After a brief hiatus Arthur Silber is back online. If you haven't checked out his writing, I highly recommend it. He is currently running two blogs, Once Upon a Time... and The Sacred Moment.

There is an awesome post on the so-called Iran crisis up at Once Upon a Time... that is really worth looking into. His quandary:

So the question arises: what makes so many people, to be found in all parts of the political spectrum, so willing to fall for this kind of propaganda? Is there something in our general method and approach that makes us particularly susceptible to this kind of hysterical saber-rattling? Are we predisposed to find enemies -- not just your standard enemy, but "the biggest threat to the Republic" and "the largest threat" to the entire world -- when the actual enemy is significantly different in nature and magnitude from the nightmarish cartoon the propagandists offer us?

Also, there is an excellent new blog called Against the War on Terror that has a refreshing "thank god someone is saying it" take on the current insanity. From their "manifesto":

The war on terror is more than just another public policy. It is an attempt to make security the highest goal of American life. Our leaders have reduced politics to questions of mere survival, in which even the smallest risks are viewed as overriding threats to national existence. We at Against the War on Terror aim to challenge this view and the apparent need to eliminate fear itself. The preservation of bare life cannot and should not guide our political activity and dominate our public culture. We reject the very premise of the war on terror.

Since we are challenging the premise of the war on terror, and seek to develop a truly independent, alternative position, we will not accept the terms of debate as they exist, but rather intend to change them. Instead of beginning from the existing partisan divisions between the Bush administration and its left-liberal critics, we aim to situate the war on terror in relation to broader political trends in our society. Doing so will show that the real political dividing lines are not necessarily between ‘left’ and ‘right’, or ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’. The substance of the argument matters more than the formal label. We believe both the Bush administration and its left-liberal critics are guilty of using fear and pragmatism over principle. In fact, we are as concerned with the lack of principled argument amongst the opposition, as we are with the way the Bush administration uses its power. The most urgent political imperative, in our eyes, is to develop a coherent critique of the politics of fear and a consistent argument in favor of liberty.

The authors are holding a "teach-in" (why must they call it that?) on Saturday the 25th with guests Christian Parenti and Corey Robin. I'm planning on going and if anyone else is interested, let me know.