Photo by Henri Cartier-Bresson

Here is a short piece from a post I did at The Excerpt Mill on  Simone de Beauvoir (1908-1986) in where I quote Barbara S. Andrew:

One of the most significant aspects of The Second Sex is its encyclopedic indexing of women’s lived experience: biology, psychology, the experience of living in a female body and developing and living with a feminine mind-set. Many contemporary women’s first reaction to reading it is that they do not experience themselves in the way Beauvior describes. But this is to miss the point. Most of The Second Sex is a phenomenological, descriptive analysis. Beauvoir is not claiming that there is one way that we who are women experience ourselves, our bodies or our minds. Instead, she describes, and argues against taking as perspective, literary representations of femininity, biological sciences’ accounts of femininity, psychoanalytic theories about femininity, and so on. It is easy, initially, to confuse her work as participating in negative stereotypes of femininity, rather than cataloging them and analyzing their effect. Although Beauvoir’s descriptions of women’s bodies may seem negative, Arp argues that she is describing women’s experience of bodily alienation in understanding their social bodies, that is, the body as known through the experience of a sexist world.

Introduction:

Quran as the main holly text in Islam introduces Muslims as Moderate:

و كذالك جعلناكم امته وسطا لتكونوا شهداء علي الناس و يكون الرسول عليكم. بقره 143

“Thus we appointed you as a midmost nation that you might be witness to the people and that the messenger might be a witness to you.”

Furthermore, at the beginning I mentioned “In the name of God, the Companionate the Merciful”. This is the verse that has been repeated about 114 times in the Holly Quran. How the followers of such a text could become radical? This is a very important question.

Many researchers have tried to answer this question and we can distinguish their answers in different ways. In this paper I categorize different approaches to Textual, Situational, and Strategic to understand the causes of radicalism. And I think it is the strategic one that has contributed to continuity and expansion of radical movements during the past decades.

Different approaches and solutions: a review

As it was mentioned above, we can distinguish at least between three main approaches: Textual, Situational and Strategic. Situational approach comprise those who emphasis on internal and external situation in the Islamic world. Those who refer to internal situation in the Islamic world as the main cause of expansion of radicalism, emphasize on different aspects like value systems, political systems and social systems. I will try to review these approaches briefly.

Textual approaches refer to some verses in Holly Quran and their interpretation as the main cause of radicalism. They refer to Salafist’s interpretations as a way of thinking and interpreting that has fueled radicalism. They also mention the religious schools in some countries as places that teach such interpretations of Islamic Holly texts. As a solution they ask the governments to close those schools and ban the supporting groups.

If we look at the history of Islamic teaching and scholarship we have had such schools in the past but it had not led to radicalism.

Furthermore, radicalism has been and is a global phenomenon, not limited to Islam. For example Isaac Rabin was killed by a Jewish Radical. Or there are many Christian radical movements in the west and especially in the US. It is also true about other religions, like radical Hindu etc. But in here I want to talk about Islamic Radicalism. To justify their behavior, all of them refer to their religious texts.

Situational Approaches

1-Internal Situations

The second approach emphasis on situation. In this approach we can distinguish between those who emphasis on internal and external situation of Muslim world.  Most of the researchers in the west emphasize on internal situation in the Islamic world as the main cause of expansion of radicalism. However, they emphasize on different aspects. Value system is the most emphasized one. Many people, even among the high ranking politicians in Europe and US has mentioned that the radicals are against freedom, democracy, human rights, rights of women etc. This is why they hate the US or the west. They believe that what’s going on between Radical movements and the West is “A Battle for Global Values”[1]. They call their opponents radical, terrorist, uncivilized and the foe of civilization.

It is needless to say that even current situation in many Islamic countries manifest that Islamic values and western values though not identical but compatible. You witnessed maybe the first example in the Islamic Republic that are two important values of Muslim and western world (Islamic+ republic). They do not mention the behavior of the US and some other powers in different parts of the world. I don’t think that behaviors like occupation, double standard, sanction and invasion are better than terrorism, hatred, etc.

Some others emphasize on tyrannical and corrupted political institutions in the Muslim world as the main cause of frustration and radicalism. They believe that lack of freedom and democracy in some Muslim countries, has led to frustration and hatred toward the west. They emphasize on democracy promotion as the solution. The do not recognize that sanction, occupation, intervention, and securitizing situation in the Islamic countries are the main obstacles of democracy and development. This group and the former do not pay attention to the reasons that dictatorships and corrupted regimes in the Islamic world have been supported by democratic countries during the past six decades.

The third group believes that though the majority of the Muslim world is moderate, however their weakness in comparison to the radicals has led to the domination of these societies by the later. This argument refers to the advantage of radicals over moderates. It is said that the radicals have “money” and “organization” but the moderate’s dose not. “This asymmetry in resources and organization explains why radicals … have influence disproportionate to their numbers.”[2] This approach sees to solution in “creation of moderate Muslim networks” and the United States “has a critical role to play in leveling the playing field for moderates.”[3]

These approaches neglect that the grievances of all Muslim worlds, even liberals and seculars, are similar and somehow identical. These grievances include occupation, intervention, humiliation, sanction; double standard ….As the Gallup world poll of 9000 person in the Muslim countries manifest, Radicals and Moderates has many things in common. Both radicals and moderates admire the west for its technological achievements, democratic procedures and freedom of speech.[4]

If we look at different political movements in the Islamic world during the 20^th century, we see that the Islamic radicals are the last. We have experience different National, Social and Liberal, all secular movements with the same dissatisfactions. And it was the western countries that one way or another contributed to their failure both in domestic and foreign policy arena. Now that these groups have lost their political and social bases in the Muslim world, the west is looking for them. They don’t know that the US has lost its credibility even among the liberals and seculars.

2-External Situation

The second group of situational approach emphasizes on the external situation. As I mentioned it is foreign intervention, occupation, invasion and double standard that has led to the creation of appropriate situation for radicalism to grow.

Radicalism as a way of thinking has always existed and will continue to exist. As a psychological problem of a few people, it always exists. But as strong political and military movement, it needs suitable environment. Such an environment has gradually been provided for them during the last decades. And its root cause goes back to narrow minded strategic calculations that still exist in the US and the west.

Behaviors such as occupation, intervention, double standard, sanction etc. that led to creation of current situation in the Islamic world in general and Middle East in particular, stem from the dominant strategic calculation in the west that: “To control the world we need to control the strategic sources and locations”. This way of thinking has led to above mentioned behaviors in the Muslim world in General and M.E. in particular. This strategic calculation has not changed, at least, since the cold war bipolar system. The current internal and external situation in the Muslim world is the byproduct of this way of thinking.

Different movements have reacted to this situation. We have had radical (national, liberal and social) movements, all of them secular.  If we just think about how to defeat them, we may succeed, but like the past, it will be replaced by another movement and may be even more dangerous. If we want to resolve the problem, the West in general and the US in particular need to change their way of thinking and behavior.

Democracy and moderation would not grow under a heavily militarized and securitized environment. In order to foster democracy we need the confidence of the people. To have that, occupation, invasion, sanction and intervention must end.

Future perspectives and scenarios:

As it was mentioned, what is going on has nothing to do with values, political systems and economic situation. During the past decades almost all global powers have tried to increase their influence in the Middle East for strategic reasons. The strategic importance of the region has increased during the past few years and it will continue to increase during the coming decade.

1-    US dependence on foreign oil has increased during the last one and a half decade from 42% in 1991 to almost 70% in 2008.

2-    Once again the US faces rising powers with unclear future direction and she needs more instruments to control them.

3-    US allies and friends in the M.E. are facing with many internal challenges and their dependence on US support is increasing.

4-     US involvement in the Persian Gulf and M.E. has increased after sep. 11.

For these reasons, the United States dose not have so many options. US withdrawal from the region will lead to empowerment of both its regional and global rivals.

If the US wants to continue the Bush administration polices, she had to deal with stronger regional and global forces with limited resources. It is not possible without paying huge costs that the US economy cannot tolerate.

The last possible and rational choice for the US is to use its regional and global influence positively to solve regional problems like Palestinian, Iraqi and Afghanistan conflict, and support a regional security framework comprising all regional countries. This option will improve the US image in the Muslim World and paves the way for decreasing huge costs of over-extension of military forces. At the same time, it will contribute to expansion of democracy in the region.

The root of all the problems goes back to the US strategic calculations and behaviors. In order to create a positive image, the US needs to take positive concrete steps to manifest that it is on the side of justice, development and prosperity in the Middle East and the entire world.

[1] . By Tony Blair

[2] . Buliding moderate muslims Networks, p xii.

[3] . ibid.

[4]. John L. Esposito & Dalia Mogahed, What makes a Muslim radical?,

https://www.cof.org/files/Documents/Conferences/2008Summit/BridgingDivides71.pdf

]]> http://themustardseed.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/40th-anniversary-of-the-reclamation-of-alcatraz/ Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:49:56 +0000 Jack Stephens http://themustardseed.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/40th-anniversary-of-the-reclamation-of-alcatraz/

Blogger Rowland Keshena posts up AIMs 20-Point Position Paper on the anniversary of the Native American take-over and reclamation of Alcatraz.  Here is a short excerpt from that paper:

We seek a new American majority – a majority that is not content merely to confirm itself by superiority in numbers, but which by conscience is committed toward prevailing upon the public will in ceasing wrongs and in doing right.  For our part, in words and deeds of coming days, we propose to produce a rational, reasoned manifesto for construction of an Indian future in America.  If America has maintained faith with its original spirit, or may recognize it now, we should not be denied.

In an article back in 2005 Mikey Z. wrote:

Over the course of the occupation, over 5,600 American Indians took part — some for a day, some for the entire 18 months. Twenty-three year-old John Trudell, a Santee Sioux from San Bernardino, California heard about the occupation, packed a sleeping bag, and headed to Frisco. “He became the voice of Radio Free Alcatraz, a pirate station that broadcast from the island with the help of local stations” explains Winton. “When he hit the airwaves, the response was often overwhelming…” For the first time in modern American history, the plight of Native Americans was making headlines.

…

“Despite its chaos and factionalism, the event resulted in major benefits for American Indians,” Winton states. “Years later, Brad Patterson, a top aide to President Richard Nixon, cited at least ten major policy and law shifts.”

Artwork by Josh MacPhee (click on pic to buy poster).

Lynn Stewart and Ralph Poynter: Stalwart Cohorts in the People’s Struggle

By Stephen Lendman

11/20/09

On November 20, New York Times writer Colin Moynihan broke the news headlining:

“Radical Lawyer Convicted of Aiding Terrorist Is Jailed,” then saying:

“Defiant to the end as she embraced supporters outside the federal courthouse in Lower Manhattan, Lynne F. Stewart, the radical lawyer known for defending unpopular clients, surrendered on Thursday to begin serving her 28-month sentence for assisting terrorism.”

Fact check:

Stewart did what all attorneys should, but few, in fact, do – observe the American Bar Association’s Model Rules saying all lawyers are obligated to:

“devote professional time and resources and use civic influence to ensure equal access to our system of justice for all those who because of economic or social barriers cannot afford or secure adequate legal counsel.”

Also to practice law ethically, morally and responsibly to assure everyone is afforded due process and judicial fairness in American courts. Sadly and disturbingly, Stewart was denied what she did for others heroically, unselfishly, and proudly. More on that below.

Stewart (prison number 53504-054) is now jailed at:

MCC-NY
150 Park Row
New York, NY 10007

Betrayed by American Justice

For 30 years, Stewart worked heroically to defend America’s poor, underprivileged, and unwanted, never afforded due process and judicial fairness without an advocate like her. Where others wouldn’t go, she defended controversial figures like David Gilbert of the Weather Underground, Richard Williams of the United Freedom Front, Sekou Odinga and Nasser Ahmed of the Black Liberation Army, and many more like them. She knew the risk, but did it fearlessly and courageously until bogusly indicted on April 9, 2002 for:

– “conspiring to defraud the United States;

– conspiring to provide and conceal material support to terrorist activity;

– providing and concealing material support to terrorist activity; and

– two counts of making false statements.”

She was also accused of violating US Bureau of Prisons Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) that included a gag order on her client, Sheik Abdel Rahman. When imposed, they prohibit discussion on topics the Justice Department (DOJ) rules outside of “legal representation,” so lawyers can’t discuss them with clients, thus inhibiting their defense.

At former US Attorney General Ramzy Clark’s request, she joined him as part of Rahman’s court-appointed defense team. In his 1995 show trial, he was convicted and is now serving a life sentence for seditious conspiracy, solicitation of murder, solicitation of an attack on American military installations, conspiracy to murder, and conspiracy to bomb in connection with the 1993 World Trade Center attack despite evidence proving his innocence on all charges.

The DOJ’s case wasn’t about alleged crimes. It reflected his affiliations and anti-western views. Rahman was connected to the Egyptian-based Al-Gamaa al-Islamiyya – a 1997 US State Department-designated “foreign terrorist organization.” In the 1980s, however, he helped the CIA recruit Mujahadeen fighters against the Soviets in Afghanistan. For his work, he got a US visa, green card, and State Department-CIA protection as long as he was valued. When no longer, he was targeted along with Stewart.

Her case was precedent-setting, chilling, and according to the Center of Constitutional Rights Michael Ratner:

sent “a message to lawyers who represent alleged terrorists that it’s dangerous to do so.”

Her attorney, Michael Tigar, called it:

“an attack on a gallant, charismatic and effective fighter for justice (with) at least three fundamental faults:

– (it) attack(ed) the First Amendment right of free speech, free press and petition;

– the right to effective assistance of counsel (by) chill(ing) the defense; (and)

– the ‘evidence’ in this case was gathered by wholesale invasion of private conversations, private-attorney-client meetings, faxes, letters and e-mails; I have never seen such an abuse of government power.”

Her 2004 – 2005 show trial was a mockery of justice with echoes of the worst McCarthy-like tactics. Inflammatory terrorist images were displayed in court to prejudice the jury, and prosecutors vilified Stewart as a traitor with “radical” political views. In addition, days before the verdict, the militant pro-Israeli Jewish Defense Organization put up flyers near the courthouse displaying her address. It threatened to “drive her out of her home and out of the state,” and said she “needs to be put out of business legally and effectively.”

It was part of the orchestrated scheme inside and outside the courtroom to heighten fear, convict Stewart, and intimidate other lawyers to expect the same treatment if they dare represent unpopular clients effectively.

On February 10, 2005 (after a seven month trial and 13 days of deliberation) she was convicted on all five counts. Under New York state law, she was automatically disbarred, and the state Supreme Court’s Appellate Division denied her petition to resign voluntarily. On October 17, 2006, she was sentenced to 28 months imprisonment, but remained free on bond pending appeal before the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Stewart Ordered to Prison

The Justice for Lynne Stewart web site (www.lynnestewart.org) announced the news. On November 17, the Appeals Court revoked her bond, upheld the verdict, ordered her surrender forthwith, but stayed it until November 19 at 5PM to let her attorney file a motion for reconsideration. It was denied, so she must report to federal marshals as directed. A November 19 conversation with Lynne and her husband Ralph confirmed it.

The situation remains fluid, dire, and complicated by Stewart’s battle with breast cancer. She has surgery scheduled for December 7, unlikely now, but if done in prison or where authorities direct, it won’t be the quality she deserves.

In its ruling, the three judge panel (John Walker, Guido Calebresi and Robert Sack) was firm, hostile and belligerent in upholding the lower court’s conviction. Judge Sack accused Stewart of lying and called for a longer sentence. “We think that whether (she) lied under oath at her trial is directly relevant to whether her sentence was appropriate,” he wrote, and directed District Court Judge John Koeltl to re-sentence her “so as to reflect that finding.” Judge Walker was even harsher, calling the original sentence “breathtakingly low.” Judge Calabrese said: “I am at a loss for any rationale upon this record that could reasonably justify a sentence of 28 months’ imprisonment for this defendant.”

They all said Stewart was “convicted principally with respect to (her violating) measures by which (she) had agreed to abide,” namely SAMs. They rejected her “argument that, as a lawyer, she was not bound by (them), and her belated argument collaterally attacking their constitutionality.” They also:

“affirm(ed her conviction) of providing and concealing material support to the conspiracy to murder persons in a foreign country (and) of conspiring to provide and conceal such support….We conclude that the charges were valid (and) the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions. We also reject Stewart’s claims that her purported attempt to serve as a ‘zealous advocate’ for her client provides her with immunity from the convictions….”

“Finally, we affirm Stewart’s convictions for knowingly and willfully making false statements….when she affirmed that she intended to, and would, abide by the SAMs. In light of her repeated and flagrant violation of (them), a reasonable factfinder could conclude that (her) representations that she intended to and would abide by the SAMs were knowingly false when made. We reject the remaining challenges to the convictions. (We) affirm the district court’s rejection of Stewart’s claim that she was selectively prosecuted on account of her gender or political beliefs….We therefore affirm the convictions in their entirety.”

They redirected her case to District Court Judge Koeltl for re-sentencing. The DOJ wants 30 years. Koeltl originally imposed 28 months, let Stewart remain free on bond pending appeal, implied his decision might be overturned because of a gross miscarriage of justice, effectively rebuked the Bush administration at the time, and handed it a major defeat. Her fate is now in his hands, but justice has already been denied at a time we’re all as vulnerable as she if we dare resist state policies, unchanged under an administration no different from its predecessor.

In a November 17 news conference, Stewart said:

“I’m too old to cry, but it hurts too much not to.” In criticizing the Court’s decision, she said its timing “on the eve of the arrival of the tortured men from offshore prison in Guantanamo” suggests that lawyers appointed to represent them may face the same fate as she. “If you’re going to lawyer for these people, you’d better toe very close to the line that the government has set out (because they’ll) be watching you every inch of the way, (so those who don’t) will end up like Lynne Stewart. This is a case that is bigger than just me personally (but she added that she’ll) go on fighting.”

So will her lawyer, Joshua Dratel, who said he’ll pursue it “as far and as long as we can,” including a possible Supreme Court review. The Obama US attorney’s office was silent, effectively affirming a gross injustice at a time the due process and judicial fairness thresholds are so low that all Americans risk the same fate as Lynne.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site www.sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Monday – Friday at 10AM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening.

Thomas Paine’s Corner wants to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to receive them, type “TPC subscription” in the subject line and send your email to willpowerful@hotmail.com

For the latest updates on the animal liberation movement, visit NAALPO at http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/

If you have a Facebook account, don’t forget to look up Thomas Paine’s Corner’s Facebook page via the “search” feature and become a fan.

And if you have a MySpace account, don’t forget to friend Thomas Paine’s Corner at www.myspace.com/anarchovegan

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

It was because of David Gassman.  David, whose parents were bona fide Communist Party members ( he was known as a ‘red diaper’ baby—but in actual fact—as he has informed me—there is  speculation about whether both his folks were ‘card carriers’), knew a couple of people who I knew.  At the time, I was really not ‘active’ in any radical political organizations. David knew my roommate, Gloria Smith, through SANE/FREEZE, the nuclear  weapons free area campaign.  David also knew Judy Freeman, who got me to be a board member for Uptown Recycling Station, on of the first community based recycling stations in the country.  This was started by Ken Dunn of Resource Center (RPCV Brazil).

It was 1987, but we had known each other several years, via both Gloria & Judy.  I don’t remember how it came up in conversation, but David told us he had requested his FBI file, to make the FBI do something for all the money they  got.  He suggested that both Gloria and I send for our files.

I didn’t think I had a file.  If there was anything, it would have been  because my  former husband, D.Craig Ledford, was General Secretary-Treasurer for the Industrial Workers of the World, and I owe my  membership  in the IWW to journalist Abe Peck, whom I met at The SEED underground newspaper.  He also taught me how to use an IBM SELECTRIC, one of the first ‘computer/word processors. Anyways, that is just background. I was in arrears after I bought my first dog grooming business, and stayed in arrears after we got divorced.  I couldn’t imagine what the FBI would want with me.  David admitted that there might not be anything,but he helped me file the Freedom of Information Act request, and we had to file several requests.

I didn’t really think much would come of it, but after several months, I did get a packet from the FBI.  It turns out I DID have an FBI file!  It had nothing to do with my ex-husband, and it appeared they had been spying on me quite recently!

Apparently, they were  actually interested in Gloria, who lived with me at the time. Gloria had been to Nicaragua with the Nicaragua Solidarity Committee, providing technical assistance to the Sandinistas.  Back in the 1980s, during the  Reagan Administration, we weren’t  at ‘war’ in Nicaragua, but Reagan used  his ‘descretionary funding’ to provide support for the CONTRAS, who were fighting  socialism.  He called them ‘freedom fighters’.  Never mind that there probably over a dozen political parties in Nicaragua at the time, & Daniel Ortega had won a ‘free & fair’ election.  Our ‘American’ attitude was tha the Nicaraguans had voted int he wrong guy and the wrong party!

The spying on American radical activists was a carryover from Nixon (apparently, there were so few criminals for the FBI to spy on, they had to spy on people doing nothing illegal). It was quite controversial.

So, anyways, Gloria had gone to Nicaragua, and was now living with me, and  according to the nonblacked out parts of the file, a couple of guys were watching the house.  How would we not know this?  We lived in west Lakeview at the time, before it became Yuppieville, and wouldn’t have noticed a strange car on the street due to all the activity What is  particularly funny about this is that they didn’t have photos of us, and they  followed my tenant. We’ll call her ‘Susan’.

Susan was a figure model (that’s how I knew her), art student, and delivered singing telegrams for extra income.  According to the FBI notes, they followed her from the house, dressed as a clown,  carrying helium filled balloons, down a circuitous route to  where she was going–thinking SHE was ME.

WE had a good laugh over it, & I believe I wrote to the FBI & told them they followed the wrong person, but I never heard back from them.  I still have the papers in my file cabinet.  Gloria never did file  the FOIA request for her file.

Even though I had to be fingerprinted to get into Peace Corps, and told them straight out that I had an FBI file, it didn’t matter at all.  One branch of the government rarely speaks to another branch.

Recent notable points:

• More Acorn video and yet much more to come in the future. No one in Washington has cut off their funding for good..permanently!! Obama has not addressed the issue with a firm hand…what does this tell you!
• Timothy Geithner is now the lackey of choice for the Democrats and Republicans….he will resign or be fired soon. In the meantime, the real culprit, Barney Frank…lives on and continues to do more damage!
• The left is outraged over the fact that Sarah Palin is so popular. Let’s hope she runs for President and pisses them off for months and possibly years. Newsweek has fallen out of favor over the past 20 years. I do not believe that they can last more than a couple of more years…time will tell but at this point, they are not much better than National Enquirer…please, never send to me a quote from Newsweek!
• Healthcare debate shows that many Americans want to hop onto “Uncle Sam’s Plantation”. The current bill does nothing to reduce the cost of healthcare which is primarily related to: tort reform, 1/3 of insurance premiums going to administrative work, high cost of medicines. In the meantime, expect to be taxed on healthcare and also pay a lot more for premiums. Under the current plan, the only way not to pay more for healthcare is to run huge deficits and a complete takeover by the government….this is what we pay our congressman for after a years worth of debate?
•  Afghanistan…expect an announcement soon after Thanksgiving. Karzai has now been sworn in and has talked publicly about how he is going to battle corruption. The dog and pony is now over so Ba-Rock can finally do his thing….after months of delay and many more soldiers killed…talk about a lack of leadership!!!
• Kirsten Gillibrand was appointed to take over Hillary Clinton’s vacated seat. Big mistake. Guiliani leads Gillibrand by 14 points at this time and should he decide to run….he is a shoe-in after his work as mayor of NYC. Rightfully so, people that have done nothing should lose and people who show leadership should win!!! Don’t forget not only about 9/11…it was Guiliani and him alone that cleaned up 42nd street in NYC which was a sewer under previous administrations.
• The Fort Hood tragedy is turning into a political game of football….no running game but a lot of passing the ball. I am still waiting for someone to intercept and run for a touchdown. Hasan was giving substantial sums of money to Muslim groups with known ties to terrorism and was talking to a radical Imam about how he looked forward to meeting him in the afterlife. Yet, we want to say that this isn’t terrorism when everyone collectively said that McVeigh was a domestic terrorist when Oklahoma City was blown apart!
• After losing Virginia and New Jersey, the democrats are coming out with new strategies. Ba-Rock is now talking deficit, military buildup, new focus on remaining stimulus, KO of Timothy Geithner. Look to him to hire some conservatives to his team in 2010 to try and turn this around. In the meantime, his numbers are falling off the cliff!
•  Lincoln from Arkansas is the key holdout to the healthcare debate scheduled for Saturday in the Senate. Look for her to be bought out with hundreds of millions to Arkansas….pork at the price of US taxpayers. Who ever said that Congressional thinking was not about a few hundred million!!! Right and Wrong have a price in our Congress!!!
• Did you ever receive a mailer telling you that you have just won a new car only to read the fine print and understand your chances of winning were 1 in 9 million? I have never seen so many people happy about the run up in the stock market. The fundamentals absolutely do no support this run up. When are Americans going to read the fine print!!!
• It seems like the Prez is receiving a lot of negative press concerning his SE Asia Trip. What I am trying to find out is it more related to his bowing to Japan or his promise to pay the Chinese increasingly higher interest on their US debt holdings? Don’t expect the Chinese to help much in areas where we need help….e.g., North Korea!!!
• Illegal aliens continue their rush to America in record numbers. This might just lead us to believe that their thinking is that healthcare is going to pass. A couple of more good social programs and we can expect the population of Mexico to decrease by half and America to double. No problem though….you will have much more crime but you can still have your yard sodded relatively inexpensively.
• California has a choice…Boxer or Fiorina…we know that Boxer has never met a spending program she did not support and a trade bill that she did not try and attack. Fiorina was CEO of one of the largest corporations in America. While Boxer is currently leading in the polls, Californians are also leading the country in potential exposure to default. Boxer continues to support a small fish in the San Joaquin Valley over 42,000 jobs…..go Fish!! Might this be what happens when conservatives yield a little piece at a time to the ACLU and far left liberals….be careful other states!!!! Without economic growth it will take 95% of every dollar earned in taxes to pay off the California debt!!!!
• Cap and Tax – DOA for 2010. Too close to the election to pass a bill that will kill jobs..and many of them. Gitmo – Suffice it to say that Obama will no longer set fixed dates on anything. If only he learned the same concerning “Blame Bush”!
•  NYC terror trials – A new game by Parker Brothers called ” Radical Muslims, I dare you to blow up our city”! The game originally pitted Bin Laden against Hussein but then the company thought twice….we cannot pit Muslim against Muslim….everyone knows that a Muslim cannot fight another Muslim! Isn’t democratic leadership grand!!!!

“Change Watch:  Chai Feldblum, (nominee) Commissioner, EEOC”

Much like the pro-pedophile, pro man-boy sex degenerate Kevin Jennings, Chai Feldblum has her own radical homosexual agenda.  See for yourself – here.

Read more from The Traditional Values Coalition – here.

And people wonder why Bill Ayers is a teacher now…it’s revolution via education, on a generational timescale.

[HEY! The endnotes are part of the body of the work!]

Liberal feminism attempts to establish a theoretical framework to liberate women from oppression through political activism. It is to apply the political ideology of liberalism to the problem of women’s oppression. As liberals, liberal feminists fight for women’s rights through legal reform. Such reform is meant to address issues such as women’s right to equal pay, women’s suffrage, or universal access to careers and activities traditionally barred to women. Insomuch as these rights are the product of liberal feminism, we should praise it. But time and time again we see that the state of human affairs is such that women do not gain very much by being granted entry into the world of men. That is, while it certainly is—as liberal feminists claim—oppressive and psychically damaging for a woman to be denied access to the rights and privileges currently granted only to men, the worldview described by liberal feminism fails to offer an accurate assessment of the female condition.

It is absolutely essential to understand that liberalism never has been and never will be able to yield a successful method toward praxis. This is because the phenomenon of sexism is so complex that it cannot be solved simply by granting women access to the privileges currently granted only to men.

Life can be better for women—economic and political conditions improved—and at the same time the status of women can remain resistant, indeed impervious, to change: so far in history this is precisely the paradigm for social change as it relates to the condition of women. Reforms are made, important ones; but the status of women relative to men does not change. Women are still less significant, have less privacy, less integrity, less self-determination. This means that women have less freedom (Dworkin I 160).

It is clear that reforms do not change women’s status relative to men, or have not yet. It is clear that reforms do not change the intractability of women’s civil inferiority (Dworkin I 161).

Granting women equal rights under law will not solve sexism, because sexism is not caused by discriminatory laws but by far more fundamental principles upon which society is founded, and which can be addressed only if we aim at the very root of society.

Indeed, much of the feminist cause cannot be lobbied. No amount of legislation, for example, can remove women’s unwritten, even subconscious mandate to conform to society’s demands for femininity. As Greer puts it, “equality legislation [cannot] give me the right to have broad hips or hairy thighs, to be at ease in my woman’s body” (Greer WW 4). Whenever a woman feels compelled to maintain a femininity that is artificial and painstakingly constructed, spending significant portions of her time making up or choosing clothing, whenever she limits her activities to conform to popular standards or censors her speech so as to avoid conflict or disapproval, she has fallen victim to a sexist and misogynist society, one which has taught her that she must behave a certain way, dress a certain way, and restrict her activities and expression to those approved of by men for women.

Liberals—feminist or otherwise—can do nothing to change the social framework which constitutes the ethos of society, and which constructs people according to that ethos. When we understand oppression as systemic, as originating from the very framework of society, we come to understand that it is not possible to move about that framework without also being forced to conform to its ethos. Because oppression is systemic, when we seek civil liberties within that system, we find our aim unattainable, for rather than escaping such a framework, we merely seek to move around within it. The aim of liberalism is to assert one’s individual civil liberties—to be concerned with instances of individual grievance. The liberal paradigm for dealing with such instances of grievance functions quite well for the purposes for which it has been established. Anyone who appeals to the law to right an injustice knows the value of the liberal ideology. But those who, in total innocence, find that the law is not written with them in mind, who find the legal system itself to be biased in favor of one group over another, are well acquainted with what systemic injustice means, what it is to be oppressed. Liberalism can only deal with matters of personal freedom within an existing legal and political framework. Radical feminism does not mean to deny women their individuality, but maintains that women are oppressed not as individuals, but as a class. Because oppression is systemic, women cannot be freed as individuals, cannot seek freedom through civil liberty or personal rights—that is, through appeal to the very system which has caused women’s oppression in the first place. Women must find freedom in opposing this system.

What sort of legislation could ever give women the freedom to maintain her own values? What sort of legislation could ever give women the freedom to construct her own reality? This sort of legislation simply does not and could never exist. Indeed, such freedom cannot be given; it must be taken. Women must give themselves freedom—on their own terms, disinterested in patriarchal values: Women must claim for themselves radical freedom, as radicals; for to desire any less is to submit to hegemony. Unless it is radical freedom, any action is merely to act under the semblance of autonomy, to be under hegemonic control, forced to conform to foreign values which appear to be one’s own; it is to be an object, a passive entity existing in a foreign reality, imposed upon from without, an entity so a part of the patriarchy as to be one with it, to be an outsider yet inseparable from it, existing within it; it is to exist for men, as constructed by men. It is to be totally invisible, even to oneself.

[When] one conforms in body type and behavior and values, [one] become[s] an object…Objectification may well be the most singly destructive aspect of [sexism]…Being an object—living in the realm of male objectification—is abject submission, an abdication of the freedom and integrity of the body, its privacy, its uniqueness, its worth (Dworkin I 177).

Liberalism cannot address objectification, whose only opposition is to claim one’s own autonomous subjectivity. Radicalism is the only method against objectification and passivity and toward radical freedom.

The core of the problem of liberalism is that it cannot account for women’s oppression in terms of the material reality which constitutes it. Liberalism begins with the premise that one has inalienable rights, thereby implying that all are equal. Insomuch as this is true, we can maintain an egalitarian ideology. But egalitarianism fails to account for the real biological differences between the sexes. For such an ideal to be implemented requires a material equality that does not exist. Liberalism cannot shift power from those who are alike to those who are different. So long as there are very real differences of embodiment between women and men, egalitarianism is an inaccessible ideal, is effectually moot.

Furthermore, if we insist upon treating women and men the same, we are following the understanding that sexism is simply to treat women and men differently. But feminists cannot afford to adopt such an incomplete definition. Rather, we must see that sexism is not simply to treat women and men differently, but to treat women and men differently under similar conditions. To treat women as if they were men, under conditions of material difference, is just as sexist as discriminating against women.

In instances of material sameness, the aim of egalitarianism is indeed one of feminism just as much as of liberalism. These are the cases of equal pay for equal work, for example, or of a Black’s right to sit in any seat on a public bus.[1] But instances in which the material conditions at hand preclude egalitarianism—that is, anything that has to do with biological difference insomuch as this difference has social and political ramifications—cannot be addressed by egalitarianism. How but negatively can a strict adherence to egalitarianism judge a woman’s disproportionate need for prenatal care, for example, or for maternity leave? Generally speaking, egalitarianism forces one to deem any instance of affirmative action unequal treatment and therefore discriminatory and unjust. Such is indeed an instance of unequal apportioning, but a more mature analysis demonstrates the rectifying effect of affirmative action, which must rightly be called justice rather than discrimination. The appropriate aim for feminism is not egalitarianism; it is equity—that is, equality in value, even under conditions of material difference. Thus, even those who are irreconcilably different materially may be said to be equal in value, have the same equity.[2]

If liberalism cannot address the often hidden sexism underlying society at its very foundation, neither can it offer a critique of the sexual revolution, according to which must be cited as a feminist achievement. “Commentators have assumed some obvious relationship between the ‘sexual revolution’ and the progress in women’s condition…that women’s sexual response to men would actually liberate women” (Jeffreys A 2). The sexual revolution presented itself as the phenomenon by which newly liberated women gained the right to have the same power over their sexuality as men have always had. “This ‘revolution’ has been seen as emancipating women and allowing them equal sexual rights” (Jeffreys A 91). But while it appears that women were allowed to fully develop themselves as sexual beings, this has not truly been liberation, for in reality the state of affairs has remained the same. Women went from having a private sexuality controlled by their husbands, to a public sexuality by which they became sexual objects at the disposal of all men. Their sexual identity was publicized rather than transformed, and indeed the sexual revolution has only allowed women to claim a sexual identity which always was and continues to be a sexual identity defined and enforced by men. Sheila Jeffreys argues that the sexual revolution consisted of men succeeding in convincing women to rid themselves of their “inhibitions,” leaving them open to unlimited sexual advance.

Through the concept of the “inhibition” we can see that the possibility of sexual choice for a woman was removed. If a woman did not like a sexual activity, whatever the basis of her objection, whether personal, political or aesthetic, she was considered to have had some problem in childhood which constructed for her an inhibition (Jeffreys A 95).

Sexual freedom has never really meant that individuals should have sexual self-determination, that individuals should be free to experience the integrity of their own bodies and be free to act out of that integrity in a way that is totally within their own right to choose. Sexual freedom has never really meant that people should have absolute sovereignty over their own erotic being. And the reason for this is simple: Sexual freedom has never really been about sexual justice between men and women. It has been about maintaining men’s superior status, men’s power over women; and it has been about sexualizing women’s inferior status, men’s subordination of women. Essentially, sexual freedom has been about preserving a sexuality that preserves male supremacy (Stoltenberg 127).

This is, in other words, the persuasion of women to conform to patriarchally constructed sexuality. Simply put, “this ‘sexual liberation’ was the freedom for women to take pleasure from their own eroticised subordination” (Jeffreys A 1). This is clearly demonstrative of how the continuation of women’s oppression has been masqueraded as advance. The sexual revolution has truly only benefited men, who suddenly gained an unprecedented access to women as sexual objects, while simultaneously portraying itself as a manifestation of women’s liberation.[3]

Similarly, women who cite power in sex appeal only succeed in the manipulation of men so long as they maintain their status as sexual objects. Is it not true that for a woman to exert her sexual power requires men to be even more powerful? Is not the power of sex appeal granted to women by men, who can only grant this power to women as objects for their own sexual gratification? Is not, then, the power of sex appeal power for men? If a woman values her own sex appeal as a means of power, she must first admit that she is dependent upon men’s sexual desire for that power, and that her own value can only be assessed in relation to men, rather than as an autonomous being. The sexual identity of women is defined by men, as is the illusion of power for the woman who misconceives the value of her own sex appeal. Indeed, it is closer to the truth that a woman with less or no sex appeal is she who holds the most power, for she is uninhibited by the unwanted advances of men.[4]

As long as men desire women for intercourse, and women are used as sexual objects, regardless of laws and other public reforms women’s real status will be low, degraded (Dworkin I 21).

The only advance for women that can be achieved through liberalism is the incorporation of women into society as men. Liberalism has indeed yielded such results in recent history. What seems like advance for women has actually been the covert continuation of their oppression. The success of the women’s suffrage movement, for example, appeared to be an advance—like the sexual revolution—yet those women who were first granted the “right” to vote were still little more than the property of men—at least in practice, if not in law—and were refused the right to education or the same social status as men. Furthermore, the right to vote was for the most part tokenistic, as women were only able to vote for men, who in no way were concerned with the well-being of women. In time, women themselves were allowed to run for office, but—and this is where liberalism truly shows its inadequacy—once again this is demonstrative of the covert continuation of women’s oppression, for women who hold office are forced to play the role of a man.

It is absolutely imperative to be able to discern the difference between women’s significant representation and participation in society and mere tokenism.

Tokenism…is not merely a matter of numerical restriction. For example, the United States Senate could be composed of 50 percept women, and these women senators would still be tokens if their consciousness and legislation were still controlled by a patriarchal ethos, if they did not initiate and legitimate activities, and if they did not have a controlling power. Thus if the included group is not the controller of its own ethos and the initiator or legitimator of action, no matter how numerically present it may be, it is still a token group. Six million Jews could go to their death in the Nazi camps, not because there were too few of them but because they were not in control and thus their numbers were impotent. (Raymond TE 28).

This does not simply mean that women in office do a disservice to other women by colluding with a government—and economic system—which enforces sexism in its policies. The analysis is deeper. Rather, any woman who holds office has taken on the role of someone who uses power over others (here, the state over its citizens). This is a masculine role, and for women to adopt it means for women to adopt the very attitudes which cause sexism in the first place.

Most women who have arrived at positions of power in a man’s world have done so by adopting masculine methods (Greer FE 130)…If women understand by emancipation the adoption of the masculine role then we are lost indeed (Greer FE 130).

Liberal feminism will never yield praxis because it fails to see that the solution to sexism is not simply to grant women power. Radical feminist analyses demonstrate how, much more fundamentally, the cause of sexism is power itself. The radical feminist does not simply want women to be equal to men; she wants the power hierarchy itself to be dismantled. She wants to end the tendencies in both women and men to seek power over others, thereby ending the very possibility of and desire for inequality. The ultimate aim of both liberal feminism and radical feminism is indeed social equality between the sexes, yet while “[liberal feminism] is working for some kind of integration of women into the main fabric of society” (Kreps 238), radical feminism accounts for the fact that granting women the potential to oppress others alongside men is the advancement of women only insomuch as they collude with power and oppression. When a radical feminist says that it is antifeminist for women to fill the roles of men, she is not blindly condemning men. Rather, she is offering an analysis of oppression that understands that men are oppressive because of the particular roles they fill. We need a completely new vision for the social roles of women and men—a vision liberal feminism simply cannot produce.

Radical feminism is against the patriarchy—i.e., rule by men—which creates and maintains sexism in all spheres of life, public and private. But it is a misunderstanding that the proper alternative is matriarchy, which would deliver women from powerlessness to power. Understanding that “[women] cannot destroy oppression by filling the position of the oppressor” (Atkinson 10), the highest aim of radical feminism is simply to dissolve oppression without replacing it. Thus, the “feminist revolution” should be nonviolent, for even if it supports an aim of peace, violence is abhorrent because it destroys rather than nurtures, and creates suffering in response to suffering. To adopt such a method is to adopt the masculine ethos rather than transcend it.

By criticizing men, many radical feminists have been targeted as “reverse sexists,” misandrists, or hate-mongers. This is a misunderstanding, for although radical feminists do criticize men—often rather harshly—the vilification of men is not the aim of such theory, even if at times it is a byproduct. Yet as feminists identify the nature of oppression as patriarchal, there is no choice but to criticize the masculine role. Radical feminism analyzes what it is about any situation that makes oppression possible, desirable, and actual, and concludes that oppression results from male behavior. To be clear, this is not to vilify men qua men, but to disapprove of the role of oppressor.

The radical feminist is not and should not be defined by her attitudes regarding men, but rather by her determination to define herself as she sees fit, independent of and in spite of the desires of men. If a radical feminist is a lesbian, it is not because she hates men, but rather because she is determined not to accept the prescription that she maintain a sexuality constructed around patriarchal values. Neither is it because she hates men if a radical feminist takes a stand against marriage; it is because she refuses to have her role in society be defined by her relationship to her husband rather than as an autonomous being. If a radical feminist criticizes masculinity and the behavior of men, it is not because she finds men inherently inferior or contemptible, but rather because she finds such to be demonstrative of men’s destructive attitudes toward women and the world in general.

Society is structured in such a way that women continue to be defined not as autonomous beings, but in relation to men. Radical feminism does not seek to conquer men as if in war, but rather to allow women to define themselves, to escape the tyranny which men have established against them in order to enforce masculine, heterosexual values, and encourages women to maintain a vision of womanhood which has been established by and for women rather than by and for men.

The ultimate aim of radical feminism is not the dissolution of patriarchy and establishment of matriarchy, but the dissolution of all oppressive social institutions and the end of all power hierarchies, whereby the human species can live in peace and harmony with the rest of the earth. It is for this reason that although feminism is in general primarily concerned with the particular oppression called sexism, it is possible and indeed necessary to understand radical feminism as a universal approach to humanism;[5] for if radical feminist theory is correct, then we are justified in envisioning radical analysis as a tool for the understanding of and, ultimately, solution to not only the oppression of women, but all oppression, including the oppression of animals and the earth itself.

Radical feminism does not mean “extremist feminism.” It refers to the particular feminist ideology that identifies the issue’s problems as occurring at the root of society (thereby meaning “radical” in the purest sense of the word; cf. Latin radix, “root”). However, because it views the root of society as patriarchy, it therefore calls to overthrow it. It cannot be denied that this sort of approach naturally carries with it the greater potential for extremism. This should not, however, be taken as reflected in the term “radical,” for it is not improbable to come across extremist positions within liberal feminism, and likewise not improbable to come across positions within radical feminism that are widely accepted throughout mainstream culture. There are many radical positions reputable in mainstream culture, even by those with no particularly strong feminist leanings. This is exemplified by women who enter careers traditionally within the male domain such as in medicine or in the sciences in general, and who seek to demonstrate their capability in these fields in order to dispel sex-role stereotypes. To seek to transcend stereotypes upon which social roles are built is, broadly speaking, to hold a radical position—a position which is, in this case, the norm among contemporary women. Thus we find hints of radicalism in mainstream society, even among the more moderate. To this effect it cannot be denied that radicalism should not be relegated to the category of extremism, for there certainly are instances where radicalism is not in conflict with centrism.

Radical feminism is called “radical” because it is struggling to bring about really fundamental changes in our society. We, in this segment of the movement, do not believe that the oppression of women will be ended by giving them a bigger piece of the pie…We believe that the pie itself is rotten. We do not believe that women should be integrated into the male world so that they can be “just as good as men.” We believe that the male world as it now exists is based on the corrupt notion of “maleness vs. femaleness,” that the oppression of women is based on this very notion and its attendant institutions. “Separate but equal” will get us nowhere; we must eradicate the sexual division on which our society is based. Only then do men and women have a hope of living together as human beings (Kreps 239).

It is apparent that liberal feminism is so inappropriate because it reinforces hierarchies of power rather than allowing women and men to escape from the cycle of power and oppression altogether. For the oppressed to achieve power is not an advance; it is to remain solidly within the framework of oppression. From within such a framework there can be no true autonomous freedom, which is, in a word, praxis. Radical feminism finds its ultimate aim in radical freedom.

[2] Indeed, I maintain that the valuation of diversity in the face of difference is possible only under such an understanding.

[3] Although Jeffreys restricts her analysis to the negative effects of the sexual revolution, there doubtless have been many benefits as well. The normalization of birth control, for example, has empowered women who wish to be sexual without fear of conception. And the destigmatization of premarital sex has allowed sexual intimacy without submitting to the patriarchal institution of marriage. It should be noted, however, that many of these benefits are a double-edged sword. Suffice it to say that Jeffreys offers an analysis of the sexual revolution in so far as its detriments are concerned.

[4] It is interesting to note that many Muslim women who are forced to wear a burqa or other sort of veil—symbols of oppression and invisibility in the West—actually cite such dress to be, in some sense, liberating, for they block unwanted sexual advances, thus ironically offering protection and some degree of mobility which would otherwise be impossible.

[5] By “humanism” I do not intend to espouse speciesism, but rather to promote that doctrine which maintains a principle of universal humanity based not in the absolutist morality of religion but empirically and in demonstrable terms, e.g. reason or a declaration of human rights. I feel this clarification is especially pertinent considering the many close and—as we shall see—necessary ties between radical feminism and anarchism and ecofeminism.

Media bias can be subtle. But there it is.

Take this from The Associated Press today:

A radical American imam on Yemen’s most-wanted militant list who had contact with two 9/11 hijackers praised alleged Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan as a hero on his personal website [today].

The posting on the website for Anwar al Awlaki, who was a spiritual leader at two mosques where three 9/11 hijackers worshipped, said American Muslims who condemned the attacks on the Texas military base last week are hypocrites who have committed treason against their religion.

Awlaki said the only way a Muslim can justify serving in the U.S. military is if he intends to “follow in the footsteps of men like Nidal.”

“Nidal Hassan [sic] is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people,” Awlaki wrote.

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, is accused of killing 13 and wounding 29 in a shooting spree [on] Thursday. Hasan’s family attended the Dar al Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Va., where Awlaki was preaching in 2001.

Hasan’s mother’s funeral was held at the Falls Church mosque on May 31, 2001, according to her obituary in the Roanoke Times newspaper, around the same time two 9/11 hijackers worshipped at the mosque and while Awlaki was preaching.

Awlaki is a native-born U.S. citizen who left the United States in 2002, eventually traveling to Yemen. He was released from a Yemeni jail last year and has since gone missing. He is on Yemen’s most-wanted militant list, according to three Yemeni security officials….

Wow. So we are more or less associating Hasan with 9/11 because Awlaki has praised Hasan on Awlaki’s website and Awlaki might have known some of the 9/11 hijackers. Irresponsible.

But most of all, I have a problem with the casual use of the word “radical.”

What a loaded term, “radical.”

I just Googled “radical,” and the first online dictionary definition of the word “radical,” as the AP story above uses it, that I see is this:

3 a : marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional : extreme b : tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions c : of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change d : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs <the radical right>

OK, so maybe we accurately can call Anwar al Awlaki “radical,” but what about the United States of America?

On Sept. 11, 2001, 19 Arab/Muslim hijackers – 15 from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates and one each from Egypt and Lebanon – attacked targets on U.S. soil, killing under just 3,000 people.

In response, the unelected Bush regime (stealing a presidential election — that’s pretty radical in my book) launched wars against Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Bush regime did not treat 9/11 as what it was — terrorist attacks — meaning that you hunt down the terrorists responsible for the attacks – but instead repeatedly called it a “war,” a la Big Brother in 1984. (Just repeat a lie often enough…)

The U.S. may declare war on another nation legally only when that nation has provoked a war. The U.S. had no legal grounds on which to go to war with Iraq, which is why the Bush regime gave the United Nations Security Council — which had refused to rubber-stamp the Bush regime’s Vietraq War like a good little Security Council should – the middle finger and in March 2003 invaded Iraq anyway, against the United Nations’ wishes.

That seems pretty radical to me — to launch wars upon Iraq and Afghanistan, killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians, when those nations didn’t even have any of their citizens participate in the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

And it’s pretty fucking radical to expect Muslims and Arabs not to have a problem with this illegal, immoral, unjust, unprovoked and indiscriminate slaughter of Muslims and Arabs on their own land. 

I don’t blame Hasan for having had a problem with it, because I have a problem with it, and I’m not even Arab or Muslim. I just have a conscience. (And I can reason and I have some idea of what actually is going on in the world because I don’t watch Fox “News.”)

Killing people when it is not in clear self-defense is radical, whether the killers are “Islamofascist” suicide bombers or shooters like Hasan — or members of the United States military who continue to kill innocent civilians throughout the Middle East to this day. (It’s still killing even if it’s high-tech.)

I agree with the “radical” Awlaki that Hasan apparently “could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people” — that seems rather obvious — and it is my understanding that the conflicted Hasan tried to leave the U.S. military, but that the U.S. military not only would not release him, but decided to ship him off to Afghanistan.

Smart!

If we are going to argue that Awlaki or Hasan is “radical” or “insane,” then we also should take a look at the actions of the United States of America, which only continues to fuel the flames of the “war on terror” that it claims it wishes to extinguish. That is radical and that is insane.

(Of course, it’s debatable whether the powers that be want the “war on terror” to ever end in the first place; it’s great business for the war profiteers and the oil mega-corporations.)

It’s pretty radical that I, who do not subscribe to Islam or Christianity (or the other Gang for God, Judaism), am caught up in the war between the three feuding bullshit religions whether I want to be or not, because with the launching of some nuclear missiles, this “holy” war could change things radically for every living thing on the planet.

It is the media’s job to tell us what’s going on — not to take sides and to get us also to take sides in “holy” wars.

If the AP is going to refer to those outside of the United States who act beyond the pale as “radicals,” then it should start referring to those within the United States who act beyond the pale as “radicals” as well.

You know, to be fair and balanced…

A group called Black is Back proves that radicalism isn’t dead in the black community – although it may have been asleep for a few decades.The US swings from left to right and back again about every 20 years. Could this movement presage a general leftward trend? Or are these some folks that just never got over the 60’s? Dang! I gotta find that box I put my black beret and “Power to the People” T Shirt in back in the 60’s!

"Black is Back" Demonstration in Washington

African-Americans slam Obama in White House protest

WASHINGTON — Decrying Barack Obama as “white power in black face,” hundreds of African-Americans marched on the White House Saturday to protest policies of the first black US president, and demand that he bring US troops home.

More than 200 people gathered for the first public demonstration by African Americans against the Obama administration since his historic inauguration in January, and slammed the president for continuing what they described as Washington’s “imperialist” agenda around the world.

“We recognize that Barack Hussein Obama is white power in black face,” civil rights activist Omali Yeshitela, chairman of the Black is Back coalition which arranged the protest, called into a megaphone as the group marched outside the mansion’s gates.

“He is a tool of our imperialist enemies and we demand our freedom. And we demand that Obama withdraw all the troops from Afghanistan right now.”

Protesters also called for Obama to order troops out of Iraq and to scrap Africom, the controversial year-old United States Africa Command, and demanded “hands off” Venezuela and ends to the Cuba embargo and the Zimbabwe blockade.

Several demonstrators held up placards bearing messages such as “US out of Afghanistan” and “Stop US war against Iraq.”

Charles Baron, a New York city councilman and former member of the Black Panthers, a Black Power movement in the mid-1960s and 1970s, attacked the president for turning a cold shoulder to the plight of African-Americans.

“We’re not satisfied with him, and… this hope and change rap has not been a reality for black people,” Baron told AFP during the demonstration.

“We are glad that Barack Obama broke up the white male monopoly on the White House, but we were not looking for a change in the occupant of the White House from white to black, we were looking for change in foreign policies and domestic policies,” he added.

“To have a black person exploiting me just like a white person, that’s no easier pain.”

The group also was calling for the release of former Black Panther Mumia Abu-Jamal, who was convicted in 1982 of killing a white police officer and sentenced to death.

The US Supreme Court upheld Abu-Jamal’s conviction in April and rejected his bid for a new trial.

All

Book club no.32 was hosted by Sophie at her residence last Sunday 1st
November. The text before us was Kurt Vonnegut’s 1969 anti-war novel,
“Slaughterhouse-Five”. Present were Sophie, Owain, Ed, Pete and Andy.
Sustenance was provided by a delicious oriental feast, including edamame
beans, duck, stir-fry and lashings of ice cream.

Discussions ranged widely over this most intruiging of texts. Pete
argued that the crux of the novel was whether Vonnegut approved or
disapproved of the Tralfamadorians’ fatalism, while he also explored the
book’s “radicalism” or otherwise. Ed posited that the book’s success or
failure should be judged in its own right, not as an “anti-war novel”.
Owain was incisive on the fate of Billy Pilgrim in the world of
post-war, corporate America. Sophie discussed how the time travelling
was portrayed (Ed also commented wisely that the time travel was a form
of memory rather than necessarily a science fiction motif). And Andy
controversially suggested that Billy Pilgrim’s own fatalism made him not
just an anti-hero, but a villain.

All in all the discussion was a triumph and the participants agreed the
book itself was an enjoyable, thought provoking read.

The baton is passed on to Camilla for book club no.33. Let’s see if we
can squeeze it in before Xmas.

Pete

At The Excerpt Mill I quote Musa W. Dube, here is a short excerpt from my quote:

For the most part biblical texts are read in isolation from other secular works of literature. Whether this is intended or not, this approach maintains and perpetuates the imperialistic power of the West over non-Western and non-Christian places, peoples and cultures.

I therefore hold that the Johannine approach to exalting Jesus to divine status, above all Jewish figures and above all other cultural figures of the world, is a colonizing ideology that is not so different from the ideology of the Aeneid and Heart of Darkness. More importantly, John’s colonizing ideology calls upon academic readers to go beyond just expounding and explaining the construction of John’s text.