The First Week of Antiwar Radio (plus a couple from early December)

My new project for and KAOS 95.9 FM in Austin, Texas:

Antiwar Radio for January 11, 2007: editorial director Justin Raimondo on Bush

42 thoughts on “The First Week of Antiwar Radio (plus a couple from early December)”

  1. mudshark

    excellent interviews this week, Scott. good to see you back, mann. nice intro thursday, btw.

    ya’ think Ron’s exploratory committee will pan out this time around? sure would be nice to see him make fools of beltway assclowns in the primaries. : )

  2. Oscar Goldman

    Wow, Scott, what a fantastic run of interviews! I mean DAMN they’re good. Your conversations with Larissa are entertaining as always; y’all would make a cute couple, too, if the whole libertarian vs. left thing didn’t heat up into too many fights. heh heh.

  3. Scott Post Author

    Thanks bro. That’s nice of you to say.

    Re: Paul: I don’t know, but I can see America becoming a great place to live and be from again were he to be the pres.

  4. Phil


    Interview with Justin was excellent. I wish you could reach more people via the Mainstream. People just don’t realize how much they are missing.

    BTW, I am changing my party affiliation back to Democrat, for what its worth. More of a protest thing than ideological.
    It was either that or the old Monty Python’s “Silly Party”.

    Welcome back.

  5. BlowfishAvenger

    Welcome back! I definitely missed your site the last several days. I’ve listened to a couple of interviews so far and they’re great! Keep up the great work!

  6. George

    Congratulations! I am very much enjoying listening to them. 🙂

    One suggestion: Could you guys please turn it into a podcast…? So we do not have to manually download them.

  7. Steve C

    I’ve been increasing my fiber intake so pardon my surly disposition. Per J.H. interview (assuming my audio feed was clear) S.H. described himself as a “strict constructionist.” I doubt if any strict constructionists would find a right to abortion in the Ninth Amendment (as I believe SH commented is a Kaos report a few months ago) – even a constructionist who may be sympathic to abortion rights.

  8. Phil

    “U.S. officials tell CBS News that American forces have begun an aggressive and mostly secret ground campaign against networks of Iranians that had been operating with virtual impunity inside Iraq.”


  9. Scott Post Author

    George, soon. Very soon.
    When applying the constitution to the government it supposedly granted into existence, the Jeffersonian tradition is to interpret rights as broadly as possible and powers as strictly as possible. The tenth amendment clearly forbids national abortion laws and the ninth says I decide what my rights are, not the state (or states). Privacy is recognized in amendment one, three, four, five, etc. anyway. Abortion is tough because no one can “prove” when the fetus’s property rights kick in, but the rapid approach of medical technology which will provide for viability beginning on day 1 will make the debate obsolete soon anyway… I hope.
    Yeah, fake Gulf of Tonkin attack coming soon…

  10. Steve C

    Quickie comment: Truth in advertising, I’m a pro – lifer but do NOT derive this perspective from my Christian religion, and can argue pro – life from a purely secular (even libertarian) standpoint. Even Rothbard, who held that the fetus is a person from conception, was PRO – CHOICE because he felt the sovereignty of the woman over her body took presedence since the fetus (person) did not have the right to use the property (her body) of the woman (mother). I disagree, but at least he did not dehumanize the fetus as most pro – choicers do. Secondly, Rothbard spoke of the right of the woman to remove the fetus from her. Now in the early stages of pregnancy (21 weeks or so), the consequence of this is death, but as technology improves the womans right no to be pregant is distinct from her right to kill the fetus, it will be interesting to see what happens at that point. I don’t buy the argument, but even if you liken the fetus to a tresspasser on your property (land), while you may have every right to compel that party to leave, if the opportunity exists to remove that party from your land whole and intact, I don’t see a right to actively kill.

  11. Scott Post Author

    Even Rothbard, who held that the fetus is a person from conception,

    Thing is, he couldn’t prove that. The reality of where a zygote is after a few days or weeks would seem to argue against that premise.

    The question is really whether or not you want to grant more enforcement power to the state at this point – on any question. SWAT teams kill as many people as doctors.

  12. Oscar Goldman

    oh please. not another abortion debate. not here.

    as a catholic, i find the idea of abortion distasteful and reprehensible because the concept of the sanctity of life has been drummed into me from the very beginning of my ethical. as a scientist, it is difficult (though not impossible) to assign rights to a blob of cells of an embryo before 2 weeks post conception. as a father, seeing a heartbeat in our daughters first ultrasound at about 6-8 weeks was like witnessing a miracle.

    there is no doubt that abortion tears our society apart, and rots it from within. after all, not too few people my age kill themselves because they believe that their birth and life was a mistake, and were told that they should have been aborted. however, let us think carefully. what is the cause behind abortion…i say it is the fear of welcoming a child ino the world. that is in many ways the greatest evil of all.

    and what is the source of that fear…why are people afraid. what is it that drives this fear.

    oh well not too much time to think clearly on this. i must say that i have not yet come to a perfectly satisfying opinion… all things considered though, as this debate heats up yet another discussion board, please be nice and try, just TRY to say something original. the old pro vs. con arguments read like a broken record.

  13. Steve C

    One of these days I’ll spell my full rationale out, but in the interim I’ll just throw two things out there and then shut up.
    For O.G. I’ll hope they are new.
    1) Why is the onus (burden) on establishing that a zygote (I’ll still to clinical terminology) is a human person? I’d hold it as a scientific fact – but lets not go there. Let’s say it is NOT CLEAR one way or the other at which point from conception to birth a “human person” exists. In criminal matters, if we have a doubt as to a persons guilt (at least in theory) they are to go free – and their life and liberties are restored. This is called erroring on the side of CAUTION. Assuming that no one “knows” when life begins (and I’ll put that forth as an assumption for this position), then we risk WRONGFULLY COMPELLING a woman to carry a pregnancy to term versus WRONGFULLY KILLING a pre – born person. Clearly the greater risk is with the destruction of preborn life. Yet we (the RTL community)
    are constantly having to PROVE the humanity of the preborn whereas somehow all ambiguity somehow moves to the “prochoice side.”

    Why do you think abortionists never show the ultrasound/fetal monitor to a woman seeking an abortion but an ob/gyn does to a woman carrying a pregnancy to term? There’s the same physiological development – the same objective reality. Even the language changes – from he/she to it.

    2) I would suppose most prochoicers would be horrified if a woman said she was going to her ob/gyn to have the legs removed from her healthy fetus……and then continue the pregnancy to term where her newborn would go through life without legs (or using prosthetics). However they would have no problem if a woman was to abort her fetus outright. From this it follows:
    It is Morally WRONG to HARM a fetus. It is Morally FINE to KILL a fetus.

    Related: Newspaper article “Botched Abortion severs babies arm” (How would a successful procedure be described?).

    If the woman in this story sued the above doctor would she be suing him for severing the arm of her child – or for failing to kill it?

    I’ll shut up for the time being. Take your best shot.

  14. Steve C

    Right now it may be viewed as an affirmative Constitutional Right – per Roe. Overturning Roe would not make it illegal but would get it back to the statehouses (or even localities) and the 50 states (or localities within the states) could debate it ad nauseum. What’s truly astonishing is that proponents of abortion generally claim it under a right of “privacy” yet simultaneously claim an entitlement to “public” funding. The NOW gang and NARAL and EMILYS’ LISTers are real bottom feeders. There are intelligent analytic prochoicers (see Camille Paglia and Wendy McElroy) but most are truly shrill and frankly aren’t truly pro – choice but love abortion (they’ve even praised China’s one child policy – so much for individual rights). …………Take a look at the wording of the Roe decision…………..Can you honestly say with a straight face that what they were doing is Constitutional reasoning – and not simply making a social policy decision to their liking – federally usurping a matter previously decided by the states. Every few paragraphs stop and ask —– and just where in the Constitution did you get that Justice Blackmun? Oh really Justice Blackmun, the framers didn’t just advocate for federal abortion rights but actually broke it down in trimesters………..Hmmmmmmm. What deep insights into the Constitution you have Justice Blackmun………

  15. Scott Post Author

    It’s not an affirmative right, but a negative one: Something the state can’t stop you from doing.

    Like it or not, the 14th amendment grants the national courts the power to apply the national Bill of Rights equally to individuals in all the states, but nowhere the power to outlaw abortion.

    Separately: Socialism is bad.

  16. Steve C

    Apparently the Supreme Court didn’t “discover” (invent) abortion as being in the Bill of Rights until Roe (1973 I think – handed down the same day LBJ croaked).

    Ya mean all those Supreme Court Justices were negligent from 1789 to 1973 until Harry Blackmun & Co. discovered abortion in the Bill of Rights.

    I do believe in sovereignty of adult individuals to make decisions regarding all areas that do not have a direct effect on others. I oppose drug prohibition as well as prohibition of prostitution. Clearly aborting is having a direct effect on the other party. Linguistically abort is a verb. If someone is having an abortion it follows (as a logical corallary) that someone then is being aborted (ie death of the fetus) which disqualifies it as being an act of autonomy (unlike prostitution and drug use).

    Pro – choicers frequently invoke that a woman is soverign over her own body. I don’t disagree – but seen abortion as outside of this issue – however I do think a woman being sovereign would include her right to sell (or rent) it. Can you name a single NOW or NARAL leader who has ever said “while I don’t endorse prostitution I certainly think it is within the right of each woman to decide for herself whether to rent her body and not mine or the states busines…….. No – they don’t. Because they are a bunch of liars and hypocrites.

    Its a digression, but one of there great heroes, Margaret Sanger, loved abortion and eugenics – but only for minorities. I think there is a closet racism behind much of this. But who do we have on my side…..a bunch of crazy dispensationalist bible thumpers who blow their loads over killing Arabs? Damn that sucks. Oh well, at least I have Ron Paul, Nat Hentoff, and Andrew Neopolitano.

  17. Redrum

    Interesting that Robert Fisk and Hesham Tillawi both say that the civil war card in Iraq was, maybe not anymore… misleading. They don’t think there was any sort of fighting between Sunni/Shia anymore then there is fighting going on between Catholic/Protestent. They think it is being purposely provoked. It’s interesting none the less, if this is what the neo-cons wanted, as I think it is… why? Maybe to give Israel more legitimacy in the area by seperating groups into racial/religous identities…

  18. Redrum

    Abortion..I used to be pro-choice, now I don’t know what I am. I have been thinking about this quite a bit… I think if we are going to group human beings together and grant them rights, we have to ask, why? Because they own their body? Well, so do animals…. they control their own bodies, should they have rights?

    I believe rights are a bit more complicated then that.

    I don’t buy the state of equality in nature either– we aren’t all equal in nature. But… I do believe we should all be equal before the law, by this I mean, subjected to the same law. Because of mans nature we need a social contract, or we come to this inevitable conclusion. The thing about limited government, is, it is the closest thing to a moral form of government, moral presupposes choice, and in a limited government one is free to choose to be moral, and in coming to the social contract, one grants others the freedom to be moral as long as they grant him the same. The only real compulsions (besides the ones nature pushes on us) is to leave other free to be moral. (As a side note, does this mean a religous person isn’t really moral because they fear the rath of a god?)

    I think, that our rights are derived from our nature as human beings and it’s relation to reality. What we are, what a human being is. One could say it is because man is a rational creature, a value choosing entity, a conceptual being… and I would agree, this is what makes us different, and this is emperical.

    I often wonder what the heck it is that gives us what we call “free willl”. Is it because we are conceptual, able to form words and numbers, and with this, the words, for instance, able to basically turn back and act on our own mind? Like a computer, maybe we add to our programming…. and complete our genetics? One could say animals are value “choosing” entities, but I don’t know if that is true. Do they really choose, or is their thinking limited to a very narrow context guided by their genetics? There is something very different about humans, when was the last time you saw an animal commit suicide or starve itself for a higher cause, or resist the tempation of sex, or have sex for pleasure, or have sex facing each other, or create art? It seems that we are the part of the universe that is self-aware, and in being so, we know about the the fundamental difference between life and death, and what this entails. This rational facualty that allows us to be “self aware”, also allows us to chart a direction for ourself in a very long range fashion that is unlike anything in the universe. Strangely, we seem to be an entity that is making decisions or choices in a void. We are able to create meaning, and we need this meaning or all our decisions are in vain and we realize this void.

    Now, if I was only going to say that the rational creature is able to claim rights, what about those who’s rational faculty does not work properly, like the mentally handicapped?

    I think if the mentally handicapped have rights, (and I think they do) you must also give it to the fetus, the potential for the human creature is there. So I can group these all together, and say as Aristotle says, that they are true for the most part. I would not say that because a few go through the red light, that it invalidates the purpose of the green. I would not say, that something that has been shown to sustain human life on a high statistical level, would be invalidated by the few ones that it does not sustain.

    By the way, as for my religous pick near the beginning, as I am getting older, I am finding that most religous people are usually nicer and happier to be around then the unreligious. I also don’t find religion to be irrational, nor do I find it rational though. So if it’s the rath of god in their hearts, or it’s the realization of limits of ones reason, so be it.

  19. Scott Post Author

    Steve: The court finally recognized a right that all women have possessed – and exercised – since the beginning of humanity. What do want, for cops to have More things to do? The degeneracy of your least favorite communists has nothing to do with it. Outlaw trade in abortion services and all you do is create a black market. Hate abortion? Talk someone out of one. Adopt a kid.

    Redrum, I don’t have time, but I’ll try to remember to address natural rights my way on the kaos report Tuesday.

    The worst thing about abortion: discussion of it.

  20. Phil

    Personally, I am against abortion. However, the discussion really doesn’t matter and will be decided for us anyway, if we do not regain control of our media and our government.

    The topic itself is a disingenuous circular Micro-political argument that is used to distract us from Macro issues such as Constitutional issues and unnecessary warfare. Sort of like going on TV and talking about a “troop surge in Iraq” while planning to provoke an attack Iran?

  21. William

    I seem to remember an oath I undertook to join the armed forces many years ago. I raised my right hand and swore to

  22. Scott Post Author

    Sadr wants a strong national government to exterminate Sunnis with.

    Badr (SCIRI) wants to “cleanse” Baghgdad of Sunnis and then leave them to create their own mini-state in alliance with Iran. They’ll settle for the kind of federalism where the Sunni get nothing and have no power over Shia and the Shia still have power over them.

    Da’wa – Jaafari and Maliki’s party – has little real power because they rely on the armies of Sadr and Badr. (Bush is now trying to get Da’wa and Badr to finish Sadr – good luck with that.)

    The Sunni – Ba’athist and local religious types want a strong central government so that they can steal all the oil wealth from the Kurds and Shia – if they fail to acheive this goal they are completely screwed and dependent on the kindness of the Saudis and Egyptians. That is why they fight.

    Bush is right that Zarqawi and the foreign jihadists want(ed in Zarqawi’s case) to exacerbate the sectarian differences because a multi-ethnic state at peace is no kind of training and recruiting ground for a new generation of crazies, which is what they want: to repeat the success of the 1980’s in Afghanistan. He’s wrong to place all the blame on them for the success of their plan. The neocons have wished to “expedite the chaotic collapse” in Iraq for quite some time and the process for creating the new state guaranteed more strife. Again Bush and bin Laden have the same goals for different reasons.

    The Kurdish factions are split and basically biding their time to see whether to secede or not. If they do, they will have to go to war with the Sunni Arabs (Most Kurds are Sunni too) for the same reasons listed above for the Sunni Arabs’ war against the Shia. Also, Turkey, Iran and Syria may have to deal with secessionist Kurds in their states as well.

    More than a hundred Iraqis are killed in sectarian violence in Iraq every day. The world’s papers are full of the men involved explaining their motivations. Fisk himself, since that piece last spring, has written quite a bit about the ethnic cleansing taking place all over the country.

    It ain’t quite Blue versus Grey, but then America’s wasn’t really a civil war anyway.

  23. Phil

    President Bush, facing opposition from both parties over his plan to send more troops to Iraq, said he has the authority to act no matter what Congress wants. “I fully understand they could try to stop me from doing it. But I’ve made my decision. And we’re going forward,” Bush told CBS’ “60 Minutes” in an interview to air Sunday night.

    Swastika anyone?

  24. Phil

    Kinda strange how they always seem to foresee an attack when they want something…like invading Iran.

    I think this is accurate as to where we are now:

    THE BIG EVENT: A Pearl Harbor event is arranged or allowed to happen (9/11).

    THE PRETEXT: A pretext for setting up a beach-head in the Mideast is now in place by invading Iraq.

    THE BIG STALL: Stall tactics for withdrawal in Iraq allow us to set the stage for us to invade Iran and/or Syria to escalate the war. No intention of ever leaving which is why we build permanent bases.

    THE DRAFT: We need more cannon-fodder as our defenses have been deleted in Iraq. Destruction of a generation of our finest young men and women. Another unstated reason for “open borders”?

    THE FUTURE: Economic devastation, loss of liberty, conveniently placed terror threats, total govenment control.

    Did I miss anything?

  25. Scott Post Author

    I think they’ll use a fake gulf of Tonkin attack against U.S. ships rather than another attack here. I would expect that any new attacks would come from Hezbollah after striking Iran.

  26. PTRD

    I’m hope the neocons and stupid enough to being back the draft. That was the rally point for the Vietnam era protests and any attempt to bring the draft back today will be met with the same responce-if not stronger. Gen-X is in no mood to fight the Baby Boomer’s and “Greatest Generation”‘s wars since the troubles (Loss of Jobs, Inflation, loss of rights, ect.) that plague the USA today are all their fault.

  27. Mace Price

    …PTRD: You will see reinstatement of conscription, but I promise you it will do little if anything to rally a Political reaction against the present US Foreign Policy in the Middle east…You are, in reading the comments here at STRESS in effect looking at the Anti-war movement such as it exists…far more digitally demonstrable than physically…That and once again, for the 34th time: Do not look to the Democratic Party’s thin control of Congress and The Senate to conclude this war by Constitutional means. Because bombast and heated rhetoric notwithstanding, they have not the slightest intention of doing so. the US will continue to occupy the Middle East just as it still occupies its former adversaries from WW II…Not to mention the pending strike on Iranian Nuclear facilities that now would seem to be scheduled for sooner than later. To wit: The Decider has now added The Educator to his self proclaimed titles. He will edify us all with his brilliance post attack—All Hail The Decider!

  28. Phil


    You mean “All Hail The Puppet”. This guy is nothing but a frontman for those who rule from the shadows. If GW really decided to do something on his own, he would be out of office or just like Saddam or Slobo.

    He is just following orders and making deals, just like ole Great-Grandpa and Grandpa did during their wartime experiences.

    Do you really think a guy like him could become president on his own? Just listen to those speeches and public exchanges. As one of my heroes, Moe Howard of the 3 Stooges once said, “Whatta brain…..belongs up there on the meat rack!”

  29. Mace Price

    …Kudos Phil, you have an absolute grasp of the obvious…Cous Cous what’s shakin’?—That notwithstanding, and for now? All Hail The Decider! The Educator! The Abject Moron and The AIPAC Puppet! The Texas Tenebreo! …Or I’ll denounce your treasonous asses to Stun Gun Gonzales’ Thought Police!…Listen, I gotta run…time for the 2 minute hate, a.k.a. that fat cocksucker Rushton Limbaugh. AH HA HA! AHHHHHH HA HA HA!…Ya know Gentelmen? Sometimes I think I’m losin’ my grip over all this

  30. Mace Price

    One more small tirade…I forgot to tell Redrum he is dead on accurate w/his analysis of Divide and Conquer in Iraq…Very time honored tactic, if honored’s the right word…yeah…I think so

  31. Mace Price

    …Yeah, I know. Before I started posting on STRESS I couldn’t even spell inttellecshul, but now I is one just like Nichee

  32. Phil

    Nichee….I think you spelled his name wrong.

    Didn’t he play middle linebacker for the Packers in the 1960’s?

Comments are closed.