism – especially of the anarchist strain. It’s with the state socialism right out of Bismarck that you find with people like Ms. Clinton. She talks about villages, which evokes a fuzzy sense of a community, but what she means is the state – a colder and more calculating beast.

I have no problem per se with socialists, liberals, humanists, conservatives, traditionalists, communitarians, some kinds of communists, anarchists….. or any other breed – so long as they respect the individual and don’t crush him or her under the state.

A little massaging of public perception ahead of time, maybe?

Question 2:

Why were Guiliani, Thompson, Romney and McCain questioned far more than the others? The race isn’t over, is it? Shouldn’t we hear from the candidates with smaller war-chests too? The ones who are less well known?
Question 3:

Why was the mike not on when that long, involved question about a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage was thrown at Ron Paul as his first question?

Question 4

Why was Paul subliminally associated with Hillary Clinton, first by the focus group comment, and then by the question equating Paul’s position on Iraq with Clinton’s – something that is palpably untrue, since she’s been hawkish and moderate by turns but never really antiwar or anti-imperial.
Question 5

How is the audience selected? From all over the country?

Suggestion:

I’d ask all you Ron Paul supporters to call into Fox and ask them those questions…..and any others that occur to you. Give them the same treatment that CNBC got for messing with Ron Paul fans.

And finally, I was thinking of moving to Florida. But after listening to the focus group and what the audience cheered for, I have to rethink that. Warm weather isn’t everything.

Most of the folks there seem to be making up their mind about world issues based on the culture wars at home.

Close down the borders and all programs for illegals, end affirmative action/PC speech codes, and voila, the will to empire will vanish too.

Meanwhile, Stephen Greenhut over at Lew Rockwell notes that the GOP is breaking down 3:1 in favor of big government conservatism over libertarians.

But, what I want to know is since when is Big Government conservative? I mean, the Catholic conservative tradition was never corporatist, was it?

In fact, Russell Kirk has been aptly called a Tory bohemian:

“A Tory, according to Samuel Johnson, is a man attached to orthodoxy in church and state. A bohemian is a wandering and often impecunious man of letters or arts, indifferent to the demands of bourgeois fad and foible. Such a one has your servant been. Tory and bohemian go not ill together; it is quite possible to abide by the norms of civilized existence, what Mr. T. S. Eliot calls “the permanent things”; and yet to set at defiance the soft security and sham conventionalities of twentieth century sociability.”
Update: 3 years ago when I was researching my first book, references to the Jonathan Institute abounded on the net. Today when I google, I see far fewer. Here’s one at Znet, in an article on propaganda by Edward Herman.

And for aficionados of the “War On Terra,” here’s a bit of deja vu:

“The Jonathan Institute had been founded earlier the same year by Benjamin Netanyahu, a young crazy of the Likud block, in memory of his brother Jonathan, who had been killed during the Israeli raid on Entebbe in 1976. The Jonathan Institute was a semi-covert propaganda operation and could only be defined as a branch of the Israeli government. The committee sponsoring this conference on terrorism was headed up by Prime Minister Menachem Begin, followed by Moshe Dayan and many other prominent Israeli politicians and generals.

The US delegation to the conference was divided according to partisan lines, but was generally united by sympathy for the ideas and outlook of the Bush-Cherne Team B. The Democratic delegation was led by the late Senator Henry Jackson of Washington. This group included civil rights leader Bayard Rustin, plus Norman Podhoretz and Midge Decter of Commentary Magazine, two of the most militant and influential Zionist neoconservatives. Ben Wattenberg of the American Enterprise Institute was also on hand. Although the group that arrived with Scoop Jackson were supposedly Democrats, most of them would support Reagan-Bush in the November, 1980 election.

Then there was the GOP delegation, which was led by George Bush. Here were Bush activist Ray Cline, Major General George Keegan, a stalwart supporter of Team B, and Professor Richard Pipes of Harvard, the leader of Team B. Here were Senator John Danforth of Missouri and Brian Crozier, a “terrorism expert.” Pseudo-intellectual columnist George Will (“Will the Shill”) was also on hand, as was Rome-based journalist Claire Sterling, who had been active in covering up the role of Henry Kissinger in the 1978 assassination of Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro, and who would later be blind to indications of an Anglo-American role in the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II.

International participation was also notable: Annie Kriegel and Jacques Soustelle of France, Lord Alun Chalfont, Paul Johnson, and Robert Moss of the United Kingdom, and many leading Israelis.

The keynote statement was made by Prime Minister Begin, who told the participants that they should spread through the world the main idea of the conference, which was that all terrorism in the world, whatever its origin, is controlled by the Soviet Union….”

Comment:

That was in the late 1970s…..

Now, over 30 years later, all terrorism in the world, whatevr its origin, is controlled by the Sov — I mean the Islamo-fascists.

Say it again:

All terror in the world, whatever its origin, is controlled by the Islamofascists!

The cyber-games people play……

Posted on by

What’s with Amazon? We have been requesting them to put the great blurbs we got onto the webpage of the book – so people can see them.

They put them up in August…..and then took them down just when we needed them up the most. And since then, despite repeated requests, they still aren’t up, after nearly two months!

You begin to wonder……

Update:

Apparently, the blurbs “dropped off” — ours, along with many others.

The way of the web.

However, even if they did, why would they not respond to repeated inquiries? And why would no one follow up, respond, or drop a line?

Why? Because people are not the little angels they are supposed to be according to the mythology of democracy. And what we are today is no longer the hard-working, thrifty, sober people who created the wealth of this country. Today, we are lazy, profligate, and delusional — and we love it. We no longer practice any self-restraint or discipline. We have no laws within ourselves. That’s why we have so many laws outside us. If you cannot rule yourself, someone else must.

And someone else does. The state.

Herbie Hancock on being in sync….

Posted on by

Piano great Herbie Hancock on how the individual best contributes to the collective:

“I also realize now that there’s an infinite way of looking at things. Sometimes you have to create a vision, a path for a vision. It may not be apparent and you may have to forge it yourself. And that will be the way to move your life forward.

Oh, yeah! Oh, by the way, I chant every day. Primarily in the morning and the evening. Even before going on stage I say

Nam-myoho-renge-kyo three times—the idea is to get in sync with the moment. But anyway–

Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, Nam-myoho-renge-kyo. Nam-myoho-renge-kyo. That’s how we chant.

Thank you. That’s great.
You’re welcome.

What does that chant mean to you?
It is the name of life. It’s like the sound of life. When you invoke that by saying Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, that sound, that energy, touches everything in the universe. At the same time—and just think about this—within the life of a human being is the universe. So, we all have the universe inside at our core. That’s the microcosm. And then the physical universe that we see is a macrocosm. It takes the work of chanting and living your life, and listening to the signs that are a result of chanting, for the best pathway toward the development of your life, and the uncovering of your highest condition of life, which is your Buddha nature.
Yeah. It really is cool. And it’s very open. That’s the other thing about this Buddhism, it’s not exclusive; it’s inclusive. It doesn’t say that any other religions are wrong and it’s my way or the highway. Nothing like that. I don’t feel like I have rejected Christianity or Judaism or Islam. I feel like I’ve embraced the truth that’s in everything. Because there is truth in all of those pursuits. And others, too. It’s a great way to feel.
It sounds very enlivening.
It’s really cool. I can’t even begin to scratch the surface to tell you how great this practice really is. It’s life-changing in that, in doing this, you actually get closer to who you really are.

What have you discovered about who you really are?
That I’m a human being at the core. And that there’s a great beauty to each human being. Each human being exists because there’s something they have to offer for the evolution of the universe that only they can fulfill.

It might be something as simple as saying the right word to the right person at the right time—and that could change the course of history. You never really know. But the whole thing is to work at the process of being in sync with the universe, so that everything will align at the proper time so that you can deliver that which is your life mission. And that’s why we’re here as individuals. And then there’s our contribution to the collective. It makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it?”

More here.

Comment:

The chant he’s referring to is the salutation to the Lotus sutra. I don’t know it, but I’ve used chants (in the mind, not vocally) on and off.

The prayer from the Way of the Pilgrim (an Orthodox classic) is one:

“Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me.”

The Gayatri mantra (the most famous Hindu chant) is another:

om. bhur bhuvah. svah. tát savitúr váreniyam bhárgo devásya dhimahi dhíyo yó nah. pracodáyat

Which translates loosely as –

“O divine trinity of body (matter), energy, and mind, we meditate on your splendour. May the radiance of your light illuminate our intellects, destroy our sins, and guide us in the right direction. ”

Literally, the reference in the Vedas (the Hindu scriptures) is to Savitur, the sun-god, which would make this a pagan chant in the eyes of orthodox Christians. But personally, I have no difficulty seeing Savitur metaphorically as the Christ.

Bobby Jindal – Louisiana’s New Governor

Posted on by

Bobby Jindal, the son of Punjabi immigrants, has become Louisiana’s first post-Katrina governor, winning over 52% of the votes.

Jindal, a former Rhodes scholar, who lost his bid for governor by a narrow margin four years ago, then became a US congressman, and is now at 36 the state’s youngest governor.

Apart from being desi (this is the Indian word for “country” and means something like home boy), Jindal is interesting to me for his staunch down-the-line conservative position — dead against abortion and dead in support of teaching creationism in the schools. An odd position for someone who was a double- major in biology and public policy at Brown University, not known for being a Christian school.

Jindal’s anti-abortion stance is the orthodox Catholic one, only to be expected from a convert. And constitutionally, the states really ought to be free to conform to the predominant sentiment in communities. But, although Roe v. Wade was not especially a good decision as jurisprudence, it is the settled law of the land. Hopefully, Jindal will learn to negotiate that thoughtfully.

However, Jindal’s support of teaching creationism in the schools is more problematic to me.

I really don’t see the need to teach “Creation Science.”

It’s perfectly possible to reverse the incorrect “anti-religion” mode of interpretation of the constitution without endorsing a religious theory of creation in the classroom. You could, for example, teach various metaphysical or mythological theories of creation in a religion class, or you could teach comparative religious ethics in a philosophy class (or, in electives/activities outside the curriculum). But that would be quite different from endorsing a particular religious doctrine, which would – I think – violate the anti-establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Nevertheless, I can’t help but feel pleased at what Jindal’s election says about race. Race-mongers like to tell us that we stand or fall on race relations. And many in the PC crowd among opinion makers indeed do. But on the ground in America it’s usually a different business. Yes, there’s still a lot of nastiness, there’s still a lot of suspicion, ignorance, and warranted and unwarranted friction among groups. Still, I rather think that in this country, beliefs and ideas are proving stronger than simple affinities of skin color and ethnicity sans any other consideration.

Consider the ethnic and cultural difference between a typical white southerner and a Punjabi – even a Catholic convert — and between, say, a Punjabi and a Tamilian from the south of India. How much closer should the south of India and the north be? Much closer, you’d think, than a Punjabi and a southern white. But, I doubt if you would find a Tamil chief minister of Punjab. At least, not very easily (I could be mistaken, so I’ll research this more).

I’m not saying that race is not an important consideration in politics. It is. And I think it’s fairly natural to prefer someone – other things being equal – of your own race. But other things are rarely equal. Race in those cases becomes an invidious category – as the courts say, and could be used to disqualify well-qualified people.

Louisiana has just proved it’s unwilling to do that.

Good for it.

On the contra Jindal side, here are some indications of political expediency in his position, from some DailyKos bloggers who see his victory as an unmitigated disaster.

But I tend to think what’s happened in Louisiana may have much less to do with Jindal’s social positions than people assume. It might have to do with people simply being fed up with incompetence in the government – especially post-Katrina – and with fiscal irresponsibility.

In defense of this position, I should say that I usually give a very bright person the benefit of the doubt in such things. My reasoning is that you can excuse a few sins from the very competent on the grounds that the rest of the time, you’re getting a good deal. There’s no escaping the incompetent though.

The devil himself has to take a breather from being wicked once in a while. But stupid is 24/7.

Update:

I didn’t really comment on Jindal’s Iraq war position. I assumed –  as he is a staunch supporter of the Republican party line – that he’s pro-war. Here are his exact positions.

Since I’m fairly convinced that both parties are committed to the war and that – apart from Paul and Kucinich — everyone else is pretty much following the same line (with some fudges), it isn’t going to change the equation much one way or other.