Available Now! (click cover)

America's Counter-Revolution
The Constitution Revisited

From the back cover:

This book challenges the assumption that the Constitution was a landmark in the struggle for liberty. Instead, Sheldon Richman argues, it was the product of a counter-revolution, a setback for the radicalism represented by America’s break with the British empire. Drawing on careful, credible historical scholarship and contemporary political analysis, Richman suggests that this counter-revolution was the work of conservatives who sought a nation of “power, consequence, and grandeur.” America’s Counter-Revolution makes a persuasive case that the Constitution was a victory not for liberty but for the agendas and interests of a militaristic, aristocratic, privilege-seeking ruling class.

Monday, August 30, 2010

TGIF: Trading for Security

Americans tolerate a costly global national-security apparatus in part because they believe the country would be economically vulnerable without it. After all, we use resources from all over the world – oil being only the most prominent example. What if an embargo cut us off from supplies?
Read the rest of TGIF: Trading for Security here.

1 comment:

Frank said...

Some interesting quotes from this article about insurgents in Iraq...

Abu al Moheeb compared the Baathists' fight to that of George Washington, a figure revered in the US for leading America's uprising against the British in the Revolutionary War, before becoming the first president of the United States.

"We have the right to resist foreign occupation," he said. "If George Washington were alive today he would support us in our right to resist, he led a national liberation movement."

Attacking US forces in Iraq would remain the primary goal of the insurgents, Abu al Moheeb said, although he admitted that with US troops spending more time on heavily fortified bases instead of out patrolling, that would be difficult. He also described the Baathist insurgent forces as "weaker today" than had once been the case, saying they now lacked vital foreign support.

"The first target is the American soldiers," he explained. "They are occupation forces. It's not because they are Americans, we respect America and its people. But any American who dresses in a military uniform and comes to invade our country is a legitimate target for us – that goes for any occupation forces, American, British, anyone."
[emphasis mine]