Labour pains

The Guardian has an intriguing spread about disenchanted Labour voters, and how they might be voting in tomorrow's local and European elections.

"So you've voted Labour all your life but now there's a problem - you don't want to any more. From tuition fees to the war you're sick of all things New Labour. So what do you do with your cross in the polling booth tomorrow?"

The answer seems to be fairly resounding: if you're fed up with Labour, you'll be voting, erm, Labour.

Nearly half of all the respondents - apparently picked to represent the core of dissenting Labour lifers - said they'd still be backing Blair at the ballot box.

There were a few moments of astonishing logic and misapprehension: John Pilger (who else?) calls low turnout a "strike" by voters and revealed that he doesn't vote (not even for George Galloway) because "all over the world there are mass movements that are the most democratic and tolerant mass movements of my lifetime" and that "I think that's where political energies should be directed". I'm still not entirely sure what he's talking about.

There's also theatre director Richard Eyre, who says that "local and European elections shouldn't be about party issues". Local elections, true, are often about local issues. But European elections are about the wider context, and possibly (depending who you vote for) about the very future of Europe as a political entity. And that's a party issue.

If we put aside the Guardian's amazing over-representation of Gallo's odious Respect coalition (a tatty and ideologically unsound party that is likely to register just a fraction of the vote, but gets an awful lot of column inches), then it seems that elections are not the right place to register protests.

Tribune editor Mark Seddon puts it best, I think:

"We have a political leader doing all sorts of things that are an anathema to traditional Labour values and traditional Labour voters. However, a lot of us have chosen not to walk away. The Labour party does not belong to Blair. It's been around for 100-odd years and if it returns to where people expect it to be then maybe it can last another 100 years. It can't go on like this."

·

The trouble with Coetzee

One problem with falling out of the cycle was that I missed a few interesting posts here and there. Thankfully, however, Murray over at Southern Cross has pointed out the controversy caused by a post last month rebutting an JM Coetzee has stirred up. Referring to an article by Gertrude Makhaya, he wrote:

In essence, she argues, Disgrace fails to acknowledge the miracle of South Africa's negotiated transition. Instead, the novel depicts South Africa through the eyes of David Lurie, a racist white man, who is quite possibly Coetzee himself. Furthermore, by depicting a violent attack on Lurie and his daughter by three black men, during which Lucy is raped, Coetzee is possibly deliberately fuelling white racist views about black savagery. All of this means that appreciation of Coetzee's work is complicated in South Africa. Unlike other South African Nobel prize-winners, he appears sympathetic to racism and does not share a love for and belief in the country.

Now, I'll happily admit that I don't know too much about South Africa, but I do know a little bit about books, Coetzee's novels among them. And, like Murray, I really can't see that the criticism by Makhaya is fair - or even based in a proper reading.

Personally, I found Disgrace a difficult book to read. The main character, university professor David Lurie, is presented in an unsympathetic manner. He is a distasteful, selfish individual - and though Coetzee tempts us into thinking this is a representation of the author himself, I don't think we should fall for his ploy. Lurie is a little like Nabokov's Humbert Humbert, realigning the truth to his own twists of memory.

In the book Lurie's daughter is, indeed, raped by black men. But this is not a simple cowtowing to white fears of black people; Lurie is himself a rapist, taking advantage of a mixed race student early in the novel - and, notably, not even understanding his own transgression. In the end of the book an uneasy alliance is formed between Lurie's daughter and her new husband; a working agreement that is motivated by the need for security, safety, protection and finance.

The analogy is complicated - and teased into further niches as the story goes on - but from a distance it seems relatively clear; South Africa is a complicated country, full of violent cycles and historical hatred being played out time and again. All sides are at fault for extending conflict. Such problems are not easy to solve, and a degree of forgiveness and self-awareness is needed if the downward spiral of retribution is ever to be escaped.

A few years ago I met the exiled black South African writer Lewis Nkosi, who enthused about Coetzee and first inspired me to pick up such moving political novels as the Life and Times of Michael K. I have no doubt Coetzee is a great writer; each word drips off the page, heavy with meaning. There is no spare fat, no frippery, and he deals with the big issues in a complex and involved way that defies .

The idea that all literature must conform to a political ideal, or explore only the issues deemed correct by certain critics, is one that I have little time for. Disgrace, certainly, is not a racist book, though those whose ideals are as odious and twisted as the Coetzee's protagonist may choose to identify with him. That says more about them than the author, just as ill-informed firebrand criticism says much more about the critic.

·

Wanderer returns

Well, I'm back from the ether.

Thanks for the kind words from several people wondering where I'd got to. My absence was part enforced (busy times at work, moving home, a few days off) and part self-imposed. This lark takes a lot of time and energy, and sometimes that's not time and energy that I can spare. Anyway, though I've toyed with the idea of shutting down politX, I've decided against it. I'm sure that warms the cockles of your heart.

Still, do expect a few small changes around here on my part - both in style and content. The first one, which is purely in response to a deluge of spam of late, is that I won't be allowing comments on all posts. The other contributors on the site - who I'm deeply indebted to - will continue to give their contributions as before.

It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark and we're wearing sunglasses. Hit it.

Or, more accurately, Chicago's on a different continent, I don't drive or smoke but I do wish I had some sunglasses because I've got a stinking headache.

Hit it.

·

Deja-Vietnam All Over Again

This article posted June 2, 2004 at tholos of athena

Fewer Americans would be able to sleep well at night, if they suspected the Bush Administration of making preparations to bring back the draft. Conscription for military service was halted in 1973 as America ended its war in Vietnam. But this process is being revived, according to Congress.org:

"$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005." This source also reports that, "The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide."

The Guardian has also picked up on this story. John Sutherland writes, "All this has been pushed ahead with an amazing lack of publicity. One can guess why. American newspapers are in a state of meltdown, distracted by war-reporting scandals at USA Today and the New York Times. There is an awareness in the press at large that the "embedding" system was just that-getting into bed with the military and reporting their pillow talk as "news from the frontline."

The armed services committees are responsible for both the Senate bill (S 89) and House version (HR 163), which are in committee and classified as active.

Of course, a fierce public outcry follows any public mention of re-activating the draft. Although 3 out of 4 Americans strongly reject the idea of conscription, the deck seems to be stacked against public opinion. It wouldn't be the first time government turned against the will of the people. But this is, after all, a matter of our flesh and blood.

But what is being cranked up in the background is nothing less than war on the level of nation states; and it must mean more wars and more occupation. Instead of a logical focus on international police activity and some special forces military to co-ordinate against al-Qaida, we have a unilateral agenda, an almost depraved aggregation of power in the hands of US leaders, that can only disturb and destabilize the international community.

Neither Bush, nor Kerry for that matter, seem interested in talking about this. No one wants this issue shaken loose as an "October Surprise". This is something to be hushed up, and later served to the American people as a fait accompli.

Compared to Vietnam era experiences, dodging the draft will be more difficult.

"In December 2001, Canada and the U.S. signed a "smart border declaration" which could be used to keep would-be draft-dodgers in. Signed by Canada's minister of foreign affairs John Manley, and U.S. Homeland Security director, Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of the current semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year." (Congress.org)

It is reasonable to add that Canada might not honor this "border declaration" with respect to draft resisters, since this is an eventuality that was not contemplated within the arrangement. Canada has been decisive in the past, and has granted shelter to people of conscience.

Thanks to Mitch from the comment area at Whiskey Bar, here is an excerpt from Daniel Ellsberg's Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers, pp 141-142.

"On the return flight to Washington a week later, as we got near the end of the journey, McNamara called me to the rear of the plane, where he was standing with Bob Komer, who was still special assistant to the president coordinating Washington efforts on pacification. McNamara said, "Dan, you're the one who can settle this. Komer here is saying that we've made a lot of progress in pacification. I say things are worse than they were a year ago. What do you say?"

I said, "Well, Mr. Secretary, I'm most impressed with how much the same things are as they were a year ago. They were pretty bad then, but I wouldn't say it was worse now, just about the same."

McNamara said triumphantly, "That proves what I'm saying! We've put more than a hundred thousand more troops into the country over the last year, and there's been no improvement. Things aren't any better at all. That means the underlying situation is really worse! Isn't that right?"

I said, "Well, you could say that. It's an interesting way of seeing it."

Just then the plane began to go into a turn and the pilot announced, "Gentlemen, we are approaching Andrews Air Force Base. Please take your seats and fasten your seat belts."

Ten minutes later we were on the ground, and McNamara was descending the ladder with us behind him. It was a foggy morning, and there was an arc of television lights and cameras set up at the spot the plane had taxied to. In the center of the arc, there was a podium covered with microphones. McNamara strode over to the mikes and said to the crowd of reporters, "Gentlemen, I've just come back from Vietnam, and I'm glad to be able to tell you that we're showing great progress in every dimension of our effort. I'm very encouraged by everything I've seen and heard on my trip. . . ."."

Remember history. Remember. Lest we repeat it.

·

New Labour. Beyond The Thatcherdome

Fascinating and latest insight into our governments ‘Labour’ credentials. Watching a vid of last nights ‘News Night’ one was privileged to see and listen to a cheery chappie who goes by the title of Foreign Office Minister (‘Dr.’ – they love that quaint old title these days don’t they, bless,) Denis MacShane - New Lab, our Minister for Europe! To a degree of facially expressed bafflement on the part of Jumbo Paxman, this standardised Bliarite RictusGrinning Mouthpiece (MacShane, not Paxman) was “delighted” to inform viewers that he was “fighting” within Europe and against other Euro Partners (sic) to ensure that the “Charter of fundamental Human Rights would in no way impact on British Domestic Law.” Yummy. Well, the last thing we want over here is a Charter of “fundamental Human Rights” impacting upon the lives of our Subjects isn’t it. Thank god we have a man Out There fighting to prevent such a travesty of everything British. The evils contained within this Euro FHR’s section mainly covers the following. The Right to Strike. Anti Discrimination Laws. Protection for employees against Unfair Dismissal.

As anyone with any knowledge of British History will be well aware, all Labour Governments since the early 20th Century have continually fought against the granting of these ghastly foreign-to-Britain and foreign-to-Businesses ‘rights’ to troublesome and rebellious employees. Successive Conservative governments during the last Century and this one, have raged against the Business First & Screw The Workers philosophy of the Labour party, and done all in their power when they’ve been in Office themselves to right the wrongs which the Labour party has inflicted upon Workers.

And on the very same day that one heard (Dr.) Denis MacShane describe to Jimmy P how hard New Labour was “fighting” to ensure that these FHR’s would not be allowed to interfere with the sacred Rights of Employers in the UK to act as they pleased with their Workforce, our Foreign Secretary, the illustrious Jack Straw (remember him? the one time communist-marxist radical student leader from back in the mists of time, perfect material for conversion to Bliarism – they all started out like that the dears) gave a delish New Labour Speech to a bunch of the oppressed Businessmen of the Confederation of British Industry – accompanied by the squidgilly and ripeley over-plump Mr. Digby-Pigby-Jones.

Ex-CommieMartxist Jack stated categorically that whilst a New Labour Government was in Office, nothing from the European Constitution, or from the Charter for fundamental Human Rights which attempted to water down or detract from Margaret Thatcher’s (anti) Union Legislation would be accepted by his government.

Between Judas Gilchrist screwing his FBU members last year (and this,) Unison forever bending over backwards (oh my, as a ‘member’ how I’d love to truly shaft our pathetic Leader whilst he was engaged in this exercise) and Usdaw negotiating with Impoverished Tesco as how best to rescind accepted regs regards sickness pay for employees, is it any wonder that no bugger trusts either the ‘New’ Labour government, or their Unions anymore? Thatcher ‘79-‘90. Major ’90-’97. Bliar ’97-200?’ A Quarter Century of unbroken Tory Government. Hardly surprising nobody knows who to vote for any more.

·

Something Wicked This Way Comes

This article posted May 15, 2004 at tholos of athena

In an article in The Boston Globe, reporter Alfred W. McCoy has discovered that the means of torture, recently exposed at Abu Ghraib prison, can be traced to specialized procedures developed by the CIA.

"From 1950 to 1962, the CIA led secret research into coercion and consciousness that reached a billion dollars at peak. After experiments with hallucinogenic drugs, electric shocks, and sensory deprivation, this CIA research produced a new method of torture that was psychological, not physical"...."The CIA's discovery of psychological torture was a counterintuitive breakthrough"..

"The old physical approach required interrogators to inflict pain, usually by crude beatings that often produced heightened resistance or unreliable information. Under the CIA's new psychological paradigm, however, interrogators used two essential techniques to achieve their goals."

"In the first stage, interrogators employ the simple, nonviolent techniques of hooding or sleep deprivation to disorient the subject: some times sexual intimidation is used as well."

"Once the subject is disoriented, interrogators move to a second stage with simple, self-inflicted discomfort such as standing for hours with arms extended. In this phase, the idea is to make victims feel responsible for their own pain and thus induce them to alleviate it by capitulating to the interrogator's power."

"Although seemingly less brutal, no-touch torture leaves deep psychological scars. The victims often need long treatment to recover from trauma far more crippling than physical pain. The perpetrators can suffer a dangerous expansion of ego, leading to cruelty and lasting emotional problems."

"Following the CIA's two-part technique, last September General Miller instructed US military police at Abu Ghraib to soften up high priority detainees in the initial phase for later "successful interrogation and exploitation" by CIA and military intelligence. As often happens in no-touch torture sessions, this process soon moved beyond sleep and sensory deprivation to sexual humiliation. The question in the second, still unexamined phase, is whether US Army intelligence and CIA operatives administered the prescribed mix of interrogation and self-inflicted pain. If so, the soldiers now facing courts-martial would have been following standard interrogation procedure." [my emphasis]

"For more than 50 years, the CIA's no-touch methods have become so widely accepted that US interrogators seem unaware that they are, in fact, engaged in systematic torture."

Americans can only feel shame when they comtemplate the torture, and the arrogance and cruelty that set it in motion. But Vietnam and the Contra War came before this. McCoy gives us a sense that these mechanisms have been in place for a while. The lawlessness of the Bush Administration makes it even worse; and this is combined with Bush's lack of clemency, and his obsession with political outcomes, at the expense of democracy. And in this shambles of a policy, these horrors fell upon ordinary Iraqis, mostly the hapless men who were simply caught in a dragnet.

General Miller is sent from the compact gulag at Guantanamo, to see to it that Iraqi prisoners are properly softened up at Abu Ghraib. But what is going on at Guantanamo Bay? What happens to the dehumanized and invisible who are out reach of the US Constitution and the Geneva Convention? George W. Bush has brought America low in these three-and-a-half years; and he has shamed us by fraudulent, self-serving leadership and sheer callousness. The people themselves, with their legitimate exercise of democracy, can reverse this degradation at home and bring a merciful and just end to the Occupation. Some reparation is owed to the Iraqis. After tribulations like these and all their losses, they deserve their sovereignty. Iraqis may even raze Abu Ghraib prison to the ground; they've earned that right.

The Boston Globe website does not support bookmarking to its archive; but if readers click on the link and type torture cia in the archive box, the May 14, 2004 article, titled TORTURE AT ABU GHRAIB FOLLOWED CIA'S MANUAL, by Alfred McCoy, can be retrieved.

·

Conventional warfare

There are hypocrisies, and there are hypocrisies.

The Pentagon refuses to release more pictures it has of the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by US soldiers because they might violate the Geneva Convention. Yet Rumsfeld, on his flying pep-talk to Iraq, refuses to accept that the original abuses may have violated the very rules which he suddenly seems so keen to protect. And this, of course, is all from an administration which will not let its soldiers face any kind of trial by international criminal court.

And then there's this disgusting nonsense from senator James Inhofe:

"I'm probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the treatment ... These prisoners, you know they're not there for traffic violations. If they're in cellblock 1-A or 1-B, these prisoners, they're murderers, they're terrorists, they're insurgents. Many of them probably have American blood on their hands and here we're so concerned about the treatment of those individuals."

As many have said before, you have to prove you're the good guys. You can't just expect everybody to take it at face value; and with statements like this, nobody ever will.

·

the power of news

I trundled through an article in today's Boston Globe about bloggers getting media credentials at US party conventions. It seemed to over-estimate the newsgathering power of weblogs, I think:

This summer, they'll grant some of their 15,000 coveted credentials to blogs, the online diaries that link to news reports, post comments from readers, and critique the political process with unrestrained abandon.

...

But this new form of media is colliding with old-hand political structures, such as the House of Representatives Press Gallery, the initial gatekeeper for credential requests. Officials there decided that independent blogs do not fit their standards of "media," and passed their applications down the ladder a rung, to the convention staffs that handle credentials for student and weekly papers.

I am, it has to be said, incredibly excited about the prospect of weblogs as a breeding ground for reporters. I'd be amazed and chuffed to see a British weblogger, for example, being considered as an online reporter (or even pundit) in the same breath as Glenn Reynolds, Andrew Sullivan etc. I'd be the biggest champion of weblogs if they were what they often purport to be - independent news sources.

So why should weblogs be considered any different from, as the Globe puts it (somewhat sniffily), stundent media or weekly Very, very few weblogs manage to come up with actual reportage rather than second or third hand information. Part of that's the money problem, but it's also. What we write here are the equivalent of op-ed columns or thinkpieces. They are not the bread and butter news stories that are the engine room of almost every newspaper, radio and television bulletin. From time to time, of course, newsworthy information comes our way - but weblogs, as they stand, are not the new journalism.

But they could be. I'd love to see somebody able to attend Downing Street press conferences, political debates, churn out real stories, chase information in the way that very few webloggers are able to do. Take Sully, for example, who does very nicely (by average standards) out of his blog, yet does almost nothing in the way of news-finding. Wouldn't you rather see a weblogger take your money and work for it? Of course, if I could gather enough readers willing to fund such a venture, I'd ecstatically take the challenge on myself. But as it stands, most webloggers have to combine their passion with their job - and very few have jobs which can consistently provide them with news.

As a half-arsed way of finishing off this post, I'll once again urge readers to take a look through Stuart Hughes' site, which is the best reporter/weblog hybrid around, and certainly provides thought-provoking reading on a regular basis. It sets an example, I think, that many would do well to follow.

·