Coming
Soon!
From Common Courage Press
Recent
Stories
July
10, 2003
Joanne
Mariner
Federal Courts, Not Military Commissions
July
9, 2003
David
Lindorff
Is the Media Finally Turning on
Bush?
David
Krieger and Angela McCracken
10 Myths About Nuclear Weapons
Mickey
Z.
Why Speak Out?
Lee Sustar
The Great Medicare Fraud
John
Chuckman
The Worst Kind of Lie
Gary Leupp
"Pacifist" Japan and the Occupation of Iraq
Website
of the Day
Hail to the Thief:
Songs for the Bush Years
July
8, 2003
Elaine
Cassel
Bully on the Bench: the Pathological
Dissents of Scalia
Alan
Maass
Nights of Fire and Rage in Benton Harbor
Chris
Floyd
Troubled Sleep: Getting Used to the American Gulag
Linda
S. Heard
America's Kangaroo Justice
Brian
Cloughley
They Tell Lies to Nodders
Charles
Sullivan
Bush the Christian?
Saul
Landau
The Intelligence Culture in the National Security Age
Website
of the Day
Occupation Watch
July
7, 2003
William
Blum
The Anti-Empire Report
Harvey
Wasserman
The Nuke with a Hole in Its Head
Ramzy
Baroud
Peace for All the Wrong Reasons
Simon
Jones
What Progressives Should Think About
Iran
Lesley
McCulloch
Fear, Pain and Shame in Aceh
Uri
Avnery
The Draw
Steve
Perry
Bush's Wars Web Log 7/3
July
4 / 6, 2003
Patrick
Cockburn
Dead on the Fourth of July
Frederick
Douglass
What is Freedom to a Slave?
Martha
Honey
Bush and Africa: Racism, Exploitation
and Neglect
Jeffrey
St. Clair
The Rat in the Grain: Amstutz and
the Looting of Iraqi Agriculture
Standard
Schaefer
Rule by Fed: Anyone But Greenspan in 2004
Lenni Brenner
Jefferson is for Today
Elaine
Cassel
Fucking Furious on the Fourth
Ben Tripp
How Free Are We?
Wayne
Madsen
A Sad Independence Day
John Stanton
Happy Birthday, America! 227 Years of War
Jim
Lobe
Bush's Surreal AIDS Appointment
John Blair
Return to Marble Hill: Indiana's Rusting Nuke
Lisa
Walsh Thomas
Heavy Reckoning at Qaim
David Vest
Wake Up and Smell the Dynamite
Adam
Engel
Queer as Grass
Poets'
Basement
Christian, Witherup, Albert & St. Clair
Website
of the Weekend
The Lipstick Librarian
July
3, 2003
Patrick
W. Gavin
The Meaning of Gettysburg
Thomas
W. Croft
There Was a Reason They Called It the Casino Economy
David
Lindorff
Outlawing Subversives: Hong Kong
and the US
John
Chuckman
Lessons from the American Revolution
Jackson
Thoreau
New Far-Right Scheme: Impeach Supreme Court Justices
Stan
Goff
"Bring 'Em On?": a Former
Special Forces Soldier Responds to Bush's Invitation for Iraqis
to Attack US Troops
Steve
Perry
Bush's Wars Web Log 7/3
July 2, 2003
Diane
Christian
Good Killing and Bad Killing
Richard
Falk
After Iraq, Does UN War Prevention Have a Future?
Mokhiber
/ Weissman
Bush Administration: Causing Repetitive Stress
Justin
Podur
Uribe's Onslaught Across Colombia
Reuven
Kaviner
Prosecuting Ben-Artzi, the Refusenik
Steve
Perry
Bush's Wars Web Log 7/2
July
1, 2003
Sasan
Fayamanesh
Weapon of Choice: Nukes, Israel and
Iran
Elaine
Cassel
Sex and the Supreme Moralizer: Scalia
and the Sodomy Cops
Susan
Block
A Love Supreme: Our Assholes Belong
to Ourselves
Bill
Glahn
RIAA Watch: No, No Bono
David Lindorff
Weapons in Search of a Name
Gary
Leupp
Occupation, Resistance and the Plight of the GIs
Steve
Perry
Bush's Wars Web Log 7/1
June
30, 2003
Karyn
Strickler
The Do-Nothings: an Exposé
of Progressive Politics in America
Col. Dan
Smith
The Occupation of Iraq: Descending into the Quagmire
Tim
Wise
Race and Destruction in Black and White
Neve Gordon
The Roadmap and the Wall
Chris
Floyd
The Revelation of St. George: "God Told Me to Strike Saddam"
Elaine
Cassel
Kentucky Woman
Uri
Avnery
Hope in Dark Times
Steve
Perry
Bush's Wars Web Log 6/30
Website
of the Day
Bush El Hombre
June
28 / 29, 2003
M.
Shahid Alam
Bernard Lewis: Scholarship or Sophistry?
Jeffrey
St. Clair
Meet Steven Griles: Big Oil's Inside
Man
Laura
Carlsen
Democracy's Future: From the Polls or the Populace?
Alan Maass
You Call These Democrats an Alternative?
C.Y.
Gopinath
Bush and Kindergarten
Noah Leavitt
Bush, the Death Penalty and International Law
Joanne
Mariner
Rehnquist Family Values
Ignacio
Chapela
Tenure, Censorship and Biotech at Berkeley
Bob
Scowcroft
Bush's Squeeze on Organic Farmers
Jon Brown
Tom Delay: "I am the Government"
Kam
Zarrabi
Keep Your Hands Off Iran, Please!
Ron Jacobs
Big Bill Broonzy's Conversation with the Blues
Julie
Hilden
Fear Factor: Art, Terror and the First Amendment
Adrien
Rain Burke
The Anarchists' Wedding Guide
Adam
Engel
US Troops Outta Times Square
Poets'
Basement
Witherup, Guthrie, Albert, Hamod
June
27, 2003
Jason
Leopold
CIA: Seven Months Prior to 9/11 Iraq
Posed No Threat to US
David
Vest
Supreme Silence: Bush's Bunker-Hunker
David
Lindorff
The Catch and Release of "Comical
Ali"
Ray McGovern
Cheney, Forgery and the CIA
Steve
Perry
Bush's Wars Web Log 6/26
Website
of the Day
John Kerry, Teresa Heinz & Ken Lay: The Politics of Hypocrisy
June
26, 2003
Sen.
Robert Byrd
The Road of Cover-Up is a Road to Ruin
Jason
Leopold
Wolfowitz Instructed the CIA to Investigate
Hans Blix
Paul
de Rooij
Ambient Death in Palestine
Chris Floyd
Mass Graves and Burned Meat in Bush's New Iraq
Elaine
Cassel
Wolfowitz as Lord High Executioner
CounterPunch
Wire
Musicians Unite Against Sweatshops
Sheldon
Hull
Squatting in Mansions
Ben Tripp
A Guide to Hating Almost Anyone
Uri
Avnery
The Best Show in Town
Steve
Perry
Bush's Wars Web Log 6/25
Website
of the Day
Ordinary Vistas:
The Photographs of Kurt Nimmo
June
25, 2003
Bruce
Jackson
Buffalo Cops Wage War on Pedal Pushers
Mickey
Z.
The New Dark Ages
David Lindorff
Indonesia's War on Journalists
Dan
Bacher
Butterflies and Farmworkers Confront USDA and Riot Cops
Adam Federman
"Success is Not the Issue Here"
Elaine
Cassel
"Ain't No Justice": Fed Judge Quits, Assails Sentencing
Guidelines
Bill Kauffman
My America vs. the Empire
Steve
Perry
Bush's Wars Web Log 6/25
Website
of the Day
You Are Being Watched:
Elevator Moods
June
24, 2003
Elaine
Cassel
Supreme Indemnity
Holocaust Denial at the High Court
Roya
Monajem
A Message from Tehran: Is It Worth
It to Risk One's Life?
John
Chuckman
The Real Clash of Civilizations
David Lindorff
WMD Damage Control at the Times
Steve
Perry
Bush's Wars Web Log 6/24
June
23, 2003
Marc
Pritzke
Washington Lied: an Interview with
Ray McGovern
Conn
Hallinan
The Consistency of Sharon
Wayne Madsen
Commercials, Disney & Amistad
Edward
Said
The Meaning of Rachel Corrie
Steve Perry
Bush's Wars Web Log 6/23
June
21 / 22, 2003
Alexander
Cockburn
My Life as a Rabbi
William
A. Cook
The Scourge of Hopelessness
Standard
Schaefer
The Wages of Terror: an Interview with R.T. Naylor
Ron Jacobs
US Prisons as Strategic Hamlets
Harry
Browne
The Pitstop Ploughshares
Lawrence
Magnuson
WMD: The Most Dangerous Game
Harold
Gould
Saddam and the WMD Mystery
David Krieger
10 Reasons to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Avia
Pasternak
The Unholy Alliance in the Occupied Territories
CounterPunch
Summer Reading:
Our Favorite Novels
Todd Chretien
Return to Sender: Todd Gitlin, the Duke of Condescension
Maria
Tomchick
Danny Goldberg's Imaginary Kids
Adam Engel
The Fat Man in Little Boy
Poets'
Basement
Guthrie, Albert & Hamod
June 20, 2003
Walter
Brasch
Down on Our Knees
Robert
Meeropol
The Son of the Rosenbergs on His Parents Death and Bush's America
Russell
Mokhiber and Robert Weissman
Grannies and Baby Bells
Norman
Madarasz
Pierre Bourgault: the Life of a
Quebec Radical
Gary
Leupp
Bush on "Revisionist Historians"
Steve
Perry
Bush's Lies
Marathon: the Finale
Hot Stories
Wendell
Berry
Small Destructions Add Up
CounterPunch
Wire
WMD: Who Said What When
Cindy
Corrie
A Mother's Day Talk: the Daughter
I Can't Hear From
Elaine
Cassel
Civil Liberties
Watch
Michel
Guerrin
Embedded Photographer Says: "I
Saw Marines Kill Civilians"
Uzma
Aslam Khan
The Unbearably Grim Aftermath of War:
What America Says Does Not Go
Paul de Rooij
Arrogant
Propaganda
Gore Vidal
The
Erosion of the American Dream
Francis Boyle
Impeach
Bush: A Draft Resolution
Click Here
for More Stories.
|
July
10, 2003
Sustainability and
Politics
An
Interview with Wes Jackson
By ROBERT JENSEN
Wes Jackson and his colleagues at The Land Institute
are working on a 10,000 year-old problem -- agriculture. Not
simply problems in agriculture, but the problem of agriculture.
That fundamental problem is that no one
has come up with a sustainable system for perpetuating agricultural
productivity. High yields mask what Jackson has called "the
failure of success": Production remains high while the health
of the soil continues to decline dramatically -- primarily because
of erosion and chemical contamination of land and water. That
kind of success guarantees the inevitable collapse of the system.
Agriculture isn't the only system we
live with that is unsustainable -- empire and capitalism also
come to mind quickly. How are these systems connected to each
other? How long can such systems continue before they give way
to something new? Can they be replaced before they take the planet
down with them? Who and what will suffer in the meantime? And,
what can movements do to change all this? Jackson has some provocative
ideas about -- though he'd be the first to admit, no definitive
answers to -- these questions.
Twenty-seven years ago, Jackson -- then
a professor of environmental studies at California State University
at Sacramento with degrees in botany and genetics -- co-founded
The Land Institute to pursue a long-term solution to the problem
of agriculture, delving into both the scientific and cultural
aspects. The goal, articulated in the Land's mission statement,
is agriculture that will allow people, communities, and the land
to prosper in sustainable fashion.
The research into what they call "natural
systems agriculture" (NSA) investigates ways that monoculture
annual grains (such as corn and wheat) can be replaced by polyculture
(grown in combinations) perennial grains. NSA attempts to mimic
nature instead of subduing it. Jackson points out that when left
alone, a natural ecosystem such as a prairie recycles materials,
sponsors its own fertility, runs on contemporary sunlight, and
increases biodiversity. The question NSA poses is whether agriculture
can be designed to increase ecological wealth in such fashion
rather than degrade it.
Jackson, who currently serves as the
president of The Land Institute, is the author of several books,
including New Roots for Agriculture, Altars of Unhewn Stone,
and Becoming Native to This Place. In his writing and frequent
lectures, Jackson explores the intersection of science and society,
agronomy and ecology, culture and politics. His talks are a lively
mix of styles -- country preacher, old-time storyteller, hard-nosed
scientist, and political organizer. Jackson is blunt about the
problems of the culture and agriculture but hopeful about the
possibilities of change, and his folksy style allows him to launch
fairly radical ideas in ways that don't seem threatening. I began
my interview with him by asking him to expand on several slogans
he had tossed out at Prairie Festival, the annual celebration
of The Land Institute, in 2001.
Robert Jensen: At the 25th anniversary
celebration you offered three aphorisms that seem to turn conventional
political wisdom on its head -- "If we walk our talk, we
won't get there," "We need to spend more time preaching
to the choir," and "We've got to quit meeting people
where they are." Explain what you meant.
Wes Jackson: "If we walk our talk,
we won't get there" is the easy one. Look, I ride jet planes.
I drive. My household is tied into the grid. We're all dependent
on the extractive economy. If we were to "walk the talk"
-- if we were to really live within the limits of a renewal life-support
system with no subsidies from coal or portable liquid fuels or
the poison of nuclear power -- we would have trouble making our
voices heard in the culture.
Another way to put it is that there's
no life outside the system. So, I think we should ask two questions
about endeavors that involve us in the extractive economy. One
is, "How can I use this nonrenewable resource in a strategic
way?" Two, "Is it so much fun that you can't say no
to it?" That second one is just a way of not taking ourselves
too seriously.
RJ: What about the people who say that
it's important to create alternatives that are, to the degree
possible, outside the system? Should people sacrifice involvement
in a political movement to create a model of something else?
WJ: We do need those good examples, and
people have to work in the area of their passion. When I look
at people I start with the question, "Have they joined the
fight?" If they have, then you have to be careful in critique,
because we don't know enough about what's going to be most effective
in the long run. If someone wants to be the good example, then
fine. But I think they should be doing it out of intrinsic interest,
not out of sense of nobility.
RJ: What about, "We need to spend
more time preaching to the choir"?
WJ: That's meant to suggest we need to
deepen the discussion. The modern environmental movement really
began in 1962 with Rachel Carson's Silent Spring. Before that,
environmentalism was mostly about wilderness advocacy, with some
focus on soil erosion and water conservation. With those roots
in saving wilderness, this new environmental movement lacked
the intellectual basis necessary to understand the kinds of problems
we face as a consequence of consumerism. Today we have to fight
the idea that nature is to be subdued or ignored. In that older
view, wilderness was seen as the sacred, and we could afford
to allow other parts of the world that served human needs and
desires to be profane. Now we realize the planet is seamless
and that wilderness is really an artifact of civilization. So,
we haven't had a long enough time to deepen the discussion, and
that deepening is best done with members of the choir, rather
than with people who are just catching on that the planet is
in trouble.
RJ: What about the argument that we have
to broaden the movement so that we have the political power to
make the changes that are so crucial?
WJ: Yes, but by making a movement's ideas
too readily accessible, you can make them meaningless. Ultimately,
you have to have depth to your argument or people will find themselves
being self-satisfied by hauling their cans to be recycled in
their SUV. To even be talking about recycling when the parking
lots are full is kind of absurd.
There's a lot of work for the choir to
do, too. For example, we have to learn to be better numbersmiths,
to understand science and statistics. I'm going to be 67 this
month, and in my lifetime people have burned 97.5 percent of
all the oil that has ever been burned. That's an important statistic.
We have to face the fact that we are not going to find a technological
substitute for the high-density energy that comes out of a gas
or oil well. It is thermodynamically implausible. We have not
attended to these numbers and realities. So, we have people running
around rather glibly saying that, "We have alternatives.
We just need to get solar and wind and thermal insulation and
this, that and the other."
RJ: What do you say to those who contend
that there are energy alternatives that will allow Americans
to continue to consume at the current level?
WJ: I say that's nuts. That's where the
discussion needs to deepen. Take the example of a photovoltaic
array and look at the energy that the array will produce in its
lifetime and the energy it takes to make it. It's a ratio that
ranges from 4:1 to 8:1. Or a wind machine, which is about the
same. Thermal insulation is pretty good, close to 100:1. But
all that still isn't enough. It's assumed, because scarcity is
always said to be the mother of invention, that when things get
scarce we will find the alternative. Well, I'm saying there simply
is no alternative to the density of high-energy carbon coming
out of an oil well.
RJ: Do you think there is a need to preach
to the choir in other movements, such as the antiwar or anti-corporate
globalization movements?
WJ: I think so. It's clear that war and
racism, poverty, sexism, the growing gap between the rich and
the poor, are all connected. And when we hit a brick wall, it
turns out that brick wall is capitalism. We're going to have
to face that. But people want to believe it is possible to design
around capitalism, through regulation and progressive legislation.
But that won't work, and we need some consciousness-raising on
that.
RJ: What about the argument that the
reactionary right and the Bush administration are so dangerous,
such a threat to the planet, that all our efforts should be directed
to defeating Bush in 2004?
WJ: I think that's pretty naïve.
The Bush folks are going to go to the fat cats who made out so
well on the tax cuts and say, "OK boys, give us 10 percent."
And they'll get it, and that will put billons in their coffers,
and they'll use that to buy media and control the discussion.
It's whistling in the dark to presume those guys don't have a
plan to keep this thing alive.
RJ: What if the Democrats had a realistic
chance to beat Bush? Would that change anything for you?
WJ: Given the behavior of the Democrats,
who have tried to become more like the Republicans, what evidence
do we have that they would have a spirited about-face? I'm pretty
sure they would be better in some ways, that fewer of our civil
liberties would be violated. But the Democrats are not trying
to change our dependence on an extractive economy. What did Clinton
do for us?
The Democrats turn the dial a little
to the left, and the Republicans turn it to the right, but they're
both on the wrong channel. I don't see any fine-tuning that is
going to make a big difference.
RJ: What about the third slogan, "We've
got to quit meeting people where they are"?
WJ: If you meet people where they are,
you're going to meet them in Wal-Mart, where things are cheap
and things don't last. We keep trying to meet people on the grounds
of economics: Are they going to be able to keep their 401Ks intact?
Are they going to have more money so they can eat out more often
and buy more breakables? In that framework, the ecology message
is reduced to hoping that the EPA does a better job of enforcing
the Clean Water Act and the Clear Air Act. But the planet could
still go down the tubes with clean water and clean air, and with
wind generators in place. We've not talked about a society that,
at the rate it's going, is going to require four planets to keep
up with consumption.
Here's where we have to be thinking deeply.
Agriculture had its beginning 10,000 years ago. What were the
ecosystems like 10,000 years ago, after the retreat of the ice?
Those ecosystems featured material recycling and they ran on
contemporary sunlight. Humans have yet to build societies like
that. Is it possible that embedded in nature's economy are suggestions
for a human economy in which conservation is a consequence of
production? Let's open that up. The day after 9/11, I wrote a
piece suggesting that what George Bush should say is, "My
fellow Americans, from this day forward we will evaluate our
progress by how independent of the extractive economy we have
become." I think that kind of speech would resonate with
a lot of people. But if it resonates, then they have to roll
up their sleeves and say, "What does that mean for me, for
us?" That would not be meeting people where they are. George
Bush is meeting people where they are.
RJ: One possible conclusion from all
this is that, given where the culture and most people are, a
mass movement around sustainability isn't possible today. Is
that your view?
WJ: Let me be more positive. A mass intellectual
engagement on these issues is possible and is necessary. I don't
know if is possible right now. My hope is that when the resource
base declines and we are caught -- and it will appear to be unawares
-- there will have been going on in smaller circles an adequate
deepening of the conversation that has the potential to spread
among the larger population.
RJ: Any thoughts on how to go forward
with that?
WJ: One thing to avoid is getting too
overloaded with abstractions, without any of the particulars.
This struggle that we're involved in is not going to be won with
the bumper sticker. It's going to be won across the ecological
mosaic of the country; it's going to be the particularities.
I'm worried about our willingness to so readily embrace the abstractions
without the particularities.
Here's an example, which will sound like
whining, but it's not. Here at The Land Institute people are
out there breeding crops, doing the experiments, evaluating germ
plasm, because we think that in the 25 to 50 year time frame
it's possible to build an agriculture based on the way natural
ecosystems work. Those are particularities. Now, some of the
people in the environmental movement, some who are my friends,
think that they are change agents and are out there networking,
going off to another conference. I don't object to people doing
those kinds of things -- I do some of that myself -- but what
I do object to is the marginalization of an organization like
ours because we say it will take 25 to 50 years before we have
something to offer the farmer. My question for almost any group
is, "What does this translate into in a material way?"
Even though we are marginal, one reason
that we are still alive as a viable organization is not only
that we have an alternative paradigm, in the Kuhnian sense, but
there is pollen being transferred on behalf of that paradigm.
In other words, I think values dictate genotype. I think we're
here because our project resonates at a deep level with the Friends
of the Land and the foundation world.
RJ: What effect on public policy have
you had?
WJ: We've been to Washington, and we've
hit the brick walls. So, we're avoiding the brick walls. Instead,
we are supporting 19 graduate students from around the country.
They will go back to their universities, and we hope the institute's
intellectual "virus" will infect these major universities
and eventually overcome their institutional "immune systems."
It's change from the bottom up. In that sense, we're looking
at public policy for the long term. We are trying to develop
the compelling alternative for the future.
RJ: What is your assessment of the anti-corporate
globalization movement, especially the tactic of street protests?
WJ: We need to confront, but we also
need these particularities. The good thing about this movement
is the realization that we're all caught within a kind of structural
immorality. But, the bad thing is that we tend to stop with that,
as if there's nothing I can do except protest about it, and hope
that the overall structure changes so that my behavior will be
more environmentally benign. Street protests -- in combination
with other tactics -- have worked in the past, in other movements.
But I think that the environmental movement is, in many ways,
more complicated than the anti-Vietnam war or civil rights movement.
We have to deal with the aspect of human nature that wants stuff,
wants comfort and security. For some time I think we were naïve
and thought these problems could be solved easily.
This is one area where I think we need
to sit back and do some more thinking. What has worked? Take
a look at CSAs, community-supported agriculture. I'm all for
those, but they don't really speak to the vast majority of 350
million acres of farmland, most of which is eroding and being
chemically contaminated. CSA farms are donuts around the cities.
I don't object to doing that, but we shouldn't presume that's
a movement.
We need to be saying, "Listen folks,
capitalism is inherently destructive." How do we get from
where we are to where we need to be, keeping in mind that we
can't just try to tame that son of a bitch. We have got to get
rid of capitalism.
RJ: What are the most effective vehicles
for that, if it's not just protests in the streets, not faith
in the Democrats?
WJ: That isn't easy. We need to be drawing
attention to the brick wall of capitalism every time we hit it,
acknowledging that we don't just need to find a way over it but
how to knock it down. But what about while we are blocked by
the brick wall? Well, it is worthwhile when we are making a pollination
or designing our experiments that we design it for some future
farmer, rather than for something that can be readily adopted
today by a corporate bookkeeper. In our breeding work here we
could try to come up with perennial monocultures, and that would
make the seed companies happy. Our work on perennial polycultures
doesn't knock the wall of capitalism down, but at least while
you are behind the wall you can imagine life on the other side
of the wall. That may sound like a poor and hollow substitute
for something that will get at knocking down the wall. But at
least we can plan for the other side.
RJ: Do you have any thoughts on what
an alternative to capitalism would look like?
WJ: Just to get discussion going, I've
been putting forward the hypothesis that since the Stone Age
there has not been a single technological product or process,
including the domestication of crops and livestock, that hasn't
come at the cost of drawing down the capital stock of the planet.
I call that the "utterly dismal hypothesis." I'm advancing
it not because it's necessarily right, but to suggest that life
forms have got it as good as it gets. Whether you are talking
about the cell, the tissue, the organ, the organ system or the
organism, up that hierarchy to the ecosystem and the ecosphere
-- at all levels in that hierarchy of structure, life has had
to work it out, given the constraints of the second law of thermodynamics.
To presume that we can have a technological array that beats
that is somewhat arrogant. Life would have done that long ago.
Why should we constantly be looking for technological solutions?
I don't think we have spent enough time looking at the rules
of nature's economy, which are systems that have featured material
recycling and run on contemporary sunlight. That's the kind of
alternative economics I'm interested in. And I think that if
we don't get sustainability in agriculture first, it's not going
to happen. We have some disciplines standing behind and, potentially,
helping agriculture -- ecology, evolutionary biology. So that
is where it seems to me where the discussion has to start.
Robert Jensen
is an associate professor of journalism at the University of
Texas at Austin, a member of the Nowar Collective, and author
of the book Writing
Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream
and the pamphlet "Citizens of the Empire." He can be
reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu.
Weekend
Edition Features
Patrick
Cockburn
Dead on the Fourth of July
Frederick
Douglass
What is Freedom to a Slave?
Martha
Honey
Bush and Africa: Racism, Exploitation
and Neglect
Jeffrey
St. Clair
The Rat in the Grain: Amstutz and
the Looting of Iraqi Agriculture
Standard
Schaefer
Rule by Fed: Anyone But Greenspan in 2004
Lenni Brenner
Jefferson is for Today
Elaine
Cassel
Fucking Furious on the Fourth
Ben Tripp
How Free Are We?
Wayne
Madsen
A Sad Independence Day
John Stanton
Happy Birthday, America! 227 Years of War
Jim
Lobe
Bush's Surreal AIDS Appointment
John Blair
Return to Marble Hill: Indiana's Rusting Nuke
Lisa
Walsh Thomas
Heavy Reckoning at Qaim
David Vest
Wake Up and Smell the Dynamite
Adam
Engel
Queer as Grass
Poets'
Basement
Christian, Witherup, Albert & St. Clair
Website
of the Weekend
The Lipstick Librarian
Keep CounterPunch
Alive:
Make
a Tax-Deductible Donation Today Online!
home / subscribe
/ about us / books
/ archives / search
/ links /
|