| |
Welcome to the Taking The Gloves Off
|
Blog, Commentary and Articles -
Foreign Policy, Military and War
|
|
Written by Sheldon Richman
|
|
Wednesday, 23 November 2011 |
|
War with Iran Would Be Madness
by Sheldon Richman President Obama’s refusal to rule out military action against Iran — and GOP contender Mitt Romney’s recent threat of war against Iran — should appall anyone who believes, with the free-market liberal Ludwig von Mises, that “not war, but peace, is the father of all things.” If the U.S. government or its client state Israel were to attack Iran, all hell would break loose. Thousands of Iranians would die. That country’s infrastructure would be destroyed, bringing even more death, disease, and misery. And the democratic Iranian Green Movement, which is against foreign intervention, would be destroyed. Iran’s government would retaliate by closing down the Strait of Hormuz, through which much oil passes, and launching attacks against American ground and naval forces in the region. In short, disaster would follow a U.S. attack or an Israeli attack — which would be seen, quite rationally, as a U.S.-backed operation. What would prompt the military assault? The powers that be, in maneuvers reminiscent of the buildup to the Iraq war, are trying to frighten the world into believing that Iran is building a nuclear weapon. Recent headlines in the stenographic news media would have us believe that the International Atomic Energy Agency has confirmed that the Iranians are working apace to build a bomb. We are left with the suggestion that once they succeed, a nuclear attack will promptly follow. This makes little sense. Why would Iran launch a nuclear attack that would mean certain oblivion for itself? The U.S. government can destroy the world with its nukes, and Israel, a nuclear power since the 1960s, has a couple of hundred warheads ready to go. Unlike Iran, Israel does not submit to IAEA inspections. If Iran were developing a nuclear weapon, it would clearly be in order to deter the sort of regime change that occurred in Iraq and Libya. The difference between how the U.S. government treated those countries and how it treats North Korea, which has a nuclear weapon, is hard to miss. But here’s the bigger problem for those ginning up war fever: There is no evidence Iran is developing a nuclear weapon! Iran is being threatened because it can’t prove it’s not doing so. Two U.S. National Intelligence Estimates, one in 2007 and one in 2011, judged that Iran shut down its nuclear weapons program in 2003. (NIEs represent the judgment of America’s dozen-and-a-half intelligence agencies.) But what about the most recent IAEA report? According to the Washington Post, Intelligence provided to U.N. nuclear officials shows that Iran’s government has mastered the critical steps needed to build a nuclear weapon, receiving assistance from foreign scientists to overcome key technical hurdles, according to Western diplomats and nuclear experts briefed on the findings.
Yet if one digs below the surface, one finds that the IAEA certified that Iran has not diverted nuclear materials from peaceful to military purposes. (Uranium appropriate for medical or power-generating purposes is unsuitable for making bombs.) While the report darkly alludes to “undeclared nuclear materials,” it provides no evidence that they exist. Many experts have ridiculed the politicized report as essentially recycling old dubious allegations. Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, two Middle East authorities on President George W. Bush’s National Security Council, wrote, The report … does not in any way demonstrate that Iran is “developing a nuclear weapon”. Rather, it once again affirms, as the IAEA has for decades, Iran’s “non-diversion” of nuclear material. In other words, even if the Islamic Republic wanted to build nuclear weapons (and Tehran continues to deny, at the highest levels of authority, that it wishes to do so) it does not have the weapons-grade material essential to the task.… [The] report [focused] on unsubstantiated intelligence reports, provided almost entirely by the United States, Israel, and other Western governments.… In fact, no one has ever produced a shred of evidence that Iran has ever actually tried to build a nuclear weapon or taken a decision to do so.”
The Obama administration says it prefers sanctions and diplomacy, but as long as Iran is required to prove a negative, the chance of war is real. The American military opposes it — Iran would make Iraq look like a schoolyard — yet Obama, Romney, and other prominent political figures rattle their sabers. This is sheer madness. Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation (www.fff.org) and editor of The Freeman magazine.  Be first to comment this article |  Add as favourites (6) |  Quote this article on your site | Views: 216
|
|
|
Blog, Commentary and Articles -
Health and Medicine
|
|
Written by James Landrith
|
|
Saturday, 19 November 2011 |
An Asshole named Alex Manley writing on "No to Movember" for The Link:
Perhaps Movember has become so popular because of the way we’re treating it—like it’s a cute little initiative worth supporting, like a child with a lemonade stand. It doesn’t feel serious, because, let’s face it, it isn’t when compared to other problems.
Men, by and large, are doing okay for themselves. They’re still out-earning women by significant amounts. Cancer doesn’t exist in a vacuum—it affects the whole of a person’s life. Disease aside, the richer a person is, the better their chances are, especially in countries where your cash inflow influences the quality of your care.
Men—or any privileged group—will have an inherent advantage when it comes to beating cancer and landing on their feet than more disadvantaged people.
So this November, let’s not keep patting the Mo-Bros on the head and tolerating this childish self-involvement-fest disguised as selflessness and the propagation online and in the media of the inherent importance of North American men and their problems.
Guys—keep shaving. Educate yourselves. Get checked. Be a man about it—don’t act like you’re hard-done-by.
There are a lot of people in the world who would trade your slight risk of prostate cancer for their serious risk of being raped, being killed, starving to death, or dying of preventable diseases. Prostate cancer is a hallmark of privilege. Deal with it.
And for everyone, if you’re going to donate money somewhere this month—and I encourage you to—look around for a cause more worthy, that’ll help some group that needs it more. I assure you, you won’t have trouble finding one.
Wow, getting cancer and then getting saved from said cancer is privilege? What are you going to say to a wife who buried her husband over prostate cancer? Or a child who misses their father? That she should be happy he was privileged for so long? While the mortality rates are lower, some men still die, while others deal with painful surgeries, chemotherapy, loss of income, and the same fears that other cancer patients fight as well.
I lost a wonderful and beautiful aunt to cancer and I'm also married to a cancer survivor. I appreciate that you have now apologized (link here), but how dare you even attempt to justify your actions. You have ZERO defense and your empathy failure is unbelievably huge. Also, did you really use rape survivors as a means of shaming men (and their family and friends) concerned about prostate cancer?
FUCKING REALLY?
I AM A RAPE SURVIVOR and I'm also concerned about prostate cancer.
Your empathy fail is on an epic scale.
Do you really believe that all men in North America are rich, have adequate health coverage and deserve to be mocked for being concerned about cancer? Should their partners, friends and families call you when they cannot pay the exorbitant medical bills? You gonna bankroll them, since you don't want them to get any funds, voluntarily donated from others? This is simply inexcusable and the weak apology you've offered is insufficient. Show you care by covering the issue with some empathy and maturity. Then, get out your checkbook and really show you care.
How can you even look in the mirror after writing this minimizing, taunting, childish and mean screed? This hateful article moved the term offensive to levels I cannot even begin to fathom. Apologies are meaningless in the face of such childish, callous, and hateful musings directed at cancer survivors and their supporters. You should resign but won't as you've clearly made this more about you in your apology and less about your actions. You cannot possibly explain this away with an "oops, my bad." Megan Dolski, Opinions Editor for The Link, had this to say by way of an apology : ...as the editor of the opinions section I think it is crucial to retain the ability to publish articles that argue a point-of-view other than my own—my job is by no means to be a gatekeeper who exercises the authority to determine which opinions are “good” or “bad.” Whether or not an article jives with my ideological standpoint is an irrelevant factor in determining whether or not it makes it to print.
As an editor and publisher, I am not unfamiliar with controversial topics and strongly worded commentaries. That said, if you cannot tell the difference between thought-provoking commentary and sexist, classist, callous, outright mockery of cancer patients, then you are really not ready for this responsibility. I appreciate that both Alex Manley and Megan Dolski have offered apologies for their roles in the mean-spirited mockery of male cancer survivors. However, I question their sincerity given how they are still defending their actions via the "apology" offered by each. James A. Landrith
Editor and Publisher
The Multiracial Activist
The Abolitionist Examiner
http://www.multiracial.com
Syndicated Blogger
Taking The Gloves Off
http://www.jameslandrith.com Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (33) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 878 |
|
Last Updated ( Saturday, 19 November 2011 )
|
|
|
Blog, Commentary and Articles -
Rape, Sexual Assault and Abuse
|
|
Written by James Landrith
|
|
Tuesday, 15 November 2011 |
|
If you’ve been around the blogosphere for longer than five minutes, you may have noticed recurring discussions on sexual violence and feminist related blogs related to the need for men need to step up and take a bigger role in prevention and recovery. I’m not going to dispute that. Men do need to assume a higher profile, but as equal and respected partners, rather than out of guilt or as some form of penance for the actions of other men. That said,some people may not like the form that such involvement can take. Putting Away the Keyboard More often than not, the role that men are expected to assume by such bloggers, particularly by those who are not directly involved in real world advocacy themselves, is that of background support for the work of women already in the field. There is a philosophy, promoted by some, that men involved in sexual violence work should never seek leadership roles or question the present orthodoxy in any way. For some men, that may be a good fit. However, there are far greater opportunities available to men interested in making a real difference in sexual violence prevention or survivor advocacy programs. Typically, men involved in sexual violence work are expected to engage ONLY in the following ways: - Attend Men Can Stop Rape events and programs.
- Raise funds for crisis centers and prevention programs.
- Participate in protests and walks such as Slutwalks, Take Back The Night events, or locally inspired actions.
- Join campus organizations as an ally.
Making a Difference There is nothing wrong with any of these approaches to involvement. If that is how you choose to make an impact, then I encourage you to make the most out of it. That said, there are many other under-utilized opportunities for men to get involved in sexual violence work. Some examples are below: - Volunteer and train as a crisis line counselor. – Contrary to opinion among some in the blogosphere who do not engage in real world advocacy, not all female survivors want to talk to another woman. Some female survivors are impartial with regard to the gender of the person on the other end of the phone. Others still, prefer a male voice on the phone. Additionally, some male survivors may prefer to talk to another man.
- Join an advocacy organization that is involved locally. – Attend meetings, sign up for committees and participate in campaigns and events. Make your presence known through your actions and attitude. Don’t be afraid to make suggestions or question the status quo if you believe there is a better or more efficient way to accomplish a particular goal. Remember that an idea’s validity is not determined based on the genitalia of its proponent. The people who believe such nonsense tend not to be involved in the real world grunt work.
- Participate in a survivor speaker’s bureau. – If you are a survivor and at a place in your healing where you feel comfortable sharing, this can be a very healing and high impact form of involvement. Please remember that most survivors will NEVER feel comfortable with public disclosure. It is not a reflection on your healing or courage if you choose to not get involved with public speaking. For those of you who do get involved, you will be surprised at how many organizations are eager to hear from male survivors. The overwhelmingly vast majority of survivor speakers tend to be white females and event planners are looking to diversify their discussion topics. The impact of your presentation may be the very thing a survivor suffering in silence needs to feel validated and worthy of healing. Your words can help change someone’s life and further heal your own wounds.
- Speak out online and offline when you feel the need. – There are so many ways to change opinions and make an impact that don’t require the access and approval of specific organizations. Campaigns to rid Facebook of troubling groups that make light of sexual violence; correcting rape myths in everyday life as you confront them; and getting involved in legislative and legal campaigns when possible are additional options.
Potential Obstacles and Challenges As a man involved in sexual violence work, you can expect to confront some very uncomfortable situations. For instance, you may be put into the “perp” box from time to time. This can come in the form of fellow advocates who promote generalizations based on gender. Also, you may experience the same while in contact with female survivors of male rapists. The latter will be the hardest to overcome as you are dealing with a person who has had their trust violated in an extreme and traumatic manner. The former may come via people who are confusing advocacy work with ideological agendas. While this is far more common online with people who do not commit to real world advocacy, it can still occur offline in more limited supply. When in contact with female survivors struggling with severe trust issues, you will need to work hard to gain trust and this will take patience. It is not your job to “fix” anyone. You are support to those who want your support. Your actions, more than anything, will communicate loudest to such female survivors. For some, you will never be trustworthy. You cannot control this and should not be made to feel guilty for the actions of those who hurt them. It is not possible to truly make a difference if you are attempting to atone for the actions of others. It is not a burden you can bear and no good will come of it for the survivor in the end. All you can do in such a situation is to put forth your best work and stay focused on the organization or campaign’s goals. Advocates, however, have no excuse for treating male volunteers like pariahs or subjecting them to abuse or discrimination. Such treatment should be challenged as it is not appropriate in what is expected to be a healing environment. Bigotry and hatred have no place in sexual violence related efforts. If such advocates are willing to treat men who have volunteered their precious time and money in such a manner, they surely cannot be trusted around vulnerable male survivors or even female survivors who have been hurt by other women. Keeping It Real It is important to remember when dealing with any trauma survivor, that the healing process is theirs to own. It is entirely their decision as to how they heal and who they allow to assist them on that journey. No survivor should be made to feel pressured or emotionally manipulated to accept anyone’s help regardless of how sincere it may be offered if said help is not something the survivor is comfortable accepting. Everyone heals at their own pace and on their own terms. That should be respected without question or debate. Sexual violence survivors often create multiple layers of emotional barriers to protect themselves from harm. It is entirely the survivor’s decision who they allow to breach those walls. Please remember to respect that while serving the greater needs of the survivor community. Far too often, advocates and volunteers completely lose sight of the real reason they are doing the work – the needs of the individual survivor and potential future victims. So long as you always bear in mind both the why AND who, you will be prepared to make a real and lasting impact. Whatever your reasons for getting involved, please remember to take care of yourself as well. Working with survivors or on related campaign issues can be exhausting and emotionally stressful, even if you are not a survivor yourself. Practicing good self-care will ensure you are able to participate to the best of your ability and keep your mind and body in tune with your goals as a volunteer. Why I Do It In 2008, I finally decided to acknowledge what happened to me so many years ago as rape. I was drugged, raped and then blackmailed into silence by a female friend of a friend. As I’ve been involved in civil liberties work for years, it was a natural progression for me to add sexual violence work to my agenda. I had already acquired a thick skin from years of publishing The Multiracial Activist and The Abolitionist Examiner magazines online as well as participating in multiple civil liberties coalitions and efforts to include a U.S. Supreme Court case. Since then, I have blogged about my own experience and related topics frequently on multiple websites. I’ve been interviewed online, via podcast and for print publication. As an active member of the speakers bureau for RAINN and speaker/trainer for the Survivors Caucus of the Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action Alliance I’ve visited college campuses, youth groups and churches to discuss rape myths, survivor needs and participate in panel discussions on sexual and domestic violence. My own story has been adapted for use by the Empowerment Theatre on stage. In addition, I was interviewed for a video segment that is shown during Precious Porter’s awesome one-woman performance of “No More Drama: Love Should Not Hurt”, which was recently performed/screened for a group of over 3,000 attendees in Atlanta, Georgia. Online, I am moderator for the Facebook group associated with the healing handbook Resurrection After Rape. In addition, I serve as a Section Moderator at Pandora’s Aquarium, one of the largest online mixed gender rape survivor communities. Offline, I have served as a secondary survivor for several female and male survivors who have done the same for me. However you choose to make an impact is your decision. Just remember to keep your goals in mind and take care of yourself mentally and physically. This is important, but emotionally painful work. I salute each and every one of you who decide to take on such a burden. ___________________________ James Landrith is a rape survivor, public speaker, internationally syndicated blogger, civil liberties activist and the notorious editor and publisher of The Multiracial Activist (ISSN: 1552-3446) and The Abolitionist Examiner (ISSN: 1552-2881). Landrith can be reached by email at:
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
or at his personal website/blog. Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (37) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 975 |
|
Last Updated ( Monday, 05 December 2011 )
|
|
|
Blog, Commentary and Articles -
Immigration
|
|
Written by Sheldon Richman
|
|
Friday, 11 November 2011 |
|
What Immigration Problem?
by Sheldon Richman Arizona, Alabama, and Georgia have each enacted stringent laws aimed at curbing illegal immigration. Before saying more, let’s be clear about the alleged problem. What is an “illegal immigrant”? It’s simply a person — possessing natural rights, mind you — who comes to the United States without the permission of the U.S. government. Now isn’t it curious that in this country, which began in rebellion against and secession from an empire, people are upset about other people moving around without government permission? In revolutionary times the smuggler of goods was a hero, and the customs agent was a villain. If we were true to the best parts of our heritage today the “illegal” would be a hero, and the border agent would be a villain. This shows how far we have slipped from America’s substantially libertarian origins. This is really quite sad. Imagine if we Americans needed government permission to move from state to state. We’d be appalled at the hassle, not to mention the grave interference with our freedom. Would we put up with it? I hope not. Then what is the justification for having an elaborate, presumptuous, tax-financed bureaucracy whose purpose is to determine who may live in this country? Rights belong to all human beings, not just to Americans. Note that the Constitution expressly protects the rights of persons, not just those of American citizens. But, we are told, a country is not a country without secure borders. Why? This premise goes unexamined. A country is defined by its traditions and attitudes rather than by its border checkpoints and armed guards. It is disheartening to hear people claim to believe that America is not synonymous with government and yet favor harsh measures to “secure our border” and stop free migration. All the economic arguments for stemming the flow of immigrants fall when examined even casually. The nativists can’t quite get their story straight. Are the newcomers ambitious go-getters trying to “take our jobs,” or are they freeloaders planning to collect welfare? Those who are afraid of the former fail to understand that people not only produce when they hold jobs, but also consume. Newcomers expand the market and the division of labor, which Adam Smith taught us is the path to higher living standards. Some opponents of immigration bring up the current high unemployment as an objection. But that is purely a government-produced phenomenon, and it has nothing to do with immigrants. Seriously, scapegoating does not become us. As for any government-financed services that immigrants might use, let’s not forget that they also pay a good deal in taxes. There’s no reason to think they are a net drain on the welfare state. But that is really beside the point. If we don’t want people living off the taxpayers — and this should apply to American citizens as well — we should transfer welfare services to private charity and the free market. There is no good reason for government — the essence of which is physical force — to be running schools and hospitals, which are the tax-financed facilities most likely to be used by immigrants. I really see no moral difference between a citizen and a noncitizen taking advantage of a government program. The most objectionable aspect of government largess is not whoaccepts it but how the politicians obtain the resources that they then distribute. Taxation is robbery. Finally, there is a good deal of worry on the Right these days that immigration is making “white America” a thing of the past. Those who hold this view say earlier immigration presented little concern because most newcomers were European and could assimilate into American culture. But this is selective memory in the first degree: virtually every group from Europe was at one time spoken of in the same degrading and alarmist terms as are today’s Latino and Muslim immigrants. In fact, as Thaddeus Russell documents in his fascinating book, A Renegade History of the United States, almost every European immigrant group — including Italians, Irishmen, Poles, and Jews — were initially not considered to be white! As a result, many of the new immigrants felt close to blacks and African-American culture. Only with the passage of time were they admitted into the ranks of the white race by the establishment. The more things change, the more things stay the same. Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation (www.fff.org ) and editor of The Freeman magazine. Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (30) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 649 |
|
|
Blog, Commentary and Articles -
Economics and Financial Services
|
|
Written by Sheldon Richman
|
|
Saturday, 05 November 2011 |
|
Opponents of Occupy Wall Street Harm the Cause of Freedom
by Sheldon Richman After many weeks, Occupy Wall Street and its kindred demonstrations around the country are still a source of headline controversy — even aside from the police manhandling of protesters. And yet the disparate coalition of discontent with contemporary America has not coalesced around a single set of aims. Unfortunately, the loudest voices call for more government management of the economy, when it is precisely that which got us into the mess we have yet to dig out from. The protesters don’t seem to understand that the great meltdown which began in 2008 grew out of joint management of the finance and housing industries by several government agencies — including the Federal Reserve System — and the captains of those industries themselves. Contrary to popular misconception, this was no case of rampant deregulation, but rather one of rampant regulatory privilege .. Avoiding the debacle would have required not only actual deregulation but also, and crucially, “de-privilegization.” Every device to protect banks from their own folly — from deposit insurance to implicit guarantees to the Fed’s promise of emergency cash injections — has contributed to the misery that sent the protesters into the street. Oddly, Wall Street’s critics give little attention to the constellation of privileges that were championed by housing and finance for years. Instead, they believe that justice lies in more vigorous government regulation. The problems here are that regulatory agencies invariably end up serving the regulated industries, which sometimes write their own rules, and that even regulators with the best of intentions can’t know what they would need to know to serve the public’s true interest. So they are bound to do more harm than good. The protesters need to understand that a free economy is not an unregulated economy — far from it. Market forces, when not impeded by politicians and bureaucrats serving special interests — are the toughest regulators, punishing firms that waste resources, destroy value, and fail to serve consumers. In other words, the authors and administrators of the Dodd-Frank financial-regulation regime are the enemies, not the friends, of justice for the 99 percent. Who will be in a better position to participate in the rule writing: the average person or the head of a big bank? Demanding more power for government is equivalent to demanding more privileges for Wall Street. When will the protesters realize that? Another source of confusion hangs over Occupy Wall Street, and it comes from many critics of the protests. It is a sad spectacle to see self-styled advocates of the free market come to Wall Street’s defense, as though it were the natural product of spontaneous market forces rather than a creature of the corporate-state partnership that has characterized the American economy for generations. When people who claim to favor free markets rally to Wall Street’s defense, seemingly oblivious to the poisonous corporatist partnership, they harm the cause of freedom by encouraging the protesters to conflate freedom with probusiness statism. Free-marketers should not be protecting Wall Street from criticism; rather they should be educating the protest movement about the true nature of the problem. How can Occupy Wall Street activists be taught that their real adversary is the corporate state, not free markets, if defenders of Wall Street talk as though we have free markets today? (That message is subtle, but it’s coming through just the same.) Part of Occupy Wall Street’s complaints concerns income inequality, specifically the growing gap between the top 1 percent of income earners and everyone else. Income statistics are tricky, and much is hidden by the fact that people move to and from the various income levels all the time. Moreover, the influx of poor immigrants can depress the median income even though no one is worse off. Nevertheless, it is true that a few people in banking and housing made and held onto fabulous fortunes thanks to government — that is, taxpayer — help. In other words, America’s skewed income configuration cannot have been the result of purely free exchange. Yet many advocates of a free market respond defensively to any criticism of income inequality as though it is their cherished system of natural liberty that is under assault. But we have had no such system, and free marketers set back the cause whenever they imply otherwise. Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation (www.fff.org ) and editor of The Freeman magazine. Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (29) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 657 |
|
| << Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
| | Results 31 - 35 of 3125 |
|
|
