The Poodle's UNcle

I often wonder how Britain’s Great Poodle keeps himself from bursting out laughing while making his grandiloquent pronouncements. One of the latest examples was the Poodle’s fatwah regarding the Iranian President’s statement of the obvious, namely, that the Israeli state is illegitimate. The Poodle: “I have never come across a situation of a president of a country saying they want to wipe out another country.” Never? Not even once?... But wait a minute. Is it even true that President Ahmadinejad said he wants to wipe out another country? Did he say he is contemplating military action against the Zionist entity? No. All he did was to state the obvious and predict that Israel’s illegitimacy will eventually catch up with it (the same way that Dubya's illegitimacy is finally catching up with him). He also expressed the revulsion of the world’s progressive forces at the actions of Moslem governments that have recognized Israel or contemplate moves in that direction.

Incidentally, the last time that Iran made a major military move against another country was, I think, in 1738 (yes, almost three hundred years ago) when it invaded India. To find the next example before that one, we would probably have to go back to Xerxes’ invasion of Greece in 480 BC! I think the Poodle and his Master alone have committed more murder and aggression than Iran has committed in the entire three millennia of its history.

Meanwhile, UNcle Tom Annan was busy doing what he is best at, that is, turning a blind eye to violations of historical proportions of international law, and simultaneously condemning anyone who endangers the status quo. UNcle Tom Annan: “Under the United Nations Charter, all members have undertaken to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.” I guess the Iraq invasion that has resulted in up to a quarter million deaths does not measure up to UNcle Tom’s criteria of what constitutes a “threat or use of force.”

Meanwhile the Poodle: “There has been a long time in which everyone has been saying to me 'tell us you are not going to do anything about Iran'. If they carry on like this, the question people are going to be asking is 'when are you going to do something'.”

Do you think UNcle Tom is thinking about condemning the Poodle’s statement? Don’t hold your breath.

Bush believes he is on a mission from God -- news headline

The above image should not to be mistaken as a picture of Dubya's halo. It is in fact an actual picture of the barrel bottom that God has been scraping.

Commandress in Chief

Last night I watched the first episode of ABC's "Commander in Chief." Or maybe I should say "the last episode," judging by the reviews. It is a kind of West Wing Light or West Wing for Dummies (somewhat in the way that the Star Trek: Voyager series was Star Trek: The Next Generation for Dummies).

Geena Davis plays the Independent Vice-President Mackenzie Allen who assumes the job of a Republican President on his death. In the tradition of television's propaganda shows (but – someone might ask – is there any other kind?), the most critical problems faced by the US Government are things like rescuing a woman held for adultery in Nigeria. TV Governments never find themselves face to face with catastrophes such as, for instance, having destroyed a whole country.

Anyway, President Allen’s first act as President is to bestow American benevolence on the said Nigerian woman. The woman has been sentenced to death, and is to be executed in some crude fashion, which, needless to say, offends American sensibilities. Any kind of violence, don’t you know, offends American sensibilities. The Nigerian ambassador is duly summoned to the White House to hear about plans for a massive rescue operation in case the woman is not released into US custody. Nigeria duly complies.

There have in reality been several such verdicts in Nigeria in recent years, and the US Government (the real US Government, that is) has done nothing whatsoever in any of those cases, other than registering strong condemnations. Those verdicts were eventually overturned through diplomatic intervention by other African states and worldwide protests, which is an example of the multilateralism that solves the world's problems instead of creating new ones.

This is, of course, quite normal. No US government has ever intervened militarily to save the life of a foreign national, unless that foreign national happened to be of some use to the US government. Examples are German scientists who were removed from Germany after WWII, given new employment in weaponry and rocket development, and spared from facing the Nuremberg trials.

In the TV world, though, every undertaking of the US government is for the purpose of furthering truth and justice. Even when it does something that smells of villainy, it is for a good end, such as the assassination of an Arab leader on West Wing. After all, he was suspected of supporting terrorism …

As I have said a number of times in this blog, even American leftists are unable to perceive the real nature of their government. So, for instance, Martin Sheen, who has spent much of his life protesting against US policies, was happy to act in a TV show (West Wing) that only served the usual propaganda line. Even American leftists, in other words, see the evil that their government commits as an aberration. They are blind to the real nature of the entire American political project since its inception, which began with the Founding Fathers’ promulgation of racism and expansionism.

When a Democratic TV President played by a known professional protester failed to portray the reality of US power, what can we hope for from an Independent one?

• My other posts on related topics:
Opportunism, thy name is Dubya!

False arrest or miscarriage of justice?

...but Cindy Sheehan is being arrested!

Weekend of Protest

Lots of info on this weekend's worldwide protests:

http://www.unitedforpeace.org/ (with links to peace groups in many countries)

http://www.indybay.org/antiwar/

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/

http://www.answerla.org/

http://www.internationalanswer.org/

http://answer.pephost.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ANS_S24index

http://www.sdcpj.org/

Opportunism, thy name is Dubya!

Dubya has taken "responsibility" for the disaster-creating response to the Gulf Coast disaster. This is a man who in his whole life has never accepted blame for anything. So why the current uncharacteristic behaviour? I don't think the answer lies in the plummeting popularity ratings, as unpopularity is nothing new to him. It is something he has bravely weathered throughout his life! Rather, the explanation lies in his next statement: "Are we capable of dealing with a severe attack? That’s a very important question and it’s in the national interest that we find out what went on so we can better respond." Although the latter statement was made in response to a question and appeared spontaneous, the fact is that it has been a constant theme since the disaster. In fact, it has been a constant theme for the past four years. He has exploited nearly every single negative news of any kind since 9/11 to escalate the level of paranoia in the US population. Yet, it seems, he never felt he was being quite convincing enough. Dubya's "genius" is in his current juxtaposition of manufacture of paranoia and the Gulf Coast disaster. Rather than focusing on disaster prevention and putting in place better preparations for relief and rescue, Dubya's first priority is to tell the American people they have not yet sacrificed enough resources and rights on the altar of imaginary security. He chooses to exploit the tragedy of New Orleans to advance his agenda of transforming every single event in the world into an actual or potential "attack" on the United States. That so profound a lack of ethical bearings and simple humanity can be found in a man is indeed a marvel of historical proportions.

P.S.:

From an Associated Press story on Sep. 8:

Pelosi, D-Calif., said Brown had "absolutely no credentials" when Bush picked him to run FEMA. She related that she urged Bush on Tuesday [Sep. 6] to fire Brown.
"He said, 'Why would I do that?' " Pelosi said.
"I said 'because of all that went wrong, of all that didn't go right last week.' And he said 'What didn't go right?' "
"Oblivious, in denial, dangerous," she said.

Well, I beg to differ. Brown did have the one qualification that counts, namely absolute loyalty to Bush. The rest is immaterial.

Pelosi has got most of the rest wrong as well. Dubya is indeed dangerous—very dangerous—but he is not in denial or oblivious. Neo-conservatives don’t care what ordinary people think, or what effects their policies have on such people. Incidentally (or not so incidentally), they don’t care about their “legacy” either. All they care about is implementing the agenda they sought political office for. Again, the rest is immaterial.

The issue of Dubya’s approval rating, therefore, is irrelevant, because it doesn’t register where it could count, namely with Dubya himself. There is no threshold of popularity rating below which he would feel obliged to resign.

At the moment, the only thing that his buddies and he care about is that they will be able to make a whole lot of money out of Gulf Coast reconstruction, as they have and will through the Iraq war. Prior to Katrina, the only alternative available to them was to begin another war. Domestic reconstruction is much more convenient!

There is/was a house...

I was thinking of writing a post exploring the root causes of the New Orleans tragedy, but I finally decided it would be seen as exploiting the misery of thousands of people for the sake of expressing my political opinions. At the same time, I feel a great urge to make some sort of a comment. Many years ago, I visited New Orleans. I walked in the dreamlike atmosphere of the French Quarter. I listened to the incomparable New Orleans jazz at the incredible Preservation Hall, where you walked into what looked like an ordinary house, and found yourself face to face with living jazz history. I feel deeply saddened by the loss that New Orleans has suffered, and hope for its recovery to its former glory.

Ayatollah Robertson

Pat Robertson, the American televangelist (of the "700 Club" fame, or rather infamy) has issued a fatwa for the assassination of President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela for "spreading communism and Moslem extremism." The "free press," those obsequious hired hands of the highest bidders for their services, will doubtless laugh it all off, and refuse to discuss the serious implications of the issue.

Robertson has quite bluntly stated that the reason he wants President Chavez dead is that the Venezuelan government, according to Robertson, poses a threat to US economic interests. In today's US politics, it is apparently quite acceptable for a religious leader like Robertson constantly to meddle in purely political and economic affairs. On the other hand, when the late Ayatollah Khomeini issued his call for Salman Rushdie's assassination on purely religious grounds, as the latter had, among many other indiscretions, called the Prophet of Islam a whoremonger, Western liberals didn't lose any time in joining their conservative brethren's condemnation of the fatwa.

Robertson's fatwa came only a couple of days after Pope Benedict's call on Moslem leaders (while visiting Germany!) to promote the fight against terrorism (as if real religious leaders were in the business of promoting anything other than religion), without once mentioning the terror inflicted by the US on the people of Iraq for their oil. It is clear that whereas religion in the East is a component of nationalist resurgence against capitalism and imperialism, religion in the West is increasingly a handmaiden to the interests of the Empire.

Today we are all Palestinians

On this day, all progressive forces are, at some level, “Palestinians,” in that they join in solidarity with the Palestinian nation, and share its joy in today’s victory. Yet we are all “Palestinians” at a deeper level as well. In an age when humanity’s greatest enemies, the United States government and transnational capital, appear to have achieved permanent ascendancy, we all share and feel, to some extent, the experience of oppression and defeat that the Palestinian nation has intimately known for so long. Yet we also share its resolve and resiliency. We share its determination that no matter what obstacles the enemy may throw in our path, the final triumph shall be ours.

One of the Devil's own

One of the most despicable individuals on the face of the earth (that's the guy who is praying to George HW Bush) is now under the earth. The path to salvation, not to speak of the path to glowing obituaries, is neither by faith nor by works. It is by sucking up to the Americans, mercilessly suppressing all dissent, and squandering the wealth of one's nation.

Smog too much*

Yesterday I found myself suffering from symptoms of smog poisoning. I had heard many times that living in a polluted environment is like smoking a couple of packs of cigarettes a day, but I had assumed this was some clean-air advocate’s attempt to exaggerate the danger so as to underline the issue’s importance. Until yesterday, that is. Today, I have little doubt about the matter. I felt just like a heavy smoker does, and I don’t even smoke. And it happened just after we had particularly high levels of smog approaching the "dangerous" level for a couple of days in a row. Today I feel much better, but now I am sure this sort of thing has the same long-term effect on me and others as heavy smoking.

There used to be a time, and not so long ago at that, when Toronto had incredibly clean air for a large metropolis. We have more cloudy days than many other places. But the thing was that the cloudy days made you look forward to the clear days when the sun would shine in a beautiful blue sky that extended from one horizon to the other.

Not any longer. These days, there are cloudy smoggy days and clear smoggy days. On some days, in fact, you are not sure which one you are looking at. Even on the clearest days, the sky is a grayish blue, with a band of pure gray around the horizon.

It all happened very gradually. A few years ago, we had our first experience of “smog alerts” issued by the weather people. We thought of it as a passing curiosity. More importantly, we thought it would send a clear warning to government and business that urgent action was needed. But very little was done, and the problem got worse with each passing year. What had begun as smoggy days extended into smoggy weeks. Still, we thought, “Oh well, this is just some problem associated with summer heat waves.” Then, last year, during some of the coldest days of winter, we had our first experience of winter smog. We could not believe our eyes, but there it was. I think we experienced something like what scientists feel when they encounter a phenomenon that contradicts every known fact.

The Ontario government has always, more or less, washed its hands of the problem, claiming that most of the air pollution comes from south of the border. Whether or not that is true, and I have my doubts about that, I don’t think it absolves them of the responsibility to do something about it right here in Ontario. And, by the way, one reason I have doubts about their claim is that a couple of days ago the smog blanket covered the entire southern half of Ontario, up to the North Bay area and farther north.

Be that as it may, the Ontario government’s inaction makes me wonder who is going to defend our interests and really do something about this problem, which is killing a large number of people right here in Ontario.

What is the mandate of a government official, as he/she sees it? Is it to fight for the people, so that they will live happier healthier lives, free of unnecessary suffering and exploitation? I don’t think so. Government officials are trained to think first and foremost of promoting business. They think of that as their function. They think greater business activity is synonymous with a better society. Government officials and their associated technocrats think there is a “fix” for every problem, and such fixes always involve awarding a contract to some business or other. Yet the nature of such business activity, as with the capitalist system as a whole, is to exacerbate problems in the long run, rather than to help solve them.

One looks around in vain for anyone who represents the people’s real long-term interests. Even many so-called environmental advocacy groups are in fact business lobbies. There is a well-known Ontario organization, which shall remain nameless, whose professed mandate is to research and advocate regarding issues related to pollution. The reality is that this particular organization’s actual motive is to reduce even further the measly amount of government action regarding this problem, and to advocate for the interests of the polluting industries. With friends like these …


*The name of one of the characters in a Monty Python skit was Smoke-Too-Much.

All victims are not created equal

In the wake of the London bombings, sympathy for all victims, of whatever nationality, whether British, American, or Iraqi, has been urged upon us. People who are sympathtic towards the victims of the much larger Iraqi tragedy have been told that all victims are the same, and no-one is a bigger victim than anyone else. We have been told that British or American bombing victims and war casualties deserve as much sympathy as the Iraqi victims of British and American policy. We have been told that making such distinctions would amount to committing the sin of blaming the victim, a deadly sin according to the liberal scripture.

But there really is no equivalence of victimhood. We, as citizens of Western nations, are responsible for most of the evil that has characterized the last hundred years, whether we are willing or able to admit it or not. Majorities of us have again and again voted in governments that we knew were a curse to the rest of the world. Why did we vote them in? Because they promised us tax cuts, jobs, and the rest of the self-centered package that voters are bought with. We have again and again voted in governments that we knew were intent on plundering the rest of the world. Why did we do it? Because they plundered it for our benefit.

Specifically, there is no equivalence between victims of American terrorism and those of Islamist terrorism. Why? Because the West, and most especially the US government, is the source and origin of both varieties of terrorism. The US government is the source and origin of Islamist terrorism because: (1) With the complicity of its old buddy-in-plunder, the British government, it established and has continued to give its unconditional support to the State of Israel. The depredations of the government of Israel have been an endless source of misery among Palestinians, fueling political and religious extremism, and retarding political growth in the Middle East as a whole. (2) The US Government, through the CIA, brought down the secular democratically-elected government of Mossadegh in Iran in 1953, returned the despotic Shah to power, and set back that country's political development for many decades to come. Iran is still suffering the consequences. (3) The US Government, in the 1980s, created various terrorist groups in Afghanistan to attack Afghan government and Soviet forces. Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban, and various other re-energized forms of extremism throughout the Moslem world are the direct fruits of that project. (4) The US Government, through its Cairo embassy, made contact with the “CIA asset” Saddam Hussein in 1959, eventually helping the Baathists bring down the government of Iraq in 1963. And, as is more widely-known, the US government was Saddam’s primary supporter in his war against the democratically-elected government of Iran during the 1980s.

I won’t go on. We, in the West, are all responsible for this, every one of us, whether by being directly complicit in the crimes, or by bringing such governments to power in our countries, or by not doing enough to defeat them and the socioeconomic ideology that they represent.

This must end

I am outraged, partly because of all the misdirected outrage that I saw today. To use an old cliché, I am, yet again, shocked by man’s inhumanity to man. At least seven hundred Iraqis have been killed—just in the last two months. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been injured—just in the last two months. Overall, because of the American invasion of Iraq, a quarter of a million Iraqis have been killed. Millions of Iraqis have been injured, maimed, or incapacitated. Millions of other Iraqis have suffered unspeakable deprivations and horrors of various kinds, not to mention outright torture, all because of and only because of the invasion.

Had there been any humanity left in this world, the carnage in Iraq would have ended the reign of the American Empire long ago. There would have been such an outcry of morally outraged humanity the like of which would never have been heard before. Yet, there is hardly a peep from anyone. Even the daily toll of the dead has disappeared from newscasts.

Today, 37 people died in bomb blasts in London. 700 others were injured. There has been nothing else in the news today. Is the blood of these 37 people any redder than the blood of the quarter million Iraqi dead? Hotlines have been set up for Canadians and others to call to find out if anyone they knew is among the casualties. Where are the hotlines for Iraqis to call to find out the fate of their loved ones? Am I being unsympathetic to the plight of the British dead and injured? Are you being sympathetic to the plight of the Iraqi dead and injured?

All that a sane and rational person can hope for is that this attack will have the same kind of effect on the British people as the similar series of bombings in Madrid last year had on the Spanish people. The Madrid bombings incited the Spanish people to throw out the Bushite government of Aznar, and elect a new government that put a quick end to Spain’s complicity in the Iraqi genocide. Will the British people finally say a loud and clear No to the government of the ignominy whose name is Blair?

Have you signed?

Please go to Live 8 and sign the petition. All the right-wing think tanks are up in arms against dropping Third World debt and increasing aid, leaving no doubt in my mind that these are worthwhile and necessary objectives!

Iran’s Hugo Chavez?

Despite massive election spending by the upper classes of Iran, and likely covert interference by the US Government and other Western governments and their regional lackeys, the people’s candidate, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has been elected Iran’s President. The course of his rise to power, as well as his background, viewpoints, and proposed policies, are so reminiscent of those of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez that the similarity cannot be accounted for simply by charging Ahmadinejad with populism, a demonstrably false charge that has all too often been leveled against President Chavez by his class enemies.

The similarity to Chavez reaches uncanny proportions. Here is a quote from Ahmadinejad, which is something Chavez might have said: "The country's biggest capital today is the oil industry and our oil reserves … The atmosphere ruling over our deals, production and exports is not clear. We should clarify it … I will cut the hands off the mafias of powers and factions who have a grasp on our oil, I stake my life on this ... People must see their share of oil money in their daily lives." Iran’s Oil Minister Bijan Zanganeh, as well as OPEC Governor Hossein Kazempour Ardebili openly supported Ahmadinejad's opponent in the second round of the election. It is expected that they will both be removed from their posts once Ahmadinejad assumes the Presidency in August.

He has been labeled, meaninglessly but conveniently, an ultra-conservative. If fighting for the people’s interests requires being an “ultra-conservative,” I have no problem with that. If it takes “ultra-conservatism” to battle neo-liberalism, I have no problem with that.

The way I see it, progressives need to attend to two points:

First, if Ahmadinejad’s actual policies during the first few months of his presidency confirm the image of him as a progressive, we must not neglect the task of supporting him, meanwhile not neglecting the equally important task of redoubling our efforts to support Chavez.

Second, Ahmadinejad’s election may alter the entire dynamic and significance of Iran’s domestic and international policies. Domestically, it may inject new energy into the popular character of the Iranian Revolution. Internationally, as well as regionally, it would be an example of what true home-grown democracy looks like in the Middle East, as opposed to US-imposed “democracy” at the point of a gun meant only to serve US interests.

The US Government and its accomplices will doubtless continue to do all in their power to undermine any progress in Iran and Venezuela. Their efforts in Venezuela have so far been fruitless, and the Bolivarian Revolution appears to have struck deep and unshakeable roots. Let us hope their criminal intentions will be equally futile in the case of Iran.

President Chavez met Mr Ahmadinejad, then Tehran's mayor, while visiting Iran in 2004

Salvation from Jesusland

The fact that all branches of Christianity have conservative as well as progressive wings is puzzling. In the case of Catholicism, the Vatican is poles apart from phenomena such as Liberation Theology. In the case of Protestantism, there seems to be little in common between right-wing evangelical denominations, on one hand, and religious organizations such as the United Church of Canada, on the other. An obvious question is: If the right and the left wing represent the same religion, then how can they be so far apart? Another question is: If the right wing of each main branch of the religion has more in common with the right wing of the other branch than with its own left wing, in what sense are they two different branches? To claim that religion is not about such things, but rather about otherworldly matters, is to avoid the issue. Indeed, both the right and the left wings would say that their political and social practice arise from their religious faith, and are not incidental to it.

I think the answer is fairly simple, at least as simple as such complex matters can be. Religiosity (of a sort) can be an escape and an excuse from accepting social responsibility, from having a real (analyzed) political viewpoint. Religiosity then becomes an excuse to turn inward and renounce everything except one’s own interest, disguised as interest in personal salvation. It is to live the powerless apolitical life of the mass, with nary a thought of the universal. But this is not the only possible kind of turning inward. There is another kind of turning inward that is merely a prelude to turning outward again. This kind of inwardness leads to the recognition of social responsibility as the essence of religiosity and spirituality.

Real spirituality means recognizing oneself as a part of the world, not just rhetorically, but in practice. Being a part of the world means getting involved in things that are forming its destiny. It means adding one’s voice to the chorus of voices that still see the possibility of a bright future for humanity, the voices of those who have not given up on the ideal that a truly human life is the only kind worth living, and that such a life is lived in communion with the rest of humanity. Self-centered pursuit of one’s own interests and the interests of one’s own group is about as unspiritual as one can get. It is concentrating on matter, rather than spirit. Spirit is movement, change, and flux. Renouncing progressive politics amounts to renouncing the world, and any chance the world may have of becoming a spiritual world. It amounts to abandoning it to people like George W. Bush, who see the world as a tool for making money, and who see spirituality itself as a means to enhancing their self-interest. (The distinction between "mass" and "universal" was originated by the French philosopher Gabriel Marcel.)

Political no longer Personal

I am going to use the current political situation in Canada to illustrate a topic I have been thinking about. I hope my non-Canadian readers, who are in the majority, will stay with me, because I think this may interest you as well. In fact, the point I have been thinking about has to do exactly with the fact that, in the current political epoch, we can’t afford to let our personal interests and attachments, such as our nationality, dictate our political thought and activity, that is, our “praxis.” For the first time in recent history, the very notion of progressive politics itself may be under attack.

Briefly, there has been a social democratic party in Canada since 1932. Its original program was a cooperative, people-based, variant of FDR’s New Deal. Over the seven decades of its life, along with changing its name from the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) to the New Democratic Party (NDP), it has jettisoned much of its original program, including nationalization of basic industries. It has formed many provincial governments, but it has never gained enough seats in the Parliament to form the federal government. Still, Canada owes much of its social infrastructure to this party’s activity at the provincial and federal levels. These include a universal health insurance system, workers compensation, pensions, unemployment insurance, and so on.

The NDP has been Canada’s economic “system of checks and balances.” It has been the conscience of the Canadian political system, in that (1) it has helped to rein in the more outrageous tendencies of Canada’s various conservative parties, and (2) it has forced the middle-of-the-road Liberal Party of Canada to try to attract and co-opt the NDP’s natural constituency through imitating the NDP’s platform during elections, and returning to its usual do-nothing shift-with-the-wind posture once elections are over.

Canada’s conservative and moderate parties are guided by the NDP’s spirit, but they don’t enjoy being so guided. Still, they have no choice. The NDP represents the political, social, and economic aspirations of a very significant section of the Canadian population. In the same way that the NDP’s political activity is shaped by what it can wrest from the governing parties, the activity of the other parties comes to be shaped by political maneuvers whose aim is to avoid giving in to the NDP’s demands.

For instance, the former Reform Party (an ultra-conservative party, by Canadian standards) based its original platform around the notions of “fiscal responsibility,” and also accountability and recall of elected members of Parliaments. Such standards, although they sound fine, would in fact lead to paralysis of the federal government, making the realization of the NDP’s objectives impossible.

The Liberal Party, on the other hand, has always portrayed itself as the utmost in social progress that the country can afford, hence making the NDP’s platform appear unrealistic and utopian.

Until recently, the NDP fought its battles on two distinct fronts, against conservatism and liberalism. I believe the two fronts have recently merged with one another. In other words, a kind of collusion and collaboration seems to be in the works between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, with the aim of eliminating their “conscience” once and for all. What is even more significant is that each of the two parties seems to be willing almost to wager its own survival on the outcome of the contest.

In the latest federal elections, in 2004, the Liberal government was reduced to minority status in the Parliament. Currently, the Conservative Party is trying to bring the government down. The NDP, on the other hand, is trying to prop the government up, at least until the proposed budget, a very progressive ones by Liberal standards, is passed.

All this is normal politics. This time, though, something is curiously different about it. The Conservative Party’s leader, Stephen Harper, until last week a staunch neo-conservative, has suddenly developed a social conscience. On medicare, the Kyoto accord, and some other important social issues, Harper now sounds like an NDP’er. On the other hand, Paul Martin’s Liberal government, having proposed a budget that is almost like a hypothetical NDP budget, and having persuaded Jack Layton, the NDP leader, to prop up the government by offering to increase social spending, has gone back to stressing “fiscal responsibility” and tax cuts for big corporations as the lifeblood of sound economics. It is as if the two major parties had come to an agreement regarding what good governance entails, and hence there were no need for a third party to needle them on. They have managed to make the NDP seem redundant.

I do believe that a similar process is visible in many other countries, including the United States. The battles between mainstream political parties are pushing the truly progressive forces in society onto the sidelines. This, I suggest, is not an accidental outcome, but rather a purpose of the exercise.

Under these circumstances, the unity of progressive forces assumes primary importance. We can no longer afford to let the political establishment exploit the fissures within the progressive movement to destroy it. We cannot be just for medicare, or just for the environment, and so on. If we are divided, we will lose everything, because social issues, to the major parties, are just levers to get them elected. They have no deep abiding interest in anything that benefits the majority.

That is why I think progressive politics can no longer be personal politics. My proposed slogan for the current period would be: “I am not you, but we are both against …” The other side of the issue is that things are so desperate that we desperately need allies, and cannot afford to alienate anyone by our orthodoxy or system of priorities/preferences/issues.

The mainstream liberal’s prescription is: “if you don’t want to be a part of the problem, be a part of the solution,” that is, recycle and so on. But if one is only a part of the solution, one is in fact helping to perpetuate the problem, especially in an age when the possibility of cooperative social solutions to problems is being denied. What is needed is not piecemeal solutions, but rather the removal of the problematic itself. And that can only be achieved through unity.

“Who’s they’re?” *

The other day I met the infamous who’s—in a major newspaper, of all places. Who’s doesn’t get around nearly as much as it’s does, but that makes it all the more scary when you do run into him. Who's and it's are close relatives, by the way, as they are both rooted in an inability to understand what the apostrophe is and what it does. I had got quite used to meeting it’s, even in supposedly professionally edited publications. But who’s? I had not seen who’s outside of e-mails and such that I had assumed had been written by particularly illiterate individuals—that is, until our fateful meeting yesterday.

When I think back, it seems I began to meet it’s in the early 1980s. I don’t recall having seen him in the ‘70s at all, or at any time before that. So what phenomenon of the early 1980s paralleled the birth of the new illiteracy, possibly pointing to its origin? I have no ready answer to that question, but that does seem to be the time when a large majority of American voters voted for Reagan. And Thatcher and Clark, both Conservatives, had just been elected in the UK and Canada, respectively. Hmm… And, before I go any further, I want to stress that I am not at all referring to dyslexic or intellectually challenged people. Such people can’t help making mistakes. I am talking about "normal" people who can learn the correct way of writing certain words, but who won’t. All I can say is that, in my experience, illiteracisms such as these words (what else can one call them?) do seem to be associated with a certain kind of mentality. It is the mentality that never tries to acquire a deep and clear understanding of the world around it. Rather, it lives with myths and legends handed down to it from its forebears, never bothering to get a clear understanding of even those myths and legends, let alone to question them.

As a public service, then, and hopeful that my meager endeavour may help usher in a new Age of Enlightenment…LOL…here is a list of some of these illiteracisms, along with corrections thereto:

1/ It’s: This abbreviation has two possible meanings, and those are its only possible meanings. You noticed I just wrote "its only possible meanings"? That is because it would have been wrong to say "it’s only possible meanings". Why? Because, as I said, it’s has two meanings, and two meanings only. It can be an abbreviation for “it is” or for “it has.” It has no other common meanings or usages.

2/ Who’s: Again, who’s can mean one of two things, and only two things: “who is” or “who has.” When you write “Who’s blog is this?” you actually mean to say “Whose blog is this?” Yes, whose, NOT who’s. Remember that.

3/ They’re / their / there (as well as your/you're): Here we run into a veritable forest of illiteracisms. It seems entire populations of English speaking people are unaware that these are three completely different words, as evidenced by the fact that they use them interchangeably on a daily basis (one of them is two words, by the way). I won’t go into the details of what each of them means, as it would probably be a futile effort. If an adult didn’t learn their differing meanings while still in school, it’s too late to begin now. I have to end this post on a pessimistic note. People who don’t know, and won’t find out, the difference between “they’re” and “their” will surely never learn to look beneath the lies that their governments tell them.

* The title of this post refers to the way some people would write "Who's there?"

Another “American” Pope

Another sign of the end of “true” religiosity that was discussed in the comments to my last post is the selection of yet another pope on apparently purely political grounds. One indication of this is the fact that for the second time in a row, after a gap of five hundred years, a non-Italian has been selected as pope. When a five-hundred year old tradition is broken twice in a row, especially by an intrinsically conservative institution such as the Catholic Church, you know something fishy is going on. Pope John Paul II’s primary credential was his anti-communism. He was put on St. Peter’s throne in order to fight for American interests in Eastern Europe, and to make sure the Cold War ends with the US as the undisputed and undisputable winner. He performed his mission in an admirable manner, surpassing all expectations. Benedict XVI’s qualifications, on the other hand, make him suitable for the new phase of the American Empire. Like all Bush appointees, he has impeccable ultra-Right credentials. In the 1960’s he abandoned liberalism in horror on realizing the risk of real freedom inherent in democratic institutions. He probably has a dual mission. One, to turn a blind eye to US atrocities around the world. John Paul II, admittedly, was not quite perfect in the art of turning a blind eye. Second, to re-interpret every atrocity as a good thing. The idea with John Paul II’s selection was that he would fight, on the “spiritual” field, the battle that was on the verge of being lost on the political field. Benedict XVI may have a similar mission, as Europe’s relationship of vassalage to the US has been subject to political and economic threats. The conclave of cardinals that chooses the Pope has become obsolete. From now on, the task should be assigned to the Nobel Peace Prize Committee. The Nobel people are much more experienced in the art of selecting winners on the basis of political expediency, as opposed to merit, justice … or peace.

The transformed role of religion

Let’s put metaphysical and eschatological considerations aside for a moment, and ask a simple question: Exactly what is religion—exactly today? Exactly what function does it play in today’s world, and whose interests does it serve? To avoid unnecessary complexity, I’ll limit myself to Christianity, though, in my opinion, these ideas, with some modifications, probably apply to other religions as well.

I don’t think it is difficult to see that (a) religion today does not play the role that it played in the Middle Ages; and (b) religion today does not play the role that it played in the nineteenth century.

It is impossible to imagine the medieval period while leaving out religion. Religion was an integral element of the medieval order of things that made the continued existence of the then-existing socio-political system possible.

Religion had a much-reduced function in the nineteenth-century European society, primarily because of the social and intellectual advancements of the Enlightenment period. Society no longer depended on it for its sheer existence. Rather, it gained a supporting role, if you will. It became the comforter of the exploited masses of the Industrial Revolution, or, as Marx put it in a passage that is rarely quoted in full, and is, therefore, frequently misunderstood:

“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”

That was religion’s function then. Today, in the Western industrial or “post-industrial” countries, religion is no longer an opiate. The poor suffering classes that needed "opiates" have largely disappeared in the rich countries. Religion is now something different. Our pain and suffering today, when they exist, are primarily of the mind. And it is our minds that search desperately for release from their new burdens. We seek release from the knowledge that, despite two centuries of rapid progress, humanity has only succeeded in turning itself into a new assortment of barbarians. Humanity has miserably failed to solve the social problem. Neighbour hates neighbour, and the human species is destroying its own environmental conditions of existence. The nineteenth-century’s physical torments have been replaced by the twenty-first-century’s mental torments. And the new torments are at least as unbearable as the old ones.

What does a person do when faced with unbearable circumstances? The person tries to regress, psychologically, to an earlier, more primitive, more idyllic, state of consciousness. In other words, the person’s mentality regresses to that of a child. Under such conditions, we reach for false values, because society has failed to provide us with real ones.

As illustrations, I will refer to two recent events with religious overtones.

In the Terri Schiavo case, a kind of mass psychosis seemed to overtake a segment of American society. Thousands of people kept insisting on treating a dead body as though it were a living human being. They were play acting, in almost exactly the same way that children do. And their play acting, while it lasted, was as real to them as children's is to them.

During the weeks before and after the Pope’s death, the whole world seemed to be in the grip of mass psychosis. Oblivious of his actual legacy of reactionary values that have brought misery and death to millions, people chose to concentrate, like children, on "his message of peace." They chose to see him as a father figure, blameless and strong.

Today, religion is the lollipop of the people.

"Life is so complicated!"

These are very confusing times for Republicans. Sure, they have finally found and “re-elected” a President who is just stupid enough and pig-headed enough to be willing to try to implement the pure unadulterated agenda of the Right. At the same time, though, they are learning that the world is a lot more complicated than they ever imagined. As I mentioned in response to a recent comment, the US Right has a tribal mentality that attributes the guilt or innocence of individuals to the groups they are a member of, and vice versa. In the case of the 9/11 attacks, for instance, the US Right managed to implicate the entire Moslem world in the crimes of a couple of dozen individuals. It is becoming more and more difficult for the Right to apply its simplistic mentality to the real world. It used to be there were just two tribes in the world: the American Tribe (the good folks) and the Rest-of-the-World Tribe (the people who were trying, with American “assistance,” to remake themselves in the image of the “good folks”). The American Tribe was further subdivided into God-Fearing Republicans and Those-Awful Democrats, though it was not clear how the American Tribe (the good folks) had come to include the tribe of Those-Awful Democrats. What had always been an unquestionable article of faith, though, was that the Rest of the World Tribe (or ROWT, for short) was just (to use the President's technical terminology) “a group of folks” of varying shades of evil. The ROWT had a gray-hued Christian component that was on the path to salvation, as well as a completely dark and heathen Moslem component desperately awaiting the gift of salvation that would surely be delivered some day by American carpetbaggers. By the way, the US Right was not, and is not, aware of the existence of religions other than those two. (The latter point should not be as surprising at it may seem. Recently I found out, to my astonishment, that many "educated" Americans think Canada is a French-speaking country. If you don't believe this, just ask a group of Americans what language most Canadians speak on a daily basis. When someone does not know what language their neighbours speak, one can hardly expect them to know about the intricacies and diversity of Asian, African and aboriginal religions. Immediately after 9/11, right-wing hooligans attacked many Sikh temples and individuals because, you know, anyone wearing a turban is a Moslem, right?) The “Iraq thing” has complicated the picture for the Right. If all Moslems are one tribal block of evil people, they ask, then who are these Shias and Sunnis? Are they both evil? If they are both evil, why is there antagonism between them? Very confusing ... No matter how confusing it may make things for the American Right, world affairs cannot be approached and understood in tribal terms. The character and aspirations of each individual are unique to that individual, even though he/she may be a member of this or that group, or actually of many different groups at the same time. While most Iraqi Shias may be in agreement with one another about some issues, and most Iraqi Sunnis may be in agreement with one another about some of those same issues and other issues, nearly every Iraqi, as an individual, wants one thing above all, which is for the Americans to leave. The rest is the business of Iraqis, and of Iraqis alone. No-one else, least of all American Republicans, can understand or have any worthwhile opinions on the concerns of individual Iraqis.

March 19, 2003 – a date which will live in infamy

On December 7, 1941, Japan made what would today be called a preemptive attack against US naval facilities at Pearl Harbor. The attack, judged by today’s post-ethical American standards, was quite justified. After all, the US forces posed a clear and present threat to Japanese interests. The next day, Franklin Roosevelt addressed the US Congress, calling the date of the attack “a date which will live in infamy.” If the Japanese attack against Pearl Harbor was “infamous,” what would be an appropriate adjective to describe the US attack on Iraq that commenced on March 19, 2003? Iraq posed no threat whatsoever to any US interests, except for Bush's interest in taking control of its petroleum resources. Iraq had committed no act of aggression of any kind against the United States. Far from it. Iraq has been the clear victim all along. It had already suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties through the war imposed on it by Bush, Sr. It had suffered a dozen years of sanctions and continual US and British bombardment of its infrastructure, leading to deaths of half a million Iraqi children and many tens of thousands of others. Today, the only certainty regarding Iraq's future may be the fact that the United States will refuse to ever let it be free of the dominance of American profiteers. Iraq is now a ruined wasteland, with an obliterated past and no future.

Click on image for info on this weekend's worldwide protests

Motive instead of meaning: an often subtle mark of fascist propaganda

One difference between a book by any respectable political theorist and Hitler's Mein Kampf is that the scholar tries to form arguments that make sense, while Hitler tries to make the reader imagine he is reading arguments that make sense. One does not learn any rational arguments from reading Hitler’s book, because it is not intended to say anything that corresponds to reality or makes any rational sense. It is only intended to manipulate the reader’s emotions, so as to overpower the reader's reasoning faculty. What one does learn from reading such literature is the fascist method of distorting truth to fit a particular purpose. This in itself can be quite enlightening, because a conscious reading of such work can help the reader grow more aware of a fascist author's motives. It can also help the reader recognize similar tactics when they are employed outside a strictly "fascistic" context.

The influence of fascism has been so pervasive that it has become an unconscious part of our civilization. Official Nazism and fascism in Germany and Italy were destroyed. Their methodology of ruling over the minds of the population, though, were lessons that the Allied powers and their servile news media and pundits made their own. To find writing that is inspired by fascism, all you have to do is turn to nearly any mainstream news outlet.

An essential cornerstone of fascist propaganda is the fact that almost any word or concept has both a rational and an emotive significance. Thus “freedom,” for instance, is both the objective state of empowerment that allows a person or group to overcome bounds and obstacles, as well as the emotional state that accompanies the consciousness of not being bound. Fascist propaganda uses these two distinct concepts interchangeably, in order to generate confusion in the audience’s mind between one and the other. The end result, and the final purpose, is that the feeling supplants the concept, and the need for reality is disposed of.

A number of specific tactics are employed to manipulate the emotions and hence neutralize the intellect.

One fascist propaganda tactic is to use different words to describe the same phenomenon, depending on whose interests are being served. Another variant of this tactic is to call things by a name that suits the powers that be, rather than by a name that is an objective description of the objective reality. Thus the US invading army in Iraq are “liberators,” whereas the Syrian peacekeeping forces in Lebanon are “occupiers.”

Another fascist tactic is to make opponents appear to be saying something other than what the opponents are actually saying. This is accomplished through the ascription of negative emotive concepts to the words of the opponents. Hence any criticism of the policies of the State of Israel amounts to callous anti-semitism, and even to denial of the Holocaust.

Another tactic is to pretend to be humanitarian in order to appeal to the audience on an emotional level. Hence all brutality ever perpetrated by the US Government has always been, in fact, for the good of the victims. And it turns out that Bush, after all, was just using weapons of mass destruction as a pretext to liberate the Iraqi people.

Another tactic related to the one above is to pretend to be speaking from some moral high ground. The only purpose that the Bush clan, father and son, have ever had in Iraq has been to get their hands on its oil. Together, they are responsible for more than a million deaths in Iraq (including the half a million children who died as a result of sanctions). The actual nature of the Bush dynasty's project has nearly been buried along with the Iraqi dead. Now Bush Jr travels the world as its Saviour, a veritable Second Coming.

General interest: The Right's value fallacy and the Left's existential value system

The basis of Margaret Thatcher's belief that "There is no such thing as society" was the Right's interpretation of society's general interest (cf Rousseau). To the Right, the general interest is a mere aggregate of individual interests (cf Plato’s discussion of the character of the citizens and the character of the state). [These days, I find that going back to the old philosophers helps me connect to the roots of social issues] Conversely, the Right assumes that whenever someone defends a political position, it must be due to a personal interest. The latter is an instance of the failure to differentiate between the personal and the social, an issue that Rousseau (unsuccessfully) and Marx (successfully) dealt with. Another instance of this failure, which may have touched many of us personally, is that conservatives take liberal criticism personally, while liberals generally don't take conservative criticism personally. The Right cannot understand the fact that the opinions a person expresses reflect the reality that the person is faced with, rather than his/her personality. For the Left, there are people, and then there are values afterwards. For the Right, values subsist in a substratum, independently of people and their lived experience.

The above fallacy is the root of the Right's whole "philosophy" of values, which is founded on a confusion between what is right and what is good. Real values are deduced from a process of reasoning on what is good. In other words, values are something that each of us comes to have due to having gone through a series of reasoning processes. They are our personal ethics. They are not, and cannot be, dictated to us by others or by society. The concept of what is "right," on the other hand, is based on conscience or emotions, that is, it is ultimately dictated to us by society as morality. An example should help to clarify this. A bill is to be reintroduced in the US Congress "that would require doctors who perform abortions after 20 weeks into a pregnancy to tell their patients that the fetus feels pain. Doctors must then offer anesthesia for the fetus." This is the Right's idea of "values." In fact, this has nothing to do with values. As much as it may disturb us to think of the pain that a 20-week fetus may suffer, the issue cannot be settled by an appeal to our emotions. Rather, the debate must revolve around the idea of what is the good thing to do in this situation. That can only be decided by including all the factors that bear on the situation, including the mother's health, her rights, her situation, and the social aspects of the question. Pain, by itself, is not an argument. If pain were an argument, it could be argued that anyone who suffers incurable pain should be euthanized.

About the Current Comment Attack on this Blog: An Issue of Fundamental Rights

I think I owe an explanation to the regular readers of this blog about the recent comment spam attack. This blog has been subjected to a spam attack by an individual who calls himself Grey, as well as by a number of his blogging associates. His blog is at www.sixty-six.org (see his post of Feb. 16). This individual is part of a group of four or five persons (with BJ, Mort, Zealott, and Zeke, and another one or two minor players) who, on the basis of my experience with them in the past two months, have made it their mission to attack blogs critical of the current US Administration. In other words, they try to chill critical activity by bullying the critics. These individuals have repeatedly attacked my blog with irrelevant and offensive comments, many of which I have duly deleted. They would then add the original comments again, sometimes adding the same comment to several different posts. In the Feb. 16 post on his blog, Grey says he will keep posting his comment until I reply to him. I have no idea what makes him feel he has a right to do this. I will, of course, not respond to what amounts to blackmail and coercion. I have stated on my blog's heading that I would delete "rude" comments. When I delete the comments of these individuals, they flood me with objections, to the effect that their comments were not "rude," meaning they did not contain obscene words. I am sure every literate person knows what is meant by the word "rude" in this context. It does not just refer to writing that contains gutter language. It also includes writing whose purpose is only to offend, without adding anything to the conversation. I have never deleted any comments that had been offered with a sincere wish to debate a point. You will find such critical comments under the latest post, signed by "Flemish American" and "cantseefade." They both expressed views opposite to my own, but in a constructive manner, and received a reply. You will find many similar cases throughout this blog. Notwithstanding all this, I have, in any case, the right to state my beliefs, whatever they may be, and to talk to and listen to whoever I wish, and also NOT to talk to and listen to whoever I wish. This fundamental freedom, regrettably, seems to have been one of the victims of the current mentality and the erosion of civil and human rights in the US. It appears that many Americans now believe they have a right to force people to listen to them. In the end, I have decided not to delete this gang's comments anymore. The reason is not just that they have forced this course of action, but also because I am sure that, in the minds of the readers, they will be hoist by their own petard. I had been saving them some embarrassment by deleting their comments. All of their comments, with the possible exception of the ones signed by the gang member who calls himself Zealott (with two T's), are free of any intellectual content, hence failing the first test set by this blog.

Iraq's US-style Elections

It is a difficult confession, but we used to have some doubts about the valour of the Iraqi people. Not any longer. We doubted them because of the apparent ease with which US forces occupied Iraq. What we were forgetting was that it was not the Iraqi people who crumbled in front of the invaders. It was the forces around Saddam that crumbled away to nothing, as there was nothing to hold them up. The people of Iraq have left no doubt about their own valiance in the minds of knowledgeable and impartial observers. They have shown indomitable and exemplary courage in the face of the adversities imposed on them by the invaders. They have taken advantage of every possible opportunity, peacefully or otherwise, to show the invaders that the masquerade of liberation has not fooled them. The Iraqi people's incredible courage in risking their lives to come out in large numbers to vote has left no doubt that the invaders have no lessons in democracy to teach the Iraqi people.

We, who are on the side of the Iraqi people, must not forget that the ultimate aim of these elections, from the point of view of the invaders, was to legitimize the puppet government of Iraq, and to strengthen and perpetuate the divisions among the Iraqi people. As the old saying from the time of the British Empire goes: "Divide and conquer." The Iraqi people, by turning away from the party of the butcher Allawi, have seen to it that the evil design does not reach full fruition. The reason the opposition won was not that it represented a better platform, as there was no platform and no named candidates. The primary reason the opposition won was that it represented forces hostile to the invaders.

The elections themselves are invalidated by the atmosphere and background that surrounded them, and do not represent the will of the Iraqi people as it would have been expressed in truly free and openly contested elections. The breakdown of any sense of security, and the overwhelming fear of being attacked by the invaders or the forces of the Resistance are topics of daily newscasts. The great majority of the people did not know anything about the individuals they voted for, as the list of candidates was kept secret up to the time the ballots were distributed. This fact in itself leaves no doubt that these elections are invalid. As with the recent US Presidential elections, people's religious beliefs were exploited to sway their votes. Hence Sistani issued a fatwa that mandated voting for the Shia party coalition. Voting was a condition for receiving food rations, a fact that accounts for a part of the turnout. Election "monitors" turned into voters, by filling out the ballots of many illiterate and elderly people who had come out to vote.

The Condi Rice Travelling Roadshow is trying to take full advantage of these sham elections to further Bush's agenda. It is a time of real danger, when the voice of real democracy and freedom is being drowned out by the blare of propaganda. However much we may sympathize with the plight of the Iraqi people, and however much we may admire their monumental courage, it is imperative that the illegitimacy of these elections becomes as widely known as that of the US Presidential Elections in 2000. This may be one of the very few means left available with which to impede the progress of the Bush bandwagon.

Special Bulletin: Voltaire's "prayer" answered!

Voltaire prayed, to a God in whose existence he did not believe, that his own enemies should become ridiculous. Today it was reported that God, in reaction to the US extreme Right's project of getting rid of Darwin's theory of evolution, has finally granted Voltaire's wish. Currently, the US Right, despite facing universal ridicule and, now, the wrath of God, plans to turn its attention to Einstein's theory of relativity. They claim this theory breeds moral relativism. One usually reliable source informs us that the next target on their hit list is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. They plan to argue in front of the Supreme Court that this Law is unconstitutional. This reporter adds: Perhaps Voltaire was wrong. Perhaps there is a God, after all!

Can there be any reasonable doubt that the above individuals are close cousins?

Capitulation is no cure for division

The Left (or the liberals, to use the US term) has been greatly concerned about the long-term effects of political division in society. The political division has, of course, been greatly exacerbated by the alienating policies of the current US administration. The liberals, being liberals, see division as unfavourable, that is, as something that one should try to reduce, even at the cost of compromising one's own principles. The hope is that attempts at dialogue with the Right may help bring them to one's own side. The experience of the last four years has demonstrated the exact opposite. Attempts at dialogue with the Right are interpreted as weakness, and leave them even more confirmed in their beliefs. It is clearly impossible to convert the extreme segments of the Right, although the less extreme segments may be open to seeing the light. However, the latter will see the light only if we remain steadfast in our praxis, and refuse to make unprincipled concessions.

Another aspect of this issue that has worried the Left is that each camp seems to talk only amongst themselves. There does not seem to be much of any kind of communication between the Right and the Left. I would again suggest that this is not necessarily the end of the world. The more we are confronted by invective and irrationality from the Right, the more convinced should we become that we are on the side of truth and justice. The fact that they hate us so much is proof positive that we have been effective, and confirms that we should continue and intensify our activities. And talking amongst ourselves is the best way to build coalitions and reinforce each other's efforts. Just consider the fact that, four years ago, there was a clear distinction between "left" and "liberal" in American political discourse. Today, that distinction has, for all practical purposes, disappeared.

Bush Blackout

I have put together a list of the primary referrers (to BushBlackout.com) from around the world who dedicated their Websites to this campaign today.

Conflict of Values within Social Democracy

In a well-intentioned post on the "Bad Attitudes" blog, Moe Blue points out what he sees as a "collective amnesia" in the Democratic Party as far as its basic values are concerned. As a reminder, he then goes on to list what the Party has stood for during the last century. I felt something was lacking while I was reading through his list. Although, as I said, he is well-intentioned in that he wants the Party to halt its right-ward drift, he in fact demonstrates exactly why Social Democracy has continued to drift right-ward in the last hundred years. Humanism nourished SD's original vision, and humanism calls for an absolute and unconditional value system. Stressing the values that Moe lists is not the remedy for SD's ailment, because those are not even values. They are the program that SD has developed for itself over the said period. They are, therefore, conditional and instrumental. The "collective amnesia" should instead refer to the fact that Social Democrats have forgotten that their original stance consisted of a set of items with intrinsic, unconditional, and non-instrumental value. The Right has no problem thinking of what it stands for as having intrinsic value, so why not the Left? The following is Moe's list (the text within quotation marks), together with my parenthetical indications of the intrinsic values that have been abandoned along the way:

1-"Give the poor and impoverished a hand up to lift them out of poverty because more people with more money makes our economy grow." (And not because doing so is a primary responsibility of a just society)

2-"Guarantee that all citizens are equal before the law because justice is the only path to social stability." (And not because justice is a good in itself)

3-"Promote science and education because they are the foundations of prosperity." (And not because having an educated and cultured citizenry has intrinsic value)

4-"Maintain strong alliances around the world because true security comes from being surrounded by friends, not enemies." (And not because peace is an indivisible aspect of human happiness)

5-"Create, enforce, and protect the rights of workers because America is not about enriching the few while crushing the many." (And not because there is nothing that should take precedence over the rights of producers of wealth, that is, the workers)

6-"Protect the environment because our children will have to live in the world we leave them." (And not because the environment has intrinsic value independently of whether there are human beings around or not)

7-"Keep the government out of the lives of citizens because the most fundamental right we have is the right to be left alone." (And not because the government's job description does not include a right to interfere in the lives of the citizens)

Of course, perhaps a more fundamental decision for the Democratic Party is whether it wants to be a Social Democratic party in the first place, or whether it wants to languish in its New Deal legacy. The New Deal, to those who know what it was really about, was fundamentally anti-worker and anti-progressive.

Rite of Manhood

Been out hunting
Bagged their first kill.
Commander had told them: Don't shoot
Till you see the whites of their eyes.

Been shooting women with babies
Been shooting women holding babies
Just in case the babies
were shielding weapons.

They are real men now.
Just to be on the safe side
They shoot women holding babies
Just in case.

They see
The whites of their eyes:
The large eyes
And the little ones.

Iraqi women carrying babies in their arms are more likely to be shot by American soldiers than are other women. Such women are suspected of hiding weapons behind the babies.

Apples and Oranges

Bush apologists love to go on about the beheadings in Iraq as soon as you bring up the subject of the responsibility of US soldiers for Abu Ghraib and, much more seriously, the civilian casualties in Fallujah. But are the same standards to be applied to professional soldiers as to individuals who are, after all, "terrorists" and "insurgents"? There is no logical equivalence between the killings by US soldiers and the killings by the "insurgents." This is not just for the basic reason given above, but also because of the deeper reason that the US has been massacring members of a completely legitimate resistance movement. There is no ethical equivalence between the actions of a member of a resistance movement and those of a soldier of an occupying army. Even the Nazis in France didn't use the excuse of the presence of members of the French Resistance in French cities to destroy those cities and massacre their populations. A parallel case to the above situation has been going on in the Middle East in the American proxy state of Israel, where the Israeli government has for years used the attacks by members of the Palestinian resistance movement against Israeli targets to rationalize its own attacks against innocent Palestinian civilians.

Yet another "Inauguration"

This blog will participate in the planned worldwide protests around the inauguration of "President" George W Bush on January 20.

Wear Orange

Beginning today, this blog's orange template signifies solidarity with those who reject the results of the fraudulent US Presidential Election.

"What, me worry?"

We are the Neo-N...-lovers

It's curious how US history keeps repeating itself, without anyone learning anything from these repetitions. Used to be anyone who defended African-Americans against those who persecuted, tortured, and lynched them was called a N... lover. Those doing the name-calling did not feel the least remorse for any of the atrocities committed against black people. They hated the people who defended the blacks, though, because they were afraid that talking about the atrocities may, God forbid, stir someone's conscience. The same thing is going on with Iraq. The right wants as many Iraqis (or Moslems in general) to be killed as possible, and they don't care how or why. All they ask is that no-one talk about it. And whoever does talk about it faces the right's full arsenal of invective and worse... And yet the right gets indignant when it is labelled Nazi or Fascist! I could name any number of "conservative" icons who have called, either explicitly or implicitly (they are very clever that way), for the eradication of all Moslems (all 1.2 billion of them), but I won't bother. Their filth is already all over the Internet and the newsmedia for anyone who wants to look the hideous face of American "conservatism" in the eye. And one doesn't even need to look at the "icons" anyway, as any American can testify on this issue on the basis of what he/she hears at work from co-workers, or hears coming out of his/her own mouth.

Might does not make right: "It's the jingoism, stupid!"

Although I know very little about football, I have come to the sad conclusion that the generality of Americans think of life and the world on the model of a game of football. This is probably more clearly true of those on the right portion of the political spectrum, but it may be true of most American liberals as well. To me, the main feature of a football game, on the rare occasions when I accidentally catch a couple of minutes of one, seems to be that the players try to tackle the player who is carrying the ball, or, in other words, who is trying to make a point (literally, in this case). Issues of right or wrong don't enter into it, but issues of good and evil do. One defines oneself as categorically and unconditionally good, and therefore everything and everyone that stands in one's way is evil. No reasoning and argumentation. No finding out the facts of the case. Just bullying one's way through life, without any regard for facts or logic.

The usual Christmas story...

The "Merry Christmas" versus "Happy Holidays" debate cropped up again this year, seemingly with greater vigour than in previous years. The crusaders against decency and good manners, who prefer to be thought of as warriors against political correctness, occasionally helped by their liberal fellow travellers, kept up their annual lament about the supposed demise of Christmas. Their basic argument is that since Christmas is a tradition in these countries, everyone should embrace it. They avow distress at hearing "Happy Holidays" supplanting "Merry Christmas." Simultaneously, the religious right makes the celebration more and more exclusive. The Christmas celebration used to be a season of joy and good will on the occasion of the anniversary of the founder of Christianity's birth, with the emphasis on joy and good will. Now the religious right and their deluded allies want it be about Christ, and only about Christ. If they want everyone to embrace it, they should, by definition, make it more inclusive. Non-believers and followers of other religions would be glad to say "Merry Christmas" if it doesn't imply negating their own beliefs.

Neo-Mongols

An essential element of the war-fighting strategy of the Mongols was to terrorize the conquered populations. It was an essential element because without it, the Mongols faced the risk of uprisings by subject peoples. The strategy consisted of extreme over-reaction to trivial acts of defiance, or "making an example of" them. For instance, if one inhabitant of a large city swore at a Mongol soldier, the entire population of the city would be put to the sword, and the city would be razed to the ground. The terror that this over-reaction generated in the populations of other cities tended to "chill" all rebellious activity. In the case of the Mongol Empire, the tactic seems to have been successful, at least in the short term, as the empire lasted for quite a while. An important result of the above tactic was that civilizations of the countries conquered by the Mongols suffer from the effects of that humiliation to this day, seven hundred years later and centuries after the Mongols became little more than a name in history books. It is clear that the United States has adopted this strategy in Iraq. Fallujah is an example to the rest of Iraq that if they don't obey the new masters, they will face massacres of their populations and ruin of their cities.

Americans desecrating a mosque in Fallujah. Pictures of the bodies of the tens of thousands of victims of this mentality are available on other websites. I picked this particular image because, like the Abu Ghraib pictures, it shows the mentality that makes the massacres possible.

Neo-Atheists

From a letter I submitted to a local newspaper:

Dear Editor,

Re: "Twilight of the godless" (book review)

In reviewing the book The Twilight Of Atheism, the reviewer accepts the book's main thesis without further analysis. The book's author believes that belief in God, or theism, is on the rise. The author and reviewer both take it for granted that this means atheism is in decline.

It is conceivable, though, that theism and atheism are on the rise simultaneously.

According to an opinion piece by Michael McAteer that appeared the same day (U.S. Christians await president's payback), theism in the US today means "opposition to gay and abortion rights, to tolerance of non-Christian beliefs, and to international cooperation." "It means an unfettered right to bear arms, unbridled free enterprise, and military might to settle disputes. There's lots of talk of faith, flag and country, but no talk of poverty, social justice, love of neighbour, peace on earth, and the protection of a fragile planet from further degradation."

If this is what rising theism amounts to, doubtless many believers will be driven to embrace atheism.

Aunt Condi's Cabinet

Condi Rice quotes her parents as telling her "you may not be able to have a hamburger at Woolworth's but you can be president of the United States." Well, with all due respect to the parents of the inventor of pre-emptive mayhem, I beg to differ. Even after suffering all their lives from the effects of racism, they obviously didn't understand the racist nature of the country, as evidenced by the fact that they failed to raise a child who pursues social justice. The United States will let black people serve whitey in any capacity, but it is not going to let them be the boss.

The Prince and the Dumbbell

British newspapers have been busy sensationalizing the story of Prince Charles telling one of his underlings that there are too many unqualified individuals aspiring to jobs they are not capable of performing to a high standard. Although what he actually said was simple common sense, the media have raised the spectre of a return to pre-Victorian notions of social class and "place." I beg to differ, especially because his actual words had nothing to do with social class. I think the episode had more to do with the fact that although the British royalty, like everyone else, have political opinions, they are not allowed to express them, which must be very frustrating for them as public figures. They often try to find roundabout ways to express these opinions. In a period when the person that a local columnist calls "the President of the World" is a certified idiot, and the British Prime Minister is a delusional sycophant (if not psychopath), it is not difficult to guess who the Prince may have been talking about.

Lose-Lose Situation

Both the Democrats and the Republicans lost the recent Presidential Elections in the US. Everyone knows the Democrats lost, but that does not mean the Republicans won. Bush voters saddled their own country and the world with a President that no-one respects, and who will thereby be unable to implement any kind of agenda, whether positive or negative. Not to speak of the fact that he has his own personal agenda that has nothing to do with what is good for the US or the world: "I'm the kind of fellow who does what I think is right and will continue to do what I think is right." Needless to say, what he thinks is right is not necessarily what is good for either the US or for the world. But try to explain that to a Republican voter...

You can't have one without the other

In a certain sense, American liberals have only themselves to blame for the Bush catastrophe. On one hand, they criticize Republicans for their parochialism and unilateralism. On the other hand, the mainstream American liberal intellectuals, and even those on the left, have always acted and talked as if they believed the rest of the world does not exist, or that in any case its concerns are strictly secondary to those of the United States. For too many years, far from simply tolerating the unique brand of American jingoism, they surpassed their conservative compatriots in championing it. Their advocacy of the pursuit of American interests at any cost was cloaked in homilies on "human rights" and "peace," meanwhile repressing the struggles of poor nations to achieve dignity and equality. Jimmy Carter called for respect for human rights while supporting the vilest military dictatorships in Central America. And he forced the "peace" of abnegation and degradation on the people of Egypt at the expense of Palestinians. Well, what is good for the goose. . . The Bushites are now pursuing the same objectives, only a little more openly and "honestly," and the Democrats have deprived themselves of the moral authority to condemn them. American liberals may not have created the Frankenstein's monster of Bushism, but they did little to keep it from coming to life. Any version of "America's manifest destiny" involves the risk of the eventual predominance of its more extreme manifestations. Meanwhile, the liberals show themselves as a bunch of hypocrites. An instance of their hypocrisy is their lamentations about the American dead in Iraq. Are they whining about the loss of life, or about Americans getting killed? If they are really liberal, if they are really "bleeding hearts," their hearts should bleed for the 100,000 Iraqi dead too. And they should reject the arguments for war in Iraq that are based on "manifest destiny."

Armageddon

There are "signs" the lunatic right may be right, no matter how distasteful the idea may be to rational people. There are signs these may be the "last days." I, as an agnostic, would be the last one to discount any idea out of hand, even something as preposterous as this one.

"It is written" that everything is turned upside down in the "last days." Everything that was nonsense becomes sense. Everything that was unthinkable becomes the norm.

Not long ago the word Armageddon signified the worst possible thing that could be imagined, namely, the end of human civilization through nuclear holocaust. Today, it signifies, at least to the lunatic right, the best possible thing that can be imagined, namely, yes, the end of human civilization, but with this difference: After everyone else has perished, the lunatics would be lifted up unto heaven. It is a consummation devoutly desired.

There are corollaries to this new worldview. War is good, because peace and progress can never lead to the volcanic catharsis that would necessitate divine intervention. It is best to have insane leaders, because sane ones are not likely to make the "correct" decisions that will bring on the end and the new beginning.

This has been achieved. Bush wants war to bring on the Second Coming. Cheney wants it so his former company will profit by it, no matter how many hundreds of thousands of people get killed in the process. And the rest of the gang have simply sold their souls to the devil.

So maybe I should redefine the nature of the "last days." Maybe the last days do not have anything to do with divine intervention or lack thereof. Rather, maybe the last days have to do with a human race that has become so corrupt and selfish that it looks away from the misery of its fellows, consciously and knowingly. These may be the last days. But only because we have made them so.

not a laughing matter

Who said conservatives don't have a sense of humour. They have twice voted for a President the whole world is laughing at.

Fictitious state visit

The fictitious President of the United States is about to visit Canada. And I am not talking about Martin Sheen. Sure, it is possible that this time Dubya did win the popular vote, despite the very serious signs of voting fraud, and he may even legitimately win the electoral college vote. But, like Michael Moore and many others, I often have the feeling that Dubya is the fictitious President of the US, and one of these days the real President will stand up. . . . Surely this can't be the best that America can offer!

His doubly-fictitious (not yet confirmed by Congress) Secretary of State will be in tow, the one who ended up on Bush's team because of the fact that she couldn't find a real (non-fictitious) job. She had been granted the fictitious job of Provost at Stanford, as her doctorate was, you guessed it, fictitious; it had been given to her despite the execrable quality of her academic work.

Now the two of them play at being powerful politicians of the most powerful country on earth. Except that real people, in their tens of thousands, are getting killed. And hundreds of thousands of others are getting maimed for life.

Like Moore, I often have the feeling the last four years have been a dream--have been fictitious. Recently, while watching a documentary on younger Dubya, I realized who that dream/nightmare's protagonist reminds me of. Dubya is James Dean, he of "Rebel Without a Cause" fame, sort of gone to college by the grace of having a very rich father, and become President of the United States, again for the same reason.

Body snatchers

These days quite a few Democrats talk as if they experienced an invasion of body snatchers on November 2. They keep saying things like "Who are these people who voted for Bush?" They frequently use the "F" word for them--"fascist," that is. You would think Republicans had just materialized out of thin air. Well, they didn't materialize out of thin air.

Were you conscious when it was drilled into your head that America is the best and the greatest? America uber alles? Were you awake in civics and history classes, when they told you America's system of politics and government is what the rest of the world should, and also will, try to emulate?

The propaganda system was so successful that the brainwashing took hold quite unconsciously. Now the November 2 election, like the hypnotist's snap of his fingers, has shocked some of the sleepers out of their deep slumber. They feel like they are in a foreign country. And they are right. The Republicans are the "real" Americans. The Republicans are the ones who believe that they must follow their President/Fuehrer, right or wrong, even when he is criminally insane.

The Republicans are the ones who understand "moral values." And what are moral values? They are the rules that society imposes on individuals when it has no faith in their own ethical inner light. The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is a good illustration of this point. It was never meant as an absolute maxim of conduct emanating from an individual's understanding of the nature of his/her humanity. It simply meant "Thou shalt not kill members of your own tribe." Killing outsiders was condoned, and even encouraged. The "commandment" was just a contingent guideline.

Moral values or commandments are the exact opposite of ethical values. A moral person does what he is told. An ethical person does what his sense of what it means to be human tells him to do. Moral values are society's means of controlling individuals. Ethical values are the individual's means of influencing society's development.

If American Democrats are unwilling to examine the "values" they have been brought up with, they might as well run a garage sale with the Democratic Party's assets, and get used to a one-party system.

Boundless Arrogance

Dubya spokesperson Scott McClellan, upon hearing that Thomas Walkom, a columnist with The Toronto Star newspaper, has suggested that Bush should be arrested for war crimes when later this month he defiles this country with his presence, quipped that Walkom "had spent too much time on the campaign of candidate Ralph Nader." This is the type of thing only an American is capable of thinking or saying. Any non-American can see the absurdity of the statement. Why would he think that a Canadian columnist has spent any time, let alone "too much time," on Nader's campaign? Americans imagine everyone and everything in the world is an extension or appendage of something in the United States. The reality is just the opposite of this picture. The nature of the relationship of non-Americans to things American is not that of a bond. Rather, it is that of a negation. For instance, the reason millions of non-Americans supported Kerry's candidacy was not that they liked Kerry or admired him in any way. The reason they supported him was simply the fact that he was running against Bush, who is seen as a far greater evil.

Caligula's Reincarnation

What if it is mostly about Bush's taste for blood and killing? Caligula's greatest fantasy comes to mind: "Would that the Roman people had a single neck [to cut off their head]." Bush "cut off" quite a few heads while Governor of Texas. Earlier, his sadism had manifested itself at Yale when he invented the practice of branding pledges, and on many other occasions. In a 1999 interview, he mocked Karla Faye Tucker, the first woman to be executed in Texas in 100 years: "Please," he whimpered, pursing his lips, "don't kill me." Now the world is his oyster. He is not limited to victims available to him in the US anymore, who may come back to haunt him later anyway. He is now free to kill, bomb, maim, and destroy to his heart's content, without having to answer for any of it. Bush can achieve what Caligula could only dream of.