Thursday, January 8, 2009



Keep it simple: bombing civilians in Palestine, Israel, Gaza, New York, Bagdad, Dresden, Panama is the same action everywhere committed by the same people. There are those who find a way to justify mass anonymous slaughter of innocents and those who oppose it. The justifications of religion, revenge, profit and security can never be enough and will never sway those who simply oppose such murder. If for such ideas I am an anti Semite then you have turned that curse into a hollow joke. No one calls me anti-Muslim for saying that the Hamas government is wrong for their random missiles, no one calls me anti-Christian for opposing the invasion of Iraq and I have yet to hear the damnation of anti Confucionist (or even anti Maoist) for my support of Tibet. yet deny Israel the right granted to none and suddenly it is a special prejudice I hold. Whether you defend your murders by calling names or invoking historical injustices or religious fears or even disproportionate self defense, you defend the defenseless. - mulcher

Two arrogant, ultra violent, inhumane, religiously bigoted cultures, murdering each other until one or both are extinct. That's not a problem, sounds more like progress. Keep it up folks, neither side of your hypocritical holy war will be missed by the rest of human race.

We would do extremely well not to forget that in the none-too-distant past, the Arabs were quite ready and willing to make common cause with those same Nazis toward the creation of a "Jew-free" Middle East. I don't advocate supporting the madness of the Israeli policy that is resulting in the daily deaths of children; but neither am I quite fool enough to simply whitewash away the sins of the Muslim world with regard to their Semitic brethren; there is little reason to doubt that the brutality and carnage would have been just as severe had the Arabs been given the upper hand. Neither side are innocent lambs in this conflict, and those with little sense of history or knowledge of the past would do damned well to realize this.

Neither side is in the right in this conflict and never has been, at least not for many years. The international community needs to take a much harder line with both Israel and Palestine, as well as the Muslim nations in general. Cutting off the feed trough to all parties would be a good start, until all agree to get serious about negotiations, and once implemented, the hard line needs to continue until such time as actual, as opposed to paper, progress is being made. Until then, the kind of petty back-and-forth squabbling that goes on here between pro-Palestinians and pro-Israelis is nothing more than a perfect microcosm of the ultimate futility and fatuity of what is happening in the Middle East. The world is becoming sick and tired of the stupid intransigence on both sides, and it is time (well past time really) for the world community to force a halt to this.

We all have blood on our hands since we give Israel more aid than any other country and give them the weapons to kill non-Jews. I am not anti-Semitic but I am really starting to be very uncomfortable with this situation. - Beth

There are, unfortunately, readers and commenters here (and elsewhere) who are going to use the Israel/Palestine hostilities as fodder for their own problems with the Jewish people as a whole. Generally speaking, in reading the comments in the Review, I find this type pretty easy to spot, and I imagine most other readers do too. I don't especially like the degree of editorial tolerance their views seem to be given here, but I guess that's one of the drawbacks of running a site where free expression is given full play.

If the majority of Muslims are actually opposed to what Israel is doing, then why are Muslim nations such as Egypt cooperating and working with Israel to blockade Gaza? Why don't they open the borders and let the Gazans travel in their country? Why? Because they know the truth.


Capitalism flourishes in the environment of population expansion. It languishes in the environment of population contraction. That's why it's pointless to call for progressives to all get together and defeat capitalism. It's like defeating gravity. What it would take to stabilize and reverse the prevailing trend of population growth would entail the cooperation of great masses of people. Ain't gonna happen.


Environmentalists who oppose nuclear power make my head spin. If you look at the 100 billion gallons of coal produced sludge released this week in Tennessee, you start to see how destructive and polluting coal is. This toxic sludge is only the stuff that was maintained in a solid form, it is trivial in its impact when compared to that of the acid rain, vaporized mercury and other heavy metals and carbon dioxide. We release 45,000 tons of mercury from coal fired plants into the atmosphere and then the rest of the biosphere. Those who think that there are other sources of energy that competes with nuclear besides coal has simply not done their homework - Ken

This is a case where the available alternatives range from worse to much worse. No other energy source or combination can provide the level of energy nukes can except by massively and constantly polluting. Pollution is a known killer, and it does its lethal work unceasingly. That's not true of nuke plant operation, those green fear rumors notwithstanding. Nukes are potentially devastating, but not necessarily so.

They also have a limited lifespan because the fuel (uranium ore) is not available in unlimited -or even large- amounts. It can keep us going for about 100 years.

But if Prof. Lovelock is correct (and there's no reason to think he's not), in 100 years we're either going to have solved the climate problem that now makes nukes our best (even only) choice or we are going to be circling the drain as a species and taking all other high-order life forms with us. Presumably we'd rather avoid that latter outcome.

To avoid killing ourselves, it seems to me that our choices are few: stop being a technological species, at least for awhile; immediately find a non-polluting source of power not currently known; or use nukes while we scramble like hell to develop something better.

I suspect Obama is touting nukes for all the wrong reasons, but that doesn't make nukes the wrong interim solution. - Mairead

Of course corporate-owned pols would think nuclear power is a feasible 'alternative' energy source. Nuclear power is powered by a commodity that can be easily corporate owned (just think Standard Uranium instead of Standard Oil), as opposed to true alternative energy sources such as solar and wind, neither of which it would be very easy for the corporados to claim ownership rights in. This would seem to be the most obvious explanation for Obama's push to more nuclear power development, and yet it seems to occur to very few people.

We need to develop all forms of alternative energy (wind, solar and biofuels, however, nuclear power is safe and effective. Almost 80% of all power generated in France comes from atomic energy. Expansion of nuclear power will reduce carbon emissions and create a lot of good-paying jobs. Nuclear energy is not a right vs. left issue. Instead of attacking nuclear power, the left should be calling for building more nuke plants under public ownership.


The 3+ trillion bucks the government has thrown at the banks since August would have gone a long way in refitting the country for the post-petroleum age. Instead we've lost 3+ trillion and have nothing to show for it. Oh well.


Save the planet. Kill yourself.

No you don't, but there's a shit load of money to be made in promoting, in a coded fashion, just that idea. Just look at publications such as the disgustingly elitist 'green home' magazine Dwell (which purports to be aimed at ordinary people, but invariably prints articles about trendy Yup families in their 'green' homes who are clearly in the high five-to-six-figure-a-year income bracket, and builders who sneer that their eco-friendly small prefab houses aren't for "people who live in trailer parks", and whose ads and promotional pieces are all for companies who sell supposedly 'earth-friendly' luxury products that are needless consumer goods just the same), and you'll quickly come to realize that much of the whole 'green' idea is little more than a passing fad aimed at the wannabe hip twenty percent of the economy who can afford to indulge their fantasies of being responsible stewards of the earth while continuing on in the binge-spend-consume lifestyle that they have been led to believe they are eminently entitled to pursue. - Right Democrat


At January 8, 2009 10:02 PM, Anonymous robbie said...

Hey Sam! Hey Sam! Obama has done something I actually like!!

WASHINGTON (AP) — President-elect Barack Obama is urging Congress to postpone the Feb. 17 switch from analog to digital television broadcasting, arguing that too many Americans who rely on analog TV sets to pick up over-the-air channels won't be ready.

And I don't even have a TV.

At January 9, 2009 10:13 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The idiotic assertion that both sides are to blame while IDF slaughters children is almost as foul (or should I say fowl- as in chickenshit?) as the claim of self defense with missl;es, tanks, helicopters, and jets against flesh and blood.
"I don't want no peace. I need equal rights and justice."- Peter Tosh


Post a Comment

<< Home