stuff

the u.s may put 30,000 more troops in afghanistan by next year. yeah, this is change, and you better believe it.

as far as iraq goes, the military, unless they are directly challenged, will continue their policies of war. the idea of withdrawing troops is a dream. instead, we will likely change what the troops are called. while they are now described as combat troops, in the future, they will be referred to as support troops. either way, they ain't going nowhere. if obama was serious about ending the war in iraq, he would have to confront the military industrial complex. this would mean selecting cabinet members who have a history of bravely combating the forces of imperial conflict. it would also mean describing to the american people the realities of war. but, every move obama has made so far is in the opposite direction. obviously he is well aware of the fate of jfk, who, it seems, was attempting to withdraw american troops from south vietnam at the time of his murder. kennedy was faced with a military that was strongly opposed to any such move. the fact is that the military does not like to be told what to do. it is a bastion of the ultra right wing, and a cash cow for the multinational corporations, who reap billions in defense contracts. these forces don't cave easily. so, the question is, is obama of a mind to have it out with them? and, if he is, what evidence is there to support such a view? his naming gates as his secretary of defense? his blind support for our destruction of afghanistan? his funding in the senate for every war appropriations bill that came to a vote? his advocacy of strikes on pakistan, which have led to the deaths of hundreds? yes, the man made an anti-war speech in 2002, but that was before the war began, and before he was in the senate. within that speech, he informed us that he is "not against wars, but only dumb wars." so, what's a "smart war?" the gulf war? our destruction of yugoslavia? the bombing of panama? it is not this particular war that is the problem; rather, it is our use of destructive violence against the people of the world, which includes, but is not limited to, this war. it is not a matter of being an absolute pacifist; the issue is to recognize how the united states has historically used its military to further its own imperial and territorial agenda. it has nothing to do with whether a war is "smart" or "dumb." what does that even mean? does it matter to the hundreds of thousands that our bombs kill if our leaders have "intelligent" reasons for dropping those bombs? and while there may be times when a great evil needs to be opposed, why should we assume that such an evil is another country, and not the leadership and the political and economic structures of power within our own nation? if the germans had succeeded in overthrowing stalin's government, would that have been a victory for humanity, considering the scope of stalin's crimes? if a state is prosecuting a war of aggression, how can that be excused by citing the crimes of the country being attacked? at nuremberg, it was stated that a "war of aggression is the ultimate crime." there you go; the ultimate crime! what else do you need to know? a war of aggression is a very specific kind of war, by the way. it doesn't apply to a civil war, or to a revolutionary war. a war of aggression is the act of one sovereign state attacking another sovereign state without cause. countries have the right to defend themselves, just as people do, but wars of aggression are offensive wars, and that, no country has a right to do. this is why they spend so much time trying to explain them as wars of defense, or humanitarian interventions. this is why the media spins fabrications about supposed dictators who threaten us at every turn. hopefully, obama can begin to move away from such nonsense, but sadly, i remain skeptical, because i am aware of how power operates within our society. and furthermore, i am by no means certain that obama wants to move away from a militarist society. in fact, his words suggest that he is quite comfortable with various manifestations of american militarism. in truth, it is hard to imagine that he could have become president in this day and age if he wasn't comfortable with such militarism.

a 40 billion budget crisis in california? isn't warren buffet worth 500 billion? since he's such a "humanitarian," why doesn't he just unload a mere 8 percent of his wealth in order to help the people of our most populous state? better yet, why don't we have an economic and political structure that appropriates such wealth from the rich in order to ensure that the masses can work and live without fear of hardship? we have the wealth. through progressive taxation, wealth appropriation, and drastic cuts in the military and intelligence sectors, we could begin to address these issues. instead, we put our financial woes on the backs of workers through layoffs and cuts in valuable social services. and what is this furlough shit? are you serious? if somebody wants to choose to work less, than that's great, but to impose, at the state level, a reduction in the work week, is a crime against the worker. is the terminator also going to force landlords to charge 10% less for rent? is he going to force the supermarkets to charge 10% less for food? if not, than what right does he have to take 10% of the income away from the average state worker? he is essentially putting a gun to the head of the worker and demanding 10% of his pay. this is a crime when done by the mob or other street criminals, but supposedly legitimate when done by political leaders. hopefully, resistance will occur, though many of my cracker brethren will likely continue to put the blame on those being victimized by an economy that is driven by forces beyond their control. i am saddened by this vulgar state of affairs, but not surprised by it. this is what happens when you spend a trillion dollars on war while allowing grave economic injustices to persist. this is what occurs when 700 billion dollars are thrown at corporations while the state sector is purposefully starved of funds. it, and many other things, are the natural and logical result of a sick society.

at least i can still blog.

yes, but who is reading?