To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » David Peterson's Blog » No End In Sight

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

50

David Peterson's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/davidpeterson
Bio: I am an independent writer and researcher based in Chicago. (More)

All Peterson Blogs

Recent Peterson Content

Znetarticle_icon ZNet Articles
Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zcommentary_icon ZCommentaries
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts

No End In Sight

By David Peterson at Sep 07, 2007

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+

   If, say, the Overlords in Arthur C. Clarke's sci-fi
   novel Childhood's End had shocked and awed
   the planet Earth some time in early 2003, and
   were currently occupying large swaths of the
   continental United States, then I, not only as a
   U.S. citizen, but  more importantly as a citizen
    of the world, do hope that I could count on
   something greater than just 67 percent of global human opinion to demand that these foreign forces -- alien forces, in fact, in every sense of the word -- withdraw from U.S. territory immediately -- or as quickly as possible.  And go the hell back -- not just to a base on the moon or to an extended orbit around our planet -- but to their own goddam planet.  Which is where they rightly belong.  And never should have left in the first place. 

How, then, should you and I read the net-findings of the GlobeScan opinion survey that was released just yesterday?   

Global Poll: Majority Wants Troops Out of Iraq within One Year, GlobeScan, PIPA, and BBC, September 6, 2007.  (For the Questionnaire.  And the accompanying news release.)

GlobeScan asked 23,000 adults across 22 different countries the following question (during the period from late May through late July of this year):

Which of the following do you think the U.S.-led forces in Iraq should do?  Should they...

A) Withdraw immediately
B) Commit to gradually withdraw according to a one-year timetable
C) Remain in Iraq until security improves
D) Other
E) Don't Know

Thirty-two percent of Americans chose Option C, "Remain in Iraq until security improves."  To repeat: 32 percent of Americans chose the proposition that their armed forces should occupy Iraq indefinitely -- the real meaning of Option C.

After Kenya, where 45 percent of its population also chose Option C, the highest commitments overall to U.S. forces remaining in Iraq indefinitely were voiced in the Philippines (44%), Israel (40%), Nigeria (34%), South Korea (33%), the United States (32%), Australia (30%), Great Britain (27%), Germany (24%), Canada (23%), Italy (23%), Brazil (22%), Spain (18%), India (17%), Chile (16%), Mexico (16%), China (15%), France (15%), Indonesia (12%), Turkey (11%), Russia (9%), and Egypt (7%).

As for Iraq?  It appears that nobody asked the Iraqis.  Presumably, they'd have a more realistic assessment of their predicament.  (At least outside the Green Zone, anyway.)

So here were are in early September, 2007.  Almost six years into the nearly invisible war over Afghanistan.  And four-and-a-half years into the war over Iraq.  With untold hundreds-of-thousands of Afghan and Iraqi deaths.  A U.S.-based anti-war movement (so called) that shoots it wad over U.S.casualties.  (Or, worse, over what's allegedly orchestrated against the Darfur states of the western Sudan by the Arabs in Khartoum.)  And to top it off, the Supreme International Criminal -- whose crimes against the peace are the primary cause of these human catastrophes -- busy talking-up yet another supreme international crime, this time against neighboring Iran.  While the Congress of the United States does nothing to check its imperial Executive.

And after all of this, our world can't produce more than 67 percent who believe that the American overlords should get out of Iraq within the next 12 months?    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Iran fight now more likely," UPI, August 30, 2007

"No End In Sight," ZNet, September 7, 2007

Update (September 7): Another large-scale survey of some 13,000 people in 13 different countries (i.e., 12 EU countries and the USA) was released yesterday: The annual Transatlantic Trends survey (2007 edition).

I'd like in particular to call everyone's attention to the kind of themes this survey broached with respect to Iran and its nuclear program: See the Topline Data file, Question 17 and Question 18 (pp. 37-42).

Therein, we find the following questions asked:

Question 17 (p. 37): Diplomatic efforts are underway to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Should these efforts fail, which of the following strategies would you most favor? [See below.]

Question 18 (pp. 38-42): If Iran obtains nuclear weapons, how likely or not do you think it is that the following will happen? Just give us your best guess.

18.1) Iran will attack other countries in the region
18.2) Other countries in the Middle East will decide that, like Iran, they should have nuclear weapons as well
18.3) Iran will supply nuclear weapons to terrorists
18.4) Iran will threaten Europe with nuclear weapons
18.5) Iran will only use nuclear weapons for defensive purposes (if attacked themselves)

The bias here is so deep that it runs to the center of the earth.  Iran is not a nuclear-weapon state, and no one has established -- outside the allegations that originated with the Washington regime between four-and-a-half and five years ago -- that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons.  Nor did it dawn on the designers of this large survey to ask one or more questions from a different point of view: 

In 2001 the United States attacked Afghanistan, and in 2003, the United States attacked Iraq.  How likely or not do you think it is that the United States will attack Iran?

In the reporting and discussion to be found in the Key Findings file, we read that (p. 4, col. 1):

* Eighty-three percent of Americans and 68% of Europeans agreed that a nuclear Iran would lead to further proliferation in the Middle East. Similarly, 54% of Europeans believed that a nuclear Iran has the potential to threaten Europe. If Iran was to acquire nuclear weapons, Americans (82%) and Europeans (68%) agreed it would supply nuclear weapons to terrorists.

* Should diplomatic efforts fail to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, most Americans and Europeans agreed that diplomatic pressure should be increased, but they differed over keeping the option of using military force. Forty-seven percent of Americans felt that diplomatic pressure should be increased while maintaining the option of military force, compared to just 18% of Europeans.

But wait -- it gets worse.  In Section Two, "Global Threats and Rising Powers" (pp. 8-11), respondents were prompted: "In the next 10 years, how likely are you to be personally affected by the following threats" (p 9)?  Of the eight different categories of "threats" listed for evaluation, "International Terrorism," "Iran Acquiring Nuclear Weapons," and "Islamic Fundamentalism" make their ominous appearance (along with "Energy Dependence," a "Major Economic Downturn," "Immigrants/Refugees," the "Global Spread of Disease," and the "Effects of Global Warming").  But no one was asked about threats of attack by the Supreme International Criminal.  Or threats posed by the eight known nuclear weapon-states.  Which only goes to figure, as the Transatlantic Trends 2007 survey sampled the opinion of only that part of the planet earth known as Europe and the USA.

In Section Four, "Prospects for Transatlantic Cooperation—Afghanistan and Iran" (pp. 17-20), the following question is reported: "Should diplomatic efforts fail,which of the following strategies would you most favor to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons" (p. 19)?

There were four options:

                                                            12 EU States        United States

Accept that Ian may develop
nuclear weapons                                          7%                        6%

Maintain the present level of
diplomatic pressure on Iran                           19%                       11%

Increase diplomatic pressure on
Iran but rule out the use of
military force                                              47%                       32%

Increase diplomatic pressure on
Iran and maintain the option of
using military force                                      18%                       47% 

 

As if to make us feel better, the Key Findings file explaind that (p. 19, col. 2):

Within the United States, Democrats and Republicans also agreed that, should diplomacy fail to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, pressure should be increased, but they differed on whether to rule out the option of the use of force. Democrats were roughly divided, with 40% who felt the military option should be ruled out and 35% who felt it should be maintained. By contrast, 65% of Republicans felt the option of military force should be maintained while 20% felt the option should be ruled out.

Clearly, it is five minutes to Midnight as far as the United States goes. Equally clear, the national political culture of the United States needs to be renamed.  Forget the nonsense about the Republicans and the Democrats.  All that remains are the Greater and Lesser Militarists.  But very little else.  

Transatlantic Trends 2007 -- Key Findings, German Marshall Fund of the United States, September 6, 2007. (Also see the Overview.)   
Transatlantic Trends 2007 -- Topline Data, German Marshall Fund of the United States, September 6, 2007  

Update (September 12): Here is a pretty comprehensive list of all of the print and wire-service reports that I've found to have mentioned the D3 Systems - KA Research opinion survey carried out inside Iraq August 17-24 on behalf of ABC News, the BBC, and the Japanese Broadcasting Corporation (NHK). 

What D3 Systems - KA Research opinion survey am I taking about, you wonder? --

"Iraq's Own Surge Assessment: Few See Security Gains," ABC News Polling Unit, September 10, 2007
"Iraq poll September 2007: In graphics," BBC International, September 10, 2007
"U.S. surge has failed -- Iraqi poll," BBC International, September 10, 2007
"Iraq poll makes for grim reading," Nick Childs, BBC International, September 10, 2007  

I'm confident that if I keep looking around, I'd be able to expand the list.  But not in any substantial way: This mid-August 2007 opinion survey, taken in the pre-Crocker-and-Petraeus Dog 'n Pony Tour of Washington D.C. period, has received next to no coverage in the U.S. print media.  In fact, the three short excerpts you'll find reproduced at bottom from the Los Angeles Times (63 words), the New York Times (53 words), and a Washington Post commentary by Eugene Robinson (204 words), comprise all that I've found for the major U.S. print media up till now. 
Alan Fram, Associated Press, September 10, 2007
Anne Flaherty, Associated Press, September 10, 2007
N.A., Deutsche Presse-Agentur, September 10, 2007
N.A., Japan Economic Newswire, September 10, 2007
Wesley Johnson, Press Association Newsfile, September 10, 2007
N.A., The White House Bulletin, September 10, 2007
Anne Davies and Suzanne Goldenberg, The Age (Melbourne, Australia), September 11, 2007 N.A., Arab News website, Jedda, in English, September 11, 2007
N.A., Chinadaily.com.cn, September 11, 2007
Richard Norton-Taylor and Patrick Wintour, The Guardian (London), September 11, 2007 "Petraeus report: Telling it like it isn't," Editorial, The Guardian (London), September 11, 2007
"Bush's Legacy of Failure," Editorial, Gulf News, September 11, 2007
Patrick Cockburn, The Independent (London), September 11, 2007
N.A., Indo-Asian News Service, September 11, 2007
N.A., The Irish Times, September 11, 2007
Sam Enriquez, Los Angeles Times, September 11, 2007
Alessandra Stanley, New York Times, September 11, 2007
Derwin Pereira, The Straits Times (Singapore), September 11, 2007
N.A., Voice of America News, September 11, 2007
Eugene Robinson, "'Six Months' Without End," Washington Post, September 11, 2007
N.A., The Toronto Star, September 13, 2007  

Maliki's assertion of a dramatic fall in violence did not appear to match the impression of most Iraqis. A national poll of Iraqis released Monday by ABC News, the BBC and Japan's NHK broadcasting found that 70% of respondents said they believed the increase in U.S. troop strength has made security worse, and another 11% said they believed it has had no impact.  (Sam Enriquez, Los Angeles Times, September 11, 2007.)

After showing fiery images of a recent car bomb explosion, ABC News delivered the results of its most recent survey of Iraqi public opinion, conducted with BBC News and the Japanese broadcaster NHK. More than 65 percent of those polled said they felt the situation was worse now than when the surge began.  (Alessandra Stanley, New York Times, September 11, 2007.)

One funny thing about the improved security situation that Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker described: Iraqis don't seem to have noticed.  In a poll of Iraqis commissioned by ABC News, the BBC and the Japanese network NHK -- released yesterday before Petraeus's testimony -- 31 percent of Iraqis said security in their local areas had worsened over the past six months, as opposed to just 24 percent who said it had improved. A full 61 percent said security had worsened in the country overall, against only 11 percent who said it had gotten better. Only 22 percent said things in general were going well in Iraq (down from 44 percent in November 2005), and just 23 percent thought things would get better over the coming year (as opposed to 69 percent in 2005).  Some 63 percent of Iraqis polled said the U.S. invasion was wrong, 47 percent said that coalition forces "should leave now" and 57 percent said attacks on U.S. forces were "acceptable."  Never mind what the Iraqis think. On with the new new strategy, which is to bypass the national government and work from the bottom up, making deals with local power brokers. That should be good for, what, another six months?  (Eugene Robinson, "'Six Months' Without End," Washington Post, September 11, 2007.)


 

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (17)

Person

Sturgeon's Law

By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 13, 2007 16:58 PM
The first Sci-fi novel I read, at age 10, was Venus Plus X by US writer Theodore Sturgeon—“Sturgeon's Law” arose from his noting that “Sure, 90% of science fiction is crud. That's because 90% of everything is crud.” Whether it be from left-leaning Ursula K. Le Guin to more conservative C.J. Cherryh (or with the cyberpunk capitalist dystopia found with, e.g., US born, Canadian resident, William Gibson (and is Thomas Pynchon classifiable as a Sci-Fi writer?—a bit of a genre bender))—the US Sci-fi writers I'm familiar with don't line up as right-wing reactionaries—but maybe my admittedly limited exposure has been to exceptions. However, I do think Hollywood Sci-Fi has leaned more to the right, with “The Omega Man” being more typical than “Silent Running.”

Reply this comment

Person

Sci-Fi

By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 13, 2007 12:38 PM
In English-language sci-fi, there's a major divide between the UK and the US. With the occasional exception on either side (notably Philip K. Dick, a unique figure; also Ray Bradbury), the US tradition is right-wing reactionary and the UK tradition is left liberal. This applies to literary quality also. The great British sci-fi writers (Wells, Stapledon, Wyndham, Brunner, Aldiss, Ballard. . .) are infinitely more literate and meaningful and human than the thinly disguised Cold War puppetry of Heinlein and his ilk. In the US universe, the evil aliens are the communists. In Philip K. Dick, the evil is usually in your own home, but look how his work is all chopped to bits by the big fascist editors who controlled the US pulps for decades. Things got a bit better in the sixties in the US (Kate Wilhelm, Frank Herbert, Thomas M. Disch come to mind), but still nothing like the great work unleashed in the UK when Moorcock got some editorial power at that time (he also published US writers--Disch, Charles Harness--who weren't going anywhere at home). T

Reply this comment

Person

Beyond Dystopia: Counter-Examples

By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 12, 2007 13:24 PM
Frederic bemoans, “the entire basis of psychohistory, which is that an elite class will learn how to govern everyone for their own good but keep them in the dark.” It may not only be Asimov who delves into a sci-fi “aristocrat's utopia” (or “military utopia”) territory, but there have been plenty of counter examples. Consider a very well known book, The Time Machine, by H.G. Wells, which features the Eloi and Morlocks—hardly a favorable depiction of the “ruling class” (be it the Eloi or the Morlocks). I think many dystopian sci-fi works were rightfully hesitant to embrace totalitarianism, but some other sci-fi has been just as critical of other corporate/governmental problems as well. Philip K. Dick's A Scanner Darkly examines police surveillance, anti-communist paranoia, and corporate exploitation of addictions. BookFinder

Reply this comment

Person

Reply to Frederic

By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 11, 2007 20:09 PM

Frederic:

Good to see that you're still hanging around. --

For whatever reason -- though maybe the reason is as simple as their adopted genre -- sci-fi writers are iimmensely insightful when it comes to the depiction of the kind of really deep and very broad alienation to which our species is most susceptible, wherein we are cut down the middle into two halves, one half what's left of us, not matter what, and the other half what we turn into when our creations, over which we ought to remain lord and master, return to haunt us and to terrorize us and to tear us to pieces.

Like the story about a ventriloquist and his dummy, by the end of which, the dummy controls the ventriloquist: This dystopic vision of history -- Marx minus any glimmer of hope at all -- has been developed within the sci-fi genre like no other.

As for elitism -- really have no sense of this at all.  But the United States eats countries whole. 


David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Reply this comment

Person

Reply to SK & Cyrano

By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 10, 2007 18:23 PM

SK & Cyrano:

See the fourth of these articles in particular. 

"Iraq, Israel, Iran," David Bromwich, Huffington Post, September 4, 2007
"From al-Qaeda to al-Quds," Pepe Escobar, Asia Times Online, September 7, 2007
"Will the U.S. Really Bomb Iran?" Alexander Cockburn, CounterPunch, September 8/9, 2007
"Cartoons aid US lynch mob mentality," Kaveh L Afrasiabi, Asia Times Online, September 11, 2007 

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Reply this comment

Person

Reply to JD Casten

By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 10, 2007 10:33 AM

JD Casten:

Thanks for the heads-up. -- You know, I've never heard of the U.S. Army Professional Writing Collection prior to your calling it to our attention here.  But given the article you've hyperlinked --

"Deconstructing Army Leadership," Colonel Christopher R. Paparone, U.S. Army Professional Writing Collection, as re-posted from the Military Review, January/February, 2004

-- how should we read it as well as this one? --

"Relearning Counterinsurgency Warfare," Robert R. Tomes, U.S. Army Professional Writing Collection, as re-posted from the journal Parameters, Spring, 2004

Assuming the testimony by the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and the commanding General of the so-called Multi-National Forces in Iraq scheduled before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee (and other committees too) for Tuesday, September 11 -- Nice timing, huh? -- how do you think we should read all of this heightened focus on so-called counterinsurgency theory and practice?

So that there's no ambiguities, let me tell you how I read it: The United States of America is the Global Exterminator, and anybody who opposes it no better than a bunch of flies and cockroaches.

Or, to recall the words of this fine art's true precursor: "Exterminate all the brutes!"

And if anybody can show me a mainstream, establishment report or commentary, or, outside of a few of the presidential candidates, such as Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and Ron Paul, whose thoughts and actions on the campaign trail don't replicate this point of view -- I'm buying.

Counterinsurgency (i.e., "U.S. Army / Marine Corps Field Manual 3-24"), David H. Petraeus and James F. Amos, December, 2006 (as posted by the website of the Federation of American Scientists)
"Modernizing U.S. Counterinsurgency: Rethinking Risk and Developing a National Strategy," Sarah Sewall, Military Review, September/October, 2006
"Crafting a New Counterinsurgency Doctrine," Sarah Sewall, Foreign Service Journal, September 2007 [not yet available in its PDF format]

"Launching Brand Petraeus," Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch.com,  September 9, 2007


David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Reply this comment

Person

Heh

By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 10, 2007 06:43 AM

Well, when the great Imam Jafar asSidiq was asked why Allah created flies, he replied:

 "To harrass the tyrants."

The ad says more about those who took it out than those they hoped to make a mockery of.

 Peace

Reply this comment

Person

Co-opting the System Infiltrators

By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 09, 2007 20:37 PM
Philosophy too can be co-opted: Deconstructing Army Leadership

Reply this comment

Person

Reply to SK

By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 09, 2007 20:32 PM

Sk:

Great quote.  "Anthropology is daughter to this era of violence. "  Or, more accurately, the handmaiden.  And not only anthropology, either.  (Though by no means 100 percent of it.)  But everything else, too. 

And I'll bet you that, over time, this has become more true.  Not less. -- For another example:

"UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour," Amy Goodman, Democracy NOW!, September 7, 2007


David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Reply this comment

Person

Anthropology as well

By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 09, 2007 19:51 PM
Claude Levi-Strauss had this to say about the "purity of knowledge" in his own area of study, Anthropology:

It is the outcome of a historical process which has made the larger part of mankind subservient to the other. During this process millions of innocent human beings have had their resources plundered and their institutions and beliefs destroyed, whilst they themselves were ruthlessly killed, thrown into bondage, and contaminated by diseases they were unable to resist. Anthropology is daughter to this era of violence.


Of course, recent news stories, like this and this, testify to the fact that the "era of violence" never ended.

Reply this comment

Person

Slippery Slopes

By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 09, 2007 16:12 PM

Friends:

For a valuable website on the violence of the mind-manipulators:

"Human wrongs: Psychologists have no place assisting interrogations at places such as Guantanamo Bay," Editorial, Houston Chronicle, August 22, 2007 (as posted to the very fine Psyche, Science, and Society website of Stephen Soldz)

Just between ourselves: Every time I hear of the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the assorted branches of the Shamanism-To-Go movement, I think of a psychological-industrial complex that makes war on the human person with greater alacrity than even the American military-industrial complex makes war on the world.

And I reach for my Antonin Artaud, who, in a wonderful little exercise in 1949 he titled "Van Gogh," wrote that:

Compared to Van Gogh's lucidity,...psychiatry is nothing but a den of gorillas, themselves obsessed and persecuted, which, to palliate the most frightful states of human anguish and suffocation, have merely a ridiculous terminology, a worthy product of their tainted brains.

The only relevant difference being, of course, that these obsessed, persecuted, suffocated, and anguished gorillas are so successful at repressing and sublimating their own wretched horrors (i.e., at joining the ranks of the professional classes), they plug-right-into the American mental and emotional manipulation complex -- from the inside of which, they can't begin to see the bars that encage them.  And that they erect around others.


David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Reply this comment

Person

Well done

By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 08, 2007 06:22 AM

You've demonstrated how leading questions alter poll results.

It would be nice to see a series of polls that asks:

What do you think will happen if the US doesn't attack Iran?

...of course with the same types of leading questions.  Some suggestions are as follows:

 1.  The spread of Islam will not be contained.

2.   The spread of Islam will not be contained.

3.   The spread of Islam will not be contained.

 

Good work.

http://carmenisacat.blogspot.com/

Reply this comment

Person

ha ha - reply to sk

By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 08, 2007 01:57 AM
David wrote: Interesting. -- In Western demonology -- Or should I have written Western bestiaries? -- I wonder which insect ranks as the most vile of all? A) The Cockroach B) The Fly --- Both these insects would not stand on a neo-con - the fly would pinch its nose, the roach would run faster..

Reply this comment

Person

Reply to SK

By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 07, 2007 21:10 PM

SK:

Interesting. -- In Western demonology -- Or should I have written Western bestiaries? -- I wonder which insect ranks as the most vile of all?

A) The Cockroach
B) The Fly


David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Reply this comment

Person

Interesting comments

By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 07, 2007 20:31 PM

Interesting comments about the 2'nd cartoon here.  Here are a few samples:

  •  "We must kill the Tutsi cockroaches" - Hutu Power Radio.
  • The fix is in. The brainwashing by the corporate controlled media has begun to ratchet upwards. God damned their souls to hell.
  • Meanwhile somewhere in hell Herr Goebbels smiles...

Reply this comment

Person

Reply to SK

By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 07, 2007 18:49 PM

SK:

You are a trove of web-based treasures. -- But tell me something: Does this cartoon from the September 4 Columbus Dispatch really depict flies crawling out from the sewer that is the Islamic Republic of Iran? 

My god that is debased.


David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Reply this comment

Person

Slippery slope

By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 07, 2007 18:35 PM
The last 4 months saw a decline from this to this in the discourse of certain newspapers in this country. The next 4 months will be critical (past wars were launched in January and March) for those who want to put a stop to further declension.

Reply this comment

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (17)

Loading_border