Local Stores:

Sqecial Media at 371 S Limestone, Lexington, Ky 40508.  Great place for various kinds of trinkets, used books, magazines, incense, etc.

CD Central at 377 S Limestone, Lexington, KY 40508.  Wide range of music to cover almost any taste.  Plus, dvds, vinyl, video, and posters.

Jonk at 132 W Third St, Lexington, Ky 40508.  Mostly vintage clothing, but also some cool furniture and trinkets.

Pops Resale at 1423 Lesstown Rd, Lexington, Ky 40511.  Weird toys and trinkets (I once found an old R2D2 that played cassette tapes), a TON of vinyl, used amps, used instruments, some vintage clothing.

Goodwill at 130 W New Circle Rd, Lexington, Ky 40505.  (There are other locations as well but I think this is the main building.)  Used (sometimes vintage) clothing, fun toys and trinkets, and furniture.

Salvation Army Thrift Store at 228 E New Circle Rd, Lexington, Ky 40505.  Same basic description as Goodwill.

Websites:

www.nosweatapparel.com.  Sweatshop free, union-made clothing from right here in the US of A.  Some cool t-shirts.  The women’s selection is much more expansive than the men’s.

www.globalexchange.org.  Fairtrade shopping.  Coffee, books, clothes, jewelry - you name it.

www.goodhumans.com.  Hemp and organic shopping.  Soaps, beauty products, clothing, home & garden, etc.

While we do not endorse consumerism as a way of life, we realize that sometimes you’re gonna buy stuff.  So, why not make sure that you’re shopping ethically.

Brandon tapestries, posters, toys, jewelry, pride, bumperstickers, tarot cards, journals, boxes, statues, and many little things from a

First, Seymour Hersh has published an article in the New Yorker magazine which reveals that the CIA has found no conclusive evidence to support the Bush administration’s claims that Iran is working to develop nuclear weapons.  (Here is the article: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/111906H.shtml. You can find the BBC coverage here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6167304.stm)  Aside from the typical havens of left-wing news, the US media hasn’t really picked up on the story.  But this comes as no suprise, since this is the very same news media that led the war cry in 2002 and 2003.  A Whitehouse spokesperson had the following to say about the article: “The White House is not going to dignify the work of an author who has viciously degraded our troops, and whose articles consistently rely on outright falsehoods to justify his own radical views.”  I pray the irony is obvious.  The most impressive bit of audacity, however, has to be that the Bush administration really wants to try to start another war.  Haven’t they already fucked things up enough?  Where do they plan to get the troops and resources to fight another war? - they don’t even have the troops and resources to fight the one they’re in.

On that note, I should mention that Rep. Charles Rangel, D-NY, has introduced new legislation in the House to push for a draft. (Find it here: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/112006L.shtml)  According to Rangel, this will be a means of deterring politicians from going to war.  As he sees it, we wouldn’t have gone to fight in Iraq if the politicians voting in favor of the war thought that young people from their own communities would actually be affected.  All this sounds well and good to me, but I think Rep. Rangel drastically over-estimates his colleagues - these are, after all, the same people who can’t seem to stop themselves from taking bribes from insurance companies and defense contractors or from making overtures toward underage interns.  Why wouldn’t they do as politicians have always done and invent ways to make sure that their loved ones and the loved ones of their very rich friends and campaign contributors are not put in harm’s way?  Indeed, this whole idea seems suspect when one considers that the Pentagon is currently considering a major swelling of US forces in Iraq. (Find it here: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/112006M.shtml) Where do they plan to come up with 30,000-60,000 troops?  Will the American people stand for it?

This leads me to the final thing I want to talk about: recent attempts to limit activism.  The New York Times today reported on project Talon - “An antiterrorist database used by the Defense Department in an effort to prevent attacks against military installations…” (Find it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/washington/21protests.html)  Basically, the database has included reports on local meetings and activities of organizations associated with the peace movement. “One tip in the database in February 2005, for instance, noted that ‘a church service for peace’ would be held in the New York City area the next month. Another entry noted that antiwar protesters would be holding ‘nonviolence training’ sessions at unidentified churches in Brooklyn and Manhattan.”  The director of the project Daniel J. Baur claims to be worried about the ‘chilling effect’ this public controversy could have on the collection of data about terrorists.  Of course, it fails to occur to him that collecting such information could have a great ’chilling effect’ on dissent in America.  But, never mind that, right?  I mean homogenous and uninformed public opinion is the loadstone of genuine democracy.  There ought truly to be a cacophony of affirmation and agreement with any policy of the US government.  Not that dissent has ever stopped them from doing anything…  Add to this the recent passing of legislation that makes it a felomy for animal rights activists to engage in any activity that results in the loss of money - the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act - and there’s a storm brewing.  Indeed, it’s hard to see how anyone could be confused about whether or not peace and animal rights activists belong on a database of information about terrorists.  Obviously, we do.  The very legislation introduced against us defines us as terrorists - dimishing profits are quite frightening.  I’m not even certain anymore that I care if they call me a “terrorist.”  I have never and probably will never blow anything up or order that anything be blown up.  “Our” President, on the other hand, is responsible for the deaths of hundreds daily.  If their (our) use of words is so loose that the absurdity is not obvious, perhaps they deserve the world they are working to create.

Brandon 

November 11, 2006
By William Z. Messer and Robert J. Varley
Iraq is a wildfire burning out of control. The question is whether the presence of American troops in that embattled nation is dousing that fire with water or feeding it with gasoline. Right or wrong, for better or for worse, our government has placed our country in this situation, and our troops in harms way. Whether a righteous cause or an unholy alliance, we have wedded ourselves to a weak and fragmented Iraqi government while alienating a sizable portion of the population.
History does not travel backwards, so we cannot undo what has been done. Instead, we must figure out where we are now and how best to proceed from here. Our choice is not of victory or defeat, or any other stark and illusory dichotomy. Instead, the question is which path will lead us through the quagmire and out of the dark forest of death and destruction.
We can later blame the administration, the media and ourselves for the mistakes and mendacity that have led us to this place. We can later honor and mourn the courageous men and women who have left behind their families, their careers, and even their lives on our behalf. Our duty now is to protect them, and to ameliorate the dangerous and desperate conditions in Iraq.
It is far easier to destroy despotism than to develop democracy. By its very nature as being a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, democracy cannot be imposed from without, regardless of the benevolent intentions of any foreign power. Only the Iraqis can choose whether and how to govern themselves. As long as we remain in Iraq, we will be an occupation force, at best stifling internal progress, at worst perverting it. As long as we stay in Iraq, we will be viewed as oppressors, an inviting target for insurgents, revolutionaries, and terrorists.
Even if we were not by our presence in Iraq giving birth to a whole new generation of anti-American zealots, staying the course means exposing American troops to death, destruction, and dehumanization on a daily basis for an ill-conceived and ultimately doomed strategy of imposing our will upon a sovereign foreign nation. We cannot put out the fire by sending young men and women to burn in the flames.
Perhaps in toppling Saddam Hussein, we lit the match that ignited the conflagration. Possibly through incompetence and abstinence we fanned the flames. It is done, and cannot be undone. Our troops have served well and valiantly; it is time for us to allow them to return to their families. The Iraqi people have suffered egregiously; it is time for us to allow them to determine their own destiny.
We must leave Iraq. Not in victory or in defeat, but in the realization that Iraqis must decide their own future. We should not cut and run; instead, our troops should march out proudly, with their heads held high, confident that whatever errors of omission or commission were perpetrated in this country, our personnel in Iraq did all they could with what they were given. We should not abandon our soldiers far from home to sweat, bleed, kill, and die for who knows how long.
Instead of occupying Iraq, let us provide food, medicine, and other humanitarian and economic assistance to the Iraqi people. There will continue to be deadly religious and political struggles in Iraq, whether we are there or not, as the nascent democracy struggles to survive. The civil war in Iraq will continue with or without us. What the ultimate result will be, only the Iraqis can decide.
We cannot, and we must not, decree Iraq’s present or design Iraq’s future, only the Iraqi people themselves can do so. We must allow them the freedom, the agonizing freedom, to become a nation of their own.

In truth, there are two options that are really on the table: 1) let other regional powers (Iran and Syria in particular) exercise more institutional and financial influence in such a way as to produce a stable settlement between the Sunnis and Shiites and a single federal government capable of actually running the country or 2) divide Iraq into three separate countries and guard their borders so as to prevent violence.  Probably, Baker and his team will push strongly for the first option and, if the Democrats really do demand major troop withdrawal, Bush may not have any other choice.  The second option has major problems anyway since it will probably leave most Sunnis hopelessly impoverished and will require the displacement of large numbers of people from cities of mixed ethnicity.  It remains to be seen what Iran, Syria, and whoever else is invovled will have to say about all this.  Probably, Iran will be happy to oblige Washington since this will mostlikely lead to a loosening of pressure concerning their nuclear capacity (which may or may not be part of a weapons program.)

This brings me to the second meeting.  President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met today to discuss Iran’s current nuclear capabilities (which are non-existent) and the potential threat to Israel.  According to the New York Times, “Officials in Israel have expressed increasing fear that Mr. Bush will stop pushing Iran as hard to cease its nuclear program as he comes under pressure from European allies and at home to seek Tehran’s help in Iraq.”  (Find it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/13/washington/14prexycnd.html?hp&ex=1163480400&en=b1880e032d3ddfed&ei=5094&partner=homepage.)  Olmert went so far as to claim that Iran poses a threat to the world.  This is an interesting claim since Israel has recently received increasing international criticism for  devastating attacks on the Palestinian controlled Gaza Strip.  On November 8, the IDF fired missiles into a town called Beit Hanoun killing 19 civilians (7 children) and today they killed another Palestinian teenager in an missile strike.  The UN Security Council voted in favor of a condemnation of these attacks today but the resolution was vetoed by the United States.  According to Al-Jazeera, “John Bolton, the US ambassador to the UN, described the text as ‘unbalanced’ and ‘biased against Israel and politically motivated’.”  As we all know, John Bolton is the freaking paragon of balanced, unbiased, and politically neutral policy making in the UN.  Apparently, everyone but the US thinks that Israel is a more serious threat to world security.  This threat will only increase as Israel finds itself in an ever more compromising position due to failed US foreign policy.  Its also interesting to note in regard to Olmert’s remarks about Iran that the Internation Red Cross has recently urged all nations to end the use of cluster bombs (of course only a very few including the US and Israel actually use them) in response to Israel’s indiscriminate bombing of Lebanon over the summer.  (Find out about this here: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/090500-02.htm.)  Add to this a report in today’s Boston Globe fingering the US as the top arms dealer to already nations already in the midst of conflict (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/111306T.shtml) and it becomes obvious who the real threats to international peace are.

159 people were found dead in Iraq on Sunday and 3 more US troops were reported dead.      

Anyway, there are a lot of important and interesting things to talk about now.  The first thing to say is: DON’T BE CONFUSED - Dems are not doves.  For the Democratic Party (at least officially), the war in Iraq was imprudent, illconceived, and poorly carried off.  It was not, however, immoral.  It is as important now as it was before this midterm turnaround to be pro-peace and against this war.  Another thing that we must remain aware of is: just because they say “troop withdrawal,” it doesn’t mean they’re truly going to WITHDRAW THE TROOPS.  Indeed, the US military’s version of “troop withdrawal” could prove much worse for Iraqis than the status quo.  As in Vietnam, the US will probably step up the air campaign as part of relieving the burden on the ground.  And, as anyone with any sense knows, “precision guided weapons” aren’t exactly precise.  We must work toward a peaceful, just, and equitable end to the violence in Iraq.  We cannot, however, purchase the lives of a few American soldiers at the price of thousands of Iraqi lives.  Therefore, we must be clear in our demands - COMPLETE US WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ.  This will be a long fight (it could be a decade or more before this war ends), but we can win. 

On another note, all the above-mentioned tactics become even more predictable when you consider Bush’s choice to replace Rumsfeld.  Bush has tapped Robert Gates to succeed Donald Rumsfeld as the Defense Secretary (more aptly Secretary of War-Mongering or Head of the Dept. of Slaugher).  According to Robert Parry from Consortuim News, “The 63-year-old Gates has long faced accusations of collaborating with Islamic extremists in Iran, arming Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship in Iraq, and politicizing U.S. intelligence to conform with the desires of policymakers - three key areas that relate to his future job.”  (You can find this and other material on Gates at http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/110906A.shtml.)  Not only this, but Gates is also known to have been a key member in the Iran Contra affair.  (For more on this there was an excellent interview on DemocracyNow! this morning.  You can see this at www.democracynow.org.)  This is particularly timely as Daniel Ortega, against whom the US-funded Contras were fighting in Nicaragua, has just been elected as the President in Nicaragua.  All this was, of course, against US wishes (indeed our noble warriors for the cause of democracy threatened to cut off all aid to Nicaragua if Ortega won and they are alleged to have engaged in even more controversial electioneering.)  I can’t imagine why Hugo Chavez doesn’t love FREEDOM…  The American people may lack a sense of history but the American government does not.  Robert Gates is being brought in to aid George W. Bush and his imperialist cronies (as he has countless times) in their attempt to subjugate the Middle East and South and Central America.  Without much work - I’m sure - one could link him directly to the Nixon administration and their ”peace with honor.”

Just so you know, 21 US soldiers have died in the first 8 days of fighting in November.  

Somehow, people really believe that the US always manages to be on the right side of every issue.  As they see it, we’re genetically or racially predisposed to do the right thing.  “At heart,” they say, “we’re really good people.”  And then, there are the bad people - ‘the axis of evil.’  These people are genetically or racially predisposed to do the wrong thing.  “I just don’t understand Muhammed’s willingness to kill himself and other innocent people.  They just don’t value life the way we do.  I’m glad Johnny Hero is over there killing the bad guys by the truck-load - and if he kills or tortures a few innocents by accident, well that’s part of war.”

Today, Dennis Kucinich held a hearing on the march to war with Iran.  Soon enough, there will be airstrikes and these may or may not be “strategic.”  Why is the US trying to start a war with Iran?  Well, among other things, the Iranians are one of the strongest threats to American/Israeli hegemony in the region.  A nuclear warhead would definitely even the playing-field.  But, it should be kept in mind that the Iranians DO NOT HAVE a nuclear weapon.  In fact, they’re not even close.  Further, the belief that the Iranians would be more likely to proliferate than other currently existing nuclear powers is part of the same moralistic/racist/nationalist rhetoric mentioned earlier.  “Can’t trust an Arab with a nuke!”  (Nevermind that they’re Persian.) So, the issue about nuclear weapons capacity is a smoke-screen.  The real issue is securing American economic and strategic interests.  The same is true of North Korea (as I talked about in the last entry).  For an interesting, chilling, and super-domestic example, check today’s Ky Kernel opinions page: www.kykernel.com.

If we’re to judge by an Op-Ed piece in yesterday’s New York Times, many of our elected leaders are actually motivated by this idiocy.  In the piece (which can be found at: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/opinion/17stein.html?em&ex=1161316800&en=748252ff880c73b9&ei=5087%0A), columnist Jeff Stein reveals that many on the Hill don’t know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites.  According to Stein, Jo Ann Davis, a Republican congresswoman from Virginia (who sits on an intelligence subcomittee no less), had the following to say: “It’s a difference in their fundamental religious beliefs. The Sunni are more radical than the Shia. Or vice versa. But I think it’s the Sunnis who’re more radical than the Shia.”  First of all, she clearly has no damn clue about what it means to be either a Sunni or Shia.  (If you don’t know either here’s the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Shi%27a-Sunni_relations.) But also, imagine if I said that Baptists are more “radical” than Methodists.  The very terms of her false understanding of the religion are filled with the moralistic/racist/nationalistic rhetoric.  And, she’s a policy maker!  

Oh for the days of Realpolitik!

Foreign (and domestic…) policy is about securing the financial and military interests of the ruling class in a nation (whether or not they know it).  All the other stuff - moral crusades, national or racial character, etc. - is propaganda.  To me, this doesn’t even sound like an insight - it’s just common sense.  What astounds me, is the number of people who don’t have the good sense to recognize the propaganda.

 Brandon

Kim -Jong-il may have any number of personal eccentricites.  It is a mistake, however, to consider him insane.  There are a number of rational considerations that have probably led to this decision on the part of the North Koreans.  First and foremost, the US has demonstrated a willingness to invade those listed on Bush’s ”axis of evil” for arbitrary and invented reasons.  Further, while much of the world has condemned this invasion all along, no one did much to stop the US from destroying Iraq.  By demonstrating that it possesses nuclear weaponry, North Korea has affectively made it impossible for the US or its allies to attempt an invasion.  For a Korean, the possibility of a US invasion does not seem outlandish.  We have had forces posted on the boarder since the 1950’s.

As for the suggestions that the North Koreans are acting out of a desire to proliferate or to sale these weapons to terrorists, this is a mistake not only because it is more likely that they are acting for strategic reasons, but also because any such action would result in a war that North Korea could not win.  Any attempt to aid in an attack on the United States would have devastating consquences for the North Koreans.  It is, remember, the US that invented the idea of mutually assured destruction - nuclear war between the US and the Soviet Union could be avoided by assuring that the world would be completely destroyed in the event that either side attacked.  It’s much more likely that the North Koreans are being honest when they say that they are attempting to deter a potential US assault - there has after all been some talk of invading the other member of the “axis of evil,” Iran.      

Of course, I think it’s a bad thing that anyone have a nuclear weapon.  The true path to preventing such proliferation, however, is not warfare, sanctions, or talks.  Rather, the true path to ending the proliferation of nuclear weaponry is full disarmament.  Only when there is no strategic advantage to be had, will nations quell their nuclear ambitions.  The world’s two largest proliferators are the United States and Russia.  Not coincidentally, they also have the two largest nuclear stockpiles.  Only when the United States and Russia begin to take disarmament seriously, we will be abel to hope for a world that is free of the nuclear threat. 

There is currently a civil war in Iraq.  The US initiated this war by 1) destroying Iraq and its infrastructure in a frivolous war, 2) failing to repair this infrastructure after the war, 3) failing to consider prior to the war that there would be any ethnic or religious tension, and 4) exacerbating what tensions there were through a complete insensitivity to anything like REALITY.  There is no simple solution to these problems.  Suspending a police brigade will not end a civil war.  Nor will decrying a prime minister.  The US should never have gone to Iraq and it should not remain there now.  Iraqis living in Iraq believe that the US presence in Iraq causes more violence (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092800408.html).  Isn’t time that we start trusting Iraqis over US politicians about the political fate of Iraq?  

Brandon

I don’t appreciate the military.  And, I’m saddened that the Dems (at UK and across America) can’t see beyond their very narrow “political” goals. 

I say I don’t appreciate the military.  What does that mean?  What is the military?  I don’t think we should think of it as a specific group of people.  Indeed, every day the set of people “in the military” changes, but the military itself does not.  So, when I say that I don’t appreciate the military, I don’t mean that I don’t like the people or that I think everyone ”in the military” is bad.  I know plenty of people who are or were ”in the military” that I think are great people. There are also, obviously, a bunch of assholes ”in the military.”  It’s as ridiculous to believe that everyone ”in the military” is a hero or a great person as it is to believe that everyone “in college” is a genius or a rational person.  Institutions don’t work like that.  People (good people, bad people) find themselves “in” institutions - they enact them.  Mostly, this doesn’t promote or discourage good or evil behavior.  By and large, institutions are value neutral - so long as one behaves in conformity with the rules of the institution, it is not disturbed by otherwise commendable or repugnant actions.  I don’t ”appreciate the miliaty.”  This doesn’t mean that I don’t like anyone who is or was in the military.  Just the same, it doesn’t mean that I think everyone in the military is a great person.

So, what is the military?  The military is the instrument of warfare.  It is the institution that prepares for war and orders the behavior of humans such that they are capable of engaging in warfare.  This I do not appreciate.  I do not find it of value that human beings be made capable of engaging in war - that they be ordered (both in the sense of commanded and in the sense of arranged) to kill other humans.  Indeed, warfare is the ultimate confusion concerning what is of value (the word ”war” comes from the Old High German ”werran” meaning to confuse).  The conduct of war (again this should be taken in the double sense of the actual engagement in warfare and the behavior that enacts such an engagement) presupposes that human lives are less valuable than some proposed objective or goal (e.g. homeland security or procurement of oil).  But, of coure, humans are priceless (or worthless).  There is no goal that justifies murdering us - we are worth nothing in that we always transcend the realm of any possible e-valuation.  Warfare puts a price on human life - anyone is potential “collateral damage.”  The military is the institution that is called for and grounded in the misguided attempt to make human life “valuable.”  The word “army” is derived from the same word as “arm” (think of “taking up arms” and “armament”)  which is at once the word for the appendages attached to our upper body and the word for an implement or tool (think of the relationship of the words ”hand” and “handy”).  The military or ”army” is the means for achieving some end.  It is the tool for conducting war.  I don’t appreciate war or find it of value (neither do I find humans of value, but for clearly different reasons).  Therefore, I don’t appreciate the military.

It’s a shame that “politics” must always amount to posturing for the Democrats.  I still believe this is why they can’t beat the Republicans - they refuse to ask hard questions or propose serious answers.  Instead, they “appreciate the military.”  Which is to say, they mouth words and perform deeds that are propagandistic at their heart.  And, again, propaganda is a very basic way of disrespecting people and treating them as means to some end.  Accordingly, people aren’t smart enough to be told the truth or brave enough to set out on the path of serious questioning (e.g. what is the military?).  And, people are useful - in that their agreement can help one to secure or sustain “political” power.  It would be sobering and inspiring if anyone in the “political sphere” had the guts and the vision to respect people and to treat them as priceless (or worthless) and therefore as deserving honesty.  Apparently, this isn’t the sort of thing we can expect from the Democrats.