Of Abortion, and Women as the Ultimate Source of Evil

As I've said here many times before, no one that I know writing today is making the kinds of profound connections that Arthur Silber makes, year after year: drawing out the deeper implications of the operations of power on every level of our lives, from the global scope of high politics to the still, dark night of the individual psyche.- Chris Floyd

In terms of the political theory involved, the basic question is a stark and simple one: if you cannot control your own body, what other rights can you possibly have? If your body is not yours, what does it matter if you can freely express your political and religious convictions? The principle involved is similarly simple: as long as you are not violating anyone else's rights, your right to control your own body is absolute. Period. Arthur Silber

Of Abortion, and Women as the Ultimate Source of Evil
by Arthur Silber
August 09, 2007

There are a great many aspects of today's world that are variously horrifying, ghastly, destructive and appalling -- and among the very worst is an idea that appears to be rapidly gaining support: the noxious notion that all questions relating to abortion rights should be returned to the states. For many reasons, only a few of which are discussed below, this idea is completely incoherent as a matter of political theory, and it undercuts any defense of individual rights on the most fundamental level. If you give a damn at all about the liberty of a single human being, you should oppose all such attempts to your last breath.

The human being to which I refer is not the developing fetus, but the woman who carries the child. I well understand that many people believe that the fetus is a human being long before birth, with all the rights that attend to that designation. In the political context, I consider all such beliefs irrelevant, no matter how sincerely and deeply held. Only one ultimate point matters here: whether you think the developing fetus is a human being or not, the fetus is contained in and supported by the woman's body. If the woman's body did not exist, neither would the fetus. Only the woman's existence makes that of the fetus possible.

The fetus only exists because of the woman's body -- not yours, not that of some possibly corrupt and stupid politician in Washington, and not the body of some possibly ignorant and venal politician in a state legislature. As I have watched this debate develop, and as I have considered with astonishment the increasingly byzantine efforts to " draw lines" about the point of viability, the time at which a full set of rights attaches to the fetus, and all the rest, I have become increasingly convinced that the right of the woman to control her own body when she is pregnant must be absolute up to the point of birth. All the attempts to craft legislation circumscribing that right prior to birth quickly become enmeshed in what are finally subjective claims that can be disputed into eternity, and impossible of proof in one direction or another.

Certainly, the woman's right to an abortion must be absolute in the first and second trimesters of pregnancy. And even in the third trimester, up to the time of birth, that right must be absolute, and the decision must be that of the woman in consultation with those medical personnel she chooses. Yes, a decision to abort late in pregnancy may be agonizingly difficult, just as it may be at an earlier time -- but whatever agony is involved is that of the woman, not a politician or bureaucrat who is unjustly empowered to make decisions that affect someone else on the most profound level. The responsibility and the consequences are the woman's, and no one else's. The choice is also hers, and no one else's.

In terms of the political theory involved, the basic question is a stark and simple one: if you cannot control your own body, what other rights can you possibly have? If your body is not yours, what does it matter if you can freely express your political and religious convictions? The principle involved is similarly simple: as long as you are not violating anyone else's rights, your right to control your own body is absolute. Period. For the reason indicated above, the fetus is not a person in the same sense the mother is: the fetus would not exist but for the woman who carries it. The woman's right to her own body must, in fact and in logic, take precedence over whatever rights you believe the fetus possesses, up to the time of birth.

I must note that the same principle makes any kind of military draft or mandatory national service equally invalid, and equally destructive of individual rights. If the government can take control of your body for two or four years, and possibly even send you to your death, what does it matter if you have the right of free speech, or any other right? Liberals in particular ought to note that the argument is the same with regard to abortion and in connection with a draft or national service. If they want to engage in blatant contradictions, and support abortion rights and simultaneously advocate a draft or national service, they surrender any claim to intellectual coherence and consistency, and they will get precisely what they deserve. Tragically, many women and many other citizens will also suffer the consequences. more

What is there to thank our soldiers for?

Still trying to bring a promised piece by Arthur Silber, I am yet again sidetracked and failed in mission. Sidetracked on Silber's instructions though I must add, where he recommends reading the complete article from which he himself took the following.

What is there to thank our soldiers for? They are not defending our freedoms. They are not keeping us safe from our enemies. They are not protecting us from terrorists. They are not guaranteeing our First Amendment rights. They are not defending U.S. borders. They are not guarding U.S. shores. They are not patrolling U.S. coasts. They are not enforcing no-fly zones over U.S. skies. They are not fighting "over there" so we don't have to fight "over here." They are not avenging 9/11. They are not safeguarding the American way of life. Oh, and they are not ensuring that I have the liberty to write what I do about the military.

Of that, more in a moment. Firstly, a little something from myself to set the mood; part of a previous article.


Tawdry Tears and Tombstones
January 20, 2007

Tawdry. Taw-dry adjective
1. showy but without real value.
2. of finery: gaudy; showy and cheap.
3. low or mean; base: tawdry motives.
4. noun. Cheap, gaudy apparel.

The first description I feel best befits this image of Bush as he sheds a tear, or do I do the man a disservice and the tear is genuine? If it is, I can but only think that it is not shed for the marine who was being honoured, but shed for George W Bush.

And is that marine buried at Arlington Mister Bush? You are hardly likely to know are you, not for you the funerals of those that you sent so eagerly to their needless deaths, no Mister Bush, for those who’s lives you ended so prematurely, just a cold patch of earth and a tombstone.
Tombstones Mister Bush, those tombstones that caused me to write these comments some time ago in a forum other than where I write this.

Shame and decency are not to be found.
Yet they offer the parents of the dead a free headstone if it bears the inscription "Operation Iraqi Freedom"

Shameless, and overflowing with abject hypocrisy. Bush knows all too well why the troops died, I hope the spirit of the countless thousands, the spirit of every dead man woman or child haunts the son of a bitch to the grave and beyond.

But he cannot see the irony of this “magnanimous” gesture, forever and a day will that inscription, “Operation Iraqi Freedom” etched in stone, mock the man and his presidency for what they truly are.

But the bitterest of ironies is lost on this fool, because forever and a day those words will be synonymous with:

“They died for nothing.”

- - -

The above, in contrast to much I have written on America's armed forces, and in contrast to the crux of the featured article. is about the most forgiving thing I have ever penned on the subject of the Pentagons hired killers. But what is writ below is something that I couldn't hold truer in my own heart.

Thank a Vet?
by Laurence M. Vance

We've all seen the bumper stickers: "My son is in the Air Force," "If You Can Read This in English, Thank a Marine," "Proud Vietnam Veteran," "Fly Navy," and of course, "Thank a Vet."

Why should we?

Why should we call them heroes, give them military discounts, grant them veterans preference, express our support for them with ribbons on our cars, honor them with a holiday, hold military appreciation church services for them, and thank them for their "service"?

Veterans Day began as Armistice Day to commemorate the signing of the armistice that ended World War I. It had nothing to do with honoring current and former members of the military like Veterans Day is celebrated today. And if the sole purpose of Armistice Day was to honor World War I veterans, it should never have been celebrated since no American soldier did anything honorable by intervening in a European foreign war. And it doesn't matter if he was drafted or not.

Britain's last World War I combat veteran, Harry Patch, died last year at the age of 111. He boasted that he hadn't killed anyone in combat. "War isn't worth one life," Patch said, it is "calculated and condoned slaughter of human beings." In his autobiography The Last Fighting Tommy, Patch wrote that "politicians who took us to war should have been given the guns and told to settle their differences themselves, instead of organising nothing better than legalised mass murder." In the last years of his life, Patch warned some young naval recruits that they shouldn't join. more

Eternal Punishment: Obama Leads Third Century of Imperial Revenge on Haiti

Leaving behind for a while, the trials and tribulations of that testament to man's folly, the nuclear installation at Fukushima Japan, I thought it time I caught up on a writer I have sadly neglected since I was away blogging other things.

That writer, and much neglected on my part, the unique Arthur Silber. Let me borrow the same few lines that I used recently to introduce both Arthur Silber and his philosophical piece: Of Abortion, and Women as the Ultimate Source of Evil.

As I've said here many times before, no one that I know writing today is making the kinds of profound connections that Arthur Silber makes, year after year: drawing out the deeper implications of the operations of power on every level of our lives, from the global scope of high politics to the still, dark night of the individual psyche.- Chris Floyd

This introduction, serving both purposes as it does, the promise of things to come from Mr Silber, and to introduce you to the writer of those few words, Chris Floyd. Who I have to say, judging by this one article alone, ain't too shabby in the literary department himself.

Arthur Silber coming soon, I just need to find my something of choice, your item of interest, out of what I can only describe as a monumental output of material from Arthur Silber's pen. All of it most readable.

Eternal Punishment: Obama Leads Third Century of Imperial Revenge on Haiti
Written by Chris Floyd
Saturday, 02 April 2011 00:41

The blood and thunder (or is it thud and blunder?) of the American-led intervention in Libya has obscured one of the more revealing episodes of our times -- especially for those many millions who still cling to the idea that Barack Obama is somehow an improvement, however slight, over the ruthless, lawless, corroded souls who preceded him in the post of imperial manager.

We speak of course of the American rigging of the election in battered, helpless Haiti -- a brazen effort to disenfranchise the majority of the population and ensure the election of a vicious -- but acquiescent -- client to the presidency. This sordid episode comes complete with a personal intervention by the Nobel Peace Laureate himself to try to continue the exile and persecution of the democratically elected Haitian president overthrown by George W. Bush in a brutal coup.

Even as he was scheming with the CIA to put covert American "boots on the ground" in the Libyan civil war, Obama and his dream team have been maneuvering like mad to put one of a pair of right-wing fanatics into office in Haiti while excluding any other candidates from the running -- including those from Haiti's biggest political party. Obama also personally called South African President Jacob Zuma to ask to keep holding Bush-ousted former Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Africa and prevent him from returning to his native land before the election.

With the sublime hypocrisy that has become the hallmark of this most mendacious militarist administration, an Obama spokesman said the Peace Laureate opposed Aristide's return due to "deep concerns that President Aristide's return to Haiti in the closing days of the election could be destabilising," adding that the defender of freedom and democracy believes "that the Haitian people deserve the chance to choose their government through peaceful, free and fair elections."

Even from Team Obama, this is pretty rich. After blocking the largest political party from running, then forcing a run-off between two former supporters of vicious coups, Obama said he didn't want Haiti's democratically elected former leader to return to the homeland he was trundled from at gunpoint by Bushist goons in order to give the Haitian people "a free, fair election."

The result has been a record-low turnout and run-off so riddled with corruption that it may be weeks before one of America's hand-picked stooges is declared the winner. Meanwhile, Aristide did return -- Zuma told Obama plainly that Astride was a free man, he had a passport from his home country, and "I cannot hold him hostage." He did not interfere with the election, he endorsed no candidate. Most of his supporter simply boycotted the election, because of its blatant illegitimacy.

So this is what Barack Obama and his partner in imperialism, the globe-trotting Hillary Clinton, have been up to on the side while they are killing children in Libya and bluntly declaring to Congress that Obama will not acknowledge any restriction on his imperial will to wage war where whenever and wherever he damn well pleases. As John Caruso notes in a blistering post: more

Kingdom of Evil - Bradley Manning

As promised below, the pen and a look through the eyes of extraordinary writer, Arthur Silber.

Update below: Bradley Manning Now "Catatonic"; Obama ENOUGH!

Kingdom of Evil
by Arthur Silber
March 05, 2011

A human being can be destroyed in a seemingly infinite number of ways, as history repeatedly demonstrates. Our capacity for cruelty is limitless. It would appear to defy gratification. We are all too familiar with the horrifying varieties of physical violence inflicted on the human body, but there is another method of seeking to destroy those whom we have designated as enemies to our own survival. In one critical respect, this method is worse than injuries that might be visited on our fragile corporeal form, for while the body may survive intact, the person -- that is, his mind and soul -- will never be made whole again.

This method of destruction throws the victim into a nightmare world, one which mocks every effort to comprehend it. Cruelty is presented as compassion and solicitude for the victim's well-being; the words of justification seek to convince those who suffer that their unbearable pain should be accepted for their own good. The victim knows that every utterance of his tormentors is a lie, and the more he attempts to understand why they act so monstrously, the greater his suffering grows. The victim can never escape these lacerating questions:



How is it possible that human beings could treat another person in this manner?

How can I survive in a world in which such cruelties not only occur with soul-destroying regularity, but in which these cruelties are considered necessary and moral?

If the victim should conclude that he cannot survive in such a world -- and how can we be surprised that this should be his judgment? -- his soul will be lost. Even if his body continues to function, he will survive in a world rendered eternally bleak, with terror lurking in every moment. The possibility of joy is extinguished.

This is evil; those who seek to impose this fate on a human being are engaged in evil of an especially monstrous kind.



Read this New York Times story about the latest cruelties inflicted on Bradley Manning, and you will see the operation of these mechanisms. We must remember that Manning is, as the Times story states in its first sentence, the "accused." As of this date, Manning has been tried for nothing. As of this date, Manning has been convicted of nothing.

The story informs us that Manning "will be stripped of his clothing every night as a 'precautionary measure' to prevent him from injuring himself," and that he "will also be required to stand outside his cell naked during a morning inspection." A Marine spokesman says that "the underwear was taken away from him as a precaution to ensure that he did not injure himself."

But as the story goes on to tell us, Manning "has not been elevated to the more restrictive 'suicide watch' conditions." The same Marine spokesman also says that "the new rule on clothing ... would continue indefinitely," and that "he was not allowed to explain what prompted it 'because to discuss the details would be a violation of Manning’s privacy.'”



Thus, according to this spokesman, Manning is subjected to repeated humiliation and degradation -- for his own good. Moreover, the reason for the repeated humiliation and degradation cannot be provided because of the military's boundless concern for Manning's "privacy" -- that is, the military also refuses to explain the reason for its cruelty for Manning's own good.

Does the nightmare begin to assume more definite shape before you? If you feel assaulted in the depths of your being by this mere recitation of the facts -- and you should -- you are experiencing but the faintest shadow of what Manning experiences in captivity. Manning is, I remind you, only the "accused."



Manning's lawyer, David E. Coombs, tries to cut through this enveloping fog of evil:

“There can be no conceivable justification for requiring a soldier to surrender all his clothing, remain naked in his cell for seven hours, and then stand at attention the subsequent morning,” he wrote. “This treatment is even more degrading considering that Pfc. Manning is being monitored — both by direct observation and by video — at all times.”

Mr. Coombs contended that stripping his client was medically unjustified.

“If a person is at risk of self-harm, then you get them treatment, you get them to a mental health professional and address the issue — you don’t strip them,” he said, adding in a separate telephone interview, “There is no excuse, no justification to having a soldier stand at attention naked. There can be no mental health reason for that.”



Coombs characterized these latest punitive measures "as an unjustified 'humiliation' of his client." I would add two comments to that description. more

Arthur lives under dire circumstances, perhaps if you get to know and admire him through his writing, you might consider sending him a little love. I wouldn't ask of you what I have not done myself in the past.

Bradley Manning Now "Catatonic"; Obama ENOUGH!
Submitted by Ralph Lopez on Mon, 2011-03-07 21:49

As Obama's crime of the destruction of Bradley Manning continues to unfold before our very eyes, Manning friend David House now tells us that over 8 months in isolation with movement and sleep restrictions placed on him have been having their intended effect. House has told MSNBC that by the end of January Manning appeared "catatonic" and that he had "severe problems communicating," with it having taken House nearly 45 minutes on a recent visit to engage in any meaningful way (video below.) House said Manning's demeanor was as "if he had just woken up and didn't know what was going on around him." Manning was "utterly exhausted physically and mentally...it was difficult to have any kind of social engagement."




Also, a full month after Congressman Dennis Kucinich formally requested a visit, the Army has stalled on the request.

All for the crime of reporting war crimes and criminal behavior even among the highest-ranking military officials in Iraq.

In 2005, General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said: “It is absolutely the responsibility of every U.S. service member [in Iraq], if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to try to stop it.”

Chase Mader writes in HuffPo that soon after deployment to Iraq, Manning:

"soon found himself helping the Iraqi authorities detain civilians for distributing “anti-Iraqi literature” -- which turned out to be an investigative report into financial corruption in their own government entitled “Where does the money go?” The penalty for this “crime” in Iraq was not a slap on the wrist. Imprisonment and torture, as well as systematic abuse of prisoners, are widespread in the new Iraq. From the military’s own Sigacts (Significant Actions) reports, we have a multitude of credible accounts of Iraqi police and soldiers shooting prisoners, beating them to death, pulling out fingernails or teeth, cutting off fingers, burning with acid, torturing with electric shocks or the use of suffocation, and various kinds of sexual abuse including sodomization with gun barrels and forcing prisoners to perform sexual acts on guards and each other...



Like any good soldier, Manning immediately took these concerns up the chain of command. And how did his superiors respond? His commanding officer told him to “shut up” and get back to rounding up more prisoners for the Iraqi Federal Police to treat however they cared to..." more

http://sccprimed.org/Ministries/MilitaryMinistry.aspx

http://www.alighthouse.com/militaryprayer.html

http://www.todancewithangels.com/sweetlandofliberty.html

Wis. Gov. Scott Walker, Batshit fucking crazy.

Over 2,700 civilians killed in Afghanistan in 2010: UN

Illinois (joins civilised society) ends death penalty, clears death row.

John Kerry: It's STILL All And Only About Us

There are two things that tell you all you need to know about John Kerry, the photograph below and this 2006 essay by Arthur Silber, who for my money, is one of the finest writer on the internet today. As I say, written in 2006 but just as readable and well argued today as then.

John Kerry, Election trail 2004.

John Kerry lives in Boston.

But first this Truthout article that has a few salient points about international rule of law. Said he with a roll of the eyes.

"No-Fly Zone"? Senator Kerry, the UN Charter Is Supreme Law
by: Robert Naiman,
Wednesday 09 March 2011

Surely no one has been surprised to see Senator McCain engaged in what Defense Secretary Gates has rightly called "loose talk" about the use of US military force in Libya.

But to see Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - the man who as a Vietnam veteran joined other anti-war veterans in asking who would be the last American to be asked to die in Vietnam - engage in such "loose talk" - that is a more painful cut.

Of course, this is the same Senator Kerry who voted to authorize the US invasion of Iraq in October 2002, even though such action was never authorized by the UN Security Council, and was, therefore, a major war crime in international law - the crime of aggression. And this is the same Senator Kerry who, as a presidential candidate in August 2004, stood by his vote for the war.

Here is a basic fact about the world that mainstream US media - and politicians like Kerry - generally find distasteful to acknowledge. The Charter of the United Nations rules out the use of military force by one UN member state against another except in two cases: self-defense against armed attack and actions approved by the UN Security Council. more

I do urge you to read this below in it's entirety, it's a great essay and it is also a chance to get to know Arthur Silber. And while you are doing that I shall go and see what he has to say about Bradley Manning, which not having done so before now, makes me extremely lax.

Narcissism and Paternalism as Foreign Policy, and Kerry's Profoundly Objectionable and Dishonest Article
by Arthur Silber

........Kerry thus places himself squarely in the midst of the rogues' gallery identified by Rosa Brooks: those people, including Daniel Pipes, Condoleezza Rice and Jack Straw, who condemn those "ungrateful Iraqis" -- who dare to be ungrateful "after all we've done for you!" As Brooks points out, Kerry also appears to have forgotten that no one asked us to "sacrifice" our "valiant soldiers" for the Iraqis' sakes. Our self-defense was involved at no point in this unforgivable catastrophe: Iraq constituted no threat to us, and our leaders knew it. That is the single fundamental point of any significance in this context:

We have no legitimate right to be in Iraq at all. Period. If we don't want to "sacrifice" American lives for this immensely destructive fantasy, we should never have sent even one American there in the first place. And if we don't want to sacrifice any more, then leave.

But like the parent who decides that the first brutal beating wasn't enough, Kerry insists that "Iraqi leaders have responded only to deadlines." You see, they're simply children who are misbehaving -- so we need to give a few more orders, and make sure they understand that we mean it this time:.....................

My emphasis.

.....................Keep the scope of this catastrophe in mind -- and never forget that we chose to launch an utterly unjustified, aggressive invasion and occupation of a nation that did not threaten us in any serious manner whatsoever. Given the incomprehensible horror that Iraqis now must live with every minute of every day -- horror that is the direct result of our actions -- who the hell are we to be making demands of anyone? We ought to beg their forgiveness, with every fiber of our being. But for Kerry, and for all our other national leaders, none of this matters and it is hardly ever discussed in any detail in terms of how it affects the Iraqis themselves. Oh, no: it's all and only about us.

The nauseating depths of the Western conviction of its own "exceptionalism" and its unquestionable "right" to coerce the rest of the world to act as we demand are revealed in Kerry's final paragraph:....................more

Benchmark Bullshit

Nothing fires the ire more than having to listen to the wankers, in both parties, talking about the Iraqi Government achieving benchmarks.
I wonder how well would fair themselves, these advocates and setters of "Benchmarks," in achieving any of the unrealistic tasks it sets for the Iraqis.

Iraq is broken, nobody is going to put it back together, not now, not for the foreseeable future, and realistically probably not ever.
Congress knows it and Bush knows it, if you think the troops are coming home before Bush leaves office and can wipe his hands of the biggest fuck up in modern history then think again.

Update; In reply to comment made by HH.
I hear all what you say H, I honestly don't think there is a solution given the present climate and the number of factions on the ground.
Morally we are obliged to try and fix what we have broken, but I truly believe the situation has gone far beyond what is fixable.
Stay and be damned, leave and be damned. There will be a bloodbath far worse than what we are witnessing now if we leave, the only scenario I can envisage on withdrawal is a greater regional war and eventually the strongest leader/country will take control, but that in itself could mean years if not decades of conflict.
All I know it's a mess of gargantuan proportions. But reverting to what I wrote earlier I don't want to see "failed benchmarks" become the modern day equivalent of Nixon's "peace with honour"

Have a read of Arthur Silber from a year or two back.

Keep the scope of this catastrophe in mind -- and never forget that we chose to launch an utterly unjustified, aggressive invasion and occupation of a nation that did not threaten us in any serious manner whatsoever. Given the incomprehensible horror that Iraqis now must live with every minute of every day -- horror that is the direct result of our actions -- who the hell are we to be making demands of anyone? We ought to beg their forgiveness, with every fiber of our being. But for Kerry, and for all our other national leaders, none of this matters and it is hardly ever discussed in any detail in terms of how it affects
the Iraqis themselves. Oh, no: it's all and only about us.

More