Conservative Carry Out Assulat on Britian's Working Class

Conservatives Promote "Selfish" Ideology

Morning Star Online UK

In one very real sense, it's redundant to describe the present Conservative assault on Britain's working class as "ideological."

Because all political parties' solutions to problems are by definition ideological, being based on that party's world-view, on the preconceptions and ideas that are at the root of its approach to government.

And, Conservative or Socialist, ideology is at the heart of those approaches. It's just a very different ideology.

But when people refer to the Conservative's position as ideological they mean much more than that it's a coherent set of ideas based on a specific analysis of society.

So let's cut through the confusion and call a spade a spade. The right-wing assault is not merely ideological.

It's an ideology that is utterly selfish, is furiously anti-working class and relies for its moral justification on the morality of the wolf pack, where the alpha male dominates absolutely and the lesser animals cluster around hoping for a bit of "trickle down" benefit.

But there's not just one wolf pack, of course and therefore we are treated to the sight of capitalist alpha males ( and they generally are males) routinely savaging each other for the champion's portion of the kill.

They call it competition and it's as distasteful a sight as one could wish to see. Whatever else capitalism is, even it's most ardent supporters couldn't call it pretty. It's combative, it's vicious and it automatically targets the weak and the vulnerable.

And the Conservative/Liberal coalition attack on the social welfare system is a beautiful example of wolf-pack capitalism at its reddest in tooth and claw. Because it unerringly targets the poor and the disadvantaged at every available chance.

This government is remaking the underclass of poor, disenfranchised, alienated and abused people that the trade union and progressive movement has been fighting to eliminate for over a couple of centuries.

Now whether it is doing it consciously is debatable. Probably not, because, in the main, the Conservative ruling class have swallowed their own lies about socially conscious capitalism - an oxymoron if ever there was one.

But, conscious or not, it's real, it's happening and it has to be fought, because this Con-Dem wolf pack will otherwise drive us back into a condition that our forefathers (and mothers) spent their lives lifting us out of.

Woman Now "Owns" The Sun, Says She'll Charge Usage Fee

Capitalism stand in the way of alternative energy

By Paul M. Sweezy

Though it is neither written nor marketed as such, Who Owns the Sun? by researcher/activists Daniel Berman and John O’Connor, is a devastating indictment of capitalism.

As it has developed in the last two centuries, this system is an enormous user of energy, most of it derived from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas).

An additional—and in some parts of the world increasing—source is nuclear fission. Both of these forms of energy are dangerous and environmentally destructive to life on the planet.

Burning fossil fuels generates almost all of the greenhouse gasses that have already begun to change the planet’s climate and, if continued at anywhere near the present rates, will trigger a chain reaction of lethal disasters, not in some vaguely distant future but in the next century or so—historically a relatively short span of time.

Nuclear fission leaves a legacy of radioactive waste that cannot now, or perhaps ever, be safely disposed of.

Clearly if humanity, not to speak of other forms of life, is to have a future, nothing could be more important than phasing out these sources of energy. So much, I believe, is what can be appropriately called ecological common sense.

That’s the bad news. The good news is that there is an available, renewable, and unlimited source of energy to take the place of fossil fuels and nuclear fission: solar power.

This is truly not only in theory but also, given the present state of our scientific knowledge and technological know how, in practice. Why, then, are we not already living in the period of transition from a proven deadly to a proven safe form of energy production?

The short answer is capitalism. This is in two complementary senses. First, in capitalist society power is in the hands of capitalists and their acolytes. They cannot be assumed to be ignorant of the energy situation and the dangers it portends for the future.

Yet they have never used that power to take remedial action. Second, when faced with the energy crises of the 1970s and the widespread popular reaction, they did their best to confuse the real issues and limited themselves to making soothing promises.

They then promptly forgot and obviously never intended to honor them when things calmed down.

By the late 1980s what had seemed to be a snowballing popular movement for an energy new deal was effectively scotched and by now is hardly more than a fading memory.

Capital won that battle hands down. But the issue will not go away. As the catastrophes of environmental degradation unfold, the need for an energy revolution will become increasingly obvious and urgent.

In Who Owns the Sun? Berman and O’Connor have made a straightforward, hard-hitting contribution to the understanding of the issue. And, by implication, of the lessons to be learned from the rich experience of the last few decades.

An energy revolution is both possible and necessary, but it will be achieved only as part of a broader revolution that takes power away from capital and puts it in the hands of the people where it belongs.

Afghans, "What's 9/11?"

"9/11? Never heard of it." Afghans polled

Daniel Tencer

Fewer than one in 10 Afghans are aware of the 9/11 attacks and their precipitation of the war in Afghanistan, says a study from an international think tank.

A report (PDF) from the International Council on Security and Development (ICOS) shows that 92 percent of those surveyed had never heard of the coordinated multiple attacks on US soil on September 11, 2001. It also shows that four in 10 Afghans believe the US is on their soil in order to "destroy Islam or occupy Afghanistan."

To be sure, the survey can't claim to be definitive: It only canvassed men, and relied primarily on respondents from Helmand and Kandahar, the two most war-torn provinces in the country. But the results nonetheless show that Western forces fighting insurgents in Afghanistan have largely failed to connect with the local population.

“We need to explain to the Afghan people why we are here, and both show and convince them that their future is better with us than with the Taliban,” ICOS lead field researcher Norine MacDonald said in a statement.

The survey also suggests that Afghans are skeptical of their own government's ability to protect them, and have little regard for the fledgling democratic institutions the country is building. Fully 43 percent could not name one positive aspect of democracy, and nearly two-thirds -- 61 percent -- said they didn't think Afghan forces would be able to keep up the fight against the Taliban if and when Western forces withdrew.


The ICOS study recommends a publicity campaign to explain to Afghans why foreign forces are fighting on their soil. The think tank also proposes a number of other initiatives meant to improve the image of foreign forces in the country, including having NATO forces deliver humanitarian aid where aid groups fear to travel, providing farmland to the poor, setting up women's councils, and "safe village convoys" which would see foreign troops escort villagers in dangerous rural areas.

ICOS has a permanent presence in Afghanistan and has been studying the nearly decade-long war's impact on Afghan society. The think tank has previously proposed that Afghanistan license the growing of opium. The group argues that eliminating the opiate trade from Afghanistan is virtually impossible due to its entrenched place in the culture. At the same time, Afghan farmers could earn money by selling opiates to painkiller manufacturers.

Opponents of the idea say that Afghanistan is not stable enough to develop a proper opium-manufacturing industry, and a licensing scheme would only encourage the sale of opium to heroin manufacturers.

Iraqi Veteran Talks About His Addiction to Violence, Gets Expelled

War veteran talks about the effects of war; kicked out of college

Veteran's essay on killing:

By Charles Whittington

War is a drug. When soldiers enter the military from day one, they begin to train and are brain washed to fight and to handle situations in battle. We train and train for combat, and then when we actually go to war, it is reality and worse than what we have trained for. We suffer through different kinds of situations. The Army never taught how to deal with our stress and addictions.

War is a drug because when soldiers are in the Infantry, like me, they get used to everything, and fast. I got used to killing and after a while it became something I really had to do. Killing becomes a drug, and it is really addictive. I had a really hard time with this problem when I returned to the United States, because turning this addiction off was impossible. It is not like I have a switch I can just turn off. To this day, I still feel the addictions running through my blood and throughout my body, but now I know how to keep myself composed and keep order in myself, my mind. War does things to me that are so hard to explain to someone that does not go through everything that I went through. That's part of the reason why I want to go back to war so badly, because of this addiction.

Over in Iraq and Afghanistan killing becomes a habit, a way of life, a drug to me and to other soldiers like me who need to feel like we can survive off of it. It is something that I do not just want, but something I really need so I can feel like myself. Killing a man and looking into his eyes, I see his soul draining from his body; I am taking away his life for the harm he has caused me, my family, my country.

Killing is a drug to me and has been ever since the first time I have killed someone. At first, it was weird and felt wrong, but by the time of the third and fourth killing it feels so natural. It feels like I could do this for the rest of my life and it makes me happy.

There are several addictions in war, but this one is mine. This is what I was trained to do and now I cannot get rid of it; it will be with me for the rest of my life and hurts me that I cannot go back to war and kill again, because I would love too. When I stick my blade through his stomach or his ribs or slice his throat it's a feeling that I cannot explain, but feels so good to me, and I become addicted to seeing and acting out this act of hate, and violence against the rag heads that hurt our country. Terrorists will have nowhere to hide because there are hundreds of thousands of soldiers like me who feel like me and want their revenge as well.

______________________________________________________________________________

The Huffinton Post

An Iraq War veteran who wrote an essay about his addiction to violence for a community college English class has been barred from the school's campus.
Charles Whittington's essay, which can be seen in full here, was also published in the Community College of Baltimore County's campus newspaper. In the essay, Whittington, a former infrantryman, wrote that "war is a drug," and that "killing becomes a drug, and it is really addictive:"

To this day, I still feel the addictions running through my blood and throughout my body, but now I know how to keep myself composed and keep order in myself, my mind. War does things to me that are so hard to explain to someone that does not go through everything that I went through. That's part of the reason why I want to go back to war so badly, because of this addiction.

According to the Baltimore Sun, Whittington received an A for the essay from his teacher, who encouraged him to publish the piece. But after it appeared in the campus paper last month, Whittington was told by school officials that he would not be allowed on campus until he had a psychological evaluation.
Whittington told the Sun that his violent impulses are controlled by counseling and medication.
Community College of Baltimore County spokeswoman Hope Davis said that the school was acting in the interest of safety. "When you look in the era of post-Virginia Tech and the content and the nature that he wrote about in the article, it caused us concerns," she told CNN.
Whittington's psychological evaluation is scheduled for Tuesday.
What do you think? Is the school in the wrong? Or did they do the right thing? Weigh in below.

Powerful Palin

 Palin's detractors strengthen her in conservative's minds.

By Frank Rich

With Murdoch, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity on her side, Sarah Palin hardly needs the grandees of the so-called Republican establishment. They know it and flail at her constantly.

Unnamed “party elders” were nearly united in wanting to stop her, out of fear that she’d win the nomination and then be crushed by Obama.

Their complaints are seconded daily by Bush White House alumni like Karl Rove, Michael Gerson, and Mark McKinnon, who said recently that Palin’s “stock is falling and pretty rapidly now” and that “if she’s smart, she does not run.”

This is either denial or wishful thinking. The same criticisms that the Bushies fling at Palin were those once aimed at Bush.

Someone with a slender résumé, a lack of intellectual curiosity and foreign travel, a lazy inclination to favor from-the-gut improvisation over cracking the briefing books. These spitballs are no more likely to derail Palin within the G.O.P. than they did him.

As Palin has refused to heed these patrician Republicans, some of them have gotten so testy they sound like Democrats.

Peggy Noonan called her a “nincompoop” last month, and Susan Collins, the senator from Maine, dismissed her as a “celebrity commentator.” Rove tut-tutted Palin’s TV show, “Sarah Palin’s Alaska,” for undermining her aspirations to “gravitas.”

These insults just play into Palin’s hands, burnishing her image as an exemplar of the “real America” battling the snooty powers-that-be. To serve as an Andrew Jackson or perhaps George Wallace for the 21st century, the last thing she wants or needs is gravitas.

It’s anti-elitism that most defines angry populism in this moment. Populist rage on the right is aimed at the educated, not the wealthy. The Bushies and Noonans and dwindling retro-moderate Republicans are no less loathed by Palinistas and their Tea Party fellow travelers than is Obama’s Ivy League White House.

When Palin mocks her G.O.P. establishment critics as tortured, paranoid, sleazy and a “good-old-boys club,” she pays no penalty for doing so. The more condescending the attacks on her, the more she thrives.

This same dynamic is also working for her daughter Bristol, who week after week has received low scores and patronizing dismissals from the professional judges on “Dancing with the Stars” only to be rescued by populist masses voting at home.

Revealingly, Sarah Palin’s potential rivals for the 2012 nomination have not joined the party establishment in publicly criticizing her. They are afraid of crossing Palin and the 80 percent of the party that admires her.

So how do they stop her? Not by feeding their contempt in blind quotes to the press — as a Romney aide did by telling Time’s Mark Halperin she isn’t “a serious human being.”

Not by hoping against hope that Murdoch might turn off the media oxygen that feeds both Palin’s viability and News Corporation’s bottom line.

Sooner or later Palin’s opponents will instead have to man up — as Palin might say — and actually summon the courage to take her on mano-a-maverick in broad daylight.

Short of that, there’s little reason to believe now that she cannot dance to the top of the Republican ticket when and if she wants to.