Blackout?

Can YOUR card do this?

AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask you how war fits into this. I mean, you co-wrote the book with Linda Bilmes, The Three Trillion Dollar War. How does war fit into our problems with the economy?

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, war fits in because you’re creating a liability, you’re spending money. And when we went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, we already had a deficit. And so, these wars were the first wars in America’s history financed totally on the credit card. So, you’re creating a liability, but you’re not creating an asset. So that’s the kind of spending that does weaken the economy, because it’s one-sided. … The numbers now are much more like four to six trillion.

AMY GOODMAN: And yet, across this country, as the debates for various congressional and Senate seats[go], war is almost never raised [as an issue]. –Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz: Foreclosure Moratorium, Government Stimulus Needed to Revive US Economy

Blackout??

PRECEDENT? According to a "Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting" two week study, during the lead-up to the Iraq war, a period of particularly intense debate (Jan. 30 to Feb 12, 2003), U.S. mainstream media, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS Evening News, conducted 393 interviews about the pending war. Only three of those interviews were with peace leaders.

Network for Peace

Is your student group featuring an antiwar speaker? Does your place of worship host a weekly peace vigil? Does your anti-empire group have a mailing list or a schedule of upcoming events?

We want to let others know about your work for peace. Please email Angela Keaton at akeaton@antiwar.com with the latest on your local activism.

He NAILS it!

Regular antiwar.com contributor Tom Engelhardt NAILS it – – – on Democracy Now! too.

Tom Engelhardt on “The American Way of War: How Bush’s Wars Became Obama’s” Here: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/18/afghan

We weren’t on the wrong side in Vietnam – – –

We weren’t on the wrong side [in Vietnam], we were the wrong side. —Daniel Ellsberg, The Most Dangerous Man in America, via NewsBusters.org

And were we also the wrong side in the Korean “War”, Panama (Operation Just Cause), Grenada (Operation Urgent Fury), Iraq – – – you get the idea.

Has this sort of behavior by the U.S. government — and other governments — become SOP (Standard Operating Procedure)?

And just in case you want a more complete accounting — and you have a bunch of spare time — here’s a more complete list of United States military operations.

And if you’re morbidly curious of how many lives these sorts of operations have squandered — and have a strong stomach — you can find out from the University of Hawaii’s R.J. Rummel.

And, if you’ve read this far and want to know how much you contribute to this mayhem if you consider yourself a U.S. Taxpayer, the kindly Quaker folks from the Friends Committee on National Legislation have figured that out for you. (HINT: 43% of your 2008 tax bill went to pay for “wars,” past and present.)

So maybe a donation to antiwar.com might actually be a good investment – – –


P.S. The U.S. Government hasn’t declared war according to its charter (the U.S. Constitution) since WWII. So none of those “Wars” since WWII were — or are — Constitutional. Isn’t that cute?

Don’t F*ck Me Up With Peace and Love?

Maybe this post by George Hawley, “Solving Non-Interventionism’s Tough-Guy Problem,” wasn’t directed at Antiwar.com, but I’ll address some excerpts from it anyway.

In the years since I abandoned my status as a typical neoconservative chicken hawk and adopted Old Right non-interventionism, I’ve been somewhat uneasy with much of the movement’s rhetoric. Specifically, I often find much of the anti-war Right a little too reminiscent of the anti-war Left. That is, many anti-war conservatives and libertarians expend a great number of keystrokes lamenting the American war machine’s innocent foreign victims (see Chronicles
or LewRockwell.com just about any day of the week for examples). This is often my own preferred argument. My concern is that this kind of rhetoric does little to grow the non-interventionist movement’s ranks. …

Although their message is utterly vacuous, the Limbaughs, Hannitys, and Levins know exactly how to frame their arguments in a way that appeals to the GOP base. It’s time for more doves on the Right to learn to do the same.

But, of course, we do make coldly consequentialist, self-interested arguments
against militarism, war, and empire. We also make arguments on moral grounds, from a number of different starting points (including conservative Christianity, which I hear this GOP base is really into). Why make this an either/or matter? Why should we drop half (or more) of our arguments when they don’t conflict with the other half? (There are various types of “humanitarianism” that do conflict with non-interventionism, but we avoid those, so no problem there.)

As for learning from Limbaugh and Levin, please. I know their audience. I was born into it. If I ever write a political memoir, I’ll name it Up From Hannity. There is a Reasonable Right worth reaching out to, but it ain’t in talk radio. These people “think very little about foreign policy,” as Hawley puts it, not out of apathy, but on principle, because thinking leads to questioning, and questioning is a mere Bic flick away from flag-burning, bin Laden, buggery, and Buddhism. The funny thing is, the warbots are not allergic to “humanitarian, we-are-the-world gobbledygook” – in fact, they devour it when it’s in the service of American imperialism. Anyone who watches Fox News knows how quickly right-wingers can pivot from “kill ’em all” to “aww, purple fingers!” The problem is not that peaceniks have tried the wrong arguments on them; they will accept any argument, no matter how heterodox it appears on its face, so long as it reaches the correct conclusion, roughly summarized here. But any argument that reaches a different conclusion, no matter how consonant it is with “conservative values” such as traditionalism, small government, fiscal responsibility, or national sovereignty, doesn’t stand a chance with that crowd.

Lamenting the suffering created by harsh economic sanctions and bombing campaigns is a good way for non-interventionist right-wingers to suck up to their leftist friends and colleagues, but so what? The people moved by such arguments are already anti-war. Building a powerful anti-war coalition on the Right will require an entirely different rhetoric. At all costs it must avoid sounding like Code Pink.

This ignores the salvageable, non-Rush Right, whom we do address, and it seems a little confused about the purposes of advocacy. Not all arguments are about convincing someone to switch sides. Often, it’s more important to get those who agree with you on an issue to care more about that issue, in both absolute and relative terms. For instance, much of our commentary since January has been aimed at convincing our lefty readers that they shouldn’t surrender peace and civil liberties for the various goodies Obama has promised them. We’re always trying to make people rethink their priorities, or merely come out of the closet. Even after a majority of Americans soured on the Iraq war, most remained sheepish, even silent, in their opposition, revealing it only to pollsters. Part of our job is to get people fired up, to translate their dissatisfaction into action of some sort. And you know what? Moral arguments are often good motivators, even for people whose default modes of analysis are amoral.

Luckily, we already have a pretty good format that has worked pretty well in America’s Red regions, and can be applied to the cause of peace. There is a certain ethos that characterizes a great number of ordinary Republicans – or at least the ordinary Republicans with whom I prefer to spend my time. For the lack of a better term, I will call this frame of mind, “Who-Gives-a-Damn? Conservatism.” This is the type of thinking that leads to support for standard GOP policies, but not for particularly-sophisticated reasons. I have no doubt that a great number of grassroots Republicans oppose ideas like universal health care and more federal spending on public schools because they understand, and find compelling, conservative and libertarian arguments about the utility of such policies. I suspect much of the opposition to these schemes, however, is based on a more primal emotion. That is, a lot of people don’t like Big Government because they don’t want to pay for it and don’t really care about the people it is supposed to help.

If you think most self-described conservatives really hate Big Government,
then you stopped paying attention sometime around, oh, the Nixon administration. Good God, man, if they hated Big Government, wouldn’t they at least dislike the most wasteful and intrusive government programs of them all, from the War on Terror to the War on Drugs? No, they love Big Government, from its big, fat boots to its big, fat head. Oh, they’re angry that some of the loot falls on the, um… undeserving, but that won’t stop them from sucking the teats of Social Security and Medicare to the shape and texture of a deflated football. They won’t abide tax increases, but they see no connection between those and deficit spending. And why should they? Just keep those F-22s coming, barkeep! The grandkids are buying!

I do agree with this part completely:

The neocons’ democratist ideology should be treated as just another example of fuzzy-headed utopianism. Bringing “liberal democracy” and “democratic capitalism” to the entire world should be added to the category of ridiculous, never-going-to-happen ideas. The best argument against the neocons is that they are delusional. They are the eggheads dreaming up sentimental, utopian schemes, not us.

Couldn’t have said it better myself. Nonetheless, we will gain nothing from adopting the language and posture of the neocons and their fellow travelers. Non-interventionism’s only “tough-guy problem” is the widespread attachment to a mindset derived entirely from dumbass action flicks, which are about as useful a guide for foreign policy as romantic comedies are for romance.

Laurence Vance Speech on Christianity And War

From TheAmericanView.com:

PASADENA, Maryland – This event will occur on Friday, June 5, 2009, at 7:00 PM. As with past “First Friday” lectures, this one will be held at 8028 Ritchie Highway, Suite 315, Pasadena, Maryland 21122. Doors open at 6:30 PM and the lecture will begin promptly at 7:00 PM. The event is free but because of limited space please RSVP to 1-866-730-9796. Refreshments, good food will be provided.

This event will be streamed live, at no cost, on the Internet, June 5 at 7 pm (EST), at: www.ustream.tv/channel/the-american-view-live-webcast

Dr. Laurence M. Vance is a Bible-believing Christian author, freelance writer, and book reviewer. He holds degrees in history, theology, accounting, and economics. He has written and published sixteen books on the diverse subjects of theology, biblical languages, Bible history, economics, politics, and war. Dr. Vance regularly contributes articles and book reviews to both secular and religious periodicals. He is a regular columnist for LewRockwell.com, a member of the Society of Biblical Literature, the editor of the Classic Reprints series, the director of the Francis Wayland Institute, and an adjunct scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

With our country involved in at least two un-Godly, un-Constitutional wars, this is one “First Friday” event you do NOT want to miss. To make reservations and for more information, please call, right now, “Institute on the Constitution” at 1-866-730-9796. Or the Web site IOTConline.com.