Stop Me Before I Vote Again

Pakistan closes US supply routes to Afghanistan, threatening war effort

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The United States is in a diplomatic scramble to reopen two key supply routes along the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan that are essential to the US-led war effort and which, as of Tuesday, have remained close for four consecutive days.

Pakistan stopped all traffic from crossing into Afghanistan in reaction to a NATO airstrike that killed 26 Pakistani soldiers last week, a strategy Pakistan has several times before used to force the hand of the United States.

Hundreds of containers carrying supplies for US troops were lined up along the border waiting for permission to enter on Tuesday. Several oil tankers bound for northeastern Afghanistan were sent back to Peshawar, where they are parked in streets and on roadsides, where they could be a soft target for militants.

Concerned that US-led forces in Afghanistan can't afford to go too long with out the essential supplies, US officials have moved quickly to try and mend relations, which were already deeply strained by the killing of Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in May.

It's amazing, really, how our Empire has converted a country which was once among our most docile and admiring clients into a problem child. Uncle used to be quite popular in Pakistan -- which is one of the reasons why my colleague is here, in New York, at the next aptly-named 'workstation' to my own.

But no more. And it looks as if the longer the Bush/Obama Afghanistan war goes on, the more the Paks are going to hate us -- and quite right, too.

It doesn't get much better than this.

Posted by Michael J. Smith on Friday December 2 10:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Gratifying. From Mike Flugennock.

Posted by Michael J. Smith on Friday December 2 04:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This is certainly the silliest post I have ever committed here, but I can't resist.

My indefatigable email correspondent, the damp and clammy Rabbi Michael Lerner, just deposited this in my inbox:

New on Tikkun Nov. 23:

Should circumcision still be practiced? ... We are also featuring perspectives on the Occupy movement and its future. And don't forget to order Rabbi Lerner's new book "Embracing Israel/Palestine," which makes a great holiday gift!

Posted by Michael J. Smith on Tuesday November 29 06:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (27)

Above, my new hero, Rabbi Meir Hirsch, the learned leader of the very Orthodox and very anti-Zionist group Neturei Karta. I have known about these folks for some time, partly because a good friend of mine, a thoroughgoingly atheist lapsed Jew and Bolshie, got very helpful support from them, a few years ago, to travel and do extensive research, which led to a couple of rather good books. I'm being coy about the name because I don't actually know just how confidential, or not, this arrangement was supposed to have been. Suffice it to say that Neturei Karta, though they are deep deep Talmudists and very into the higher esoterica of the religion, are anything but bigots when it comes to advancing the causes they believe in. They'll work with anybody.

Liberals, however, are a different breed of cat: far more sectarian, in fact, than the supposedly obscurantist scholars of Neturei Karta. And not nearly as smart.

Today a staunchly anti-Zionist Facebook 'friend' of mine -- who I wish was a friend in the 3D world, but whom alas I have never met -- posted a link to a rather interesting interview with Rabbi Hirsch. It reminded me again of the suppleness and subtlety of theological reasoning -- the same quality that sends me looking for earnest exegeses of the Epistle to the Romans on the radio when I'm sailing overnight. The analysis is a lot sharper than anything you'll find on NPR, when you get one of the good ones.

Perhaps predictably, my 'friend's' post brought howls of execration from liberal blockheads -- and not even because he was being anti-Zionist, which his friends and followers were used to, but for an altogether different reason:

Yes by all means opportunistically push these misogynistic scoundrels, "true torah jews," haha what a joke.

No one should be a fan. Its like taking the problematic yet strategic deployment of jewish voices then shrugging and throwing principle to the winds. They are circus freaks.

...misogynistic nut-jobs....

I love that misogyny to push an agenda has now been categorized under the banner of "human rights." btw, if this was a nutcase misogynistic Christian group, I'm willing to bet money you wouldn't even touch it, never mind post it.

Maybe they are; I don't know. But I was struck by the hysterical and even rather dehumanizing rhetoric of the beautiful humanists -- ''circus freaks,' 'nutcases'.

And oh the misogyny! Clearly the Orthodox Jews' supposed or actual 'misogyny' was supposed to disqualify them utterly from ally status. As would, no doubt, their position on the Gay Question and any number of other touchstones, ranging from a progressive income tax to proportional representation.

In fact, what it comes down to is that liberals can't be allies with anyone who doesn't think exactly as they do on every topic of any consequence. If this isn't the definition of sectarianism, what is?

Posted by Michael J. Smith on Saturday November 26 09:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (21)

From our pal Mike Flugennock.

Posted by Michael J. Smith on Friday November 25 05:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (17)

I could call this deranged wingnut boilerplate and leave it at that, but it's rare to find a NY Times blog post that draws so many reasonable comments. That's something special. So...

Mulligan, via CEPR, appears to be unfamiliar with the work of Fred Hayek, who was very much in favor of a "comprehensive system of social insurance " and saw no reason why there shouldn't be government interference to ensure such things as limits on working hours.

It is self-evident that if labour-time is reduced to a normal length and, furthermore, labour is no longer performed for someone else, but for myself, and, at the same time, the social contradictions between master and men, etc., being abolished, it acquires a quite different, a free character, it becomes real social labour, and finally the basis of disposable time—the labour of a man who has also disposable time, must be of a much higher quality than that of the beast of burden.*

Hayek also believed that workers deserve "a chance to decide whether the prospects of a particular occupation are sufficient to compensate for the disadvantages connected with it." They don't need to be immiserated until they're compliant. Hayek was opposed to that. Casey Mulligan really needs to read Road to Serfdom.

I typed that with a straight face. Honest, and it's all true too.

Okay, I've had my fun. One thing we do know for sure, as far as dependency goes, is that state protection for banksters does rob millions of Peters for the benefit of a handful of insatiable Pauls. The higher their compensation, the more handouts they demand. The more wealth they control, the less incentive they have to engage in productive activity. This is Econ 101!

*Some other guy, not Hayek.

Posted by Al Schumann on Wednesday November 23 09:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (30)