Originally written by John Bunch  Michael Scheuer, who - agreeing with Reagan that the Middle East is inherently unstable and cannot be rationally understood or influenced by the U.S., urged non-intervention in the Middle East. Reagan wrote that in his memoirs. Ron Paul, the Republican politician, is another good example of a traditional Republican realist.

Of course Reagan came to this view only after blundering into Lebanon on a poorly concevied mission that resulted in hundreds of US military deaths.  The US can't simply ignore the Middle East, though for two reasons.  One is oil, the other is American Jews who insist on American support of Israel at all costs.  The region is indeed unstable, perhaps inherently so, but I disagree that it can't be rationally understood.  It, like all regions, can be understood if people try to understand it.  Americans, however, who for the most part refuse to learn about the languages, religions, or cultures of other parts of the world in general, to say nothing of Muslim ones, tend to not be able to understand peoples whose traditions are different from their own.  Anyone who insists on learning about the Muslim world through the prism of can English-speaking Christian is going to have a difficult time understanding the Muslim world indeed.

Originally written by John Bunch on May 20, 2009 5:26 PM Re Noam Chomsky, what can I say, the man is a Marxist. I have read some of his stuff, and I see no difference between him and "traditional" Marxists.

This opinion seems to be contradicted by the following:

Whilst one does not find in Noam Chomsky any specific critique of Marx’s writings (he admits he is not a Marx “scholar” ), there are a number of inferences that Marxism represents an authoritarian tradition, although this is qualified by regular references to a supposed “left libertarian tradition”. Heiko Khoo looks at some of the ideas of Chomsky, showing how he misrepresents – or doesn’t even understand – genuine Marxism. http://www.marxist.com/noam-chomsky-marxism-authoritarianism1151004.htm

Noam Chomsky describes himself as a libertarian socialist, a sympathizer of anarcho-syndicalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Noam_Chomsky

That is, despite his anti-capitalism, Chomsky offers little practical advice on how to struggle most effectively to bring about the kind of socialist society he would like to see. Though he argues that, whatever one chooses to do politically, it is only effective through organised and collective struggle, Chomsky sets himself apart from socialist organisation and the revolutionary Marxist tradition. http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj74/arnove.htm

CHOMSKY: The early Marx draws extensively from the milieu in which he lived, and one finds many similarities to the thinking that animated classical liberalism, aspects of the Enlightenment and French and German Romanticism. Again, I'm not enough of a Marx scholar to pretend to an authoritative judgement. My impression, for what it is worth, is that the early Marx was very much a figure of the late Enlightenment, and the later Marx was a highly authoritarian activist, and a critical analyst of capitalism, who had little to say about socialist alternatives. But those are impressions. http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/rbr/noamrbr2.html

Originally written by John Bunch  I also find it a bit more than ironic that America has a mentality of "transforming" other nations and "fixing" them, but cannot even fix itself.

Hear, hear.

 

"American publishers with operations in Britain are potentially more vulnerable to an effort to collect an award, lawyers say, and newspapers like The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, as well as The Times’s global edition, The International Herald Tribune, have faced British libel actions recently.

National differences in libel laws have always existed, but the borderless nature of the Internet has increasingly brought them into conflict. In the case of “Funding Evil,” for instance, the first chapter of the book was published on the ABC News Web site, giving it a far wider circulation in Britain than the 23 copies that were sold there, according to Judge Eady."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/25/business/media/25libel.html?ref=europe

After being issued a life sentence for the brutal rape and the pre-meditated murder of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl, her parents and her younger sister, the young man's brother said:

“I do think it gives him a chance to have some semblance of a life. We’re grateful for that.”

Read the story here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/us/22soldier.html?ref=middleeast

Big Pharma and Big Insurance go on the attack

I poked around Washington Friday, talking with friends on the Hill who confirmed the worst: Big Pharma and Big Insurance are gaining ground in their campaign to kill the public option in the emerging healthcare bill.

You know why, of course. They don't want a public option that would compete with private insurers and use its bargaining power to negotiate better rates with drug companies. They argue that would be unfair. Unfair? Unfair to give more people better healthcare at lower cost? To Pharma and Insurance, "unfair" is anything that undermines their profits.

Originally written by Derek Thornton on June 14, 2009 2:33 AM And far from finding Rush Limbaugh to be disreputable, I happen to be one of his fans (I hear him regularly on AFRTS Europe)

Indeed, in a recent USAToday/Gallup poll, as many as fifty-two percent of Americans surveyed said conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh is the face of the Republican Party. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2268953/posts)

The consolation for John should be that there are also other names, perhaps less in disrepute, people polled associated with the GOP: Dick Cheney, John McCain, and Newt Gingrich.

Overall, only 22-25% of Americans polled declare to be Republicans vs. 33% Democrats. The whopping 40% define themselves as independent voters.

Jacek