[political-research] Re: Moving to a Web OS
Correction: The transition from desktop to Webtop is one of the most important revolutions in computing history. Addendum: Who controls the Webtop controls the world.
Re: [political-research] Moving to a Web OS
The WebOS is rapidly and spontaneously evolving as we speak, with Google leading the pack. Microsoft is probably out of the running, despite the best efforts of Ray Ozzie -- the Microsoft culture is too wedded to the desktop model to powerfully innovate in this field. Google will probably control the Webtop world and become the most important company on the planet (if it isn't already). The transition from Webtop to desktop is one of the most important revolutions in computing history. (Nova Spivack, btw, is probably one of the ten best minds on the net overall -- the global intelligence thing is in his blood. This stuff is infinitely more interesting, creative and productive than the primitive and infantile bickering that dominates Mideast politics.) Albert Underwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This debate has been raging for years, but no one seems to want to try it out. Microsoft, Sun are the big arguers. Sean McBride <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader: Moving to a Web OS via Minding the Planet by Nova on Jun 05, 2007 John Markoff published an interesting article today in the New York Times about the shift in software and operating systems from the desktop to the Web, in which I am quoted. The article focuses on the rivalry and different styles between Microsoft and Apple's next-generation projects that attempt to tie desktop operating systems and the Internet together more closely. I have been tracking this trend for a while now -- a trend towards the evolution of what I call a "WebOS." In my view the coming WebOS will not live only on the desktop, rather it will be a web service that lives "in the cloud." Desktops will become views into it, rather than the center of it. The desktop PC era is almost over. We are entering a new era of mobility and plurality -- our digital lives will be spread across multiple devices, most of which will be mobile. We will require access to everything, no matter what device we are on. When a user logs onto any device -- be it a laptop or a mobile device -- they will connect to their account in the WebOS. The local device will synch with their WebOS account to get their latest desktop layout, their preferences, and any new notifications or changes. End-User access to the WebOS will be primarily through browser-based applications written in scripting languages, or running on server-side apps written in Java, C# or Ruby, rather than native desktop apps. Cases where native desktop code may still be needed will include high-end graphics and audio processing, or numerical calculations, that require a lot of computation. But for most consumers, such high-end needs are rare, except in the cases of gaming and multimedia. With the increase in mobile broadband and improvements in user-interface technologies, it will become less necessary to have native desktop code for such experiences -- more and more of this will move to the Web. When native computation is needed it will take place via embedding and running scripts in the local browser to leverage local resources, rather than installing and running software locally on a permanent basis. Most applications will actually be hybrids, combining local and remote services in a seamless interface. Once connected, the WebOS will provide users with a single point of access to their data, their relationships, their preferences, and their applications, anywhere, anytime, on any device. It will also begin to unify, or at least integrate, the data and functionality of different online and desktop applications in what will appear to the end-user to be "one place." Even though we may have accounts, data and relationships in many different services around the Web, our WebOS will provide us with a unified, centralized way to access this information. It will reduce the fragmentation in our digital lives and help to improve our productivity. Imagine being able to go to one place on the Web to access all your email, documents, photos, videos, contacts and social relationships, RSS, data records, bookmarks, notes, and any other kind of knowledge or information. Imagine also that in this place you could also access all your "applications" -- which themselves would be modular widgets or bits of functionality provided by various different web services and app developers around the Web. Imagine that in this place it would be easy to create new data types, populate them with data, and share them with others. Imagine that it would be just as easy to create new applications that could use that data, and share them too. Think of the WebOS as the ultimate personal mashup. It would not matter anymore where information was actually stored -- it could live in the cloud on the Net so it was available 24/7, and it could also be cached onto local devices like phones and l
Re: [political-research] Moving to a Web OS
This debate has been raging for years, but no one seems to want to try it out. Microsoft, Sun are the big arguers. Sean McBride <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader: Moving to a Web OS via Minding the Planet by Nova on Jun 05, 2007 John Markoff published an interesting article today in the New York Times about the shift in software and operating systems from the desktop to the Web, in which I am quoted. The article focuses on the rivalry and different styles between Microsoft and Apple's next-generation projects that attempt to tie desktop operating systems and the Internet together more closely. I have been tracking this trend for a while now -- a trend towards the evolution of what I call a "WebOS." In my view the coming WebOS will not live only on the desktop, rather it will be a web service that lives "in the cloud." Desktops will become views into it, rather than the center of it. The desktop PC era is almost over. We are entering a new era of mobility and plurality -- our digital lives will be spread across multiple devices, most of which will be mobile. We will require access to everything, no matter what device we are on. When a user logs onto any device -- be it a laptop or a mobile device -- they will connect to their account in the WebOS. The local device will synch with their WebOS account to get their latest desktop layout, their preferences, and any new notifications or changes. End-User access to the WebOS will be primarily through browser-based applications written in scripting languages, or running on server-side apps written in Java, C# or Ruby, rather than native desktop apps. Cases where native desktop code may still be needed will include high-end graphics and audio processing, or numerical calculations, that require a lot of computation. But for most consumers, such high-end needs are rare, except in the cases of gaming and multimedia. With the increase in mobile broadband and improvements in user-interface technologies, it will become less necessary to have native desktop code for such experiences -- more and more of this will move to the Web. When native computation is needed it will take place via embedding and running scripts in the local browser to leverage local resources, rather than installing and running software locally on a permanent basis. Most applications will actually be hybrids, combining local and remote services in a seamless interface. Once connected, the WebOS will provide users with a single point of access to their data, their relationships, their preferences, and their applications, anywhere, anytime, on any device. It will also begin to unify, or at least integrate, the data and functionality of different online and desktop applications in what will appear to the end-user to be "one place." Even though we may have accounts, data and relationships in many different services around the Web, our WebOS will provide us with a unified, centralized way to access this information. It will reduce the fragmentation in our digital lives and help to improve our productivity. Imagine being able to go to one place on the Web to access all your email, documents, photos, videos, contacts and social relationships, RSS, data records, bookmarks, notes, and any other kind of knowledge or information. Imagine also that in this place you could also access all your "applications" -- which themselves would be modular widgets or bits of functionality provided by various different web services and app developers around the Web. Imagine that in this place it would be easy to create new data types, populate them with data, and share them with others. Imagine that it would be just as easy to create new applications that could use that data, and share them too. Think of the WebOS as the ultimate personal mashup. It would not matter anymore where information was actually stored -- it could live in the cloud on the Net so it was available 24/7, and it could also be cached onto local devices like phones and laptops so that it was available locally or offline when needed. You could start to mix and mash your data in all sorts of new ways -- you could for example see the connections between different kinds of things, or you could generate reports that might show for example, photos and videos by people you work with, or blog posts by your friends, or files related to meetings you are scheduled for, etc. Because all information and application functionality would start to be integrated on a meta-level in the WebOS, new efficiencies in search, navigation and discovery would become possible. But to accomplish this there would need to be an easier and more flexible way to represent the data itself -- a more open, extensible, remixable data model. Enter RDF, SPARQL, OWL and the Semantic Web. I believe these technologies provide a data framewo
[political-research] The Libby lobby's pardon campaign
Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader: The Libby lobby's pardon campaign via Salon by Sidney Blumenthal on Jun 07, 2007 Having never expressed remorse for his crime, Scooter Libby instead enlisted his neoconservative friends to win him reduced prison time. Things you can do from here: - Visit the original item on Salon - Subscribe to Salon using Google Reader - Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites
[political-research] Republican candidates mull use of nukes to strike Teheran
Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader: Republican candidates mull use of nukes to strike Teheran via JPost.com Front Page Top Stories on Jun 07, 2007 Giuliani: Iran nukes is unacceptable; says he follows Bush policy for ME; Obama calls for Palestinian 'soul-searching' to end hostilities. Things you can do from here: - Visit the original item on JPost.com Front Page Top Stories - Subscribe to JPost.com Front Page Top Stories using Google Reader - Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites
[political-research] Neocon II: Lie Hard With A Vengeance
Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader: *Neocon* II: Lie Hard With A Vengeance via Google Blog Search: neocon OR "neo-cons" OR neoconservative OR "neo-conservative" OR neoconservatives OR "neo-conservatives" OR neoconservatism OR "neo-conservatism" by unknown on Jun 06, 2007 Despite the walloping defeat of the Republicans in the 2006 midterm elections, the clowns are once again spilling out of the Volkswagen. Lately the neocons seem to be all over the public airwaves, and not as the targets of purgative ... Things you can do from here: - Visit the original item on Google Blog Search: neocon OR "neo-cons" OR neoconservative OR "neo-conservative" OR neoconservatives OR "neo-conservatives" OR neoconservatism OR "neo-conservatism" - Subscribe to Google Blog Search: neocon OR "neo-cons" OR neoconservative OR "neo-conservative" OR neoconservatives OR "neo-conservatives" OR neoconservatism OR "neo-conservatism" using Google Reader - Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites
Re: [political-research] Keeping It Real
I don't care who he 'is'; he is his writing on this forum. If you have a
problem with his writing, attack the ideas, not the person.
The most dangerous times in American history have shown that writers often use
pseudonyms to avoid persecution, harassment, and death. His name isn't
important. It isn't even relevant.
Vigilius Haufniensis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
sean himself is (allegedly) chip berlet, covertly posing as an anti-neocon
using this group as disinfo and gathering names and intel. for those who
weren't aware.
- Original Message -
From:SeanMcBride
To: political-research@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 1:33PM
Subject: Re: [political-research] KeepingIt Real
The strongest signal that is coming through your posts is thatyou are
easily upset by criticism of Israel and the Israel lobby. Apparently you
strongly support Jewish ethnic nationalism, but strongly opposeevery other
form of ethnic nationalism. How do you explain theself-contradiction and
the double standards?
The neoconservatives whohave dominated the Bush 43 administration, and who
are most responsible forthe Iraq War, are dominated by militant Jewish
ethnic nationalists likeElliott Abrams and Douglas Feith. Have either
Berlet or you everaddressed this issue?
Also, the repetitive use of "loons" and synonymsfor "loons" is the
preferred rhetorical style of most neocons ("moonbat" is afavorite term of
abuse). See Little Green Footballs, FrontPage Magazineand Atlas Shrugs for
numerous examples.
If you believe the 9/11official story, you will be a minority of one in
this group. For mostus, that debate was concluded long ago -- the official
story was totallyrouted. How any skeptical and independent mind could
believe theofficial story for an instant is beyond me.
Michael Pugliese<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/6/07, Sean
McBride <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> These are just a few political commentators and analysts who are making
> stronger contributions to understanding contemporary American politics
> than Berlet. Most of them have been accused of anti-Semitism at one time
> or another, simply because they refuse to bow down before AIPAC, Likud
> and the neocons. I hardly agree with them on everything, and they hardly
> agree with one another on everything, but most of them are *keeping it
> real*:
>
> Alex Jones
>
> Cindy Sheehan: Twin Towers' Collapse Looked Like Controlled Demolition
> Anti-war icon supports move for new investigation into 9/11
> Paul Joseph Watson
> Prison Planet
> Thursday, May 31, 2007
>
>
Just out of curiosity, I took a look at this Prison Planet website. I
had a suspicion that it was another rightwing outlet that mixes 9/11
conspiracy theory with other wacko ideas. I was right:
--It links to the Vdare anti-immigrant website.
--It charges "globalists" with a global warming conspiracy. "Globalists"
are the same forces that the militias in the 1990s harped on. You know.
The UN, the Bilderberg, black helicopters and all that.
etc., etc.
The website is in the inspiration of one Alex Jones, who has written
that communists in the West are funded by big corporations. That's news
to me. Maybe I can hit up General Motors to help defray the costs of
Marxmail.
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2007w23/msg00016.htm
> Ari Berman, good writer
> Barrie Zwicker, 9-11 conspiranoid.
> Bill Berkowitz, good writer, knew him when I lived in Oakland, ca. He
> works at the Data Center, a leftist library.
> Billmon, ok blog.
> Cenc Uygar, lame Air America host. Confuses different sectors of the
> Right. They are all not neo-cons.
> Chris Hedges, decent journalist...though, methinks the fascistoid
> potential of the Xtian Right to take over the political culture is
> overblown. They have been a sector of the Right, embattled for a long
> time now.
> Christopher Ketcham
> Daniel Hopsicker, another 9-11 conspiranoid.
> David Brock, good muckraker. Though Media Matters is a bit too
> Democratic Party loyalist for my taste.
> David Ray Griffin,
aargh, http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/Post911/dubious_claims.html
> Douglas Herman, who?
Edward Herman, though is a Milosevic apologist,
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=8327
> Eric Alterman,
http://dennisperrin.blogspot.com/2007/06/beat-press.html
> Eric Margolis, another fan of Milosevic, ecch.
> Frank Ri
Re: [political-research] If You Think Bush Is Evil Now, Wait Until He Nukes Iran
Pugliese wrote: >>The neocons think that by bombing Iran the US will provoke Iran to arm the >>Shiite militias in Iraq with armor-piercing rocket-propelled grenades and >>with surface-to-air missiles and unleash the militias against US troops. >> He thinks Iran will react with only a feeble, local response? Expect the aircraft carriers in the IO to disappear if nukes are used against Iran. Sean McBride <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I wonder if Michael Pugliese would be interested in addressing any of the points in this latest essay by Paul Craig Roberts. It strikes me as dead on the mark. The neocons are the main lobby pushing for a war against Iran. Curiously, Berlet and Michael don't seem to be very interested in discussing the neocons. In fact, they barely acknowledge their existence. Why? Vigilius Haufniensis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - Original Message - From: Robert Busser To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 11:59 AM Subject: [work_democracy] If You Think Bush Is Evil Now, Wait Until He Nukes Iran If You Think Bush Is Evil Now, Wait Until He Nukes Iran Paul Craig Roberts Lew Rockwell.com Wednesday June 6, 2007 The war in Iraq is lost. This fact is widely recognized by American military officers and has been recently expressed forcefully by Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the commander of US forces in Iraq during the first year of the attempted occupation. Winning is no longer an option. Our best hope, Gen. Sanchez says, is "to stave off defeat," and that requires more intelligence and leadership than Gen. Sanchez sees in the entirety of our national political leadership: "I am absolutely convinced that America has a crisis in leadership at this time." More evidence that the war is lost arrived June 4 with headlines reporting: "U.S.-led soldiers control only about a third of Baghdad, the military said on Monday." After five years of war the US controls one-third of one city and nothing else. A host of US commanding generals have said that the Iraq war is destroying the US military. A year ago Colin Powell said that the US Army is "about broken." Lt. Gen. Clyde Vaughn says Bush has "piecemealed our force to death." Gen. Barry McCafrey testified to the US Senate that "the Army will unravel." Col. Andy Bacevich, Americas foremost writer on military affairs, documents in the current issue of The American Conservative that Bushs insane war has depleted and exhausted the US Army and Marine Corps: "Only a third of the regular Armys brigades qualify as combat-ready. In the reserve components, none meet that standard. When the last of the units reaches Baghdad as part of the presidents strategy of escalation, the US will be left without a ready-to-deploy land force reserve." "The stress of repeated combat tours is sapping the Armys lifeblood. Especially worrying is the accelerating exodus of experienced leaders. The service is currently short 3,000 commissioned officers. By next year, the number is projected to grow to 3,500. The Guard and reserves are in even worse shape. There the shortage amounts to 7,500 officers. Young West Pointers are bailing out of the Army at a rate not seen in three decades. In an effort to staunch the losses, that service has begun offering a $20,000 bonus to newly promoted captains who agree to stay on for an additional three years. Meanwhile, as more and more officers want out, fewer and fewer want in: ROTC scholarships go unfilled for a lack of qualified applicants." Bush has taken every desperate measure. Enlistment ages have been pushed up from 35 to 42. The percentage of high school dropouts and the number of recruits scoring at the bottom end of tests have spiked. The US military is forced to recruit among drug users and convicted criminals. Bacevich reports that wavers "issued to convicted felons jumped by 30 percent." Combat tours have been extended from 12 to 15 months, and the same troops are being deployed again and again. There is no equipment for training. Bacevich reports that "some $212 billion worth has been destroyed, damaged, or just plain worn out." What remains is in Iraq and Afghanistan. Under these circumstances, "staying the course" means total defeat. Even the neoconservative warmongers, who deceived Americans with the promise of a "cakewalk war" that would be over in six weeks, believe that the war is lost. But they have not given up. They have a last desperate plan: Bomb Iran. Vice President Dick Cheney is spear-heading the neocon plan, and Norman Podhoretz is the plans leading propagandist with his numerous pleas published in the Wall Street Journal and Commentary to bomb Iran. Podhoretz, like every neoconservative, is a total Islamophobe. Podhoretz has written that Islam must be deracinated and the religion destroyed, a
Re: [political-research] Keeping It Real
The strongest signal that is coming through your posts is that you are easily
upset by criticism of Israel and the Israel lobby. Apparently you strongly
support Jewish ethnic nationalism, but strongly oppose every other form of
ethnic nationalism. How do you explain the self-contradiction and the double
standards?
The neoconservatives who have dominated the Bush 43 administration, and who are
most responsible for the Iraq War, are dominated by militant Jewish ethnic
nationalists like Elliott Abrams and Douglas Feith. Have either Berlet or you
ever addressed this issue?
Also, the repetitive use of "loons" and synonyms for "loons" is the preferred
rhetorical style of most neocons ("moonbat" is a favorite term of abuse). See
Little Green Footballs, FrontPage Magazine and Atlas Shrugs for numerous
examples.
If you believe the 9/11 official story, you will be a minority of one in this
group. For most us, that debate was concluded long ago -- the official story
was totally routed. How any skeptical and independent mind could believe the
official story for an instant is beyond me.
Michael Pugliese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On
6/6/07, Sean McBride <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>These are just a few political commentators and analysts who are making
> stronger contributions to understanding contemporary American politics than
> Berlet. Most of them have been accused of anti-Semitism at one time or
> another, simply because they refuse to bow down before AIPAC, Likud and the
> neocons. I hardly agree with them on everything, and they hardly agree with
> one another on everything, but most of them are *keeping it real*:
>
> Alex Jones
>
> Cindy Sheehan: Twin Towers' Collapse Looked Like Controlled Demolition
> Anti-war icon supports move for new investigation into 9/11
> Paul Joseph Watson
> Prison Planet
> Thursday, May 31, 2007
>
>
Just out of curiosity, I took a look at this Prison Planet website. I
had a suspicion that it was another rightwing outlet that mixes 9/11
conspiracy theory with other wacko ideas. I was right:
--It links to the Vdare anti-immigrant website.
--It charges "globalists" with a global warming conspiracy. "Globalists"
are the same forces that the militias in the 1990s harped on. You know.
The UN, the Bilderberg, black helicopters and all that.
etc., etc.
The website is in the inspiration of one Alex Jones, who has written
that communists in the West are funded by big corporations. That's news
to me. Maybe I can hit up General Motors to help defray the costs of
Marxmail.
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2007w23/msg00016.htm
> Ari Berman, good writer
> Barrie Zwicker, 9-11 conspiranoid.
> Bill Berkowitz, good writer, knew him when I lived in Oakland, ca. He works
> at the Data Center, a leftist library.
> Billmon, ok blog.
> Cenc Uygar, lame Air America host. Confuses different sectors of the Right.
> They are all not neo-cons.
> Chris Hedges, decent journalist...though, methinks the fascistoid potential
> of the Xtian Right to take over the political culture is overblown. They
> have been a sector of the Right, embattled for a long time now.
> Christopher Ketcham
> Daniel Hopsicker, another 9-11 conspiranoid.
> David Brock, good muckraker. Though Media Matters is a bit too Democratic
> Party loyalist for my taste.
> David Ray Griffin,
aargh, http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/Post911/dubious_claims.html
> Douglas Herman, who?
Edward Herman, though is a Milosevic apologist,
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=8327
> Eric Alterman,
http://dennisperrin.blogspot.com/2007/06/beat-press.html
> Eric Margolis, another fan of Milosevic, ecch.
> Frank Rich, o.k.
> Greg Mitchell, sometimes he makes posts on his E&P column that get debunked
> by bloggers.
> James Bamford, o.k.
> James Fallows, liberal weenie.
> James Petras, lunatic on Israel and ZOG,
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=978
> James Wolcott, soured on him after he defended friend of Saddam Hussein and
> the Syrian Ba'athists, George Galloway.
> Jeff Cohen, o.k.
> Jeff Huber
> Jeffrey Blankfort, another lunatic. See the comments I sent here before.
> Jeffrey Steinberg, EFFIN' LaRoucheite!
> Jim Lobe, o.k.
> John Mearsheimer, o.k. but see,
http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.com/2006/04/some-rebuttals-to-mearsheimer-walts.html
> Joseph Cannon, who?
> Joseph Galloway, who?
> Joshua Micah Marshall, TPM Muckraker is great.
> Juan Cole, good.
> Justin Raimondo, when he's good he's good, when he isn't he is horrible.
> Kathleen Christison, see the comments I sent ear
Re: [political-research] Keeping It Real
sean himself is (allegedly) chip berlet, covertly posing as an anti-neocon
using this group as disinfo and gathering names and intel. for those who
weren't aware.
- Original Message -
From: Sean McBride
To: political-research@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: [political-research] Keeping It Real
The strongest signal that is coming through your posts is that you are easily
upset by criticism of Israel and the Israel lobby. Apparently you strongly
support Jewish ethnic nationalism, but strongly oppose every other form of
ethnic nationalism. How do you explain the self-contradiction and the double
standards?
The neoconservatives who have dominated the Bush 43 administration, and who
are most responsible for the Iraq War, are dominated by militant Jewish ethnic
nationalists like Elliott Abrams and Douglas Feith. Have either Berlet or you
ever addressed this issue?
Also, the repetitive use of "loons" and synonyms for "loons" is the preferred
rhetorical style of most neocons ("moonbat" is a favorite term of abuse). See
Little Green Footballs, FrontPage Magazine and Atlas Shrugs for numerous
examples.
If you believe the 9/11 official story, you will be a minority of one in this
group. For most us, that debate was concluded long ago -- the official story
was totally routed. How any skeptical and independent mind could believe the
official story for an instant is beyond me.
Michael Pugliese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/6/07, Sean McBride <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> These are just a few political commentators and analysts who are making
stronger contributions to understanding contemporary American politics than
Berlet. Most of them have been accused of anti-Semitism at one time or another,
simply because they refuse to bow down before AIPAC, Likud and the neocons. I
hardly agree with them on everything, and they hardly agree with one another on
everything, but most of them are *keeping it real*:
>
> Alex Jones
>
> Cindy Sheehan: Twin Towers' Collapse Looked Like Controlled Demolition
> Anti-war icon supports move for new investigation into 9/11
> Paul Joseph Watson
> Prison Planet
> Thursday, May 31, 2007
>
>
Just out of curiosity, I took a look at this Prison Planet website. I
had a suspicion that it was another rightwing outlet that mixes 9/11
conspiracy theory with other wacko ideas. I was right:
--It links to the Vdare anti-immigrant website.
--It charges "globalists" with a global warming conspiracy. "Globalists"
are the same forces that the militias in the 1990s harped on. You know.
The UN, the Bilderberg, black helicopters and all that.
etc., etc.
The website is in the inspiration of one Alex Jones, who has written
that communists in the West are funded by big corporations. That's news
to me. Maybe I can hit up General Motors to help defray the costs of
Marxmail.
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2007w23/msg00016.htm
> Ari Berman, good writer
> Barrie Zwicker, 9-11 conspiranoid.
> Bill Berkowitz, good writer, knew him when I lived in Oakland, ca. He
works at the Data Center, a leftist library.
> Billmon, ok blog.
> Cenc Uygar, lame Air America host. Confuses different sectors of the
Right. They are all not neo-cons.
> Chris Hedges, decent journalist...though, methinks the fascistoid
potential of the Xtian Right to take over the political culture is overblown.
They have been a sector of the Right, embattled for a long time now.
> Christopher Ketcham
> Daniel Hopsicker, another 9-11 conspiranoid.
> David Brock, good muckraker. Though Media Matters is a bit too Democratic
Party loyalist for my taste.
> David Ray Griffin,
aargh, http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/Post911/dubious_claims.html
> Douglas Herman, who?
Edward Herman, though is a Milosevic apologist,
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=8327
> Eric Alterman,
http://dennisperrin.blogspot.com/2007/06/beat-press.html
> Eric Margolis, another fan of Milosevic, ecch.
> Frank Rich, o.k.
> Greg Mitchell, sometimes he makes posts on his E&P column that get
debunked by bloggers.
> James Bamford, o.k.
> James Fallows, liberal weenie.
> James Petras, lunatic on Israel and ZOG,
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=978
> James Wolcott, soured on him after he defended friend of Saddam Hussein
and the Syrian Ba'athists, George Galloway.
> Jeff Cohen, o.k.
> Jeff Huber
> Jeffrey Blankfort, another lunatic. See the comments I sent here before.
[political-research] Defining Antisemitism
Dear list members, you hereby witness that I grant Sean the right to ban me without further discussions, in case I should ever promise again to leave this time for good, and then stick my nose in here again. But before the following gets lost and in spite of a quite obvious breech of fair use conventions, I would like to pass on one of Sean's gems to you. Since I feel I should not keep it to myself: With a little attention you will immediately recognize the voice of the master of political research: "Actually, I didn't see much effort to *define* anti-Semitism in this post. I would define anti-Semitism as hostility to Jews and Jewish culture in general, and a transference of that hostility to all individual Jews. What is NOT anti-Semitism: principled disagreements with specific Jews, Jewish organizations, Jewish factions, Jewish ideologies or Jewish policies. Given the incredible (and often self-contradictory) complexity of the Jewish world, one would have to be brain-dead not to be in strong disagreement with quite a few Jews on quite a few Jewish issues. If one allows those disagreements to escalate into a hatred of all Jews, then one is an anti-Semite. Unfortunately, most people around the world, Jews and non-Jews alike, are unable to make subtle distinctions on these matters. But we are under no obligation to dumb down to accommodate their cognitive limitations."
Re: [political-research] False flag terror: Follow-up
berlet was also instrumental in side-swiping mike ruppert on pacifica radio in the early days before ruppert flaked out. he did the same to professor david ray griffin, if i recall. - Original Message - From: Sean McBride To: political-research@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 11:41 AM Subject: Re: [political-research] False flag terror: Follow-up I agree with and laud the agenda presented here, but Berlet has barely registered as a tiny blip in my consciousness during the Bush 43 administration (other than a bizarre episode in which I was accused of being Chip Berlet!). I can think of dozens (probably hundreds) of writers and researchers who have done much more interesting work than Berlet in digging into 9/11, the neoconservatives, the Israel lobby and related issues. Jim Lobe's essays on the neocons have set the standard for discussing what has been the most significant factor in American politics for the last six or seven years: neoconservatism, its manipulation of Christian Zionists and its influence on George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in instigating the disastrous Iraq War and the Clash of Civilizations. If Berlet has contributed any research or analysis of value on this subject, I haven't seen it. I don't think he's connecting effectively with the Internet audience out there, who have no idea what he really stands for. Does Berlet really think that the LaRouche crowd is a bigger problem than the Commentary crowd? If he does, he's gotten far out of sync with most thinking people. The Commentary crowd has been in control of the American political system under Bush 43. By comparison, the LaRouchies are mere gadflies. Neoconservatism is an especially hot potato: neocons are pro-Israel militants with close ties to Likud who often rely on the anti-Semitism smear to try to silence their political opponents. I wonder if Berlet, like Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, has the force of mind to push his way through that noisy barrage of intimidating abuse. I doubt it. Sometimes, in fact, he gives the impression that he is aligned with neocon interests. Has Berlet ever tried to take on Little Green Footballs, Atlas Shrugs, Israpundit, FrontPage Magazine and dozens of other neocon ops on the net which specialize in gutter hate speech? If not, why not? What about hate speech in neocon mainstream media outlets like Fox News? David Brock and Media Matters for America have been much more courageous and effective on this front than Berlet. Some invisible force seems to be holding Berlet back from exploring certain sensitive subjects and acquiring an authentic voice. Michael Pugliese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/6/07, Sean McBride <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Defending the establishment status quo .. Oh really? Chip Berlet sure would be surprised to hear he is a establishment status quo'ist. Eyes Right! (paper) Challenging the Right Wing Backlash Chip Berlet (Editor) Released 1995-01-01 Berlet shows how to counter right-wing corporate, religious, and political agendas, and defend democracy and diversity. http://www.southendpress.org/ http://www.publiceye.org/ yup, sure looks like a neo-con org. to me. Snort. Program Priorities Civil Liberties Economic Justice LGBT Equity Racial Justice Reproductive Justice The Christian Right http://www.publiceye.org/articles/topics.php * Introduction: the U.S. Political Right o Why is the Right so powerful? o Why We Need to Understand the Political Right * How is the Right Organized? o Christian Right and Theocracy o Coalition and Competition: an Overview o Conservatives o Xenophobic Right + Patriot Movement & Militias + Ultra Right * The Right's Agenda & Attacks o Criminal Justice o Democracy o Economic Justice o Environmental Policy o Peace, Foreign Policy, & Defense o Immigrant Rights o Labor, Workers, and Unions o Public Education o Reproductive Rights o Sovereignty & Indigenous Treaty Rights * Understanding Bigotry & Oppression o Dynamics of Oppression + Apocalyptic Dualism + Stereotyping, Prejudice, & Bigotry + Conspiracism + Demonization + Scapegoating + Supremacy & Domination o Ethnocentrism & Religious Bigotry + Antisemitism & Judeophobia + Arabophobia + Islamophobia o Hate & Ethnoviolence o Heterosexism & Homophobia o Racism & Xenophobia o Sexism & Reproductive Rights * The State and Political Repression o Free Expression & Censorship o Civil Liberties o Government Misconduct o Surveillance & Spying * Tools for Resisting the Right o Building Equality o Defending Democracy & Diversity o Links o Media & Propaganda * Resources for Studying the Right o Policy-Making & Funding o Research, Investigation, & L
Re: [political-research] If You Think Bush Is Evil Now, Wait Until He Nukes Iran
I wonder if Michael Pugliese would be interested in addressing any of the points in this latest essay by Paul Craig Roberts. It strikes me as dead on the mark. The neocons are the main lobby pushing for a war against Iran. Curiously, Berlet and Michael don't seem to be very interested in discussing the neocons. In fact, they barely acknowledge their existence. Why? Vigilius Haufniensis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - Original Message - From: Robert Busser To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 11:59 AM Subject: [work_democracy] If You Think Bush Is Evil Now, Wait Until He Nukes Iran If You Think Bush Is Evil Now, Wait Until He Nukes Iran Paul Craig Roberts Lew Rockwell.com Wednesday June 6, 2007 The war in Iraq is lost. This fact is widely recognized by American military officers and has been recently expressed forcefully by Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the commander of US forces in Iraq during the first year of the attempted occupation. Winning is no longer an option. Our best hope, Gen. Sanchez says, is "to stave off defeat," and that requires more intelligence and leadership than Gen. Sanchez sees in the entirety of our national political leadership: "I am absolutely convinced that America has a crisis in leadership at this time." More evidence that the war is lost arrived June 4 with headlines reporting: "U.S.-led soldiers control only about a third of Baghdad, the military said on Monday." After five years of war the US controls one-third of one city and nothing else. A host of US commanding generals have said that the Iraq war is destroying the US military. A year ago Colin Powell said that the US Army is "about broken." Lt. Gen. Clyde Vaughn says Bush has "piecemealed our force to death." Gen. Barry McCafrey testified to the US Senate that "the Army will unravel." Col. Andy Bacevich, Americas foremost writer on military affairs, documents in the current issue of The American Conservative that Bushs insane war has depleted and exhausted the US Army and Marine Corps: "Only a third of the regular Armys brigades qualify as combat-ready. In the reserve components, none meet that standard. When the last of the units reaches Baghdad as part of the presidents strategy of escalation, the US will be left without a ready-to-deploy land force reserve." "The stress of repeated combat tours is sapping the Armys lifeblood. Especially worrying is the accelerating exodus of experienced leaders. The service is currently short 3,000 commissioned officers. By next year, the number is projected to grow to 3,500. The Guard and reserves are in even worse shape. There the shortage amounts to 7,500 officers. Young West Pointers are bailing out of the Army at a rate not seen in three decades. In an effort to staunch the losses, that service has begun offering a $20,000 bonus to newly promoted captains who agree to stay on for an additional three years. Meanwhile, as more and more officers want out, fewer and fewer want in: ROTC scholarships go unfilled for a lack of qualified applicants." Bush has taken every desperate measure. Enlistment ages have been pushed up from 35 to 42. The percentage of high school dropouts and the number of recruits scoring at the bottom end of tests have spiked. The US military is forced to recruit among drug users and convicted criminals. Bacevich reports that wavers "issued to convicted felons jumped by 30 percent." Combat tours have been extended from 12 to 15 months, and the same troops are being deployed again and again. There is no equipment for training. Bacevich reports that "some $212 billion worth has been destroyed, damaged, or just plain worn out." What remains is in Iraq and Afghanistan. Under these circumstances, "staying the course" means total defeat. Even the neoconservative warmongers, who deceived Americans with the promise of a "cakewalk war" that would be over in six weeks, believe that the war is lost. But they have not given up. They have a last desperate plan: Bomb Iran. Vice President Dick Cheney is spear-heading the neocon plan, and Norman Podhoretz is the plans leading propagandist with his numerous pleas published in the Wall Street Journal and Commentary to bomb Iran. Podhoretz, like every neoconservative, is a total Islamophobe. Podhoretz has written that Islam must be deracinated and the religion destroyed, a genocide for the Muslim people. The neocons think that by bombing Iran the US will provoke Iran to arm the Shiite militias in Iraq with armor-piercing rocket-propelled grenades and with surface-to-air missiles and unleash the militias against US troops. These weapons would neutralize US tanks and helicopter gunships and destroy the US military edge, leaving divided and isolated US forces subject to being cut off from supplies and retreat routes. With America
[political-research] If You Think Bush Is Evil Now, Wait Until He Nukes Iran
- Original Message - From: Robert Busser To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 11:59 AM Subject: [work_democracy] If You Think Bush Is Evil Now, Wait Until He Nukes Iran If You Think Bush Is Evil Now, Wait Until He Nukes Iran Paul Craig Roberts Lew Rockwell.com Wednesday June 6, 2007 The war in Iraq is lost. This fact is widely recognized by American military officers and has been recently expressed forcefully by Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the commander of US forces in Iraq during the first year of the attempted occupation. Winning is no longer an option. Our best hope, Gen. Sanchez says, is "to stave off defeat," and that requires more intelligence and leadership than Gen. Sanchez sees in the entirety of our national political leadership: "I am absolutely convinced that America has a crisis in leadership at this time." More evidence that the war is lost arrived June 4 with headlines reporting: "U.S.-led soldiers control only about a third of Baghdad, the military said on Monday." After five years of war the US controls one-third of one city and nothing else. A host of US commanding generals have said that the Iraq war is destroying the US military. A year ago Colin Powell said that the US Army is "about broken." Lt. Gen. Clyde Vaughn says Bush has "piecemealed our force to death." Gen. Barry McCafrey testified to the US Senate that "the Army will unravel." Col. Andy Bacevich, America's foremost writer on military affairs, documents in the current issue of The American Conservative that Bush's insane war has depleted and exhausted the US Army and Marine Corps: "Only a third of the regular Army's brigades qualify as combat-ready. In the reserve components, none meet that standard. When the last of the units reaches Baghdad as part of the president's strategy of escalation, the US will be left without a ready-to-deploy land force reserve." "The stress of repeated combat tours is sapping the Army's lifeblood. Especially worrying is the accelerating exodus of experienced leaders. The service is currently short 3,000 commissioned officers. By next year, the number is projected to grow to 3,500. The Guard and reserves are in even worse shape. There the shortage amounts to 7,500 officers. Young West Pointers are bailing out of the Army at a rate not seen in three decades. In an effort to staunch the losses, that service has begun offering a $20,000 bonus to newly promoted captains who agree to stay on for an additional three years. Meanwhile, as more and more officers want out, fewer and fewer want in: ROTC scholarships go unfilled for a lack of qualified applicants." Bush has taken every desperate measure. Enlistment ages have been pushed up from 35 to 42. The percentage of high school dropouts and the number of recruits scoring at the bottom end of tests have spiked. The US military is forced to recruit among drug users and convicted criminals. Bacevich reports that wavers "issued to convicted felons jumped by 30 percent." Combat tours have been extended from 12 to 15 months, and the same troops are being deployed again and again. There is no equipment for training. Bacevich reports that "some $212 billion worth has been destroyed, damaged, or just plain worn out." What remains is in Iraq and Afghanistan. Under these circumstances, "staying the course" means total defeat. Even the neoconservative warmongers, who deceived Americans with the promise of a "cakewalk war" that would be over in six weeks, believe that the war is lost. But they have not given up. They have a last desperate plan: Bomb Iran. Vice President Dick Cheney is spear-heading the neocon plan, and Norman Podhoretz is the plan's leading propagandist with his numerous pleas published in the Wall Street Journal and Commentary to bomb Iran. Podhoretz, like every neoconservative, is a total Islamophobe. Podhoretz has written that Islam must be deracinated and the religion destroyed, a genocide for the Muslim people. The neocons think that by bombing Iran the US will provoke Iran to arm the Shiite militias in Iraq with armor-piercing rocket-propelled grenades and with surface-to-air missiles and unleash the militias against US troops. These weapons would neutralize US tanks and helicopter gunships and destroy the US military edge, leaving divided and isolated US forces subject to being cut off from supplies and retreat routes. With America on the verge of losing most of its troops in Iraq, the cry would go up to "save the troops" by nuking Iran. Five years of unsuccessful war in Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel's recent military defeat in Lebanon have convinced the neocons that America and Israel cannot establish hegemony over the Middle East with conventional forces alone. The neocons have changed US war doctrine, which now permits the US to preemptively strike with nuclear weapons a non-nuclear power. Neocons are forever heard saying, "what's the u
[political-research] Wednesday, June 5, 2007
Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader: Wednesday, June 5, 2007 via xymphora by Andrew on Jun 06, 2007 Wednesday, June 5, 2007: - Latest map of the current state of land thievery in the West Bank. It's all part of a Plan: "What remains is an area of habitation remarkably close to territory set aside for the Palestinian population in Israeli security proposals dating back to postwar 1967." - The amusing letters of support for Scooter reveal the Washington neocon nexus. Not a huge surprise that it is bipartisan - Democrat and Republican - but Jewish (or at least trying to connect, in a public way, to Jewish power centers). From the point of view of Jewish Zionism, Democrats and Republicans are just tools to the greater cause of Israeli imperialism. Whether you fall into one party or another has less to do with your right-left views and more to do with where you will be useful in building the Zionist Empire. Thus, Scooter's friends cover the entire gamut from ultra-conservative to liberal, and he is perceived as being non-partisan, at least considered by the usual Democrat-Republican axis. This also explains how the neocons started off as Democrats but slid over in the 80s to being Republican. They just followed the trends of power. Scooter's non-partisanship also ties back to the greater issue of how Israeli colonialism has destroyed the great traditions of the American Jewish left. - The comment by 'David' to the Philip Weiss posting is an eye-opener, quoting Feith's letter (emphasis in red): "We are not social friends, but, when he worked for the Vice President, I was the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and we spent several hours together in meetings every week day, more or less, and occasionally on weekends too." As 'David' notes, this is the Office of Special Plans meeting with the White House Iraq Group. They were 'stovepiping', packaging Feith's lies, fresh from the Pentagon oven, for White House use in the propaganda war leading to the attack on Iraq. - When it was revealed that 70% of the total intelligence community budget is now spent on private contractors, people were able to do the math to determine that the total American intelligence budget is much higher than was formerly believed. For all that money, they still haven't got a clue . . . - More on Palast's 'war for no oil' thesis. This thesis is silly (but has the singular advantage of paying some attention to the facts). The net effect of the 'war for oil', 'war for control of oil', and 'war for no oil' theses is that they wipe each other out, leading us closer to the truth. Things you can do from here: - Visit the original item on xymphora - Subscribe to xymphora using Google Reader - Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites
[political-research] As Asian-Americans Soul-Search Over Va.-Tech Shootings, Liberal Jews Must Soul-Search Over Neocons and Iraq
Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader: As Asian-Americans Soul-Search Over Va.-Tech Shootings, Liberal Jews Must Soul-Search Over Neocons and Iraq via Mondoweiss by Philip Weiss on Jun 06, 2007 A couple weeks ago I watched an Asian-American panel on C-Span talking about responses in their community to the Virginia Tech shootings. The main feeling was, shame; they worried that non-Asian Americans would blame the Asian community for the murders. I heard the same word, "shame," from two Korean-American friends. But in the end, no one blames Asian-American culture for a kid going crazy in Blacksburg. We all know that Cho is not representative. I think that is the true thrust of my post yesterday on Scooter Libby: Where is the liberal Jewish soul-searching on Iraq? When will the liberal Jewish community dissociate itself from Libby and Feith and Wurmser, and Kristol and Abrams-- and say, We understand that they were acting as nationalist Jews in pushing for the Iraq war; we denounce that sort of thinking, it must be discredited. Then discredit it by openly addressing the Israeli occupation. Until that soul-searching takes place, the "connected" liberal Jewish community, by which I mean the political insiders and public intellectuals, can rightly be accused of some degree of complicity in this horrible war. For by failing to perform that post-mortem, they are failing their jobs, as journalists and intellectuals, to explain to American how this debacle took place. Let me be clear. I am not singling out rightwing Jews as the agents of the Iraq tragedy. That responsiblity can be widely shared, with Bush and Cheney and other American-nationalist militarists, as well as with the credulous press and the chauvinist element of the American populace that supported the war. But the Libby letters I wrote about yesterday underline a crucial fact of this war: that Jewish nationalists who opposed the peace process in Israel played a key part in producing the ideas that gave us the Iraq debacle. This is simply indisputable. They called for an Iraq war for years, and then they were all over the White House, notably Perle, Feith, Abrams, and Cheney's Middle East adviser David Wurmser. I imagine that Cheney met a lot of them during his and his wife's sojourn at the American Enterprise Institute before 2000. I say "imagine" because the journalism has not been done on Cheney's ideological education. My challenge is to the liberal Jewish community because it has given cover to these crazed ideologues in a number of ways. First, a lot of liberals drank the neocon Koolaid on Iraq, and gained prominence for doing so: Thomas Friedman, Kenneth Pollack, The New Yorker Magazine. They endorsed the neocon view that the way to respond to the 9/11 attacks was to smash something in the Arab world. As I have noted here before, Friedman and Paul Berman (as well as neolib Lawrence Kaplan and neocon Bill Kristol in their book) said going after Iraq was necessary because Saddam subsidized suicide bombers in Israel--as though Israeli interests and American interests were congruent. More important, in justifying the war, Friedman and Berman and Pollack all overlooked the Israeli occupation of Arab lands. Pollack never mentions it in his 500-page war manifesto, a manifesto which presumes to inform us how the Arab "street" will respond to an invasion of Iraq. Thus neocon support for a militaristic response to the Arab world gained wide adherence in the liberal Jewish community. And today the failure to anatomize the neocon madness for what it was, rightwing nationalist Jewish thinking, suggests that the liberal Jewish community is still infected by these ideas, still accepts them, or is in outright denial of its acceptance. Even as the horrors multiply in Iraq. I understand why that accounting is not taking place: fears of antisemitism. People will blame the Jews. Leander hints as much in his comment yesterday on my post about necon social connections: [Yours] is such a mad line of thought that on the net - at least considering the propagandists - it easily merges with the larger extreme right wing conspiracy lore: freemasons, jesuits, jews and somewhere secretly in the back a black pope pulling strings. I wouldn't touch any of this stuff, if it wasn't written by someone with superior knowledge of European and especially Russian history. Leander is imposing a literacy test. You have to know European history before you can offer an opinion about important social and ideological connections in Washington today. That doesn't stop the New Republic when it comes to Mormons! And imagine for a moment that there were Muslims all over the Bush Administration, and the U.S. then blundered tragically in the Middle East. Would those Muslims escape scrutiny from all but those writers who had studied the history of the Caliphate? Absurd. Journalists would try to anatomize Muslim thought (as Paul Berman does, to his great credit, in a piece on Islamic
[political-research] Kristol Disses Bush Big Time
[The neocons have always held Bush 43 in contempt, and are quite confident that their gang is much more powerful than the Bush gang. They have exploited Bush 43, and will now toss him away like a used kleenex. The Bush 41 inner circle understood what was going on all along and what was coming, but hapless Junior didn't get it. As usual, Jim Lobe is directly on the beam.] Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader: Kristol Disses Bush Big Time via LobeLog.com by admin on Jun 06, 2007 In a truly remarkable statement published in the online version of his 'Weekly Standard' Wednesday morning, William Kristol essentially slapped George W. Bush with his glove, accusing him of disloyalty, indecency, and cowardice with respect to the president's failure so far to issue a pardon for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Dick Cheney's former chief of staff who, as of Tuesday, is looking at a 30-month prison term for perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with the Valerie Plame affair. While Kristol, who certainly ranks among the top five most-influential neo-conservatives in the movement, has occasionally been critical of Bush's performance, he has reserved his harsher attacks for convenient subordinates (Powell/Rumsfeld/Tenet/Rice/Gates/etc), presumably to remain in the Decider's good graces. But this latest assault on the president himself is unprecedented both in severity and in directness. (Compare, for example, the more politic attack of the no-less-neo-conservative editorial writers of the Wall Street Journal Wednesday or even of the National Review Online Tuesday). "Will Bush pardon Libby? Apparently not--even if it means a man who worked closely with him and sought tirelessly to do what was right for the country goes to prison," Kristol wrote. ''Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino, noting that the appeals process was underway, said, 'Given that and in keeping with what we have said in the past, the president has not intervened so far in any other criminal matter and is going to decline to do so now.'" "So much for loyalty, or decency, or courage," Kristol went on. "For President Bush, loyalty is apparently a one-way street; decency is something he's for as long as he doesn't have to take any risks in its behalf; and courage - well, that's nowhere to be seen. Many of us used to respect President Bush. Can one respect him still?" This sounds like a make-or-break attack on Bush's manhood - an attempt at intimidation, even -- and that carries serious risks, such as being declared persona non grata at the White House for a considerable period of time, possibly even until the end of the term before which Kristol and his ideological confreres clearly hope that Bush will order a military attack against suspected Iranian nuclear sites if the diplomatic track fails to produce results before then. It would be uncharacteristic of Kristol to take such a risk simply on the basis of his frustration or anger at the moment; this is not someone liable to either commit crimes or criticisms of passion. So the statement suggests that Kristol actually does believe that Bush can be bullied into pardoning Libby. If so, what is the basis for that belief? Did he consult with White House insiders (in Cheney's office or the NSC perhaps, or even Cheney himself) as to what was the best tack to take? Coupled with Helene Cooper's article in Saturday's NYT (link to previous post), Kristol's glove-slapping Bush certainly adds to the sense that hawks are increasingly desperate about the president's direction and Cheney's ability to affect it. Things you can do from here: - Visit the original item on LobeLog.com - Subscribe to LobeLog.com using Google Reader - Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites
Re: [political-research] Keeping It Real
On 6/6/07, Sean McBride <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>These are just a few political commentators and analysts who are making
> stronger contributions to understanding contemporary American politics than
> Berlet. Most of them have been accused of anti-Semitism at one time or
> another, simply because they refuse to bow down before AIPAC, Likud and the
> neocons. I hardly agree with them on everything, and they hardly agree with
> one another on everything, but most of them are *keeping it real*:
>
> Alex Jones
>
> Cindy Sheehan: Twin Towers' Collapse Looked Like Controlled Demolition
> Anti-war icon supports move for new investigation into 9/11
> Paul Joseph Watson
> Prison Planet
> Thursday, May 31, 2007
>
>
Just out of curiosity, I took a look at this Prison Planet website. I
had a suspicion that it was another rightwing outlet that mixes 9/11
conspiracy theory with other wacko ideas. I was right:
--It links to the Vdare anti-immigrant website.
--It charges "globalists" with a global warming conspiracy. "Globalists"
are the same forces that the militias in the 1990s harped on. You know.
The UN, the Bilderberg, black helicopters and all that.
etc., etc.
The website is in the inspiration of one Alex Jones, who has written
that communists in the West are funded by big corporations. That's news
to me. Maybe I can hit up General Motors to help defray the costs of
Marxmail.
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2007w23/msg00016.htm
> Ari Berman, good writer
> Barrie Zwicker, 9-11 conspiranoid.
> Bill Berkowitz, good writer, knew him when I lived in Oakland, ca. He works
> at the Data Center, a leftist library.
> Billmon, ok blog.
> Cenc Uygar, lame Air America host. Confuses different sectors of the Right.
> They are all not neo-cons.
> Chris Hedges, decent journalist...though, methinks the fascistoid potential
> of the Xtian Right to take over the political culture is overblown. They have
> been a sector of the Right, embattled for a long time now.
> Christopher Ketcham
> Daniel Hopsicker, another 9-11 conspiranoid.
> David Brock, good muckraker. Though Media Matters is a bit too Democratic
> Party loyalist for my taste.
> David Ray Griffin,
aargh, http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/Post911/dubious_claims.html
> Douglas Herman, who?
Edward Herman, though is a Milosevic apologist,
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=8327
> Eric Alterman,
http://dennisperrin.blogspot.com/2007/06/beat-press.html
> Eric Margolis, another fan of Milosevic, ecch.
> Frank Rich, o.k.
> Greg Mitchell, sometimes he makes posts on his E&P column that get debunked
> by bloggers.
> James Bamford, o.k.
> James Fallows, liberal weenie.
> James Petras, lunatic on Israel and ZOG,
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=978
> James Wolcott, soured on him after he defended friend of Saddam Hussein and
> the Syrian Ba'athists, George Galloway.
> Jeff Cohen, o.k.
> Jeff Huber
> Jeffrey Blankfort, another lunatic. See the comments I sent here before.
> Jeffrey Steinberg, EFFIN' LaRoucheite!
> Jim Lobe, o.k.
> John Mearsheimer, o.k. but see,
http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.com/2006/04/some-rebuttals-to-mearsheimer-walts.html
> Joseph Cannon, who?
> Joseph Galloway, who?
> Joshua Micah Marshall, TPM Muckraker is great.
> Juan Cole, good.
> Justin Raimondo, when he's good he's good, when he isn't he is horrible.
> Kathleen Christison, see the comments I sent earlier via Doug Henwood's list
> on the Counterpunch anthology on anti-semitism.
> Kevin Phillips, very good. Though he uses that crappy LaRoucheite book on the
> Bush family.
> Kurt Nimmo, AARGH!
> Michael Lind, good.
> Michael Rivero, is full of sheeit,
A blog, focused on him, whatdidn'treallyhappen has lots of howlers from Mikey.
> Michael Ruppert, jeesh,
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/Post911/dubious_claims.html
> Norman Finkelstein,
Marxist critique of N.F.,
http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Newint/Finkel.html
Finkelstein's Follies: The Dangers of Vulgar Anti-Zionism
> Patrick Lang, good.
> Paul Craig Roberts, THREE CHEERS FOR racist, nativist anti-immigrant nuttery
> from Roberts and his vDARE pals.Loved Pinochet too the supply side pig.
> Paul Joseph Watson, see Jones above.
> Paul Krugman, good.
> Philip Weiss see comment on Raimondo.
> Ray McGovern, why did he speak on a tour with Maoist loons from the RCP?
> Robert Dreyfuss, good writer but, he writes for the racist, nativist The
> American Conservative as does Weiss. Pb. of his book blurbed by EIR, the
> LaRouche rag, aargh.
> Robert Fisk, ("I can totally understand why these Afghan's tried to kill
> me!.")
good but, when heis bad, oy vey sez this gentile. The Nation book
review pointed out
[political-research] Keeping It Real
These are just a few political commentators and analysts who are making stronger contributions to understanding contemporary American politics than Berlet. Most of them have been accused of anti-Semitism at one time or another, simply because they refuse to bow down before AIPAC, Likud and the neocons. I hardly agree with them on everything, and they hardly agree with one another on everything, but most of them are *keeping it real*: Alex Jones Ari Berman Barrie Zwicker Bill Berkowitz Billmon Cenc Uygar Chris Hedges Christopher Ketcham Daniel Hopsicker David Brock David Ray Griffin Douglas Herman Eric Alterman Eric Margolis Frank Rich Greg Mitchell James Bamford James Fallows James Petras James Wolcott Jeff Cohen Jeff Huber Jeffrey Blankfort Jeffrey Steinberg Jim Lobe John Mearsheimer Joseph Cannon Joseph Galloway Joshua Micah Marshall Juan Cole Justin Raimondo Kathleen Christison Kevin Phillips Kurt Nimmo Michael Lind Michael Rivero Michael Ruppert Norman Finkelstein Patrick Lang Paul Craig Roberts Paul Joseph Watson Paul Krugman Philip Weiss Ray McGovern Robert Dreyfuss Robert Fisk Robert Parry Robert Scheer Scott McConnell Scott Ritter Seymour Hersh Sibel Edmonds Sidney Blumenthal Stephen Walt Steven Clemons Steven Sniegoski Thom Hartmann Tom Barry Wayne Madsen Webster Tarpley William Odom Xymphora Michael Pugliese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/6/07, Sean McBride <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Defending the establishment status quo .. Oh really? Chip Berlet sure would be surprised to hear he is a establishment status quo'ist. Eyes Right! (paper) Challenging the Right Wing Backlash Chip Berlet (Editor) Released 1995-01-01 Berlet shows how to counter right-wing corporate, religious, and political agendas, and defend democracy and diversity. http://www.southendpress.org/ http://www.publiceye.org/ yup, sure looks like a neo-con org. to me. Snort. Program Priorities Civil Liberties Economic Justice LGBT Equity Racial Justice Reproductive Justice The Christian Right http://www.publiceye.org/articles/topics.php * Introduction: the U.S. Political Right o Why is the Right so powerful? o Why We Need to Understand the Political Right * How is the Right Organized? o Christian Right and Theocracy o Coalition and Competition: an Overview o Conservatives o Xenophobic Right + Patriot Movement & Militias + Ultra Right * The Right's Agenda & Attacks o Criminal Justice o Democracy o Economic Justice o Environmental Policy o Peace, Foreign Policy, & Defense o Immigrant Rights o Labor, Workers, and Unions o Public Education o Reproductive Rights o Sovereignty & Indigenous Treaty Rights * Understanding Bigotry & Oppression o Dynamics of Oppression + Apocalyptic Dualism + Stereotyping, Prejudice, & Bigotry + Conspiracism + Demonization + Scapegoating + Supremacy & Domination o Ethnocentrism & Religious Bigotry + Antisemitism & Judeophobia + Arabophobia + Islamophobia o Hate & Ethnoviolence o Heterosexism & Homophobia o Racism & Xenophobia o Sexism & Reproductive Rights * The State and Political Repression o Free Expression & Censorship o Civil Liberties o Government Misconduct o Surveillance & Spying * Tools for Resisting the Right o Building Equality o Defending Democracy & Diversity o Links o Media & Propaganda * Resources for Studying the Right o Policy-Making & Funding o Research, Investigation, & Logic o Social Movement Theory + Ideology, Frames and Narratives + Right-Wing Populism & Producerism o Studying the US Political Right + Bibliographies + Chart of Sectors + Directories * Totalitarian Groups o Lyndon LaRouche Network o Newmanites & Lenora Fulani -- Michael Pugliese
Re: [political-research] False flag terror: Follow-up
I agree with and laud the agenda presented here, but Berlet has barely registered as a tiny blip in my consciousness during the Bush 43 administration (other than a bizarre episode in which I was accused of being Chip Berlet!). I can think of dozens (probably hundreds) of writers and researchers who have done much more interesting work than Berlet in digging into 9/11, the neoconservatives, the Israel lobby and related issues. Jim Lobe's essays on the neocons have set the standard for discussing what has been the most significant factor in American politics for the last six or seven years: neoconservatism, its manipulation of Christian Zionists and its influence on George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in instigating the disastrous Iraq War and the Clash of Civilizations. If Berlet has contributed any research or analysis of value on this subject, I haven't seen it. I don't think he's connecting effectively with the Internet audience out there, who have no idea what he really stands for. Does Berlet really think that the LaRouche crowd is a bigger problem than the Commentary crowd? If he does, he's gotten far out of sync with most thinking people. The Commentary crowd has been in control of the American political system under Bush 43. By comparison, the LaRouchies are mere gadflies. Neoconservatism is an especially hot potato: neocons are pro-Israel militants with close ties to Likud who often rely on the anti-Semitism smear to try to silence their political opponents. I wonder if Berlet, like Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, has the force of mind to push his way through that noisy barrage of intimidating abuse. I doubt it. Sometimes, in fact, he gives the impression that he is aligned with neocon interests. Has Berlet ever tried to take on Little Green Footballs, Atlas Shrugs, Israpundit, FrontPage Magazine and dozens of other neocon ops on the net which specialize in gutter hate speech? If not, why not? What about hate speech in neocon mainstream media outlets like Fox News? David Brock and Media Matters for America have been much more courageous and effective on this front than Berlet. Some invisible force seems to be holding Berlet back from exploring certain sensitive subjects and acquiring an authentic voice. Michael Pugliese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/6/07, Sean McBride <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Defending the establishment status quo .. Oh really? Chip Berlet sure would be surprised to hear he is a establishment status quo'ist. Eyes Right! (paper) Challenging the Right Wing Backlash Chip Berlet (Editor) Released 1995-01-01 Berlet shows how to counter right-wing corporate, religious, and political agendas, and defend democracy and diversity. http://www.southendpress.org/ http://www.publiceye.org/ yup, sure looks like a neo-con org. to me. Snort. Program Priorities Civil Liberties Economic Justice LGBT Equity Racial Justice Reproductive Justice The Christian Right http://www.publiceye.org/articles/topics.php * Introduction: the U.S. Political Right o Why is the Right so powerful? o Why We Need to Understand the Political Right * How is the Right Organized? o Christian Right and Theocracy o Coalition and Competition: an Overview o Conservatives o Xenophobic Right + Patriot Movement & Militias + Ultra Right * The Right's Agenda & Attacks o Criminal Justice o Democracy o Economic Justice o Environmental Policy o Peace, Foreign Policy, & Defense o Immigrant Rights o Labor, Workers, and Unions o Public Education o Reproductive Rights o Sovereignty & Indigenous Treaty Rights * Understanding Bigotry & Oppression o Dynamics of Oppression + Apocalyptic Dualism + Stereotyping, Prejudice, & Bigotry + Conspiracism + Demonization + Scapegoating + Supremacy & Domination o Ethnocentrism & Religious Bigotry + Antisemitism & Judeophobia + Arabophobia + Islamophobia o Hate & Ethnoviolence o Heterosexism & Homophobia o Racism & Xenophobia o Sexism & Reproductive Rights * The State and Political Repression o Free Expression & Censorship o Civil Liberties o Government Misconduct o Surveillance & Spying * Tools for Resisting the Right o Building Equality o Defending Democracy & Diversity o Links o Media & Propaganda * Resources for Studying the Right o Policy-Making & Funding o Research, Investigation, & Logic o Social Movement Theory
Re: [political-research] False flag terror: Follow-up
On 6/6/07, Sean McBride <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Defending the establishment status quo .. Oh really? Chip Berlet sure would be surprised to hear he is a establishment status quo'ist. Eyes Right! (paper) Challenging the Right Wing Backlash Chip Berlet (Editor) Released 1995-01-01 Berlet shows how to counter right-wing corporate, religious, and political agendas, and defend democracy and diversity. http://www.southendpress.org/ http://www.publiceye.org/ yup, sure looks like a neo-con org. to me. Snort. Program Priorities Civil Liberties Economic Justice LGBT Equity Racial Justice Reproductive Justice The Christian Right http://www.publiceye.org/articles/topics.php * Introduction: the U.S. Political Right o Why is the Right so powerful? o Why We Need to Understand the Political Right * How is the Right Organized? o Christian Right and Theocracy o Coalition and Competition: an Overview o Conservatives o Xenophobic Right + Patriot Movement & Militias + Ultra Right * The Right's Agenda & Attacks o Criminal Justice o Democracy o Economic Justice o Environmental Policy o Peace, Foreign Policy, & Defense o Immigrant Rights o Labor, Workers, and Unions o Public Education o Reproductive Rights o Sovereignty & Indigenous Treaty Rights * Understanding Bigotry & Oppression o Dynamics of Oppression + Apocalyptic Dualism + Stereotyping, Prejudice, & Bigotry + Conspiracism + Demonization + Scapegoating + Supremacy & Domination o Ethnocentrism & Religious Bigotry + Antisemitism & Judeophobia + Arabophobia + Islamophobia o Hate & Ethnoviolence o Heterosexism & Homophobia o Racism & Xenophobia o Sexism & Reproductive Rights * The State and Political Repression o Free Expression & Censorship o Civil Liberties o Government Misconduct o Surveillance & Spying * Tools for Resisting the Right o Building Equality o Defending Democracy & Diversity o Links o Media & Propaganda * Resources for Studying the Right o Policy-Making & Funding o Research, Investigation, & Logic o Social Movement Theory + Ideology, Frames and Narratives + Right-Wing Populism & Producerism o Studying the US Political Right + Bibliographies + Chart of Sectors + Directories * Totalitarian Groups o Lyndon LaRouche Network o Newmanites & Lenora Fulani -- Michael Pugliese
[political-research] Reporter Arrested For Asking Questions About Rudy Giuliani's WTC "Collapse" Foreknowledge at GOP Debate in New Hampshire
[Nice work: this gives the impression that Giuliani has something to hide about 9/11 and that his supporters will use fascist and anti-democratic methods to keep the truth hidden. The mainstream media should be asking Giuliani about his contradictory statements concerning WTC7 until they get a straight answer. But wait: the neocon-controlled MSM are themselves dedicated to censoring every honest question about 9/11 and to promoting Fox News-style fascism in America. Giuliani is their boy. We've got World War III/IV to get on with, using 9/11 as the pivot.] Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader: Reporter Arrested For Asking Questions About Rudy Giuliani's WTC "Collapse" Foreknowledge at GOP Debate in New Hampshire via 911Blogger.com - Paying Attention to 9/11 Related Alternative News by stallion4 on Jun 06, 2007 Reporter Arrested on Orders of Giuliani Press Secretary - jonesreport.com Charged with Criminal Trespass Despite Protest of CNN Staff and Official Event Press Credentials at GOP Debate in New Hampshire Aaron Dykes & Alex Jones / Jones Report | June 5, 2007 Manchester, NH - Freelance reporter Matt Lepacek, reporting for Infowars.com, was arrested for asking a question to one of Giuliani's staff members in a press conference. The press secretary identified the New York based reporter as having previously asked Giuliani about his prior knowledge of WTC building collapses and ordered New Hampshire state police to arrest him. Jason Bermas, reporting for Infowars and America: Freedom to Fascism, confirmed Lepacek had official CNN press credentials for the Republican debate. However, his camera was seized by staff members who shut off the camera, according to Luke Rudkowski, also a freelance Infowars reporter on the scene. He said police physically assaulted both reporters after Rudkowski objected that they were official members of the press and that nothing illegal had taken place. Police reportedly damaged the Infowars-owned camera in the process. (more after the break..) Vote ResultScore: 10.0, Votes: 15 read more Things you can do from here: - Visit the original item on 911Blogger.com - Paying Attention to 9/11 Related Alternative News - Subscribe to 911Blogger.com - Paying Attention to 9/11 Related Alternative News using Google Reader - Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites
Re: [political-research] False flag terror: Follow-up
More on the October Surprise. This blogger has written a great book on the militia movement. Blog entries of note by him, Bush, the Nazis and America": Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4. Rush, Newspeak and Fascism: An Exegesis http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2005/02/projection-not-just-for-theaters_17.html >...Here are the relevant excerpts from Gary Sick's definitive text on the case, October Surprise: America's Hostages in Iran and the Election of Ronald Reagan (Random House, 1991), pp. 116-123: One of the most mystifying events of the entire election year took place in late September or early October 1980. The basic facts are not in dispute. [Future National Security Adviser] Richard Allen, together with Robert McFarlane and Laurence Silberman, met at the L'Enfant Plaza Hotel in Washington, D.C., with a Middle Easterner who offered to arrange the release of the American hostages directly to the Republicans. Beyond that rudimentary description, however, there is nothing but disagreement. Even people who admit attending the same meeting cannot agree on exact dates, times, or places. ... Allen has said that he was initially contacted by Robert McFarlane, then a senior aide to Senator John Tower of Texas. Tower was a longtime friend of vice-presidential candidate George Bush and he was at that time the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee. McFarlane, a retired Marine Corps colonel, had been the executive assistant of the National Security Council under Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft in the Nixon and Ford administrations, and he was a strong supporter of the Reagan presidential candidacy. ... According to Allen, Silberman, and McFarlane, they had a relatively brief meeting in late September with a man who appeared to be of Middle Eastern origin. This man, who claimed to be in contact with representatives of the Iranian government, made a presentation in which he offered to arrange the release of the American hostages directly to the Republican campaign. This offer was rejected out of hand, according to the three American participants, and the meeting was terminated abruptly. Allen and Silberman later insisted that the man made no mention of military equipment or the possibility of an arms-for-hostages swap. ... Silberman said he told the man his offer was totally unacceptable since "We have one President at a time." However, as Sick goes on to detail, there are numerous problems with their account. The unidentified Middle Easterner likely was a self-described international arms merchant name Hushang Lavi, who claimed that he was the man at the meeting. He says Lavi fits the physical description the Americans gave, and he furthermore had substantial evidence of being involved in the meeting (some of which actually surfaced independently through a third party after his death). Lavi claimed that he represented two officials of the Iranian government, and was offering the hostages in exchange for a pledge of F-14 parts -- the same parts, you may recall, that played such a key role in the Iran-Contra scandal. But Sick reports that Lavi claimed the refusal was not the noble one described by Larry Silberman: According to Lavi, his offer was rejected, but his recollection differed from those of the Americans. Lavi said the three Americans refused his offer on the grounds that they were "in touch with the Iranians themselves" and did not need his assistance. Both Allen and Silberman later insisted adamantly in interviews that the man they met was not Lavi. Much of Sick's book, in fact, details that Lavi's characterization was substantially the case -- that is, the Reagan camp in fact was in close contact with other Iranians who controlled the hostages and were capable of releasing them. The source for one of the key pieces of substantiation for Lavi's participation in the meeting was Ari Ben-Menashe, who had been a top agent and official in the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad from 1977 to 1987, and was directly involved in Iranian affairs. Ben-Menashe later went on to write a book detailing some of the key aspects of the October Surprise affair in a book titled Profits of War, which was dismissed as fantasy by American and Israeli officials, but whose chief components were later substantially corroborated. According to Sick, Ben-Menashe largely confirmed Lavi's participation, but with a twist: According to Ben-Menashe, the L'Enfant Plaza meeting was the result of an effort by Israeli intelligence to hasten the end of the hostage crisis. The Israelis, Ben-Menashe said, were becoming increasingly uncomfortable about their involvement in U.S. domestic politics resulting from the Casey-Karubbi meetings in Madrid. ... So they attempted, without success, to short-circuit the entire problem by arranging a swap that would put an end to hostage issue before the election. Lavi, he said, was working for Israel whe
Re: [political-research] False flag terror: Follow-up
On 6/5/07, Sean McBride <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> quoted:At that time, his attackers tended to be guys like Steve Emerson, whom I never trusted. Chip Berlet, who doesn't agree w/Emerson, about much of anything. See the article below for detail on Ari Ben-Menashe and the October Surprise. I believe the Reagan campaign did have back door channel negotiations w/ the Iranians to screw over the Carter admin. But, many of the sources for the allegations were very dubious. LaRoucheites and other far right nuts. http://backissues.cjrarchives.org/year/93/3/spooky.asp >...May/June 1993 | Contents BIG STORIES, SPOOKY SOURCES by Chip Berlet Berlet is an analyst at Political Research Associates in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where he studies authoritarianism, bigotry, and the far right. For an investigative journalist, reporting on official misconduct involving covert operations, intelligence-gathering, and national security issues is like competing in a potato-sack race in a minefield. All officials tend to be suspicious of the motives of nosy journalists; government spokespersons frequently deny first and dissemble later; meanwhile, actual spies tend to keep their mouths shut. As a result, sources for such stories frequently come from a murky netherworld of ex-intelligence agents, retired military officers, and self-anointed investigators. Some offer valuable information along with frustrating fantasies; some are well-meaning but confused; others are professional or amateur charlatans. A few are brilliant paranoid crackpots. Some people just plain lie. Over the past three years, this reporter has interviewed or read the relevant writings of more than fifty investigative reporters and researchers spanning the political spectrum. Most of them thought one should not minimize the continuing reality of illegal and unethical conduct by government and private intelligence operatives. But even those who agreed that tough reporting on these subjects help defend constitutional safeguards added that they have grown very weary of hearing the same unproved or debunked conspiratorial stories over and over again. "A lot of stories with conspiratorial themes have gone a great distance with very few credible witnesses," says Michael Kelly of The New York Times. "Some reporters use a much lower standard of evidence with these stories. They are tempted to take what they can get, and overlook the fact that the source has been convicted twice for perjury and on alternate Tuesdays he thinks he is Napoleon Bonaparte." If many of the key sources for conspiracy stories are unreliable, why are so many journalists tempted to use them? One reason is that, in an age of official denials, many journalists give unofficial sources the benefit of the doubt. Another is that, in some cases, the tales these sources tell provide a fairly clear-cut explanation of what may otherwise be a confusing welter of conceivably related events. In short, they provide a story line. A third reason is that they can usually supply details that seem to substantiate their version of events. When the details provided by two or three such sources mesh, the theory gains in credibility and the story built on it may gain wider attention in the media. Meanwhile, talk radio shows, interviews on small FM stations, even messages posted on computerized information networks contribute to keeping the theories alive -- and building an audience that wants to hear more. The following look at a selection of individuals and groups that have served as sources for recent conspiracy stories may help to point up the problems they can pose for journalists in both the print and broadcast media. Several spooky sources contributed to the October Surprise story line, according to which the 1980 Reagan-Bush presidential campaign made a deal with the Iranians to delay the release of American hostages until after the November elections, to help assume the defeat of Jimmy Carter. A key figure in that story, and one whose usefulness as a source has been attacked and defended in these pages, was former Israeli intelligence operative Ari Ben-Menashe (see "The October Surprise: Enter the Press, CFJ, March, 1992 / April, 1992, and "October Surprise: Unger v. Weinberg," Letters, May, 1992 / June, 1992). One journalist who took Ben-Menashe's allegations more seriously than most was Craig Unger, author of an October 1991 Esquire article titled "October Surprise." Following several attacks on the Surprise theory, Unger wrote a long, interesting article called "The Trouble With Ari," which appeared in The Village Voice in July 1992. There, more clearly than in his Esquire piece Unger explains the dilemma source of this kind poses for the journalist. After reminding readers that some of Ben-Menashe's claims can be corroborated and that he was "the guy who started talking about the clandestine American arms pipeline to Iraq's Saddam Hussein . . . long before the story started breaking in the press this sp
