TGIF Must-Reads (Add Your Own)

Here in Texas, our overall population is 52% White, 32% Hispanic, 11% Black and 5% “Other”, according to the Census Bureau (2000). Our prison population is 41% Black, 28% Hispanic and 31% White, according to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (2004).

Wes Clark and Pat Lang both support Clinton’s Kyl-Lieberman vote and her support for Webb’s amendment.

[Note: I'm not making a value judgement, just stating the facts. I'm not quite sure whether I agree with Clark and Lang on this, but I value their informed opinions nonetheless.]

Right, the Jena 6 may not be the worst case of Jim Crow, but it’s nonetheless blatant and appalling. Especially considering there are probably many more cases we never hear about. This one just happened to get a lot of press.

5 million Iraq refugees and counting! Christ. And Bush will only allow a few thousand in, assuming they make it to Jordan or Syria first. [Because Bush isn't allowing Iraqi refugees to emigrate directly from Iraq.]

Lelie writes: Wes Clark and Pat Lang both support Clinton’s Kyl-Lieberman vote and her support for Webb’s amendment.

As does the informed opinion of Joe Wilson, in the piece linked to above. Joe nicely sums up the reasoning behind the vote:

Last week, Hillary voted to support a non-binding resolution that designates the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. As a former diplomat, I have had considerable experience in the use of such resolutions to bring pressure – diplomatic pressure – to bear on a regime to rein in rogue elements. And make no mistake about it, the Guards are not only in operational control of Iran’s policy toward Iraq and Afghanistan, where Iranian supplied munitions are costing American lives; they are agents of reaction and repression inside Iran.

Gee, it all seems so sensible.

Did someone say “add your own?”

Glad to. Jon Stewart exposes Chris Matthews for the grinning, sputtering, emptyheaded, cynical,– well, just watch the vid.

And remember, to cite the underappreciated Bob Somerby, that this man– uh, Matthews, not Stewart–is actually guiding our political discourse.

Favorite line: Chris invites Jon to appear on “Hardball” and Jon replies “sorry, I don’t troll”.

“Gee, it all seems so sensible.”

Sounds absolutely senseless to me. And, of course, the Iranian Parliament showed how seriously they take it by issuing a mocking resolution of their own, declaring the Pentagon, and the CIA terrorist organizations – a declaration that actually fits the reality far better than the Senate’s declaration*.

* By definition attacking or providing the means to attack a foreign military occupation is not terrorism.

And the next day Jon Stewart also issued an apology for his negative interview of Jeremy Scahill in regard to his book on Blackwater. I wish now he would have Jeremy back on the show and interview him properly.

Speaking of Chris Matthews, he just gave it to the Bushies: He accused Cheney of trying to influence MSNBC brass in order to edit his comments. Matthews said, “They’ve finally been caught in their criminality.” [No idea what Matthews was referring to specifically, since we have a lot of options on Bushie criminality.]

This is my favorite Tweetie comment from the report: “God help us if we had Cheney during the Cuban missile crisis. We’d all be under a parking lot.”

I really dislike Chris Matthews intensely, but sometimes he DOES get it right.

Juan Cole:

Religious fanatics in Basra who have appointed themselves a morals police are attacking and killing women who do not veil to the extent the extremists demand. Every month in the southern port city, 15 female bodies show up in the streets, murdered by the puritans.

Guess all’s not perfect in Basra even if the Brits have left.

One of the essential way-stations along the “school-to-prison pipeline” is, of corse, the commission of a crime. Probably the greatest single cause (and there are many causes) of this criminal conduct among African-Americans is the prevalence of children being raised without fathers. The principal cause of that phenomenon, in turn, is a series of well-intentioned but tragically misguided policies of the federal government under the leadership of Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic congress.

Is that how you’d explain what happened with the Jena 6?

You want to back up your assertions with a few facts and provide the links?

P.S. Comrade Danube-Yoshenko,
I grew up in a household headed by my mother. That didn’t lead me to a life of crime.

Gues they should thank Brits and Americans nevertheless. You know, BEFORE the “liberation” there were NOTHING like this in Basra (and Iraq as a whole)

If CIA is NOT a terrorist organisation what Posada and Bin Laden (and a lot of others) did on their payroll?

Gee, how about the lack of decent legal representation. Contrary to some popular opinion the ACLU types do not line up outside the courthouses, waiting for the next, soon to be railroaded, but of course guilty poor person. That is my opinion. I never would have thought 40 yrs ago that the Phil Ochs song, “There But For Fortune” would still be relevant today. It makes me sad, and angry as hell.

No one said it would be perfect. It won’t be perfect for a very long time. But it does appear to be significantly better overall.

And this is nothing new. Murderous Shi`a fanatics have been killing and otherwise punishing women – and Christians, and secular men, and homosexuals, and anyone who does not adhere to their “standards” in Basra and other parts of the south almost since the beginning of this catasrophe. And let us not forget how and by whom those murderous fanatics have been empowered.

Yeah [laughing], like a broken clock, right twice a day.

Thing you gotta remember about Matthews is that he is from planet Showbiz, and not terribly concerned with politics– his meat is the drama he can wrest from it.

Shirin writes: And, of course, the Iranian Parliament showed how seriously they take it by issuing a mocking resolution of their own, declaring the Pentagon, and the CIA terrorist organizations – a declaration that actually fits the reality far better than the Senate’s declaration.

Agreed, and a reminder to all: “terrorism”, strictly speaking, refers to the offing of civilians, in order to coerce the rest, and the “shock and awe” campaign of the first days of the invasion of Iraq was designed to do exactly this.

Hopefully we will see this incident fully investigated.

Ciara Durkin………….RIP
patriotledger.com/articles/2007/10/03/news/news01.txt

Since this unfortunate one was not fully investigated.

Col. Theodore S. Westhusing…………RIP
Just google search, there is plenty to choose from.

Just because some people who have gone to school sometimes commit crime and go to prison does not establish that there is any such thing as a “school-to-prison pipeline”. If anything, proceeding from school to crime and then to prison would be a matter of being outside of the intended pipeline leading from school to legitimate productive employment. Those outside of this intended pipeline are in an alternate pipeline which empties into a sewer.

There is no single cause of crime.

While fatherless criminals, whether African-American or any other American, may statistically outnumber criminals with fathers, an alternate father figure may pinch hit, and having either an actual father or a surrogate father does not necessarily prevent crime; and neither precludes an abusive father from being a contibutor to tendency towards crime.

Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” policies are not the principal cause of African-American children being raised without fathers. While it may have been misguided to not create enough resources for those in poverty to become self-sufficient, the creation of a so-called economic ‘safety net’ (welfare) by Johnson and Congress is not the principal cause of father absenteeism. The principal causes of father absenteeism among families in poverty are poverty, imprisonment and death.

Sorry. My remark was a bit snippy. But I’m concerned about it, particularly for the women who are being killed — god, that’s horrible — and surely that’s the fault of the men who are killing them, no?

This wasn’t the case before the invasion/occupation because of Saddam? Or? And — most importantly — how do you foresee the Iraqis resolving this? The typical American analysis seems to start with “they need a strong man in charge.” Is that so?

Ultimately, it’s none of my business. But I recall reading how Iraqi women had far greater freedoms and opportunities — including advanced educational degrees — during Saddam’s reign. And that’s a tragic loss.

Good points, Shirin. See my above Qs to Lidia. And my apology for the snippy remark.

Leslie, I’m going to assume that you are a girl, which in and of itself makes you far less likely to embark on a criminal career than if you were a male. Even if you are a boy (think Leslie Howard or Leslie Nielson), your anecdotal account tells us nothing whatsoever about the well-established tendency of fatherless boys to become criminals (do you actually doubt this?). No one contends that every fatherless child will be a criminal; rather, in the population as a whole the likelihood of criminal activity on the part of single-parent children as compared with their two-parent contemporaries is so overwlmingly greater that the question is not seriously disputed anywhere at all. As for “links” to citations that will establish this basic truth, I do not intend to do your homework for you. Do it yourself, and you will be staggered by what you find.

I suppose that an alternative explanation might be that all these incarcerated black people were improperly convicted of their crimes–that confessions were beaten out of them, say, or that all-white juries railroaded them. But in fact the percentage of blacks in the prison population today is far greater than it was when the justice system was characterized by such abuses. What happened in the interim was an astonishing growth in the percentage of fatherless black children, which coincided precisely with the Great Society’s subsidization of unwed motherhood.

Of course there is yet another axplanation: This is Amerikkka, and Amerikkka is evil. If that’s the explanation you endorse, you can simply say so. But bear in mind that the same Amerikka persisted through the adminstrations of the hapless fool Carter and the cunning liar Clinton.

I have told you forthrightly what I believe is the cause of black criminal conduct in America (we’ll leave black criminal conduct in other areas of the world for another day). Now please be equally forthright yourself: why are so many black Americans criminals?

Isn’t the Supreme Court right now hearing a case that challenges the far harsher sentences given to those who deal crack cocaine (more likely to be black) versus those who deal cocaine (more likely to be white)?

That’s a disparity that has zilch to do with who raised anybody.

Can’t wait to read Scalia and Thomas’s opinions. Snort (uh, no, I didn’t mean that …)

At his blog, Pat Lang has posted the link to the video of his talk at the Miller Center on Patraeus. Pat advises you click twice on the screen.

knucklehead of thought writes: …the well-established tendency of fatherless boys to become criminals (do you actually doubt this?).

Of course I do, dummy. You’re taking two common results of poverty and saying that one is the result of the other.

Think harder, Shitforbrains of Thought.

Danube,
Yes, I do doubt your opinions are based in fact. Especially since you refuse to cite any, and your opinions are NOT fact. It’s not a matter of doing someone else’s homework…it’s a question of supporting what you say, which you don’t. [Why should I do it for you?!]

You claim that growing up fatherless is the PRIMARY reason, the main reason, why black boys wind up in prison. I dispute your claim that a fatherless household is the PRIMARY reason. I’m not disputing the fact that children of any race growing up in fatherless homes are more likely to commit suicide, become alcoholics, use drugs, commit crimes, etc. I’m disputing the racial aspect of your argument, and your implied assumption that if you’re black, from a fatherless household, you’re much more likely to commit a crime as opposed to your white counterpart.

There are many other factors involved, such as: access to quality education and good jobs. The first being necessary for the latter to occur, assuming there are quality job opportunities available in areas where quality education is lacking.

Perhaps, what’s most troubling about your theory is that Blacks and Latinos comprise about 26% of the US population, yet comprised about 63% of all inmates under state and federal custody in 2003 per the NAACP. I don’t believe marriage and divorce rates among blacks and whites account for that difference. So how do you account for the disparity Danube?

Well, one reason for the disparity in prison populations is currently being reviewed by the Supremes — the mandatory sentence for possession of crack cocaine (preferred form for blacks) is 100 times that of powder cocaine (preferred form for whites.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/02/AR2007100200227.html

Oops, sorry I didn’t see you’d already posted on this, Susan.

Thanks both of you!

My own perspective on terrorism is that it has less to do with whether the perpetrators or victims are civilian or military, than it does with trying to manipulate victims, by using shocking violence against a subset of the victims to leverage fear across the whole group.

Maybe that’s not what the encyclopedia says, but it’s how I see it.

YB, forget the encyclopedia. According to legal and official definitions of terrorism it is by definition an act against civilians. Attacks on military targets are not acts of terrorism, particularly when the attacks are against invading or occupying foreign military forces.

PS The word terrorism has been seriously perverted to the point where it has come to mean an attack of any kind by someone we don’t like on anything at all. The Bush administration as taken it to a ludicrous and very dangerous extreme by defining as terrorism a number of non-violent actions, and even certain speech and perhaps even thoughts.

Danube, a constructive suggestion:
Social-economic problems typically do not have simple singular causes and solutions. There are a variety of factors, working in a variety of ways. Also consider how context can change everything, as in:

In the squares of the city, In the shadow of a steeple;
By the relief office, I’d seen my people.
As they stood there hungry, I stood there asking,
Is this land made for you and me?

As I went walking, I saw a sign there;
And on the sign there, it said, ‘No Trespassing.’
But on the other side; it didn’t say nothing!
That side was made for you and me.

- ‘This Land is Your Land’, Woody Guthrie

I account for the disparity in the prison population by the disparity in the propensity of the imprisoned populations to commit crimes. I blame those crimes on the people who commit them. I note that thirty years ago hundreds of thousands of impoverished Vietnamese arrived in this country with no more access to quality education thn black people. Yet they continue to produce valedictorians and spelling-bee champions, and they commit very little crime.

The very sad fact is that the black nuclear family has been utterly shattered since the federal government began to subsidize the production of illegitimate children. If you doubt anything at all that I have sais on this subject, I suppose I would suggest that you begin by reading the extensive works of neo-fascist Daniel Patrick Moynihan on the topic. I can refer you to it, but I can’t read it for you.

Leslie, I know you are extremely well-intentioned. I harbor an honest belief that you are misguided. I really do earnestly recommend you look at the Moynihan Report of 1965 [!]. Here is one person’s synopsis:

“Moynihan says that the growing numbers of single-parent families is at the heart of many problems facing black society:

“Broken homes hinder educational achievement. According to Moynihan, children from homes where fathers are present do significantly better in school than those from female-headed families. The average intelligence score for the former group is 7.04 points higher. Boys from broken homes in particular experience greater academic difficulties than those in families with both parents present.

“Moynihan says that black academic difficulties are also revealed by performance on the Armed Forces Qualification Test. This test measures the ability to perform at a 7th or 8th grade level, and 56% of blacks fail it — a rate 4 times that of whites. The military not only represents job opportunities for blacks, but is the ‘only experience’ which assures equal treatment with whites.

“Broken homes increase isolation, crime. Moynihan says that poverty, educational failure, and broken families combine to produce the ‘disastrous’ delinquency and crime rates among U.S. blacks. He cites research by Eleanor and Sheldon Glueck, who found that relatively more delinquent teens come from broken homes. The Gluecks find that maternal supervision, maternal discipline and family cohesiveness together predict 85% of the variation in youth crime.

“In 1960, blacks constituted 33% of all youth in juvenile institutions. The arrest rate of blacks is also higher than for whites — as much as 50% of all urban arrests are black suspects. However, Moynihan notes that blacks are arrested and arraigned more ‘casually’ than are whites. Black crime harms the black community both by reducing productivity and by the effect on victims, most of whom are also black.”

Here is an article you all might find interesting…

Why the GOP Must Nominate Ron Paul by Joe
http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_114454.asp

I wrote the author an email and he responded back with comments on my points.

Any of you let me know what you think………

Odd numbers are my points

Even numbers are his replies

Dear Bill,

Thanks for your message about my article. I’m glad you found it worth your time to read. Please feel free to share it with your friends….

1. As a life long Democrat I agree with your article. Hillary will win the nomination, but you need to know something from our side of the aisle. Hillary will not be able to unify the Democrats going into Nov 2008 for a very simple reason “Its the war stupid”. Whatever you think of the “progressive antiwar branch of the Democratic” we are so pissed at her and the Congressional Democratic leadership for bending over and giving Bush everything he wanted to keep the war going that we will probably vote for Rep Ron Paul or not vote at all.

2. Sounds good to me! Of course he has to get the nomination first. You might consider changing your registration (if necessary, depending on your state) and voting in the Republican primary to help Ron win. You can always go back to voting on the D side later. But this is perhaps a once in a lifetime chance to cross party lines and do the right thing.

3. Contrary to what you might think all Democrats are not “left wing crazed hippies” just as I don’t believe all Republicans are right wing neocons. For one I have always been a supporter of Pat Buchanan and a lot of other libertarians

4..I wouldn’t exactly call him a libertarian. Maybe a paleoconservative?

5..who have similiar beliefs that I do like a more balanced distribution of our taxes, no imperial expansion in our foreign policy, more control of Fed dollars by the states, etc

6..How about leaving the dollars with the people in the various states to start with, so they won’t have to filter through a giant bureaucracy before being (inequitably) redistributed?

7..After a good discussion with a Republican friend of mine several years ago he said you are really a conservative Democrat. He was right.

8..You sound like one to me….

9..I believe a significant reason for the polarization in this country is fringe elements on both sides. Let me ask you.. does Rush Limbaugh really speak to your beliefs or does Pat Buchanan.

10..Neither. But Ron Paul does, almost 100%.

11..Here is my take on the 2008 elections.
I believe it will be Hillary vs Rudy.

12..In that case we lose big time, either way. Might be time to start looking at New Zealand….

13..You may not like Rudy

14..Oh, goodness, he’s the most awful candidate of either party. He might turn out to be even worse than Bush. If those are the choices next November I’ll either vote for the Libertarian candidate or shoot myself in the head (before the winner takes all my guns away).

15..but from my perspective he will have a much better chance than any of the others regardless of his background of multiple wives etc.

16..I don’t think so. And gosh I hope not. I’d literally rather have Hillary than a fascist like Rudy, and that is saying something, ’cause I really can’t stand her.

17..So I don’t think you have anything to fear.

16..I don’t just fear Hillary, I fear all of the big-government, socialist/fascist candidates on both sides of the aisle. Rudy winning would be even worse than Hillary, and Romney, McCain, or Thompson would be only minutely better. The country continues its slide downhill into oblivion in any case. It’s Ron Paul or we are really in bad shape.

17..Remember Bush got more votes in 2004 than 2000, so I say the math is simple to the Democrats “where are your votes going to come from, disgruntled Republicans?” The only reason that people switch parties is that they think the other one is going to be different on some key issues like the war in Iraq. So if you and I assume many other conservatives are fed up with the war, why would you vote for Hillary or for that matter any of the so called leading Democrats./ Answer simple you wouldn’t.

18..You wouldn’t vote for Hillary … but you might stay home or vote third party in disgust. If Ron Paul doesn’t win the GOP nomination you will see much increased vote totals for the Libertarian, Constitution, and/or Green Party candidates as people voice disgust with both “major” parties.

19..So I believe that it is almost impossible for the Republicans to lose the WH in 2008.

20..Then they better darn sure nominate Ron Paul, because any of the other R (or D) candidates would be a complete disaster for the country.

21..As for Congress, the Democrats won because the anti-war progressive base worked their asses off and believed that if the Dems were in control of Congress something would be done to end, stop, slow down or whatever the “War In Iraq”. In 2008 i believe the Republicans winning the WH will easily regain control of the Senate and quite possibly the House or at least close the gap.

22..I doubt it. But, if Hillary wins, I hope you are right. If any Republican besides Ron Paul wins, then I hope the Democrats keep control of Congress. Sometimes a divided government and stalemate is the best you can hope for.

23..It of course it didn’t happen so we feel betrayed. However the Dem leadership believes we will all come together again to unite behind their nominee (pr0bably Hillary) and get them the WH.
AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN!
So continue to push for Dr. Paul and maybe he could at least get on the ballot in a lot of states,

24…Well, if he wins the GOP nomination I am pretty sure he will be on all 50 plus DC. If not, he will have to decide whether to run as a third party or independent candidate. He could have the LP and CP nominations for the asking, but I don’t know if he would want to go that route.

25..because I can guarantee many millions of us on our side of the aisle would vote for him. I don’t care whether he is a Republican, Dem, Green,, blue red or what. He is the absolute ONLY candidate speaking to ANY of the issues.

26…Well, actually, there is one other candidate doing that: Kucinich. He is speaking to the issues, much more so than any other Democrat … I like his position on Iraq, but I don’t like his socialist answers to domestic policy questions.

Here’s to Ron Paul gaining more traction and winning this thing!

Joe

Danube of Thought (and in that nom de blog lies a heavy sense of self-importance bordering on, if not crossing into, arrogance):

You live in a place of comfort in this world. I have little doubt that you are secure, possibly in a gated community, but certainly in a suburban environment. You have the position and assets to provide you with all you need, and probably an ability to throw the occasional splurge on high-end electronic equipment or a mid-life crisis convertible.

You have a high level of self-assurance that if only you were in a place of importance, you could improve the world with your erudition and eloquence. You would make a good member of the current administration.

But you have no idea what it is like to grow up poor and unpropertied and desperate. And I admit that I don’t either. I live on several acres in north Scottsdale, Arizona, and have known little want in my 51 years.

What you lack is empathy. What you lack is an appreciation for what drives a man to crime. What drives a man to abandon a woman who bore his children. What you lack is a world view which includes absent fatherhood and the likelihood of prison time as a part of your life and future. When all about you are living by rules honed by contingency, you will adopt those rules yourself.

You don’t know those rules. You also have no idea what to do to change those rules, or to redirect contingency.

You rightly criticize the Great Society for simply throwing money at the problem and creating a cycle of dependency. But you offer no alternative but to toss the dependents into ever-deeper poverty and into the shadows of American history.

You would, given the power, have the poor returned to slavery.

For that is now where we find the most desperately poor, abandoned by city, state and federal governments, and virtually abandoned by their fellow Americans. While you demand that they pull themselves up by their bootstraps, they ask, “What bootstraps?” In some deeply poor communities, the best bootstraps to which they can attach themselves is a life of crime, of selling illegal drugs to each other and to our wayward youth, of pimping and whoring, of robbing and burgling. Given all of our economic problems, we are at full employment, so some of us must look elsewhere for a living.

While we establish enterprise zones and pour government resources into well-established and politically-connected corporations, the individuals who could more benefit from small loans and grants to establish small, legal businesses providing neighborhood services within and outside of their communities, such as construction, maintenance, landscaping, restaurant and retail businesses, among others, go wanting.

It takes motivation to establish a criminal enterprise. If we can somehow harness that sense of enterprise and direct it to legal small businesses, we could not only reduce the number of former slaves (and my own family owned and raised slaves in Bibb County, Alabama, in antebellum days) dependent on government money, and keep more people out of prison.

But what the hell do I know? I’ve been raised in a privileged environment like you.

I’m very much interested, in a pathological sense, in your plan to deal with illegal immigration.

Bill Keyes writes: As a life long Democrat …

Warning! Warning! Danger, Will Robinson!

And then Bill Keyes writes: I have always been a supporter of Pat Buchanan and a lot of other libertarians

[further comment unnecessary]

Curses–Zogby wins again. I guess he’s just too clever for us.

I’m outta here.

Oy!

First, just because a candidate says what we might want to hear about Iraq does not mean that, if by some chance he/she were elected, he/she could effect the changes he/she claims to promise. In short: Talk is cheap.

Then there’s this from today’s Talking Points Memo — god, this guy sounds like the nutjobs in Western Washington state who are convinced the black helicopters are coming and that the United Nations is going to take over the land in our national parks:

Ron Paul puts his nuttiness in print

Rep. Ron Paul’s (R-Texas) presidential campaign had a pretty good week. Paul announced that he raised $5 million in the third quarter, which not only stunned the political world, it put him on par with GOP heavyweights like John McCain in the race for campaign funding. It’s difficult to dismiss a guy as a “fringe” candidate on a “quixotic” quest when he’s able to demonstrate this kind of support.

But it’s incredibly easy to dismiss a guy as “nutty” when he writes bizarre, hand-written letters about a U.N.-takeover of the world.

Brendan Nyhan received a fundraising letter from Paul, in which the candidate insisted that American sovereignty is hanging by a thread.

[...]

[From Paul's handwritten letter] The world’s elites are busy forming a North American Union. If they are successful, as they were in forming the European Union, the good ‘ol USA will only be a memory. We can’t let that happen.

The UN also wants to confiscate our firearms and impose a global tax. The UN elites want to control the world’s oceans with the Law of the Sea Treaty. And they want to use our military to police the world.

TPM goes on:

… [I]t is, as Kevin put it, “Unabomber-esque.”

Listening to the debates, Paul often comes across as the most sensible guy on the stage, especially when it comes to Iraq and the Patriot Act. And then we’re reminded, in print, that when it comes to a paranoid vision of the world, Paul really is out there on the political periphery.

Susan,
Stormfront, the Dr. David Dukesters, and other like – minded warm and fuzzy, feel good sites have a really high volume of Ron Paul supporters. A lot of them love Ron Paul and natually, hate Hillary. She’s part of the New World Order. An often used phrase at those places.
So the question to me is, how much of his cash comes from them?

Now, I know there are good and decent people that support Ron Paul as a candidate. And to be fair, I know that Paul has not espoused the kind of views that one sees at the extremist websites.
However, the fact that he is getting so much support from those quarters is disturbing to me.

http://www.whitecivilrights.com/

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/ron-paul-revolution-d-c-388512p400.html

http://www.whitecivilrights.com/the-%e2%80%9cchosen-ones%e2%80%9d-have-chosen-%e2%80%93hillary_957.html

http://www.davidduke.com/general/clear-media-conspiracy-against-ron-paul_2126.html

From Professor Emanuele Severino in The Puppetmasters:

Terrorism does not unleash power destructive enough to overturn our social system but enough to maintain constant pressure.

Terror increases people’s desire for security at the expense of their desire for change.