September 17, 2005
# Red Dawn... so soon after the Pinko Sunset?

tallinnroofs_sm.jpg Anyone see the movie Red Dawn. I actually haven't, but the basic premise is that the Soviet Union invades the US. Which is to say, the film is rightfully the subject of ridicule, and that's before you get to the part where a bunch of high school kids (Patrick Swayze and Charlie Sheen among them) defeat the red army.

But the possibility of a Russian invasion actually feels real to folks in Estonia, and it seems to be not quite the paranoid right wing fantasy that it is in the US.

I was reminded of all this when a Russian fighter-bomber mysteriously crashed in Latvia the other day. The same day, a Russian military plane flying through Estonia went off of its flight path and onto a civilian flight corridor (not sure of the terminology in English). Apparently this is just the last in a long string of provocations. The previously favoured method, I hear, was to fly fighters at top speed toward the Estonian border and turn away at the last minute. (In other recent news, Russia withdrew from the treaty it had signed a few months earlier. Negotiations leading up to the signing. Also, check out the selective coverage of the fighter incident in the Russian media.)

As I said before, a key part, if not the defining characteristic of Estonian foreign and domestic policy has been to avoid being conquered (for the nth time) by the Russians. This has been a primary motivation for joining NATO, the EU, the WTO, the IMF sending troops to Iraq (two of whom have been killed) and Afghanistan, giving Bush Sr. some kind of medal yesterday (he promised to mention his kind treatment by the Estonian government to his son), and so on.

Despite all this, uncertainty reigns. A few evenings ago, Lauri and I had a big chat about the state of Estonia and the world. He reckoned that obviously there's no chance that Russia will invade under the current conditions. But over the next fifty years, the EU could very well break up, or who-knows-what could change, and it would be the same thing once again.

While I'm not sure if most or even many people think about an invasion, there's certainly an overwhelming nervousness about what Moscow's got cooking.

Apparently, the Kaitseliit, the National Guard, is trained mostly in guerilla warfare, the idea being that [whoever] can go ahead and invade. If they try to occupy, though, they'll have a rather rough go of it. "A patriot behind every tree," or something like that.

In any case, I can now say firsthand that there's a (big!) difference between fearing a genocidal occupation and fearing a terrorist attack. Score one for basic truths.

posted by dru
September 15, 2005
# Political Movements?

[caveat lector: these are first impressions based on deeply incomplete information--hopefully, in that respect, unlike some other things I write.]

aadam.jpg "Just turn it off," Aadam says in English with an exagerrated Estonian accent. On the way from the airport, I had remarked at the large number of ads for political parties. There are elections coming up, he concedes, but he doesn't know when and doesn't really care. Politicians do whatever they want. Igasugused intriigid, all kinds of intrigues and scandals are in the papers, with politicians going back and forth between parties. So Aadam doesn't care; in any case, he's tuned out the political background noise, and says he doesn't notice the ads anymore.

But it also seems that there's very little in the way of activism. Though the vast majority of the population is against the war, for example, but the government--like many others in Europe--has been enthusiastically on side. The stand (and other kowtowing) is generally understood to be for the principle purpose of securing the good graces of the Americans, which is overwhelmingly seen as favourable any graces of the Russians. Indeed, the foreign policy focus of the first decade-and-some after independence was gaining NATO and EU membership, primarily to stave off another Russian invasion, or incursion.

There are a few subversive filmmaker types and a well-known anarchist lead singer of a folk-punk band who wrote a book on the history of anarchism, but very little organizing. According to Aadam (who is a distant relative of mine) young people are simply laisad, lazy. (All of this was said with a half-joking, cynical tone, in casual conversation.)

The main exceptions to the rule of no grassroots movements seems to be rohalised, greens, and the pensioners. I actually don't know anything about the pensioners, except that they protest at the Parliament building on occasion, live on very small cheques from the government, and are a key constituency to appeal to if you're a politician.

Rohelised

The "green" movement here differs markedly from the North American or even Western European version in that it seems to stem--almost universally--from a pre-existing socio-cultural dependence on the land, rather than from a combination of economic, aesthetic and moral considerations. In other words, I don't think it's so much of a political choice to think ecologically as it is a prerequisite of understanding one's own identity.

eestilipp.jpg Estonian green philosophy differs ontologically in a key respect as well. There's much less emphasis on keeping anything pristine (which ends up being a key rhetorical if not through-and-through political point in N. America), because people have been living here for thousands of years, and have had a huge impact on the landscape. It's just that that impact has been a dialogue (punctuated, no doubt, by shouting matches) with the regional ecology, rather than a one sided exploitation of it. While there's some talk of preservation, it mostly seems to be a matter of amplifying practices that have developed over millenia (though they may have been sidetracked by Soviet über-industrialism and hyper-exploitation of the landscape in the last half-century).

It's still very much an indigenous culture; ecology is present in many of the key metaphors that make up written and spoken Estonian.

(It seems that Canadian environmentalists could learn a bit from this. In addition to talking about the ecological necessity of preserving, say, the Boreal forest, they could also stand to talk a bit more with the folks who depend on it for their survival.)

N. American movements, on the other hand, seem to have much more of an analysis of the capitalist system (though I'm almost certainly prone to overestimate it as a result of the kinds of environmentalists I hang out with). Anecdotally, there doesn't seem to be as much understanding of how and why capitalism is ecologically fucked.

When celebrated Estonian naturalist Fred Jüssi was visiting a group of Estonians in Toronto a while back, someone asked him about the possibility of having a political party to represent environmentalism in Estonia. He responded that the problem is what they call tomatti rohelised, tomato greens. They start out green, but eventually turn red. And that, as they say, was that.

Broad, unfounded statement

The curious dilemma at the moment seems to be that while Soviet rule was successful in uniting the country (and getting a third of the Estonian-speaking population to turn out to one big singing protest), Capitalism has been just as effective at divvying up the country into apathetic interest groups. Marxism is so tainted, perhaps, that it's just impossibly out of fashion to express any anticapitalist sentiment.

posted by dru
September 13, 2005
# To Estonia

investinestonia_small.jpg I'm back to Estonia for the first time in nine years. I grew up speaking Estonian, mostly with my mom. My first words were in Estonian, and I've long felt an inexplicably strong connection to this place--much more than I feel a connection to, say, where I grew up. I've only ever been here a handful of months in total, but I've never felt more 'at home' anywhere else.

The last time I was here, I was sixteen. I only had a skeleton of my worldview at that point. Bones but no muscle.

So I've arrived with no plan at all, a vague intention to visit family and friends (almost all of whose primary connection is to my mother) and a set of questions about politics and history.

After a few days here, the main puzzle so far concerns the uncanny familiarity that I feel for this place. Does it come from some pre-conscious ancestral or cultural-linguistic rhizomatic entanglement? Or is it simply that capitalism has had access to the country for long enough to render it indistinguishable from any other place I've been, and thus deeply familiar in a particular way?

I doubt it's one or the other.

From Canada

viru_small.jpg The questions I have stem from the appearance that Estonia is in many respects like Canada, except moreso. Colonized indigenous nations (Estonians have been colonized for a few hundred years more), tense relations with a settler population (though in Estonia, Russians are a minority), a small country (Estonia, pop. 1.5 million) forced to appease foreign powers.

The main difference is that Estonia has been blindsided by capitalism. A national consensus that Soviet rule (and thus anything communist-related) really, really sucks, built up over fifty-plus years of repression, culminated in the Singing Revolution, when 250,000 people defied Russian tanks and troops to sing banned songs. Independence was declared shortly thereafter, with the collapse fo the USSR not far behind.

Since then (the) Estonia(n elite), like (that of) many former Soviet republics, embraced capitalism wholeheartedly. Like Armenia (for example), cultural freedom has expanded while the freedom to subsist has subsided. It's not quite the wholesale privatization-without-benefits of Armenia, but prices are a-rising.

What I notice on the ground right away, though, is the apparent lack of psychological defense mechanisms that decades (rather than a decade) of life under capitalism compels one to develop.

Walking around in the brand-new shopping mall there's a feverishness of consumption that I don't notice in North American malls. (I don't know how to describe it more than that. Consuming shiny things is still new and appetites are less easily satiated, I suppose. The manic new drug addict vs. the jaded long-time user.)

More tangibly, the advertising is several steps short of subtle. A prominent ad from a cell phone company proclaims that "if you really care about your kids", you'll get them a cell phone. The leader of Keskerakond, Edgar Savisaar, made substantial electoral gains after he sent all pensioners in Tallinn (where he was on city council) an extra 500EEK ($50CDN) and a card featuring a photo of him at Christmas time.

Over the next week, I'm going to try to keep track of conversations, anecdotes and photos. The comment feature doesn't work, but I'd be happy to post commentary sent to me at dru at dru dot ca.

posted by dru
# Snapshot

plane_small.jpg I met an Egyptian guy, Ahmed, on the Toronto-Frankfurt flight. He's a pilot in Egypt, and was in Canada for a week of flight simulator training. He didn't like Canada, though. Beautiful country, he said, but everything is expensive and people are busy; they don't have any time, he said. If he worked in Canada, he would make 20 times what he makes in Egypt, but he didn't want to do it. People are more relaxed in the middle east in general, according to him. You work, you don't work; you still live. The exceptions are Lebanon and Dubai, which are more European. People have less time there.

(And the women in Canada, he said, you can't talk to them. They might sue you. In Egypt, you talk to women, it's ok. As long as you don't touch them, everything else is fine.)

He's been all over the Middle East, but never to Iraq or Israel. He said there's too much paperwork. His colleagues flew to Israel, but they are intensively interviewed by the authorities. Why do you go to Tel-Aviv? What are you doing here?

He said rules are very relaxed in Egypt. You can drive straight ahead--he made a chopping motion with his hand--or you can go like this--he made a broad swerving motion. If the police catch you, you say "I'm sorry, brother, I won't do it again." And the police will point to the rules and tell you not to do it again. Then you're on your way.

I asked him about political freedom. He said it's ok to say "fuck the government" in Egypt, but you're not allowed to say anything bad about the President, at least until recently. It's more or less the same everywhere in the Middle East where he's travelled, he says. Saudi Arabia is loosening up a bit because of tourism, but everything happens underground. Shopping, drugs, alcohol. Life in Iraq was very hard, even before the war. Syria--he rolls his eyes--in Syria you don't criticize the government. In Jordan, everyone loves the King. Everything he does, they love it. It's true.

He says that Christians in Egypt complain about repression, but he doesn't see how it is happening. Many of them are very rich, he says. I agree that rich people sometimes complain about the limits placed on them. He says the Jews are the same way. They have a state, they are rich. Why are they always complaining? I find myself explaining the history of anti-semitism, not mentioning the Palestinians. He asks if I'm Jewish. But, I add, with Israel it's complicated because now the Jewish state is making people suffer. He says he thinks maybe that's true. Cautiously. But still, he says, they have everything. What is the problem?

We chat a bit more, and the fasten safety belt sign goes on, and we go back to our seats.

posted by dru
July 28, 2005
# Z Mag

Through a serendipitous and unintentional sequence of events, my intervention on the NCMR, "Media Reform and Media Revolution: A Critique of Free Press and the National Conference on Media Reform", made it into the latest issue of Z Magazine.

So if you haven't read it, there's a dead-trees copy available at your local news stand.

posted by dru
September 19, 2004
# As soon as I'm on top of things

I've been thinking about why I don't write and post here more often. I think it's because I see the format of the weblog as being about responding to something immediately present, and I'm constrained by that. I suppose I've been overcome with the (fairly realistic) feeling that my adding my two cents on any particular issue isn't going to make any discernible difference... in anything.

Political weblogging is driven by a consistant level of self-importance, as if one's contribution to the debate is somehow essential. I may have once felt that way, but these days it's the opposite: every time I think to write a letter or a weblog entry, I just feel that it's hopeless. I'll spend three hours researching a few points, and learn about a situation, write and rewrite about it, only to do nothing with the results. Preemptively deflated.

It isn't that there isn't an audience; I'm sure plenty of people would read it, for whatever reason. But something takes away my motivation, often before I even get started.

All of this is a negative way of saying that I'm trying to rethink how I use this space. The few folks who come back and check now and then have noticed that this hasn't amounted to much, as of late.

To paraphrase Donald Knuth: weblogs are great for staying on top of things, and though my work requires a fair bit of this, I'm personally more and more interested in getting to the bottom of things, as it were.

Staying on top of things can be, and perhaps inherently is, a mildly violent act. It involves the articulation and constant rearticulation of an approach, a set of concerns, or a philosophy, as applied to a daily example. It is the expression of a pre-established invulnerable position from which understanding has already happened before the facts arrive.

One does not often speak of attempting to get on top of things; one stays there.

The constant assertion of understanding can make it difficult to see anything unique, singular, or new in the things one is 'on top of'. One risks the opposite of what C. Wright Mills advocated when he wrote:

The independent artist and intellectual are among the few remaining personalities equipped to resist and fight the stereotyping and consequent death of genuinely living things. Fresh perception now involves the capacity to continually unmask and to smash the stereotypes of vision and intellect with which modern communications swamp us.

In 'getting to the bottom of things', by contrast, one implicitly concedes that arrival is imminent, but not present. [I just realized that Knuth says "be at the bottom of things, but it still seems awkward to me.] It's interesting that while I might say "I need to get to the bottom of this", I can't imagine saying "I finally got to the bottom of it". Instead, the metaphors immediately switch from arrival to possession: "I've got it!" "I finally wrapped my head around it." Or at least the transition is quick, as in: "I've hit pay dirt!"

The transition to finding a way to shift my mindset (and the perceived constraints and expectations that are wrapped up with any medium) from responding to statements, reports, and facts to reflectively attempting to understand them.

In particular, I'm interested in understanding how a world of infinite facts is subordinated to the activity of watching the news, reading a paper, or perusing web sites. To put it in the already-tiresome terms, I want to get to the bottom of how we stay on top of things.

To this end, I've been compiling notes for the past six months on objectivity and journalistic practices. If I keep them in sunlight and water them regularly, I hope they will eventually turn into a book. I've begun writing for the media analysis section of the Dominion, so that, as Stan Goff put it, my abstractions touch the ground. Evan's recent posts have also inspired me to dig up some old threads in my thinking and begin watering the other book that's lurking in some recurring themes about the politics of communication technology.

Like jogging every day, writing and thinking in an externally tangible way is something that I, full of optimism, regularly re-commit myself to. Though the commitment sometimes rings hollow in hindsight, I see no alternative to continuing to do so. This post, and the writing that will follow, are as much for me as they are for anyone who might still be listening... as it should be.

(Here's the second half of Mills' paragraph:

These worlds of mass-art and mass-thought are inceasingly geared to the demands of politics. That is why it is in politics that intellectual solidarity and effort must be centred. If the thinker does not relate himself to the value of truth in political stuggle, he [sic] cannot responsibly cope with the whole of lived experience.
)

posted by dru
August 03, 2003
# Flat Tax for the Left

A simplistic and yet apparently common-sense policy occured to me the other day. I call it "market communism", though it may as well be a flat tax of the far left, as it is undoubtedly too simple to work well. And yet, I find it compelling.

It works like this. First, a cap is placed on all salaries, everywhere. No one can be paid more than four times the amount paid to the lowest-paid employee. Any time the top-paid folks want a pay raise, they have to raise the salaries of all of the lowest-paid by 25% of their desired raise.

The rest is details.

A whole new set of laws would be needed to keep people from finding ways around this, and substantial sum would be needed to enforce it. This could be accomplished with the death penalty. Not that death penalty, the corporate death penalty. If executives at a certain corporation were found to be paying themselves more than 4x the lowest paid, the corporate assets would be used to pay severance to the employees of the firm, and the rest could go to an unemployment insurance fund.

Aside from some fine-tuning (the range of pay might need, to some extent, to be calculated by state, by type of business, etc.) I have trouble seeing any problem with this plan.

There is nothing about capitalism that says that one has to accumulate insane amounts of money. On the other hand, the more evenly income is distributed, the more it is likely to be spent or reinvested, making for a much more dynamic economy. Even Warren Buffet agrees with me on that.

A lot of other problems would be easier to solve after a few years of market communism. It would be easier to find funding for decent journalism, for health care, for new environmental and cultural ventures. As the "money primary" states clearly in its name alone, money is power, and the easiest way to get power to more people is to give them more of the money.

This also explains why market communism isn't likely to happen. For some strange reason, rich people never have a strange need to be richer than everyone else. Mutual prosperity doesn't cut it.

The inverted version of the market communism policy is concisely addressed by Conceptual Guerilla's piece on cheap-labour conservatives, which I recommend.

posted by dru
by adam

it's an interesting idea, but you could've chosen a better name than "market communism". i don't think it accurately describes what you propose, and it's guaranteed to alienate people who don't actually think the idea is a bad one.

that said, i've thought about it for a minute and can't do any better.

by dru

Yeah, "market communism" is a term calculated to appeal to exactly no one. I felt the need to invoke a bit of irony before making sweeping statements about economics and politics, which I don't know that much about.

As long as I lack an explanation for why it's a bad idea, though, I'm inclined to see the reasons for 'market communism' not existing as primarily, if not completely, political.

by adam

also, that cheap-labour-conservative thing is a real eye-opener. it's been a long time since i read a theory of everything, and that one was pretty, uh, brazenly confident. and with good cause.

there's a follow up on the guerilla's website. it's mostly snarking to-and-fro with a critic of his, but finishes in fine style:
"Defeat the Right in Three Minutes" is only the first step -- and it has done exactly what I had hoped it would do. It has rallied the left, and inflamed the right. What's next? Stick around. We’re just getting started.

July 19, 2003
# Socialism in the USA

The US military is one of the last real socialist institutions in the world. I realized this talking to an old friend who currently works on a military base; he was complaining about his rent. All of the sailors from the base where he works get a housing allowance from the navy. As a result, local landlords are able to jack up the prices to otherwise untenable levels. Only the non-military folk are affected.

In this and other ways, people who join the US armed forces are taken care of. They are fed, provided with cheap or free transportation and accommodations, and given discounts on groceries and other goods. All this, thanks to collectivized production and taxpayer dollars.

If you're dropping off the bottom rung of the social ladder in America, the safety net of the military is there to catch you, and provide an attractive alternative to the hell of split shifts of minimum wage work. Just a few caveats: you have to be willing to kill others and die for your country. And by "for your country", they actually mean "for various interests whose connection to the well-being of your country is vague, or perhaps nonexistent." (Woody Guthrie sang, "if we fix it so you can't make no money on war, then we'll all forget what we was killin' folks for...")

So the military practices a skewed kind of socialism that views a relative increase in economic well-being as a means to an end (ensuring a supply of cannon fodder, for example), rather than an end in itself.

The same friend was also a bit depressed about the amount of spousal abuse that occurs on the base where he works. Submarine crew members, he said, are often enough jailed for beating their wives. Just as often, though, they are released by their commanding officers when they are needed for another six month mission across the Pacific. The socialist state of the navy is again skewed by having its own justice system: one geared toward the task at hand, not necessarily at justice.

A second tier of socialism is available for public servants, generals, politicians, and Pentagon types who are loyal to the military industrial complex. Cushy "consulting" gigs with defense contractors are subsidized by the taxpayer, but make no pretense of being accountable to her. From each according to his debility, to each according to his greed.

These socialist practices skewed to other ends are often copied by large corporations, though rarely carried to the same extent. Resources are collectivized, but not surprisingly, the benefits accrue to a chosen few. Why not spread things around just a bit more, to make everyone's life better? Perish the thought. Socialism for the rich is commonly refered to as "free market capitalism", but socialism for anyone else is "class warfare".

posted by dru
by James

There's an interesting post about this at Crooked Timber. A lot of people chimed in to disagree with the military-as-socialist-institution characterization. One of the more compelling points, I thought: grunts don't control the capital, or means of production. They're living in more of a subsidized capitalist society--like a corporation that has a really good cheap cafeteria and a day care center, only much more so.

Which is all just splitting hairs, I suppose. But I like to keep the word "socialism" in reserve so I can triumphantly apply it when someone finally gets it right--any day now, I'm sure.

--James

by dru

Yeah, I'm using the word (very loosely) to refer to what results from the practice of "socialization", which is probably wrong. The main intent was to underline the hypocrisy of the "free market is best, most efficient, preordained," or whatever position. There are plenty of other ways of getting things done that are used all over the place, but ignored for reasons that are interesting, obscured, but rarely good.

But yeah, there's no way that the US armed forcesactually practice anything like serious socialism.

by allan

"grunts don't control the capital, or means of production. They're living in more of a subsidized capitalist society"

The grunts don't control capital, but what about the pentagon? Clinton ordered 12 B2 bombers at $2B each. Defense contracting is hardly a capitalist system. It is much more like a government beaurocracy.

by lesbian rape

jump with fighting is.

by free rape thumbs

reported is a of.

March 25, 2003
# A few thoughts on liberation.

When German troops marched into Estonia during WWII, they were greeted as liberators. Not because the Germans were bringing democracy or even ambiguously-defined "freedom", but because life under the Russians had been the worst thing to happen to the country up until that point. As it happened, being ruled by Nazis wasn't much better. Life under Stalin after the war was still worse (thousands were shipped off to Siberian labour camps and prisons or simply killed), but that was yet to come.

Iraqis in Iraq seem to understand fairly well that the sanctions strengthened Saddam Hussein, strangled their economy, and led to the horrors of the past ten years. Many also don't seem convinced that being invaded by the Americans is better than life as usual under Hussein.

The US (or the UN) could have taken it upon itself to liberate Iraq at any point during the past ten years, through a combination of the following options: creation of autonomous zones in southern Iraq, adoption of sanctions that hurt Saddam instead of hurting his people, supporting dissident groups, and finding ways to ensure that people don't starve.

It's important to understand what makes those options different from a military invasion. Foremost, it involves giving power over to the Iraqis (of whom Shi'ites and Kurds form a vast majority). The Shi'ites would likely make peace with Iran and form strong cultural and economic ties with that other member of the axis of evil, while the Kurds would leverage political power into the creation of a Kurdish state, or put a lot of pressure (maybe by funding and staging terrorist attacks, among more peaceful means) on Turkey, which has oppressed the Kurds for a long time now.

For these same reasons, real democracy in Iraq would directly contradict US interests. I'm guessing that's why the Bush administration never says "democracy" in relation to Iraq, but substitutes effectively meaningless phrases like "self-government" and "representative government". Many observers have, with undue charity, claimed that Bush will set up a democracy, though I know of no instance where Bush himself has actually made the claim. (I would be happy to be proven wrong on this point, and any others.)


posted by dru
March 11, 2003
# Iran gets Nukes

Washington Post: Iran's Nuclear Program Speeds Ahead

"Our three 'axis of evil' designees seem to have decided to push hard to provide themselves with weapons if they're going to be in the constant attention of the United States," Gottemoeller said. "We need a more proactive, positive way of engaging them first and then trying to shut these things down."

The current US behaviour towards countries that have nuclear weapons and those that don't makes the choice for those countries pretty clear: develop nuclear weapons quickly, or nothing short of a total Wall Street crash will stop a US invasion. In short: nukes and maybe terrorism are the only things that will keep you from getting invaded. This, compounded with Bush's promise to use nuclear weapons against countries that use chemical weapons, or keeping the option to proceed with "legitimate" first use of "tactical nukes" serves only to escalate worldwide nuclear proliferation.

Daniel Ellsberg writes:

With or without first-use in this conflict, I fear that an attack on Iraq will spur other nations into acquiring nuclear weapons for deterrence in the future. In the guise of averting proliferation in Iraq, this bullying attack by the world's preeminent nuclear power will accelerate proliferation dramatically. (It may already have had that effect in North Korea). The black market price for Russian (or Pakistani, or North Korean) nuclear materials or, better, operational nuclear weapons, will skyrocket. If a market and international trade in such materials and weapons does not develop in response to this, then the assumptions underlying the theory of markets and free trade need radical overhaul.

As Ellsberg points out, the #1 threat to the US right now is the possibility that Al Quaeda or other terrorist groups might acquire nuclear weapons. By invading and occupying Iraq, the US will not only be creating a huge demand for nuclear weapons, but severely increasing the possibility of that such weapons will get into the hands of terrorists. All it takes is one, after all.

On its own, the new nuclear proliferation (which has already begun) will have tremendous unforseen consequences. If Iran gets nukes, how will its neighbors react? In that event, Saddam Hussein will stop at nothing to get nuclear weapons, since he (probably legitimately) fears a reprisal for the war he started with Iran in the 80s. Any US-sponsored regime in Iraq would undoubtedly not feel it was secure until it also had nuclear capabilities to deter Iran. But that's just an obvious example; the point is, we cannot predict these things. No one can.

The obvious and sane alternative is to work for cutting down conventional arms buildup in general and nuclear capability in particular across the board in the Middle East. That means, of course, stopping much of the highly lucrative business that US arms dealers (usually subsidized by US taxpayers) do in many countries in the region. It also means working with Russia to make sure their vast nuclear arsenal is accounted for. This is the only possible way for governments in the region to feel secure without possessing huge arsenals. For obvious reasons, it is very much against the prerogrative of the Bush administration to do this, which is why only popular pressure can make the government responsive to the vast danger it is creating.

I, for one, don't want to see another September 11th, much less one involving nuclear fallout.

posted by dru
by jake

Total and utter bullshit(you stupid bleeding heart liberal). Why would the U.S. invade Iraq if they did not have weapons of mass destruction? Unlike Iraq, the U.S. does not invade countries for no reason. We only did so in this case very relucrantly after every effort to solve the problem diplomaticly. We are in iraq because we dont want another 9/11 g-d forbid. We are perfectly aware of what saadam is capable of and heaven help us if he is left to his own devices.

by bestiality pics

chained duty, is this.

by bestiality pics

chained duty, is this.

March 09, 2003
# Evan Thomas and John Barry

Newsweek has cranked up their propaganda machine to the next level of output. "Saddam's War," by Evan Thomas and John Barry, is apparently intended as journalism and not an op/ed polemic, and yet one of the primary objectives of the piece seems to convince the reader that any atrocities committed in a war on Iraq will be committed (by definition!) by the Saddam's evil minions.

Consider this bit:

Saddam has ordered thousands of uniforms identical, down to the last detail, to those worn by U.S. and British troopers. The plan: to have Saddam’s men, posing as Western invaders, slaughter Iraqi citizens while the cameras roll for Al-Jazeera and the credulous Arab press.

Ah! So it's the Arab press that's credulous. This claim, for which no source is given or even implied, is simply stated as fact. As if there couldn't be any other possible reason for Iraq troops to dress in similar garb to the invading force. And why would there need to be thousands of them to stage atrocities for a video camera? And wouldn't the fact that there aren't that many Arab-looking people in the American army pose a problem.

But there's yet another problem with the claim that is more significant than the rest: if the reports by the UN and various aid agencies are even remotely accurate, the truth would be far more effective than anything that could be conjured up by a propaganda ploy. One doesn't need to look farther than a few paragraphs down to find evidence of this:

The United States will try to rattle Saddam’s defenders into surrender with a "shock and awe" air campaign, 3,000 precision bombs in the first 48 hours. And Saddam will try to inspire his troops to be good martyrs by threatening to kill them himself.

Dropping 3,000 precision bombs on a city like Washington DC or New York would cause inconceivable damage, and take thousands of human lives--we can say this with some certainty; it doesn't matter how accurate the bombs are. But we are to believe, on some unstated yet widely assumed qualitative difference in the way cities in Iraq will react to bombs, that this is a morally and legally justified operation. Perhaps the assertion that Saddam will "threaten to kill" his troops himself was meant to distract the reader from this conclusion.

Indeed, even considering only the facts stated in the article, a war with Iraq would seem to be a potential, if not actual, disaster for everyone involved. Does this invoke a consideration of whether it would be wise to attack, in the same, sober (yet wildly imaginative) journalistic tone? No, it means it's time to firm up the connection between protesters, Saddam, evil, and lies, while affirming that the US forces are unquestionably good. Consider the following:

Saddam is hardly above gassing his own people and pretending that the Americans—the "Crusaders and Jews and infidels"—are to blame. Many Arabs watching Al-Jazeera would believe him. Anti-aircraft batteries and tanks and artillery have been placed beneath and beside mosques, hospitals and schools. Even the most accurate American bombs could produce atrocious TV images. To combat Saddam’s psychological warfare and refute disinformation, CENTCOM has created a "rapid-response team." CENTCOM will try to provide photographic proof to back up its claims, releasing footage from gun cameras and other weapons systems as well as before-and-after photographs from satellites.

Is it Saddam that's to blame for this "psychological warfare", or does the term refer to coverage of civilian casualties in general? The article continues:

Truth may not be an adequate defense. [...] Shocked by television images of human carnage, demonstrators will take to the streets at home and abroad. Politicians will call on Bush to get it over with, to declare victory and go home.

The credulous masses, in other words, will be swayed by images of death, and cleverly manipulated into believing that war is wrong. But the truth--the contents of which is left implied--may not convince them that... that what? That Iraq really will be better off after a drawn out ground war? That the terrorist threat will diminish, now that the already reviled American forces are occupying a Muslim country? That, despite the fact that the US is refusing to share information about plans to deal with the humanitarian consequences of the war, it will all work out in the end? That the possibility of a million kids starving to death is an "acceptable cost"? (100 kids starving to death is a tragedy. Anything over ten thousand is simply beyond the imaginative capability of any human being.)

All this adds up to a considerable need to dehumanize the enemy. Thus the fabricated story about Iraqi troops ripping babies out of incubators that was used to justify the first Gulf War, and the undoubtedly well meaning Private Gritz, who was quoted as saying, "there is a guy shooting over a pregnant lady's shoulder. The Iraqis strap kids to tanks. What can you do?"

"Saddam's War" contains many similar characterizations; many are listed above, but some are more subtle, like the bizarre reference to Saddam's men as "tribesmen", and the description of his tactics as "medieval". The rest takes bits of truth and generalizes it in a convenient but inaccurate way. Saddam did indeed gas the Kurds (not quite "his own people," but close enough) during a war, while Iranian soldiers were operating nearby. (How killing 5,000 Kurds is worse than killing a few hundred thousand Iranians is difficult to say--both happened with US support, in any case.) Does this mean that he will necessarily do it again, under completely different circumstances and for completely different reasons? Such a simplistic reading of motivations would imply that Bush Jr. plans to bomb food storage warehouses, water purification plants, electrical systems, all over again, as his father did in 1991? I certainly hope not. Then again, over 3,000,000 Vietnamese died in one of America's better known "humanitarian interventions".

There is, perhaps, nothing particularly remarkable about journalists toeing the line of official propaganda. Violent empires like that of the US would not be possible if the range of debate were not as narrow as it is now. What is striking, though, is that people like Evan Thomas and John Barry probably believe that they are being objective and balanced when they write this kind of stuff. That people can go to places like the Columbia School of Journalism, study the principles of objectivity and balance, and then churn out this kind of crap, is a truly impressive feat of institutional influence.

posted by dru
by John L

Great article. I didn't realise that the propaganda was quite so blatent.

John,
Misnomer
http://www.mp3.com/misnomer

February 20, 2003
# Democracy in Iraq?

Over the last week, British Prime Minister Tony Blair has been emphasizing the moral case for war against Iraq. Saddam Hussein, as the argument goes, has used chemical weapons against the Kurds, kidnapped and murdered people who defy him, and is now using the sanctions to deprive half of the population of Iraq of food and medicine.


posted by dru
February 12, 2003
# Intertidal: Travels in a Moral No-Man's-Land

[The ongoing series of guest articles continues with this essay by Amanda Jernigan. Amanda is a writer living in Guelph, Ontario. She currently works for Porcupine's Quill, a fine imprint of the small, Canadian variety.]

Intertidal:

Travels in a Moral No-Man's-Land

by Amanda Jernigan
vivelagauche.jpg
Photograph by Erin Brubacher

It has now been almost a year and a half since we woke up on a morning in mid-September to a phone call telling us to turn on the TV. Since then the world has gone galloping warwards, committing all sorts of injustices in deed and speech, and all this time I have been silent.

I've spoken, sure - I've griped about the news to friends and family, in desultory conversations had while chopping onions or driving to work. But as for serious expression - language polished by thought polished by language? Nothing.

Andrei Alezseyevich Amalrik says, 'If a person refuses the opportunity to judge the world around him and to express that judgment, he begins to destroy himself before the police destroy him ... ' I encountered this quotation not long after that September day, and the words have lingered in my mind as a reproof to me.

Why silent?


posted by dru
by Rick Gladwin

Right on, Amanda.

Not only is this reluctance to imagine other humans' states of being dangerous in its own right, it leaves our arsenal weakened in the face of divisive rhetoric.

The bourgeois and the brutal elite take no apparent shame in using language for their own purposes, even where it twists and wrings what philosophical matter it has from the words. Look at the ambiguity of the recent US political and military rhetoric: phrases like "the evildoers" and "the terrorists" garner at once a sense of ominous, elusive power about their subjects, while deepening and solidifying that sense of separation from whatever human beings the speaker cares to lob into those categories. (yes, read this paragraph twice and tell me where my own battles with hypocrasy lie)

I enjoyed your essay very much. It was another reminder of the power of language in our personal and public politics.

Consider this chain: political logistics and the running of our daily lives depend on decisions. Decisions are based on knowledge. Knowledge is extracted from information.

If one controls the information, one influences the politics and logistics of our lives and our nation. This is one of the central things that makes media monopoly contrary to democracy.

Here's to the voice and language of the people.

Rick

by Pekar Kara Sherwood

What's on your mind, if you will allow the overstatement?

by direct TV

Buy www.i-directv.net this it is a wonderful addition to anyones home entertainment system.

January 30, 2003
# A Short Guest Editorial

[And now for something completely different. Sort of. The following article was submitted by John Haney, a friend, photographer, and keen practicioner of off-colour humour. A veritable plethora of references, and maybe a bit of levity. A good excuse to say "veritable plethora", anyway.]

Bush's Blue Balls
A Short Editorial

I am pleased to have just read, from the Sydney Morning Herald, via (and courtesy of) Dru Jay's web site Misnomer, that, in preparation for a war in Iraq, George W. Bush has a plan in the works termed "Shock and Awe". This is a concept whereby the United States would bombard Iraq with approximately 800 missiles in 48 hours so that the effect would be rather like "[that of] the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima" Harlan Ullman, military strategist, croaks. "We want them to quit, not to fight..." so that any battle in Iraq would take not "days or weeks but minutes." The article goes on to note that operation "Shock and Awe" would target power sources and water sources in Baghdad. Hmmm. I think I can draw a worst-case scenario of all that water and electricity blowing-up and spraying this way and that. "Shock" no doubt! There will be no shortage of mustachios standing straight-up. Not to mention a lot of people in the desert without any more water or electricity.


posted by dru
by danfeder

Minor point: from what I understand, this is not a plan hatched by Bush, but by the Pentagon durring, surprise surprise, the Clinton years. As usual, the trotskyists have the goods here.

Something tells me the SOA-types who come up with this stuff are pretty happy to have someone like Bush in the White House, though.

by Emily

Johnzo: maybe it would have been more effective to use some kind of ape/oranguatang analogy instead of frogs??

by John

Toads Emily, not frogs! Yes, maybe apes would have been more appropriate.

December 08, 2002
# depressing or wonderful? you decide.

Annual military spending globally is over $780 billion. The US alone accounts for over $343.2 billion in military spending annually.

What the World Wants is a simulation project that attempts to calculate the cost of various basic needs of humanity, which include:

Eliminate Starvation and Malnourishment
Provide Health Care & AIDS Control
Provide Shelter
Provide Clean Safe Water
Eliminate Illiteracy
Provide Clean, Safe Energy: Efficiency
Provide Clean, Safe Energy: Renewables
Retire Developing Nations Debt
Stabilize Population
Prevent Soil Erosion
Stop Deforestation
Stop Ozone Depletion
Prevent Acid Rain
Prevent Global Warming
Remove Landmines
Refugee Relief
Eliminating Nuclear Weapons
Build Democracy

According to their reckoning, all of the above would cost (annually) approximately 30% of the world's annual military spending. If we go with their estimates, it would take ten years for stable versions of all of the above to be put into place.

They also have fun comparative costs. For example, eliminating starvation would cost approximately 55% of what Americans spend on weight loss programs each year.

Each category is accompanied by an account, with references, so it's possible to dispute each one, and I have no idea if the estimates are realistic or not. I hardly need to point out, though, that that is most definitely not the point.

If the over-developed world didn't attach all kinds of self-interested strings to "aid for Africa" deals like NEPAD, then something useful might get done with the relatively tiny sums that we devote to foreign aid. Of course, most of what counts as foreign aid consists of direct or indirect subsidies of western business. Whether we make aid conditional on changes to economic policy or just hand it over to US companies (e.g. lucrative contracts for textbooks in Afghanistan, then and now), the little money that is supposed to be doing good is mostly funneled back to Wall Street or its other G8 equivalents.

I won't pretend that anything like a ten year devotion of 30% of military budgets to humanitarian programs is possible, but every once in a while, it can't hurt to stop and ask: what if we actually wanted to do something about the world's problems, and not just look like we're doing something?

Heck, the US could do this on its own, and end up with more power and economic clout than any military initiative could ever achieve. It would be a great way to shut up all those pesky European "anti-Americans", leave the vast majority of the world's population in awe, and defuse the rage of those who support terrorists. And who could attack so generous a country without pissing off all the people who benefit from these programs?

I am, of course, dreaming, but it's worthwhile to ask why this is the case.

Why am I dreaming, you ask? Good question. Three quick answers: racism, fear, ignorance, and an overwhelming asymmetry in access to politicians. Those are themes that have been and will be expanded extensively.

(What the World Wants links via Beyond Greed)

posted by dru
November 13, 2002
# RoboCop vs. Spielberg

Two RoboCop bits:

Take a close look at the track record of this company, and you'll see that we've gambled in markets traditionally regarded as non-profit--hospitals, prisons, space exploration. I say good business is where you find it. --Richard Jones, VP at Omni Consumer Products
---
Criminal 1: We're robbing banks, but we never get to keep the money.

Criminal 2: It takes money to make money--we steal the money to buy the coke to sell the coke to make even more money. It's capital investment, man.

Criminal 1: Yeah, but why bother making money when we can just steal it?

Criminal 2: No better way to steal money than free enterprise.

I just saw RoboCop for the first time. Despite the gratuitous, truly gruesome violence, it has some very interesting social commentary as scathing parody of corporate culture, which overlaps generously with organized crime. I keep forgetting that the corporate dystopia was a fairly common setting in 80's movies (Blade Runner being the other full-scale example).

But if you look at dystopic visions today, they're watered down, and the corporations that profit from crime and have taken over public services are strangely absent. In RoboCop, Omni Consumer Products (OCP) prides itself on corporatizing things "traditionally thought of as non-profit," like Police and Hospitals. Looking at Spielberg's Minority Report, we would be led to believe that in 20 years, the corrupt people in positions of power are going to be... mayors? Instead of Back to the Future, it's forward to some idealized-yet-mildly-disconcerting past of the 1950s.

Setting aside for the moment that mayors and politicians are not the ones really in power in the present, it's a little disconcerting that in the 80s, corporate control was a concern that showed up in mainstream culture, but now that the same corporate control is actually showing, pop culture goes out of its way to avoid these concerns. The worst thing about corporatization in Minority Report is the constant in-your-face marketing. Is this really the only real concern we can come up with about where we're heading? RoboCop, flawed though it is, effortlessly shows this not to be the case... fifteen years ago. From the movies I've seen, this trend seems to be fairly inclusive. 80s movies (which I've been watching a lot of lately) tend to comment directly on institutional issues, whereas 90s movies project these concerns onto individuals or ignore them altogether.

What brought all this to mind was, oddly enough, something that Stephen Henighan said when I interviewed him last week about novels and how they reflect and define the concerns of the day:

I think literature is extremely influential in shaping our view of ourselves as a nation. However, what worries me in the present situation is that a lot of the literature that has become very popular portrays a rather nostalgic view of our nation. There's very little that engages in an interesting way with the present. This has fortified or enhanced a certain tendency in Canadian life at the moment to turn our eyes away from the present and avoid a lot of the difficult issues we have, like "do we integrate our military with the states," or "do we sign Kyoto," and meanwhile we're all reading Alistair Macleod or Ann-Marie Macdonald about some misty Cape Breton of many years ago. In a way, the popularity of those novels actually goes along with our general reluctance to confront the present.

posted by dru
by john

floccinaucinihilipilification (the categorizing of something as worthless or trivial)

The argument that Robocop and Blade Runner represent a trend, and that Minority Report represents another sticks in my craw, I think because I read a similar argument somewhere else – but I may have just read this same page a while ago and be misremembering (tragedy becomes farce). Since I haven’t comment on this page in over a year I feel a bit sheepish that this is what it took for me to write a response. Forgive me, I can’t help myself.
Nobody liked Blade Runner in the 80’s. When it first opened in ’82 it was a flop, partly because of the awful voice over, but mostly because it opened against Steven Speilberg’s monster 80’s sci-fi hit E.T. So I don’t think it should count as 80’s sci-fi. E.T. now that’s 80’s sci-fi. The closest E.T. came to having a villain was Peter Coyote – a fairly benign authority figure. It also represents an early success for product placement in film. The Empire Strikes Back might fit in with your trend, after all the heroes are rebels, but the film also idealizes aristocrats and vilifies geometric abstraction (lets face it the empire is minimalist art, and Lukas is a reactionary). Alien fits the trend firmly, but it was made in 79, sorry. Dune is a romantic tale of eugenics, aristocracy, and lavish displays of wealth – and David Lych loved Ronald Reagan. It really doesn’t get much more 80’s then that. Brazil could be disestablishmentarianism. It could be antidisestablishmentarianism (the longest word in the English language during the 80’s, it’s been usurped by a dot-genome term). Because the story is so conveluted it’s impossible to say on which side this film dwells, but I’ll give it to you just to show I mean to play fare: Brazil is an instance of socially critical 80’s sci-fi, I think. It should be said that Arnold Schwartzenager is also a right wing reactionary, but Terminator is critical of the military industrial complex. So I’ll give you that- strong no nukes massage and a hopeful moral about free will, no wait that’s Terminator II, and it was made in 92, that ones mine. Tron is anti-corporate right up until the end when the hero is transformed into a happily-ever-after-CEO who benignly employs his friends.

by dru

I certainly didn't mean to imply that all (or even most) of 80 sci fi was a scathing critique of corporate culture... rather that as a concern, corporate control was a lot more present for a lot of mainstream artists 20 years ago than it is today. Now, it's much more likely to be ignored in a kind of "end of history," ubercapitalism-is-inevitable kind of way.

The Matrix, Vanilla Sky, the One, Minority Report... most of the sci-fi settings of the mid to ate 90's that I can think of have little or nothing to do with corporate control.

More to the point: I can't think of one major sci-fi film in the past 6-7 years that has done the corpo dystopia thing, and Minority Report is set up in the exact position to do it, but ends up sugar-coating it.

In that sense, RoboCop and Blade Runner are significant. I may well be missing significant counterexamples, but no one has pointed them out.

by john

Si-fi has always been about sequel, the genre began as serials and has very few self contained classics. Your thesis is supported by the fact that the only two franchises two take corporate culture head on, Robo Cop and Alien were filing by the late nineties (mercifully Robo Cop went tits up with its third installment, to bad that wasn’t the case with Alien). It should be clear by now that Lukas had nothing to do with any of the more interesting content of the early Star Wars pictures, and that he is in fact a reactionary pinning for a return to Victorian ideals of beauty. But unless I am very wrong about The Matrix, it should not be listed with The One.
I’m surprised you feel The Matrix as a film that ignores corporate control –especially its first hour. The Reeve’s character is far more alienated by the rules and stricture he finds himself within then Harrison Ford was (the Robo Cop seemed to take his transformation in stride). I hope that the two sequals coming out this year will play more off that first hour.
EXistenZ Is a stand-alone (and Robo Cop should have been) Cronenberg’s take on commercial culture and its influence are hardly benign. Likewise Strange Days gives us a gloss on virtual reality, a far more conventional take then Cronenberg’s, but it’s still pretty grim. Verhoeven went on to make Star Ship Trooper ’97. Totally worth watching – shot like MTV for fascists, Verhoeven surpasses himself for wry cultural criticism with this one. More recently he made Hollow Man which pitches the argument back in you favor so I’m just going to move on.
Speilberg is a chicken; that’s what A.I. and Minority Report show us. Both contain the possibility of harsh critical content and both undermined that same content. A.I was such a mess by the end it’s not worth talking about the first part of that film, but Minority Report came far closer to the mark. I say this because I found the idea of being personally addressed by billboards insane, of being unable to escape the presence of television oppressive, and of meekly going limp for a retinal scan more then a little frightening. I mention this because all of this seemed realistic, a future we will probably have to deal with in some form or another. That said this atmosphere of control is made to feel avoidable. The security of a wood frame house in the country is made available and the political mechanisms are counter intuitively given human scale.
But hey did you notice that the darker a character is in the Lord of the Ring the more evil it is? And that the Humans collaborating with the fiery eyeball – the "Easties" looked like they were Middle Eastern?

by Dru

I'm not sure Verhoeven had too much to do with the subversive content of RoboCop (I haven't seen Starship Troopers). The script writers were both outsiders, though. Neither has worked on any other significant hollywood project.

I didn't see existenz, either, though I've been meaning to.

I definitely noticed the racial bit in the Lord of the Rings. It was toned down (though not enough) compared to the book, though. The easterlings in the books have black skin, come from the east, wield scimitars, and ride oliphants. The orcs are all mentioned as having black skin, too. There was an article in the guardian about it:

http://film.guardian.co.uk/lordoftherings/news/0,11016,852217,00.html

November 03, 2002
# Friedman on Iran and Democracy

In the NYTimes, Tom Friedman argues that oil is what keeps theocratic regimes in power, and that the US should reduce its reliance on foreign oil by not using so much of it.

Which was the first and only real Arab democracy? Lebanon. Which Arab country had no oil? Lebanon. Which is the first Arab oil state to turn itself into a constitutional monarchy? Bahrain. Which is the first Arab oil state to run out of oil? Bahrain.

My understanding of Mid-East history is not as good as it should be, but wasn't Iran (the subject of Friedman's article) a democracy back in the 50's? According to Richard Cummings,

the Shah was on the Peacock throne thanks to Kermit Roosevelt, the CIA station chief in Teheran, who engineered the coup that deposed Prime Minister Mohamed Mossadegh, who had headed a secular, fledgling democracy that had the temerity to nationalize the oil fields that, up to that point, had been exploited by BP. Having sued in the World Court and lost, the UK turned to its ally, Uncle Sam, to get the oil fields back. Rent-a-Mobs appeared, the CIA paid off the military, and Mossadegh fled in his pajamas. Once in power, the Shah stifled all dissent, using the notorious SAVAK, his intelligence service, to torture his political opponents, all under the watchful and approving eye of the United States government.

That, of course, ultimately led to Ayatollah Khomeini taking power, and the Brits lost their control of the oil fields anyway. Iran was then a threat to the Middle East, so the US supported Saddam Hussein, giving him money and chemical weapons to keep Iran at bay. (We kept selling him chemical weapons, even after he used them "against his own people", as has been repeated ad nauseum.)

While I don't see any problem with Friedman's conclusion that we should learn to use less oil, it seems that anyone who wants to speak intelligently about the source of fundamentalism should at least acknowledge all the times that the US has explicitly funded and supported it.

If the US had supported Iranian democracy instead of undermining it (or not given Saddam chemical weapons, or not funded the muhajideen, or not supported the Taliban, or the repressive Saudi regime, or given billions of dollars worth of arms to Israel...) things might be quite a bit different.

In fact, there might be a lot more democracy in the Middle East than there is now. The US is officially not interested in supporting democratic movements in other countries, but an Iranian democracy might have provided the inspiration and support needed for things to be a fair bit better. But since the US is still not interested in supporting democratic movements within these countries, and is committed to undermining them when democracy conflicts with its interests, things are, quite simply, worse than they could be.

Postscript:
For anyone who doubts Simmons' account above, here's (then Secretary of State) Madeleine Albright in a speech on Iran-US relations:

In 1953, the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh. The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons, but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.

Moreover, during the next quarter century, the United States and the West gave sustained backing to the Shah's regime. Although it did much to develop the country economically, the Shah's government also brutally repressed political dissent.

As President Clinton has said, the United States must bear its fair share of responsibility for the problems that have arisen in U.S.-Iranian relations. Even in more recent years, aspects of U.S. policy toward Iraq during its conflict with Iran appear now to have been regrettably shortsighted, especially in light of our subsequent experiences with Saddam Hussein.

posted by dru
by rabble

Perhaps a fitting response to Friedman would be that the only contries which are allowed to remain a democracy are those without oil. If a country has oil then that resource is too important to be left to the control of the people who happen to live there.

Kissinger has said that "Middle East oil is too important to be left to hands of the Arabs." It's a very similar statement to his supporting the coup in Chile on the grounds that he wasn't going to let a country go communist just because it's people wanted it.

by Kendall

Chomsky puts it this way: it's not that we *need* the ME's oil for our consumption, but that, as the most important strategic prize on earth, the US insists on dominating the region.

If that's true, it simply moots the point about domestic *consumption* changing foreign policy. Consumption is beside the point, Friedman and the the Greens notwithstanding. (Would it be good for the US gov't to subsidize non-fossil energy sources as heavily as it subsidizes oil & gas? Of course.)

In other words, one can imagine a near future in the US in which solar, wind, and other "clean, renewable" power sources are much more important to our national energy consumption, but in which US elites and planners continue to attempt to dominate the ME region for as long as it is the greatest strategic prize of all.

by bob

why not make it a policy to post all sources? some folks (such as myself) would like to use quotes found in sites like this (for example in teaching), but can't b/c it just aint right to say "Albright said in a speech on iran-us policy", we need to say, "in a speech on xdate to xaudience Albright said..."
puzzles me why folks just don't put in the durnt source.

by Nellie

So had the US not feared the "politcal opponents of the Shah" would Iran now be a on its way to a democracy? I beleive that the Shah's regime was highly crtized. Wasn't it was all that Iran could do at the time to gain Westernization? Or it's just that the Marxist movement backfired and became a religious one that we blame it on him?

by flexeril

Online Flexeril, flexerilis used to treat the pain and stiffness of muscle injuries, including strains, sprains and muscle spasms.Buy Flexeril, Cheap Flexeril Now or visit this site: http://www.online-flexeril.com!

by wellbutrin

Online Wellbutrin, wellbutrin, wellbutrin XL, wellbutrin SR is prescribed for the treatment of depression, but it is not for everyone. If you take cheap WELLBUTRIN XL, there is a risk of seizure, which is increased in patients with certain medical problems or in patients taking certain medicines. Buy Wellbutrin XL Now or visit this site: http://www.i-wellbutrin.com!

by soma

Cheap Soma Carisoprodol, Soma - Carisoprodol is a prescription medication that is used to relax your body, relax your muscles and help put stress and other difficulties behind you. Online Soma, Cheap Soma is now available online with a prescription. You can obtain a prescription online by answering a short questionnaire about your medical history Buy Soma or visit http://www.one-soma.com.

by buy phentermine

Big session id here phentermine online and adipex is the fastest growing online source for buy phentermine and thi sis the unique buy adipex prescription medication that phentermine you can trust to get your order out quickly and privately. We provide info for cheap adipex and cheap phentermine. Visit this site: http://www.hot-phentermine.com/

by ambien

This is the online ambien to go there , big surptice men ambien is a sleep inducing medication. A good night's sleep is of great dental need for your health. Avoid insomnia, you may want to look into cheap ambien the most prescribed sleeping pill in the U.S today . Ya is true buy ambien But visit this site for more info: http://www.top-ambien.com

by soma

Best deal cheap soma carisoprodol is a prescription medication that is used to relax your body, relax your buy soma muscles and help put stress and other difficulties behind you. online soma is now available soma online with the best online prescription. You can obtain a prescription online by answering a short questionnaire buy soma about your medical history soma or visit http://www.soma-cheap-soma.com

by phentermine

Nice site. Keep up the good work.

by phentermine online

Nice site. Keep up the good work.

by phentermine

Nice site. Keep up the good work.

by casino

They offer a variety of casino great online games, fabulous colorful graphics, music, other familiar
online casino gambling sounds.
http://www.i-live-casino.com

by debt consolidation

If you are looking for a debt consolidation loan There is no obligation to the debt consolidation credit counseling, it is just a educational consultation of debt assistance. http://www.site-debt-consolidation.com

by casino

They offer a variety of casino great online games, fabulous colorful graphics, music, other familiar
online casino gambling sounds.
http://www.i-play.casino.com

by poker

Learn what more home poker players are learning. Low limit casino
video poker is fun,
affordable, and easier than online poker you think.
http://www.444-poker.com

by debt consolidation

If you are looking for a debt consolidation loan There is no obligation to the debt consolidation credit counseling, it is just a educational consultation of debt assistance. http://www.own-debt-consolidation.com

by poker

Learn what more home poker players are learning. Low limit casino
video poker is fun,
affordable, and easier than online poker you think.
http://www.555-poker.com

by poker

Learn what more home poker players are learning. Low limit casino
video poker is fun,
affordable, and easier than online poker you think.
http://www.i-free-poker.com

by debt consolidation

If you are looking for a debt consolidation loan There is no obligation to the debt consolidation credit counseling, it is just a educational consultation of debt assistance. http://www.live-debt-consolidation.com

by casino

They offer a variety of casino great online games, fabulous colorful graphics, music, other familiar
online casino gambling sounds.
http://www.nonstop-casino.com

by payday loan

We are an payday loan lender guide offering access to
payday loan online personal loans, and cash
advance loans over the Internet. http://www.cheap-payday-loan.com

by payday loan

We are an payday loan lender guide offering access to
payday loan online personal loans, and cash
advance loans over the Internet. http://www.i-payday-loan.com

by black jack

The worlds best known Internet Casino you bet
black jack online, trust our 24hr live support security, and
the best online black jack casino games on the Internet.
http://www.i-black-jack.com

by debt consolidation

If you are looking for a debt consolidation loan There is no obligation to the debt consolidation credit counseling, it is just a educational consultation of debt assistance. http://www.fastest-debt-consolidation.com

by black jack

The worlds best known Internet Casino you bet
black jack online, trust our 24hr live support security, and
the best online black jack casino games on the Internet.
http://www.i-play-blackjack.com

by debt consolidation

If you are looking for a debt consolidation loan There is no obligation to the debt consolidation credit counseling, it is just a educational consultation of debt assistance. http://www.max-debt-consolidation.com

by payday loan

We are an payday loan lender guide offering access to
payday loan online personal loans, and cash
advance loans over the Internet. http://www.cheapest-payday-loan.com

by blackjack

The worlds best known Internet Casino you bet
black jack online, trust our 24hr live support security, and
the best online black jack casino games on the Internet.
http://www.blackjack-play-blackjack.com

by mortgage

Credit quality and debt-to-income-ratio affect the
mortgage terms of your loan through your FICO Score. If you have good
mortgage loan credit and your monthly income.
http://www.i-buy-mortgage.com

by mortgage

Credit quality and debt-to-income-ratio affect the
mortgage terms of your loan through your FICO Score. If you have good
mortgage loan credit and your monthly income.
http://www.i-cheap-mortgage.com

by mortgage

Credit quality and debt-to-income-ratio affect the
mortgage terms of your loan through your FICO Score. If you have good
mortgage loan credit and your monthly income.
http://www.site-mortgage.com

by satellite tv

Whether you are looking for a free satellite TV system from the
Dish Network or direct tv free, you won’t be disappointed with the quality service that
satellite tv each provider accommodates.
http://www.i-free-satellite-tv.com

by mortgage

Credit quality and debt-to-income-ratio affect the
mortgage terms of your loan through your FICO Score. If you have good
mortgage loan credit and your monthly income.
http://www.i-online-mortgage.com

by direct tv

Whether you are looking for a free satellite TV system from the
Dish Network or direct tv free, you won’t be disappointed with the quality service that
satellite tv each provider accommodates.
http://www.install-direct-tv.com

by bingo

But the increased number of online bingo cards was exactly what was needed to make bingo a staple at churches. http://www.i-play-bingo.com

by satellite tv

Whether you are looking for a free satellite TV system from the
Dish Network or direct tv free, you won’t be disappointed with the quality service that
satellite tv each provider accommodates.
http://www.i-direct-satellite-tv.com

by poker

Learn what more home poker players are learning. Low limit casino
video poker is fun,
affordable, and easier than online poker you think.
http://www.i-play-poker.com

by bingo

But the increased number of online bingo cards was exactly what was needed to make bingo a staple at churches. http://www.i-win-bingo.com

by poker

Learn what more home poker players are learning. Low limit casino
video poker is fun,
affordable, and easier than online poker you think.
http://www.333-poker.com

by bingo

But the increased number of online bingo cards was exactly what was needed to make bingo a staple at churches. http://www.e-play-bingo.com

by bingo

But the increased number of online bingo cards was exactly what was needed to make bingo a staple at churches. http://www.x-bingo.com

by debt consolidation

If you are looking for a debt consolidation loan There is no obligation to the debt consolidation credit counseling, it is just a educational consultation of debt assistance. http://www.inet-debt-consolidation.com

by ambien

This is the online ambien to go there , big surptice men ambien is a sleep inducing medication. A good night's sleep is of great dental need for your health. Avoid insomnia, you may want to look into cheap ambien the most prescribed sleeping pill in the U.S today . Ya is true buy ambien But visit this site for more info: http://www.top-ambien.com

by buy ambien

a href='http://www.i-buy-ambien.com'>online ambien to go there , yes that is true ambien is a sleep inducing medication. A good night's sleep is invaluable for your mental and physical well being. If you suffer from insomnia, you may want to look into cheap ambien top (zolpidem tartrate), the most prescribed sleeping pill in the U.S. Tha is true buy ambien Now or visit this site: http://www.i-buy-ambien.com

by fioricet

Got here Fioricet most likely reduces heart attack risk by irreversibly blocking the enzyme COX-1 online fioricet, thereby impairing the ability of platelets in the blood to form clots, Dr. Tobias Kurth of Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, and others explain in the American Heart Association's journal, fioricet Circulation. NSAIDs buy fioricet also lock on to COX-1, but the effect is reversible. Cheap Generic Fioricet or visit this site: http://www.x-fioricet.com

by soma

Go there guys Cheap Soma Carisoprodol is a prescription medication that is used to relax your body, relax your muscles soma and help put stress and other difficulties behind you. Online Soma is now available online with a prescription. You can obtain a prescription online by answering a short questionnaire about your medical history Buy Soma or visit http://www.top-soma.com

by soma

Best deal everywhere Soma - Carisoprodol is a prescription medication that is used to relax your body, relax your muscles and help put stress and other difficulties behind you. Online Soma, to do Cheap Soma is now available online with a prescription. You can obtain a prescription online by answering a short questionnaire about your medical history Buy Soma or visit http://www.one-soma.com

by ambien

Best before buy Online Ambien, yeaj hthe buy ambien is a sleep inducing medication. A good night's sleep is invaluable for your mental and physical well being. If you suffer from insomnia, you may want to look into cheap Ambien (zolpidem tartrate), the most prescribed sleep medication in the U.S. Buy Ambien Now or visit this site: http://www.i-ambien.com

by affiliate software

They offer a variety of affiliate software great online games, fabulous colorful graphics, music, other familiar
affiliate program software gambling sounds.

by cialis

Best Cialis and Online Cialis has been an eventual success in Europe since its introduction in Early 2003. Cialis will now be available in US soon. You may buy cialis through various registered pharmacies. cheap cialis  http://www.top-cialis.com/

by cialis

Best Cialis and Online Cialis has been an eventual success in Europe since its introduction in Early 2003. Cialis will now be available in US soon. You may buy cialis through various registered pharmacies. cheap cialis  http://www.new-cialis.com/

by cialis

Best Cialis and Online Cialis has been an eventual success in Europe since its introduction in Early 2003. Cialis will now be available in US soon. You may buy cialis through various registered pharmacies. cheap cialis  http://www.hot-cialis.com/

by levitra

We provide a comprehensive list of e-pharmacies to help you get the best Levitra that is true Cialis Viagra deals. Cheap Levitra, in all clinical trials, has proven to be extremely successful.Each Levitra pill may work in as quickly as 16 minutes and may work for up to 24 hours, far surpassing the length of Viagra's effects which is an average of 4 hours. Buy Levitra  http://www.hot-levitra.com

September 29, 2002
# Direct Action and Free Speech

I've been discussing free speech again, and thinking about what is legitimate direct action.

Recently, the cover of the Globe and Mail featured an incident at Concordia University in Montreal, where Benjamin Netanyahu (former Israeli PM), was scheduled to speak.

About 200 protesters -- including a small number of Jewish students, though who knows who was doing what -- suceeded in shutting down the Netanyahu's talk by crowding around the building and blocking the entrance. After police tried to move them with tear gas and pepper spray, some chairs were thrown and windows were broken. No one explicitly threatened Netanyahu with violence, but he decided not to speak. The Canadian press reported:

Mr. Netanyahu was never in the building and his handlers had said he would not give his speech unless his safety could be guaranteed.

Following the incident, there was a bit of an uproar about freedom of speech, and how Netanyahu's right to speak had been violated. This seems a little of bizarre on the face of it, since he chose not to speak, and I haven't seen any report of a credible threat to his safety.

But I'm interested in whether intending to keep someone like Netanyahu from speaking can be morally (and tactically) justified. I haven't reached a conclusion yet, but what follows is a sketch of the tools I think are useful in thinking about freedom of speech and direct action.

Would freedom of speech in this case (a speech on a university campus) apply to everyone? Would a neo-nazi who advocated the removal of Jews from Israel be allowed to speak, and if he was, would it be justifiable to use nonviolent direct action to keep him from speaking?

Answer: if hate speech is intolerable, then yes. So is it hate speech or intolerable?

If it was legal for someone like the hypothetical neo-Nazi to speak, but I knew/was convinced that it was politically unacceptable (i.e. greater harm would come from giving him a space to spread hate than would come from establishing an exception to free speech), then what course of action is available to me, politically?

Answer: write a letter opposing his right to speak, demonstrate, hold a counter-speech, petition the proprietors not to let the speech happen, or organize to physically prevent him from speaking or prevent the space being used without hurting anyone.

How much less legitimate is physical prevention compared to more "civil" means?

This raises some other interesting questions. What the protesters did was create a situation in which it was undesirable for Netanyahu to speak. This happens all the time. Notably, at Izzy Asper's newspapers, where all but the bravest columnists are afraid to criticize Israel or Jean Chretien for fear of losing favour with their employer, and even the brave ones have been fired in a few notable instances. Interestingly enough, Asper was the man responsible for bringing Netanyahu to Concordia.

Clearly, there is a difference between Asper creating conditions in which columnists are extremely likely to choose not to criticize Israel and some students creating conditions in which it is undesirable or more difficult for Netanyahu to speak. But I think the difference is one of the right of ownership and the fact that there are no laws against controlling the content of a newspaper you own, no matter the public importance.

The answer, then, is that to some extent, everyone is involved in making some positions more or less desirable for other people. The question is of degree, and whether the likely ends justify the means.

Next question: is Netanyahu worthy of censure, and to what extent?

Netanyahu is worthy of censure to the extent that his views are politically abhorrent. According to more than a few sources, he is a leading advocate of toppling the Palestinian authority, and was instrumental in stepping up the building of settlements in the west bank, escalating tensions between Palestinians and Israelis to a large degree. Some might emphasize other things or call the aformentioned sources anti-Semetic. I'll leave the question open.

A few questions remain.

Is direct action (especially if it is successful) worth setting the precedent for other dedicated groups with strongly-held opinions to do the same?

If I take part in a protest against Israeli policies, will I be inadvertantly supporting people who really are anti-semetic?

The gain in media exposure is indisputable (100-student passive, peaceful protests don't make the cover of the Globe), but are perceptions of the cause being spoken for skewed by perceptions of it being against freedom of speech (thanks in no part to punditry and skewed reporting)?

posted by dru
by alicante

posicionamiento en buscadores - alicante - alicante airport parking - alicante apartments - spanish courses in spain

by posicionamiento en buscadores

very good work. excellent site

by click here

Buy www.i-directv.net this it is a wonderful addition to anyones home entertainment system.

by free animalsex

is a the Learn.

by mom son incest

to a bits editor.

by mom son incest

to a bits editor.

by debt relief

Get WWW.IDEBTCONSOLIDATION.ORG the debt relief you are searching for here!