This guy was so into his cone, that he didnt see me sitting in front of him taking his picture.  I could make fun of him for that, but I’m the same way when I’m in the throes of sugar-lust…

In the spring of 1986 an international conference of scientists in Seville, Spain, issued a statement on the question of human nature and violent aggression, concluding, “It is scientifically incorrect to say that war is caused by ‘instinct’ or any single motivation….. Modern war involves institutional use of personal characteristics such as obedience, suggestibility, and idealism….  We conclude that biology does not condemn humanity to war.”

- Howard Zinn – Declarations of Independence

Wondering what has changed? Read about it here.

For the idea that any means – mass murder, the misuse of science, the corruption of professionalism – are acceptable to achieve the end of national power, the ultimate example of our time is Hiroshima.  For us, as citizens, the experience of Hiroshima and Nagasaki suggests that we reject Machiavelli, that we do not accept subservience, whether to princes or presidents, and that we examine for ourselves the ends of public policy to determine whose interests they really serve.  We must examine the means used to achieve those ends to decide if they are compatible with equal justice for all human beings on earth.

- Howard Zinn – Declarations of Independence

Wondering what has changed? Read about it here.

But intimidation of Schlesinger-as-adviser went beyond silencing him in the other cabinet room – it led him to produce a nine-page memorandum to President Kennedy, written shortly before the invasion of Cuba, in which he is as blunt as Machiavelli himself in urging deception of the public to conceal the U.S. role in the invasion.  This would be necessary because “a great many people simply do not at this moment see that Cuba presents so grave and compelling a threat to our national security as to justify a course of action which much of the world will interpret as calculated aggression against a small nation.”

The memorandum goes on, “The character and repute of President Kennedy constitute one of our greatest national resources.  Nothing should be done to jeopardize this invaluable asset.  When lies must be told, they should be told by subordinate officials.”  It goes on to suggest “that someone other than the President make the final decision and do so in absence – someone whose head can later be placed on the block if things go terribly wrong. “  (Cesare Borgia again, only lacking the blood-stained knife.)

Sleshinger included in his memo sample questions and lying answers in case the issue of the invasion came up in a press conference:

Q: Mr. President, is CIA involved in this affair?

A: I can assure you that the United States has no intention of using force to overthrow the Castro regime.

The scenario was followed.  Four days before the invasion, President kennedy told a press conference, “There will not be, under any conditions, any intervention in Cuba by U.S. armed forces.”

- Howard Zinn – Declarations of Independence

Wondering what has changed? Read about it here.

There was another official reason given for U.S. intervention in Central America in the 1980s: to ‘restore democracy.’  This, too, was hardly believable.  Throughout the period after World War II our government had supported undemocratic governments, indeed vicious military dictatorships: in Batista’s Cuba, Somoza’s Nicaragua, Armas’s Guatemala, Pinochet’s Chile, and Duvalier’s Haiti as well as in El Salvador and other countries of Latin America.

The actual purpose of U.S. policy in Central America was expressed by Tucker in the most clear Machiavellian terms:  “The great object of American foreign policy ought to be the restoration of a more normal political world, a world in which those other states possessing the elements of great power once again play the role their power entitles them to play.”

Undoubtedly, there are Americans who respond favorably to this idea, that the United States should be a “great power” in the world, should dominate other countries, should be number one.  Perhaps the assumption s that our domination is benign and that our power is used for  kindly purposes.  The history of our relations with Latin America does not suggest this.  Besides, is it really in keeping with the American ideal of equality of all peoples to insist that we have the right to control the affairs of other countries?  Are we the only country entitled to a Declaration of Independence?

There was another official reason given for U.S. intervention in Central America in the 1980s: to ‘restore democracy.’  This, too, was hardly believable.  Throughout the period after World War II our government had supported undemocratic governments, indeed vicious military dictatorships: in Batista’s Cuba, Somoza’s Nicaragua, Armas’s Guatemala, Pinochet’s Chile, and Duvalier’s Haiti as well as in El Salvador and other countries of Latin America.

The actual purpose of U.S. policy in Central America was expressed by Tucker in the most clear Machiavellian terms:  “The great object of American foreign policy ought to be the restoration of a more normal political world, a world in which those other states possessing the elements of great power once again play the role their power entitles them to play.”

Undoubtedly, there are Americans who respond favorably to this idea, that the United States should be a “great power” in the world, should dominate other countries, should be number one.  Perhaps the assumption s that our domination is benign and that our power is used for  kindly purposes.  The history of our relations with Latin America does not suggest this.  Besides, is it really in keeping with the American ideal of equality of all peoples to insist that we have the right to control the affairs of other countries?  Are we the only country entitled to a Declaration of Independence?

- Howard Zinn – Declarations of Independence

Wondering what has changed? Read about it here.

There is the same limited choice in public policy.  During the Vietnam War, the argument for a long time was between those who wanted a total bombing of Indochina and those who wanted a limited bombing.  The choice of withdrawing from Vietnam altogether was not offered.  Daniel Ellsberg, working for Henry Kissinger n 1969, was given the job of drawing a list of alternative policies on Vietnam.  As one possibility on his long list he suggested total withdrawal from the war.  Kissinger looked at the possibilities and crossed that one off the list before giving the list to President Richard Nixon.

- Howard Zinn – Declarations of Independence

Wondering what has changed? Read about it here.

These guys were a great jam band.  I would suggest going to see them.

That tie just doesnt look comfortable.
Sug is starting to look like the damn Predator.

Today is a happy day.  Out with the old, in with the new.  Spring cleaning in January.

While the consertives are talking about how the last eight years were the results of the previous eight years and how God will rain down on us all because we voted for a democrat, my friends and I will be celebrating with an Inauguration Day Pot Luck Feast at my house.

If you’re a readin’ type, I suggest reading this article in National Geographic called Inside the Presidency.

This picture was taken from a thousand feet away from then-President-hopeful Obama at Liberty Memorial back in October.

Sug (pronounced like a truckstop waitress too lazy to say ‘sugar’) breakdances at the first Lost Wax show at the Crosstown Station.

Out of everyone I take pictures of, Sug is the only one who really gets on me to take more pictures of him.  But every time the camera goes up, he stops what he’s doing and kind of ‘flexposes’.  Needless to say, I’ve quit taking pictures of him.  He is not pleased.