This Concern About Trump Forcing the US Military to Commit War Crimes Is Beyond Farcical
Look. When Iraq was invaded, the US Army committed the exact same war crime for which most Nazis were hung at Nuremburg. The US attacked a country which offered the US no threat.
The only defenses are the “Good German” defense and the “We didn’t know” argument (really the “I couldn’t be bothered to actually pay attention” argument). Or, perhaps, the “They keep us in a cage and feed us propaganda argument.”
But Iraq was a war crime. Once in Iraq, the US military deliberately targeted civilians, engaged in torture, and so on.
(I am fundraising to determine how much I’ll write this year. If you value my writing, and want more of it, please consider donating.)
Are people seriously wringing their hands about the prospect of Trump “making” the US military commit torture, and killing the families of its enemies, as if the US has not already done both?
Oh yes, hitting all those weddings and funerals with drones wasn’t “meant” to kill civilian members of the family. No, sir. It just happened to.
Over and over and over again.
Trump is only tearing off the pretense. If the US military revolts against his orders, it will not be because of what he is ordering, but because he does not leave them a fig-leaf pretense of honor, and because internal factions want to take him down, not because they give one fig about committing war crimes.
Trump’s crime is his refusal to veil his monstrosity with hypocrisy.
So, this is the plan. All the major candidates stay in the race, strategic is encouraged, and if Donald doesn’t have the majority of delegates at the convention, only a near-majority (because, don’t kid yourself, he’ll be close), they’ll vote for someone else.
If Clinton took the nomination from Sanders using super-delegates, well, that would cause a lot of Sanders supporters to refuse to vote for her.
But if Republicans do this, there will very likely be riots and the Democratic nominee will almost certainly win the ensuing election. I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump ran a third-party campaign.
The Republican establishment response to this has been more than tone-deaf. Using Romney to attack Trump?NeoCons writing a letter claiming he’d be bad for foreign policy? (Worse than them?)
(I am fundraising to determine how much I’ll write this year. If you value my writing, and want more of it, please consider donating.)
All they are proving is that they don’t get it. They’re saying that the shitty world they and the Democrats have created is acceptable to them, and telling people to vote for Trump.
This has been brewing for a long time. I’ve warned since I started blogging that the US had set up the conditions for a hard man of the right or left, or a man on horseback. People wouldn’t put up with a shit economy forever. And because the right is stronger in the US, it seems likely to be Trump instead of Bernie.
And if Trump does fail this time? Doesn’t much matter. He’s shown how to do it. Someone else will.
The US economy sucked before the financial crisis.
It fell off a cliff after that and never recovered for ordinary people. Bush’s economy was trash, yes, but a lot of people got to participate in the housing bubble until it crashed. The current property bubbles are elite ones in a few cities like New York and San Francisco. The stock market, which is one of the best bull markets in history, is not something most ordinary people had much skin in (no, your pension or 401K does not cut it).
People WILL NOT TOLERATE this.
Last time the US got FDR. This time… not likely to be so lucky.
(Note: Also, “Wall Street going nuclear on Trump.” Yeah, that’ll convince people not to vote for him. Because he opposed free trade? These people are so disconnected from street reality they might as well live on Neptune.)
Are they trying to convince people to vote for him?
So, yes, a letter signed by NeoCons talking about what a disaster Trump would be.
I mean, it’s grand that they are against torture now, and I prefer the stance that demonizing Muslims is bad, ‘kay, but these are the the people who lied the US into the Iraq war and caused the rise of ISIL (among other things).
Donald Trump calls the Iraq War a lie-fueled fiasco, admires Vladimir Putin and says he would be a “neutral” arbiter between Israel and the Palestinians.
So—cooling the conflicts between the US and Russia, acknowledging the truth about Iraq, and not taking Israel’s side.
Trump mixes up ideological certainties for elites. He’s not consistent with any elite consensus, he’s all over the place. Boot Muslims out, but be neutral between Israel and Palestinians?
(I am fundraising to determine how much I’ll write this year. If you value my writing, and want more of it, please consider donating.)
This is nativism. America is for Americans, and Americans aren’t Muslim. The constitution may disagree, but nativist sentiment agrees.
The Neocons bewail Trump saying he’d charge Japan for protection (which I disagree with), and while that’s inconsistent with elite ideology, it is consistent with nativism. Japan’s problems with its neighbours, including North Korea, are not America’s problems. Why should America protect them, or anyone else, if America isn’t receiving anything for it?
(As Japan, I’d negotiate based on use of the Okinawa base, and so on. Japan actually gives the US a lot already.)
Trump is not inconsistent. He is a populist nativist, and his policies track that pretty well. Because he is right-wing, he wants lower taxes on “good rich” (but not hedge funds), but populism has always been able to be both right- and left-wing.
The other populist in the race is Sanders. Note that while Sanders believes in a road to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, and certainly wouldn’t be kicking large numbers out, Sanders voted against the 2007 immigration bill because it would have expanded guest-workers by 200K.
Current Americans, citizens or not, come first for Sanders. He’s not a nativist, but he is a populist.
Hilary won Super Tuesday in 2008.
Bernie’s best states are still to come. The worst sign is the loss of Massachusetts, but the race is not over yet.
I know this will be an unpopular opinion, but I’ve always felt that Warren was overrated, and I feel that her refusal to endorse a candidate vindicates that view. She may have stayed viable with Clinton as a result, but she will get only scraps on financial reform from Clinton.
The constant refusal of people and groups (like unions endorsing Clinton) to get behind and work for candidates who would actually act on their behalf is one of the reasons that one can often only shrug at what is happening in America. Clearly, based on actions, not words, this is what too many Americans want.
(I am fundraising to determine how much I’ll write this year. If you value my writing, and want more of it, please consider donating.)
Feel free to use this as a thread to discuss the results. Remember that Sanders polls best in blue states, not red states. Trump will extend his lead, but by how much matters, because if he doesn’t wind up with a majority of delegates, the other candidates may well band against him to choose someone else.
Update: The non-super-delegate delegate count after Super Tuesday is 543 for Clinton, and 349 for Sanders. On the Republican side Trump has 285, Cruz 161, Rubio 87, Kasich 25, and Carson 8.
Mine. It’s mine. No one has the right to take anything from me. That’s theft.
It’s mine.
Property rights. What a mess.
In this age of oligarchy, the question of how much a few people, or corporations can own, or can control, is thrown into highlight again.
The novelist and priest Father Andrew Greeley used to write that the poor were not poor because the rich were rich. By the end of his career in the mid 2000’s, he was railing against greed as one of the seven deadly sins.
Property, taken widely to include money, is control. It confers the right to decide how both resources and people will be employed. It confers the right to choose a large chunk of social direction. For instance, under Jobs and Cook, Apple is a fiefdom; so long as the company stays solvent, it decides how a great deal of the activity of the best and brightest is spent. iPhones and Apple’s other innovations are great, but one can certainly imagine scenarios in which Apple employees’ time was better spent.
A more clear-cut case comes in the case of CitiBank, or any of the big banks and brokerages. These people have a LOT of money, and they control a huge chunk of the world’s resources and people–directly and indirectly. They do far more harm than good.
Property is the right to choose how resources, including people, are deployed.
Allowing private individuals and large groups to have large amounts of property is a decision to allow them to control large numbers of people and resources.
(I am fundraising to determine how much I’ll write this year. If you value my writing, and want more of it, please consider donating.)
It may be justified if they make the world a better place. It is hard to justify if they don’t. We may like what Jobs, or Cook, or Musk have done (or add your favorite tycoon, and yes, I know all of those are problematic), while admitting that most billionaires and large corporations are a pox on the world economy, restricting innovation and free enterprise; crushing wages and strangling growth until they get their share. Few will defend Monsanto or most pharmaceutical companies, most large banks or brokerages, more American health insurers, large agriculture, and so on.
Those who do defend them are generally either on the payroll or have been trained in the ethical discipline of economics, which is meant to justify concentrations of wealth and capital.
Justice Brandeis famously noted that America could have great concentrations of wealth, or democracy, but not both. Jefferson said he feared banks more than standing armies as an enemy of liberty, which is a radically strong statement if you think about it for two seconds.
It is worth understanding that our definition of property, which is historically close to maximal, is a historical, and pre-historical, outlier. In many hunter-gatherer bands, if you want something another person has, you admire it, and they hand it to you. The idea that one could own ideas, and disallow other people from using them is something which would have struck most of humanity, for most of history, as insane.
And it is not so long ago that land which was not being used could be taken by anyone who would use it productively, be damned whoever owned it on paper. You could not leave resources unused, this was considered anti-social; even evil.
Property is entirely a social construction, and for most of history, justifications for the concept of property came down to, “We got here first, so it is ours,” and, “It is to everyone’s benefit that we use it.”
Capitalism is the bestest system ever, and therefore, the inequality it mandates is acceptable. People who have more money deserve it because they work harder, and are superior people who make superior decisions. Other people wouldn’t work at all if they didn’t have to, they must be compelled by Marx’s whip of hunger, or they’d sit on their lazy asses. If they are poor, they must not work hard enough, possess poor character, are stupid, and don’t make good decisions. They haven’t followed the approved steps.
They do not DESERVE money.
The actual value of money is almost entirely a social artifact. A dollar’s value, what it can buy or what opportunities it makes available in the US, is not located in any individual or in small groups, but in society as a whole; in many cases, this value was created by decisions made and work done by individuals long dead. (For the full argument, read “It’s Not Your Money.”)
But at the end of the day, this is the bottom-line truth:
Property is what society says it is.
What you can own and how much you can have of it, and when it is taken away, is entirely a social decision. It is the acquiescence of your neighbours, in the broadest sense, which allows you to keep what you have–especially when it grows to include far more than your dwelling, tools, clothes, and the land on which you actually work.
Libertarianism is an attempt to take a socially granted license to use resources which are primarily a result of society’s efforts, not yours, and say that it is an intrinsic, individual human right.
But you did not train the workers you employ. You did not raise them or bear them. You did not educate them. You did not build the roads you use. And so on. The value, the advantage, of living in an advanced society is having access to all the infrastructure and institutions you did not build.
Let us bring this back to ethics.
To create a good society, that work is all necessary. It’s necessary that we build institutions, that we have infrastructure, that we support scientists (all the key research and inventions which created the internet were publically funded, for example).
It is also necessary that the people who are making the decisions are making good decisions. Bankers were making bad decisions. When they lost their money, it should have stayed lost. They weren’t harmed, like GM, by a crisis caused by other people, they were wiped out by a crisis of their own creation.
For a society to run well, we must be able to say, “You are not using society’s resources and people well, therefore, we are going to take away your ability to command so much of society’s resources.”
The larger we expand the sphere of property, as with intellectual property and the right to patent genetic codes, the more we say, “Only person X can make decisions about what to do with these resources.” We had better be damn certain that that one person, or corporation, or whoever owns these resources, is at least making good decisions, and ideally making better decisions than would be made if those resources had stayed in the commons, available for use by many.
And when we give a very few individuals and corporations the right to control a plurality or majority of our resources, locking out virtually everyone else from real decision-making beyond the anemic level of “consumer” and the neutered level of “voter,” we had, again, best be sure that those few people are making better decisions, for everyone, than would be made if a larger number of people had control over those resources and were making the decisions.
In short, if oligarchs want to control what people do, they need to make a strong case that their stewardship creates better results than those arising from people making these decisions themselves.
This is a rather high bar, and the genius of capitalistic ideology is that it’s not usually understood this is the case which must be made. Instead we are told, “Everyone is free to sell their labor,” as if that is freedom. Freedom to make your own decisions means not needing to work for someone else, and having the resources available to do what you want.
Freedom is not possible if you spend your life working for others when you’d rather not, knowing that, if you don’t, you will lose your shelter, go hungry, be without health care, and probably eventually die from lack of resources.
Freedom is the ability to choose what you do from a range of meaningful choices. The choice to work for Oligarch A or Oligarch B is not a meaningful choice.
Maximal property definitions and maximal acceptance of property concentration, deprive most of the population of their freedom. It is that simple.
They also show a vast distrust of the people, suggesting that if people had resources they would use them badly. This argument has been made by every tyrant since the beginning of agriculture: “I know better, and I will not lead by choice, but by coercion.”
The choice to starve if you don’t work for an oligarch is not much of a choice.
A sane property definition allows people to own the resources they need to do their work and take care of themselves and any dependents. Larger concentrations of property, meant for big projects, are necessary, but they must not be allowed to balloon in oligarchical control of politics and economy.
And I will suggest to you that this is both a much nicer world to live in and a more vibrant one. A world in which we are not slaves, but have freedom, will burst with creativity and projects. A world where ideas can be used by anyone will be a world in flower.
If you want freedom, look hard at property. The larger the sphere of property, and the more it is concentrated, the narrower most people’s world will be.
No, no, it’s not an oxymoron.
The problem with most philosophical ethics is that it takes a single rule and wants to rule the entire world with it.
This is noticeable in utilitarianism. “The most good for the most people.” This rule, applied, can lead to ethical abominations, to treatment of minorities and so on which is beyond the pale.
The story “The Ones Who Leave Omelas,” by Ursula LeGuin, is an examination of this problem (and highly recommended). In the real world, this leads to things like torture (what is a few people’s pain compared to the benefit for all?). It leads to accepting dire poverty as the result of our economic system due to an assumption that our system is the best and because, after all, the system benefits those in charge and in core nations the most. Call it hypocritical utilitarianism, but it’s real enough as a justification.
The discipline of economics, as it stands, is an exercise in hypocritical utilitarianism. Capitalism produces the best outcomes, therefore its shortcomings should be overlooked. It’s not clear it produces the best outcomes (certainly not if you are an Ethiopian or Congolese), but the point is larger than that. Even if it did, can a system which appears wedded to so much poverty, inequality, violence, and so on really be acceptable? By utilitarian standards it might well be.
And yet utilitarianism has a core of hard truth in it. It is easy to see the cases where utilitarian reasoning leads to horrible outcomes; it is intuitive to think that society should be run for the most benefit for the most people.
Again, the requirement to have one rule is what kills philosophical ethics. You must have bright lines, duties, and principles and you must know what the good is.
The first step is to have those bright lines. Do not rape. Do not torture. Stuff you do not do, no matter what. You unilaterally take some behavior off the table. You establish a minimum. If you do not, utilitarianism will always descend into barbarity, usually through specious argumentation, though not always.
(I am fundraising to determine how much I’ll write this year. If you value my writing, and want more of it, please consider donating.)
The second thing you do is establish positive duties. These are meant more for the social level than the individual, but cannot exclude the individual if they are to have efficacy. You might say here that everyone should eat if there is enough food in society and agree on how to triage in the very rare case that there is not. Women and children first, perhaps. Or workers in manual trades first. Or whatever. It doesn’t really matter, so long as it is generally regarded as fair.
You can extend this. If society has the means, everyone should have housing and clothes. Everyone who wants to work, and is capable of working, should have a job, perhaps. In a society which requires more work (not ours, we need less, too much of our work is harmful), you can say that everyone who is able should work. Add to this much of civil liberties: the right to jury trial and face your accusers, maybe.
Most of this boils down to an ur-rule. People all deserve to be treated with dignity, and everyone deserves the basics of life when they can be provided, which, in a society with vast over-surplus like our global society today, is the case.
A duty is something that applies to everyone. Everyone gets to face their accusers. Everyone gets to eat.
Having established your bright lines and your duties, you add your principles.
One of them might be: Civilians should not be targeted in war and every reasonable care should be taken not to harm them.
Another one might be: War is acceptable only in self-defense might be another one.
Yet another one: Everyone should have equal access to the determinants of success like education.
And so on.
Principles are about things you can’t achieve. You will never have a totally equal society, nor would you want one. We might want no war, but giving up the right of self-defense puts us at the mercy of the worst people in the world. If war is necessary, some civilians will be killed, but we should strive in every way to keep that to a minimum.
After having completed these steps, you are ready to add utilitarianism. Given meeting all the above, “the greatest good for the most people” is now the goal. You can use utilitarianism at this point because its worst associated problems have been taken off the table. You do the above things even if you think they don’t produce “the most good for the most people.” They are non-negotiable.
If you wish, you can order the above principles for triage, from most important to least important. But save in grave periods of crisis, it is almost never true that you can’t do all of them. You can both feed people and give them fair trials. If you can’t, you’ve gone wrong somewhere, as in the US, where the drug war has led to locking up millions of people who should never have been charged with a crime. You can’t give everyone in the US a fair trial, because there aren’t enough judges, juries, lawyers, prosecutors, and so on. That is an indication you need to be arresting less people, not that you need to compromise their right to a fair trial.
When making utilitarian calculations, you must always resist the urge to turn common sense and basic decency on their heads. If you find yourself excusing cruelty, in any way, you have gone wrong. If you find yourself excusing fraud, you have gone wrong.
There is no one ethical rule to rule them all. But at the same time, this need not be particularly complicated. Be kind. Treat everyone with dignity. See to everyone’s needs. Fight only in defense.
The further you extend this, the better your society will be. A decent concern for the fate of both other humans and other living beings would have served us well, and likely led to us avoiding much of the worst of the environmental disasters which have already come and which are yet to come, while avoiding almost the entire mess in the Middle East.
Do not descend to sophistry. Do not defend the indefensible. And if you want the most good, extend your circle of belonging out as far as it can go.
When I first started blogging, some 13 years ago, I blogged about sophisticated matters. Economic theory, military theory and practice. Lots and lots of charts.
As time went by, I noticed that these posts, even when they did well, were not what my readers needed. Most of my readers were not at the level of maturity and reasoning that allowed sophisticated policy posts to be useful to them.
Their problems were deeper; they were ethical and moral problems. My readers seemed unable to reason from first principles, they did not understand the relation of ethics to politics and politics to economics. The first principles they did have were axioms whose results, if too many people followed them, would create widespread suffering.
They had grown up crooked. Their adult lives had made them more crooked. They did not think, they engaged their prejudices.
There is no point in sophisticated analysis of how to be kind to large numbers, if people prefer something over kindness.
(I am fundraising to determine how much I’ll write this year. If you value my writing, and want more of it, please consider donating.)
As a result, I started descending the ladder of reasoning. I found that I had to explain that killing civilians was worse than killing soldiers, and that killing less people was preferable to killing more people. I had to explain the difference between ethics and morality. I had to explain why and how they had grown up twisted.
I found myself trying to teach, in effect, versions of the Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Be kind. Kindness is the best policy.
I came to understand that the sages, from Confucius to Buddha to Hillel to Jesus, taught these rules–these simple rules–because they met people where they were. This is the level of teaching people require. Most, I fear, are not capable of learning even this, not innately, but because they have been twisted by their upbringing.
If you want some econo-speak, variations of the Golden Rule produce strong positive externalities and when enough people in a society use the Golden Rule and unite to take away the ability of predators to do harm, that society prospers.
The Ancient Greek version is as follows.
When old men plant trees in whose shade they will never sit, a society is great.
All economic theories are ethical theories. They are theories about how one OUGHT to act. Under capitalism, one should react to profit and price signals, and seek to maximize personal “utility,” for example, while living in a manner which deprives one of the ability to meet ones own needs.
This is an ethical theory. It is not scientific, it is based on axioms which can’t be proved, and which are highly questionable (people aren’t rational, don’t maximize utility, and I’ve yet to encounter a useful definition of “utility” which isn’t circular).
It is about HOW people should live.
As such, economics is also a political theory. Capitalism requires a great deal of executive and legislative work to set up, starting with depriving most people of capital. You probably don’t believe me, because you were never taught history properly, but this is well understood by sociologists who study capitalism. Start by reading Karl Polanyi’s “The Great Transformation.” This process happened both at home, and in great waves of imperialism which disrupted and impoverished much of the world.
All political theories are ethical theories. People OUGHT to have rights and those rights are inalienable. Legitimacy comes from the people’s consent, or it comes from God. A person who gets there first owns what was there. We should be able to own more than we can use. We should obtain the goods required for our survival from the market (not true for most of history.) A man or corporation who files a patent or copyright should have exclusive use of that creation. Corporations should shield their owners from liability.
These are prescriptive statements. They are ethical propositions about how the world should run.
All politics and economics, boiled down, is either OUGHTS, technical details about how to get to those oughts, or moralizing about why these oughts and means are good, and why other systems’ oughts and means are bad.
What we have today in the West is a mishmash of systems, with neo-liberal capitalism and representative democracy as the foremost. Some areas have technocratic bureaucracy as their foremost value, like the EU and Singapore.
You can throw in words like “enlightenment values” and “humanism” as well.
It’s hard to disentangle all this. So many different ideologies have been created and so many of them still have strong influence on us.
So I’m going to simplify. Cut through the knot.
Greed, selfishness, and pride, combined with tribal identity.
You love your child, yes? You would let a hundred people die to save your child?
You are a monster.
Most other people would.
They are monsters.
You would kill for your group. They would kill for their group. Your group may be a religion, a nation, an ethnicity, a neighbourhood, or a wide variety of other associations or identities.
You are a monster.
You work to make sure your child has a “competitive advantage” over other children. Those parents work to make sure their child has a “competitive advantage over your child.”
You are monsters.
In every way, your needs and wants are more important than anyone else’s. Then your family’s. Then your friends.
This worked when humans lived in bands or even smaller tribal societies. This included almost everyone, and it allowed an easy apportionment of work. “Feed yourself and your family then everyone else.” (Though, in fact, the nuclear family wasn’t usually prioritized in hunter-gatherer bands.)
It sort of worked in agricultural societies, but only sort of. Which is why you have the above sages with their various golden rule variants.
It doesn’t work in the modern world. The interconnections are too dense. You affect too many other people. Societies have too much violent and coercive power.
The sheer volume of negative externalities created by a culture of “me first” and of meanness overwhelm the positive externalities, creating vast hell-zones. It doesn’t matter whether we’re talking about most of Sub-Saharan Africa, Bangladesh, most of India, all the Chinese who hate the new economy and loved their villages, the inner cities of America, or the exurban wastelands, or the hopeless neighbourhoods in London or Paris which occasionally riot.
They are all overwhelmed by this “me first, my family second, my friends next, my identity only after all that, and fuck everyone different.”
It is impossible to overstate the damage “me first” has done to the world. It includes all the damage that will be done by climate change, imperialism, and vast amounts more.
To be sure, the so-called altruists have done great harm. But when you liquidate entire chunks of the population, you aren’t an altruist in fact, only in rhetoric. Just as capitalism, properly understood, has not proved to be the best system for most people in the world.
I’m going to tell a slightly perverse story. When I was a child, I read a science fiction military story which was half fantasy. The protagonist has a vision in which he bombs a city from orbit, and sees that his child is in that city.
The protagonist is determined to avoid that war if possible, but he is not determined not to bomb his own child. He says, “Were I to decide whether or not to bomb a city based on whether my own child was there, I would be a monster indeed.”
So let us come down to our first axiom:
Your life is not worth more than anyone else’s. Your pain does not hurt worse than anyone else’s.
Some time back there was a book called All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten.
This is kindergarten level ethics we are dealing with here. This is what is broken–the stuff you should have learned when you were five and had reinforced as you grew up.
- Don’t hurt other people.
- Share your toys.
- Don’t take more than your share.
And if someone doesn’t live by those rules, what do you do? You give them a time out. During that time out, you don’t torture them, you don’t allow the other kids in time-out to beat them or rape them. Instead you try to help them so that after the time-out, they won’t do it again.
Perhaps everyone in the world should just sit down and for one day, heck, one hour, just not hurt anyone else. Just do nothing.
You can get rich, you can get famous, you can get what you want by being a mean and violent bastard. Let us not pretend otherwise. But the knock-on effects of doing that, for everyone else, are terrible. True democracy will happen when the population is ethical enough, and willing enough, to simply not allow this. “No, no, off to your time-out you go.”
This will be sneered at as Utopian. No doubt it is. But this is the Pole Star, the guiding light you aim towards. The closer you sail to it, the closer you come to some semblance of a world worth living in for the majority of people.
If we do not aim for this, we may solve some temporary problems for a temporary period, but there will be no remotely stable good society.
Everyone’s life has equal value to yours. Everyone’s pain is equal to yours.
Fundraiser Update and Bitcoin Support
We have raised $4,692 in one time donations and $160 in new subscriptions. Counting subscriptions at 3X, that puts us $5,172. At six thousand, I will write 12 book reviews on books which have strongly influenced me and six that are more topical.
Should we make $9,000, I will write a thirty- to fifty-thousand word booklet on the Construction of Reality. It will deal with technology, culture, geography, mass psychology, and so on, to show how we’ve created the world we live in today.
In general, the more I receive the more I will write. If you want more of my writing, please consider giving. Of course, only give if you can afford it. If your food, medical, or housing is insecure, please don’t give.
Due to a few requests, I have also added Bitcoin support. My wallet is at:
1LcJ1AkQqvWBFBybiewTCMxLJZQRQTCfu5
If you would like to give, please go to the DONATE PAGE.
Do it. Many of you desperately need to.
