Ron Paul: CIA runs the U.S. government

[compared2what?]

If you follow that link, btw, you'll see that an entire community that was formerly living on subsistence farming, autonomously and without a dime of help from the state, are now shit out of luck, what with the lethal toxins that are now in their water, earth, air, crops, animals, and selves.

And that's the rule, not the exception. In the unregulated global free market. There are grips and grips of data to back that up. Where's the mitigating evidence?

[Sweejak]

This is somewhat OT but I'll post it anyway since I have to catch up on a lot of posts which as usual I didn't receive notification for so I'm pages behind and skimming which isn't good for comprehension.. I've got to go do some work too.

Anyway, The film The Cradle Will Rock is brilliant in a number of ways, from the ominous syphilis cell painting fragment left over from the destruction of Diego Rivera's Rockefeller mural to the funeral procession of Bill Murray's puppet down the streets of today's Times Square, and what a great cast for the whole film. But to me the ultimate irony was the during the wonderful staging of the play in a alternate theater because here they were, singing about the glories of unity and unions etc while at the same time doing it in a unapproved theater and doing the performance in defiance of union rules, risking banishment from the union.

Cradle Will Rock
http://tinyurl.com/yfa3tpe

Sound snip:
http://web.me.com/kaaawa/Temp./Sound_Sn ... eller.html

BTW, I'm not anti- union, not especially, I think people have and should use the right to organize in just about any way they see fit especially when it comes to dealing with organized industry.

The theatre troupe was not defying the union, they were defying the Federal Theatre Project who shut them down due to 'budget cuts', but it was actually due to accusations of communism.

Wonderful film btw. Highly entertaining and uplifting without being cheesy or sentimental.

No not when I watched it, they said that they couldn't preform the play because, specifically, of the "UNION". Yes the Theater Project was shut down but that was a separate issue. Or... maybe I have to watch it again. The Theater Project went courageously ahead with the Beaver story. It was a great and thought provoking film maybe I'll watch it again tonight.

Earlier I spoke about woodworking and unions and said I preferred cutting my own way without so many rules, licenses etc and I said that I saw merit in both ways. Well, I'm self employed so what sense would a union that is contra management make? To prove how nonsensical this is I have fired myself, only to have me quit before I could do that.

The disadvantage is that I don't get union job security, health care, bargaining power and all that other stuff unions can do for workers, but they can also put a lock on someone who just wants to work without joining. I've seen unions do ridiculous things to the price of a job and kill any concept of efficiency with stifling rules. What to do? What ideological philosophy would address both of these things. I don't think there is one.

[compared2what?]

Either everyone gets involved across the whole population or else the whole thing goes to shit.
.

Well here in the U.S. it's already gone to shit. It went to shit a long time ago.

We are now living in a post-shit world.

And the big question is how to we undo this having-gone-to-shit thing?

How do you create shinola from shit?

You can't do it with lipstick. You can't polish a turd.

Yet a turd is what we are now. The United States of Turdistan.

I think the only thing that will keep this country from stinking up the entire world is a big flush of fresh water.

Yes, it almost doesn't matter who the person is who we annoint is the leader of this freshness, the point is that the people have to do the flushing.

A significant percentage of the population THOUGHT they were doing this by working for, promoting, and voting for Obama.

They were tricked.

Now they're in a "now what?" situation, if they're not still in complete denial (which a lot of them are, sadly. It's difficult to dislike Obama, it's hard to turn that corner and realize he is worthy of the same hatred we all had/have for Bush and Cheney).

Nordic, there are still too many people in this country who are literate, not-malnourished, housed, and clothed that if they united and supported each other in a strike against the government and corporations they mutually oppose, they could not be defeated unless the government and corporations were willing to kill them all in one quick strike. Which is highly unlikely, as there would be reprisals for such an action.

We're still a very, very privileged nation, comparatively speaking. And there's nothing stopping the more privileged citizens from educating and assisting the less privileged citizens except apathy.

Action is still possible, in short. It's not cost-free and it's not easy and it involves more than voting. But it's not a lost cause, unless you and I and all others like us decide to lose it.

ON EDIT Real progress takes centuries to achieve. It's juvenile to think you can get there on the coattails of one powerful Good Daddy, whether it's Ron Paul or Barack Obama. That's never happened once in the entire history of the world. Which does bear studying. The first reasonably clear-cut exemplar that springs to my mind is the history of Algeria between 1954 and the present. Which has no happy ending, and is riddled with mistakes, venality and human rights abuses on all sides. But which is chock full of plenty of lessons for everyone, and is exceptionally easy to get started on, owing to the accessible point-of-entry provided by The Battle of Algiers.

There are lots of others, though. That's just the first one that occurred to me. My point is that you do have to look further than your own backyard. First, last and always. It's not just a local problem, or just a political problem, or just an economic problem. It's a human problem. We all contribute to it. But we don't have to, we're not fated to, and the future is not inevitable. It's unwritten. We can write it. Don't ever forget that.

[Sweejak]

Sweejak wrote:

What worries you on the Right worries me on the Left too. Their authoritarian fantasies of "good government" don't do much for me.

My family has been destroyed by both Fascists and Communists and crushed by Socialism. It's in our history. We immigrated to the US for American ideals of liberty etc, however vaguely defined and imperfectly implemented. Maybe it's time to get crushed by "capitalism". Oh well, what else you got.

Understandable. I know a lot of people from areas that were ravaged by both Fascism and Communism, so I can understand why they would be leery about organizing for more collective/participatory economics.

I personally like the anti-capitalist strains of Anarchism advanced by people like Grubacic and Graeber, though there are a lot of other voices that have something interesting to add to the mix....

I'll have to check that out this evening. I wish there was a clear simple and quick place to sort these various ideologies out, especially the variants because so often I see people talking right past each other because of the lack of mutually understood words. I've come to believe that there isn't a political ideology that will save us. I have to say that I love this quote from Chief Joseph even if most will think it ridiculously naive:

"Let me be a free man, free to travel, free to stop, free to work, free to trade where I choose, free to choose my own teachers, free to follow the religion of my fathers, free to talk, think and act for myself...and I will obey every law or submit to the penalty."
-- Chief Joseph, American

What happened to all the self identified anarchists on RI? Last time I took that Libertarian vs Authoritarian political quiz I ended up pretty centrist compared to the others.

[23]

This bullshit frustrates me endlessly. Ron Paul is against war and against subsidies. A USA that doesn't invade and whose market is fairly accessible for exports (especially food) would change the world, I'm not exaggerating, to the benefit of the worst off. But people like you don't want to understand this, because you actually believe that American meddling is or can be well-intentioned, if the imperialists that you are personally fond of are elected. 'The liberal defence of murder', Richard Seymour calls it."

Please point us to where anyone on this thread:

a) indicates that they "believe that American meddling is or can be well-intentioned, if the imperialists that you are fond of are elected";

b) supports a "liberal defence of murder"; or

c) is less than unconditional about the notion that the USA should not invade (anywhere) and should make its market accessible to food imports (from the 3rd World, presumably).

Or else, please throw your strawmen back on the hay pile. Thanks.

A more careful reading will reveal that I wasn't the original author of those words. I did, however, agree with them. You're welcome.

As for well-intentioned American meddling, that'll be our military presence overseas, of course.

Think that they should stay? Intentions worth the meddling? Want to continue having your taxes contribute to the 2010 military budget of $534 billion?

Or do you think that they should be removed, as I do, and the money be spent for more humane purposes?

What say you about our well-intentioned military meddling overseas?

[elfismiles]

Nordic, there are still too many people in this country who are literate, not-malnourished, housed, and clothed that if they united and supported each other in a strike against the government and corporations they mutually oppose, they could not be defeated unless the government and corporations were willing to kill them all in one quick strike. Which is highly unlikely, as there would be reprisals for such an action.

We're still a very, very privileged nation, comparatively speaking. And there's nothing stopping the more privileged citizens from educating and assisting the less privileged citizens except apathy.

Action is still possible, in short. It's not cost-free and it's not easy and it involves more than voting. But it's not a lost cause, unless you and I and all others like us decide to lose it.

Strike to End War? What Will It Take?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=17619

As I've been saying, we need to come together on the really important issues of Ending Empire By Any Means Necessary. STRIKE! seems the only way.

If you follow that link, btw, you'll see that an entire community that was formerly living on subsistence farming, autonomously and without a dime of help from the state, are now shit out of luck, what with the lethal toxins that are now in their water, earth, air, crops, animals, and selves.

And that's the rule, not the exception. In the unregulated global free market. There are grips and grips of data to back that up. Where's the mitigating evidence?

And I'd bet we're all benefiting from these atrocities in America.

So long as we continue to allow it to happen and continue to allow the wars to happen we are all guilty.

[compared2what?]

And I'd bet we're all benefiting from these atrocities in America.

So long as we continue to allow it to happen and continue to allow the wars to happen we are all guilty.

Say rather that we are all responsible, honey. Because guilt weighs you down. But responsibility empowers.

Agreed, fundamentally, though.

[compared2what?]

What say you about our well-intentioned military meddling overseas?

I say it's not well-intentioned. But I also say that the policy proposals of Ron Paul cannot realistically put an end to genocidal overseas meddling for profit. They can only make it technically non-military. It's sleight of hand on his part and a pipe dream on his follower's part to suggest or believe otherwise. I mean, how do you suppose he intends to stop the free and unregulated market forces from pursuing their interests in countries with a powerless, expendable labor force that has no constitutional protections and is only nominally not a slave-labor force? The economy is global, it has been since the 17th century at least. You cannot wish that away. It has always paid dividends to the few by using state or private military power to subjugate and enslave people "overseas," depending on where you sit. Always. How does taking that out of the realm of public oversight put a stop to it, exactly? What libertarian policy proposal addresses it?

And I mean policy. Not rhetorical principle. How do you imagine the obstacles to realizing those principles will be overcome, in short?

[nathan28]

And I mean policy. Not rhetorical principle. How do you imagine the obstacles to realizing those principles will be overcome, in short?

OMG teh NWO & 1-WURLD GUBBMINT

[compared2what?]

What happened to all the self identified anarchists on RI?

Quasi-anarchosyndicalist. Present. In theory. It can't be realized in practice in my lifetime or even within less that four or five generations, however. So as a matter of praxis, I'm not holding my breath until my face turns blue until the entire world agrees to change overnight in order to make my political ideals a reality. Because that would only serve my personal and emotional needs. It wouldn't do jack for me or anybody else on a political and practical level.

However, fwiw, pending unknowable future events, at the moment, that's my long-term goal.

[compared2what?]

And I mean policy. Not rhetorical principle. How do you imagine the obstacles to realizing those principles will be overcome, in short?

OMG teh NWO & 1-WURLD GUBBMINT

Huh? And also: Heh?

What do you mean, darling? Your post went over my head.

[American Dream]

Sweejak wrote:

I've come to believe that there isn't a political ideology that will save us...

What happened to all the self identified anarchists on RI? Last time I took that Libertarian vs Authoritarian political quiz I ended up pretty centrist compared to the others.

As much as I endorsed two "anarchist" theorists upthread, I am also deeply ambivalent about American Anarchism. Too much of it is not very strategic, not very thoughtful. So yes- I think we should move beyond just finding some banner, any banner to march behind, but I do think Anarcho/Left voices offer an important counterpoint to Right-wing Libertarianism.

[Nordic]

Interesting. I was just a little while ago thinking about looking up exactly that information.

Shown as a map, it's quite illuminating. Seems Afghanistan should be the same color as Iraq, tho. Not sure how old the map is.

Remember that Simpson's episode where Homer has his hand stuck in the soda pop machine? Turns out his hand is stuck because he just won't let go of the can of soda.

Makes me think of that.

[23]

My apologies, Nordic, for not finding a more current map.

There's a better map in this article's website.

http://sirenschronicles.com/2009/05/14/ ... the-world/
How many military bases do we have around the world?

I was thinking about this recently and finally looked it up. From the wonderful folks at Global Research:

More than 1000 US Bases and/or Military Installations

The main sources of information on these military installations (e.g. C. Johnson, the NATO Watch Committee, the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases) reveal that the US operates and/or controls between 700 and 800 military bases Worldwide.

In this regard, Hugh d’Andrade and Bob Wing’s 2002 Map 1 entitled “U.S. Military Troops and Bases around the World, The Cost of ‘Permanent War’”, confirms the presence of US military personnel in 156 countries.

The US Military has bases in 63 countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries.

In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide.

These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments. The underlying land surface is of the order of 30 million acres. According to Gelman, who examined 2005 official Pentagon data, the US is thought to own a total of 737 bases in foreign lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of 2,202,735 hectares, which makes the Pentagon one of the largest landowners worldwide (Gelman, J., 2007).

But..farther down the page at Global Research..there was this:

There are 6000 military bases and/ or military warehouses located in the U.S. (See Wikipedia, February 2007).

Total Military Personnel is of the order of 1,4 million of which 1,168,195 are in the U.S and US overseas territories.

Taking figures from the same source, there are 325,000 US military personnel in foreign countries:

800 in Africa,
97,000 in Asia (excluding the Middle East and Central Asia),
40,258 in South Korea,
40,045 in Japan,
491 at the Diego Garcia Base in the Indian Ocean,
100 in the Philippines, 196 in Singapore,
113 in Thailand,
200 in Australia,
and 16,601 Afloat.

In Europe, there are 116,000 US military personnel including 75,603 who are stationed in Germany.

In Central Asia about 1,000 are stationed at the Ganci (Manas) Air Base in Kyrgyzstan and 38 are located at Kritsanisi, in Georgia, with a mission to train Georgian soldiers.

In the Middle East (excludng the Iraq war theater) there are 6,000 US military personnel, 3,432 of whom are in Qatar and 1,496 in Bahrain.

In the Western Hemisphere, excluding the U.S. and US territories, there are 700 military personnel in Guantanamo, 413 in Honduras and 147 in Canada.

Map 3 provides information regarding military personnel on duty, based on a regional categorization (broad regions of the world). The total number of military personnel at home in the U.S. and/or in US Territories is 1,139,034. There are 1,825 in Europe 114, 660, 682 in Subsaharian Africa, 4, 274 in the Middle East and Southern Asia, 143 in the Ex-USSR, and 89,846 in the Pacific.

Which really set my head to spinning..then…I saw this page at Global Research. It excerpts Chalmers Johnson’s new book, “Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic”. I decided to just give it up..I was depressed enough for today. You however can check it out if you are of a very strong constitution..if you do..let me know ok?

Obama bitched today about the cost of Medicare/healthcare (video below) and the Social Security costs (cough..bullshit!) in the federal budget and after reading how much crap military-wise, we have spread around the entire friggin world..Obama can kiss my hairy ass about the cost of Medicare and Universal healthcare and his bogus argument about Social Security. Shit-can most of the military bases around the fucking world dude (keep the ones here in Amerika)..then maybe we can have single payer healthcare. It would be a start..we are NOT the worlds babysitter, we simply can not afford to do that anymore. One base per country with minimal staffing..that’s it!

I know..its not reasonable to expect our government to close all those bases..but for the love of Buddha..where are our priorities? I am tired of friends dying for lack of basic healthcare..really..I am.

[compared2what?]

Fine. Let's bring them all home and let the rest of the world go to hell its own way. What will all those troops be doing for a living once they're back where we want them, between sea and shining sea?

And what will the five million people currently working largely in their chosen fields in the mostly well-paid jobs created by government defense spending be doing for a living now, for that matter? And how about whatever percentage of the people who are currently keeping body and soul together in the service and support sectors that would no longer have jobs once the people whose military-industrial high-paying salaries create the demand for their services and support are gone, along with their disposable incomes?

Because, sadly, those are the occupations at which the largest percentage of the population is currently employed. See:



What natural advantages will come their way on the winds of the unregulated free market economic change? Who will hire them and to do what? Or, alternately, how will they become self-employed and by doing what?

Likewise, all the elementary school teachers who'd be out of a job if libertarian economic policies got rid of public education, as Ron Paul believes ought to be done?

There now being, by libertarian definition, no government assistance for those people, how, realistically, do you picture them staying clothed, fed, and housed?

How?