For a minute now, I've been saying, (1) the fight is about energy, (2) the evidence is selected to fit the conclusion, and (3) the conquest-meme is rooted in gender. Disparate as these may seem, they are mutually determinative of our time.
In all the talk of war, we only occasionally hear about energy... and the supposedly impending attack on Greater Persia, energy is hardly metioned at all. Over at Speaking Truth to Power, Carolyn Baker's new site, there is a good anlaysis of energy -- specifically what a colossal scam ethanol is -- by Dale Allen Pfeiffer, as well as my own latest skeptical reaction to the notion that Iran is about to be attacked.
Follow that with a good dose of Huibin Amelia Chew's connection of militarism to gendered power, and readers wil see that there are more dimensions to the public discourse about US foreign policy than people may have imagined.
Liberals and leftists can get caught up in their own dogwaggery as easily as the demagogues of the right. Fitting evidence to conclusions, it seems, is for everyone. Nothing has so highlighted this, in my view, as the collective panic attack about the US and-or Israel attacking Iran. So this recent analysis looks at energy and Iran... and suddenly the situation seems different than a mere passion play.
Few things seem more poorly understood than energy, seen by most -- even still -- as some cornucopia.
And few things are as readily effaced from any discussion of political power as gender.
I hope these links 'n' reads will at least broaden the debate a bit.