Life, Love, and Liberty

In the event of an aggressive war on Iran, a number of people have pledged to engage in protest. I am highlighting the petition that individuals have been signing below:

To: All Friends Of Peace And Progress
Preamble.

The Bush regime lied knowingly, openly and repeatedly in order to
justify waging aggressive war against Iraq and its subsequent occupation.
Hence, its current propaganda campaign attempting to demonize and justify
war with Iran has no credibility and is a source of great concern.

Past US governments are guilty of a long series of assaults on Iran.
In 1954, the democratically elected government of Iran was overthrown by a
CIA sponsored coup, introducing 26 years of brutal dictatorship under the
Shah - and lucrative concessions for American oil companies. From 1980 to
1988, the US government financed Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi aggression against
Iran, resulting in a million Iranian casualties and costing them $350
billion. Today, having invaded and occupied its neighbors, the US
government has a quarter million combat soldiers and mercenaries stationed
on both Iran’s eastern and western borders and three aircraft carrier led
naval battle groups lurking off Iran’s coast. Daily the Bush regime
regales the public with accusations against Iranian leadership and sponsors
sanctions against them while refusing to talk to them. Reports of current
US military incursions into Iran and attempts to destabilize Iranian
society are consistent with past US government activities.

Oblivious to domestic and world opinion and to international law, the
war criminal Bush regime conspires to instigate a pretext to attack Iran
again. It is their clear intent. We have seen this before.

Pledge.

We, the undersigned, will not further acquiesce to military aggression
against other nations by the Bush regime. In the event of an attack by US
military forces against the nation of Iran, we pledge to oppose that
aggression by our active participation in a campaign of mass non-violent
resistance, including civil disobedience, with the express intent of
impeding further aggression.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

The link to the peitition is here.

It’s with great dismay that I make another appeal on behalf of Arthur Silber, since he is once again in financial trouble. I wish that these chronic money problems of his were solved, since he deserves to live a much more expansive life than he does at present.

A sample of some of his latest writing is excerpted below:

Our mindless, comfortable lives proceed in their all too easily satisfied way. Look, an iPhone! The next war looms — let’s go see the new Bourne film! The government can now surveil you whenever it chooses — can we go to Hawaii next year, honey?

So it goes. The earth is moving beneath you in ways that may irrevocably alter the world. You don’t even notice. The colored lights blind you, just as the state and those who benefit from its voracious appetites intended. Have fun while you can.

I would say that you should remember that nothing, and no civilization regardless of its achievements, lasts forever. Of course, you don’t want to hear that, either. Too many good times to enjoy, too many fun things to do.

The End. As it were.

With the non-existent importance of our electoral process firmly in mind (as that process affects the ultimate purposes of modern statecraft, which is not at all), we can see the apparent paradox vanish. Certainly, you may do whatever you want, buy whatever you want, go where you will — so long as your activities do not impinge upon those areas most critical to the burgeoning state. And what is most critical to the state? Anything that gives meaning to your life in particular, or that brings you pleasure of special importance.

Your life may be profoundly enhanced by the exploration and incommunicable enjoyment of yourself as a sexual being, but it would hardly do to leave the possible consequences of that exploration up to you. So the state will constrict your choices, and thus constrict your freedom to experience pleasure.

Or you suffer from a terrible illness and seek relief from unbearable agony, and in that way you seek to preserve some sense of meaning in your life. Why, the state can’t let you decide such matters. Do you actually think your body is yours, even when it causes you unending pain? It is not, and the state will forcibly remind you of that fact.

He passionately speaks uncomfortable truths. I urge individuals to consider donating money towards his continued existence.

The quarterly Antiwar.com fund raising drive is upon us, so I am doing my customary post that urges people to consider donating towards the site’s continued existence. It’s a wonderful resource when it comes to keeping up with U.S. foreign policy and other international affairs. I visit it on a daily basis to keep myself informed about the happenings in Iraq, Afghanistan, and so forth. I urge people to consider sending any amount of money that they can afford. The site has several ways of making donations, so you have a good chance of finding a payment method that works for you.

I was feeling increasingly pessimistic about the prospects of warding off the potential campaign of mass murder being planned against Iran, yet a post by Arthur Silber led me to realize that there might still be hope.

To quote the post:

Perhaps people think that nothing they do at this point can alter what seems close to inevitable. It may be that even large-scale, continuing public protest would change nothing — but we don’t know that. Since it hasn’t been tried, it is impossible to predict what the effects might be. And permit me to offer a recent example, an instance where activism on the part of a large number of “ordinary” Americans did in fact change an outcome of some significance.

In terms of substance, I view the example as a profoundly unfortunate one, for it has to do with the defeat of the immigration bill. I viewed that bill as a terrible one, but for reasons directly opposed to those offered by its loudest opponents — for their opposition was obviously racist in nature. Of course, they denied their objections were racist, but they all finally resorted to discussions of “demographics,” and what they viewed as terrifying changes in our “culture” and to “way of life.” Such coded words fool no one, and this kind of viciously disapproving attitude toward immigrants has a long and awful history in the United States.

But with regard to the following observations, I am not concerned with why opponents of the immigration bill fought it so vehemently: I am focused only on the fact that they opposed it so strenuously, and that their opposition had the intended effect. I’ve mentioned that I listen to far too much talk radio, in part because I don’t have television. I listened to a number of conservative talk radio shows during both recent periods when the immigration bill came up for consideration: Limbaugh, Hannity, Al Rantel here in Los Angeles, Mark Levin, and several others. On both occasions, all of the shows talked about the immigration bill all the time. They discussed what they viewed as its inevitable awful results, why it was “unAmerican,” how it would destroy our country, and included the other standard rightwing talking points on this subject.

And they all did something else: they told their listeners to call and email people in Congress, and to call and email various Republican organizations, including the Republican National Committee, and to take all these actions repeatedly. They provided phone numbers and email addresses, and they indicated the general message that should be conveyed. They didn’t do this only once in one show: they did it throughout their shows, on every show, for over a week both times. The message was unceasing and unrelenting. It was repeated over and over and over. You couldn’t listen to one of the major conservative talk shows without hearing it within five minutes of tuning in. It went on all the time.

One part of the message deserves particular note, and all of the shows I heard made the same point: they condemned those Republicans, including Bush, who supported the bill without mercy. They told people to inform the RNC and all the appropriate Congressmen and Senators that they would receive no further support of any kind, including financial support, unless the bill was defeated. In their view, support of the bill was a betrayal of core conservative principles. They therefore maintained that any such alleged “conservatives” did not deserve to be in office. As one, they said that these betrayers of the conservative faith should not hold power any longer — and that the principles they believed were imperiled were more important than the continuation in power by the Republican party.

Why not encourage a similar campaign when it comes to the Democratic base? Or anyone who is concerned about the prospect of military action against Iran. The idea would be to try planning some kind of sustained series of mass emailing, postal mailing, and phone calling days. It would be even better to see if enough people could be convinced to do these types of actions on a daily basis. I’ve decided to speak to as many individuals as I can in an effort to get them to take part in the above. I’ll ask them to speak to as many people as they can and see if some kind of chain reaction could be sparked. I also intend to devote more blogging time to the issue, so I can reach those who are not already convinced of the need to deter such an attack. I am asking anybody else reading this to do the same. It may be possible to deter the gang in Washington from another act of aggressive war via this kind of leaderless grassroots resistance.

Some other ideas:

- The college students reading this could try to see if they could organize some kind of teach-in on campus.

- The anti-war/left-libertarian/progressive/anyone concerned about this issue blogosphere could advertise these mass action days.

- The Center for a Stateless Society could publish op-eds that encourage opposition to war with Iran while simultaneously tying its origins to the existence of the nation- state. I have a piece started that will make such an argument.

The present context of horrific approval ratings for the Bush administration is ripe for a sustained information and call to action campaign. It would be positively and wonderfully dialectical! : -)

The link to the contact information page for the Senate is here, while the listing for the House of Representatives is here. It’s also possible to use this page to contact the folks in Washington. It’s never too late to start letting the governing class know that your electoral support for them is jeopardized by their heinous policies. They may not care about the victims of the warfare state, but a threat to their power is something that would be a cause for concern to them.

And I quote:

Today is a typical day for 51-year-old J. Gordon Grantham III, as he drives his luxury-model Cadillac to a favorite restaurant to meet with potential investors. Over a lunch of $45 porterhouse steaks, a deal is brokered, and, using his company credit card, Grantham picks up the tab.

At first glance, this scenario might not seem terribly unusual. But J. Gordon Grantham III is one of the nation’s approximately 2.6 million recipients of corporate welfare.

Grantham, CEO of Global Tetrahedron Consolidated, one of the world’s largest petrochemical-manufacturing concerns, receives more than $850 million a year from the federal government in the form of tax breaks, incentives, grants and no-interest loans.

Defenders of Grantham’s welfare-queen lifestyle say people like him wouldn’t be able to survive without a lifeline of public aid. But many Americans are growing tired of what they view as abuses of the system. To them, Grantham and corporate-welfare recipients like him are living high on the public dole, growing fat on the handouts of others.

“I work for a living,” said Reston, VA, delivery driver Ted Schacht, 41. “I’m a responsible, tax-paying citizen. I can barely afford the insurance payments on my ‘91 Subaru. So why should my money pay for some welfare recipient’s imported Italian loafers?”

“These parent companies can’t afford to support the subsidiaries they already have, but they go right on acquiring more of them anyway,” said Ellen Gertsen of Medford, OR. “And who winds up paying for them? Hard-working taxpayers like me, that’s who. It’s a damn shame, is what it is.”

Defenders of the corporate-welfare system say such attitudes are insensitive and cruel. “These are not just corporate-welfare recipients; these are human beings, struggling to survive,” said Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK), one of Congress’ most outspoken proponents of the current welfare system and co-sponsor of the Aid To Companies With Dependent Subsidiaries Act. “They have households full of domestic servants to support. Many of them can’t even provide decent housing for their polo ponies. Offering them a helping hand is the only decent thing to do.”

Corporate welfare accounts for 95 percent of all government welfare expenditures each year, a figure many find excessive. Yet, according to the recipients themselves, it is not nearly enough.

“Even after downsizing 75 percent of our domestic workforce and relocating half of our manufacturing plants to Central America and the Far East, third-quarter profit margins were still 15 percent off last year’s figures,” says Charles Beeman, 47, associate vice-president of a multinational textile conglomerate. “If I can’t make ends meet by the end of the fiscal year, I could lose my corner office.”

This is a pretty short digest but it has some intriguing links.

Who Killed Pat Tillman?

The US Air Force Rules the Skies

Obama as the New Kennedy

Bomber Obama: My Own Personal Terror War

Surveillance Society

The Federal War on Springfield (warning: contains spoilers for the new Simpsons movie)

Blinded by the Light: Liberals and Progressives as Political Creationists

This is my contribution to the latest Carnival of Anarchy.

Sudbury Valley School

Fairhaven School

The latter link is the site for the school I visited for a week. I was presented with the choice of going there or coming back to Kansas City and then dropping out of high school. I ended up choosing the latter, but I sometimes wonder what it would have been like to go there. I’d like to share some of my thoughts on the experience, since Sudbury Schools are definite anarchistic institutions.

First off, I just recalled how incredibly anxious I was when my dad and I were driving to the campus for my first day of the week visit. My chest seemed like it was going to explode, but I did manage to lose my shyness sometime during that day. This was such a beautiful environment — although I wouldn’t say that the individuals there were always spectacularly out of the ordinary or kinder than young people would be in other environments — where all the trappings of a traditional school were nowhere to be found.

An image that’s stuck in my head is one of seeing some young folks — and I think the ages were probably between 5-10 — outside when I was looking through a window. They were totally unsupervised with no adults around to force them into some age graded cell block; Oops! I mean classroom. They were caught up in the exploration of the world on their own terms.

I remember participating in Counter-strike matches on a local area network and looking up the news on Antiwar.com. A student noticed this and I was able to explain my reasons for opposing the war to him. I also sat in on a visit by a student’s parent who worked in some kind of profession involving design. I can’t recall exactly, but I think it had something to do with motorcycles.

One of the beauties at this school is that the dignity of children was respected. A five year old student could write up a faculty member who they believed had violated their rights or engaged in some wrong. There was a judicial process involving both students and faculty that followed.

In reflecting on my experiences recently, I couldn’t help but contrast the spirit and beauty of Sudbury with the high school I went to in the 9th grade. I absolutely can’t stand the structure of traditional schools. They disgust me and bore me to no end. The only way that a child I am raising will ever end up in one is if they want to go to it. I would try to persuade them that unschooling or Sudbury is a better choice, but I would respect their decision. In the end, it’s about what they want for themselves. I wouldn’t want to be the enforcer of compulsory unschooling/Sudbury school laws.

A good book for prospective or current parents — or anyone else; for that matter — to read is John Holt’s Escape from Childhood: The Needs and Rights of Children. I think it may be out of print, but I do have a used copy on my shelf. I wonder if I could try to get the copyright holder to let me type it up.