Being Muslim for a Month

from Aljazeera.net

From eating McDonald's to being a Muslim for 30 days, a new documentary series by Morgan Spurlock of Super Size Me fame delves into the lives of Muslims in America.

Many are the mysteries of religious faith. For instance, it is well known that Jesus brought good news for the poor, but what about rent control south of Washington Ave? Jesus is also famous for saying the poor would inherit the earth, but has he had an appraisal done lately? And in any case who would handle the landscaping? So mysterious is God's will that most people mistake it for indigestion. Then there is Buddha, who's first great revelation was that life is suffering--and boy was he fun in the sack. Of course, it is not for us mere mortals to be burdened with these great questions of the universe--only crushing credit card debt, thanks to bankruptcy reform and a Republican-led congress.

Film Review: Star Wars - Episode III - Revenge of the Sith

Well, thank god that's over.

Climbing down the ladder of success, while rewarding, is not without its challenges. For one thing, nobody gets it. For another thing, "nobody" necessarily includes hot chicks. This is where the vow of chastity derives its origins, along with the vow of practicing just in case. Of course, the realm of the flesh is only one battlefield among many--and yet it covers my whole body. Death may be my only exit strategy, but it's better than anything Rumsfeld's got, and at any rate it's the best way to vacation like a European.

Film Review: Batman Begins

The pre-Batman Batman is trained in the orient as a ninja by an Irish actor with a bad fu manchu. Through rigorous martial training, he is compelled to face his fear of bats, which he sustained in youth while recreating at the bottom of a well. This pre-fetish incarnation of Batman transcends his fears by embracing them, laying the groundwork for his new identity--in this case a symbol, both "elemental" and "terrifying." (Saddled with the task of making a rational case for the Batman franchise, I challenge you to do better.) This brings us to the middle third of the movie, easily the most worthwhile as it develops the most important relationships, best characters, and sexiest costumes. The whole ending is a goddam travesty, and it pains me to reference it. Let's just say the Scarecrow is a welcome reprieve from the overarching sub-plot of ninjas using microwave weaponry to vaporize the city's water supply in order to catalyze inert psychedelic properties that have been deposited there. Katie Holmes is not terrible, and one can only thank divine providence for delivering Rutger Hauer a non-embarrassing role. If you loathed the other "Batmans" as much as I did, you will find this film about as tolerable as Episode III in relation to its abjectly offensive predecessors.

In Defense of Karl Rove

Boy, Karl Rove sounded like a real Nazi Wednesday night when he made that crack about liberals reacting to 9/11 by offering "therapy and understanding" to our attackers, while conservatives "prepared for war." You see, Nazis also hated liberalism, which in their situation included parliamentary democracy, and they sought alliances with traditional conservatives like the military and more contemporary conservatives like the industrialists in order to undermine and eventually destroy it. (The last issue of Foreign Affairs referenced some of the anti-liberalism of the Third Reich--see the May 28 posting below.) Anyway, old Herman Goering would be proud to see that his trademark technique of mobilizing a population for war is still being employed by the great men of our era; indeed, the Nazi's had a much stronger argument for defense against "European encirclement" than the Bush administration ever had for Iraqi WMD.

Probably the most comical aspect of Rove's comment, however, was the Democrats' demand for an apology and/or resignation. Gee, that's rich: You're accused of questioning the single most disastrous foreign policy move since the South Vietnam invasion, and you want it taken back? What the fuck is wrong with you people?

In Praise of Mortality

Thank goodness for the limited lifespan. After all, one can't get by without shaving forever. And just think what cell phones will be like in 1,000,000,000,000,000 eons--or public schools, for that matter. Think of how long it's going to take to clean up the mess of the current administration--and that's just in the city of Philadelphia. No, the world is like a really fucked up day, and death is the good fortune of not being an insomniac.

There are no hot chicks at my job, so if, while reading this, you discover that you are one of my co-workers, please stop complaining to me about it. Also, none of us have a snowball's chance in hell of dating a celebrity, so shut up about that while you're at it. Oh, and don't complain about work.

I greatly enjoy my work, which is lowly and meaningful. It is lowly because it involves physical work, and it is meaningful for the same reason. Something tangible--indeed, even necessary--has been accomplished. Also, one saves money on gym memberships; and who really feels like "working out" after work anyway?

Regarding the issue of "intellectual work"--i.e., the freedom to experience numbness in your wrists and buttocks after prolonged exposure to nothing particularly unpleasant or challenging besides your fellow "intellectual coworkers"--what's centrally important is whether or not you have health insurance. Indeed, medical coverage is more important than the variety "intellectual work" itself, if only for the anti-depressants you will require while doing it. (In fact, it's best never to use one's mind at work. A mind is much better suited to thinking--the function for which it was designed--but this is quite ill-advised in most work environments, if altogether forbidden in journalism.)

Simplify, simplify, simplify.

I've come to reverse my opinion on hot weather: in the final analysis, most people prefer air conditioning. There is a net decrease in loitering throughout Philadelphia. (No small victory in the campaign for psychological space.) Then there are other considerations: I eat less, which saves money--particularly if you shop at ACME. And though I drink water all day (healthy), no time is wasted at the urinal as it simply bursts forth from the millions of tiny urethras in my derma I like to call "pores." There is also the sense of accomplishment that comes from working through the hottest period of each day without registering the severe pain which radiates from chest to jaw. Truly, the heat has simplified my life.

My morning commute takes me deep into the heart of South Philadelphia, to the Stella Maris "convent" as I like to call it, since I've never spied anyone besides sisters on its grounds. By the time I arrive the shadows are among their shortest on any given day, yet everything seems abandoned. The sisters may as well be apparitions as often as I have observed them over the course of several years--at least from my vantage point at the western-most gates. Inside, the parking lot is empty. Whatever the function of the buildings close by (and the total acreage is substantial), my best guess would be administrative, or possibly even a kind of converted dormitory--perhaps a better explanation as to the dearth of activity in mid-day.

I wanted to say something about blogging. If I haven't been doing that much of it lately, well, you can hardly blame me: I've been doing it for two years and still have a readership of three. I look at successful blogs--The Daily Kos, Talking Points Memo, et al.--and repeatedly resolve that this number must be reduced--dramatically, if possible. The usefulness of an online journal, whether for reference or rants or contemplation, should be readily apparent; the usefulness of having every waking thought a public event, much less so, I think. But my best attempts at driving away readers appear to have been in vain. Even non-readers manage to stumble onto the site from time to time, which is truly awful--except that they rarely return, small consolation though it may be.

Dear friends,

I write today from the confines of my presently tropical bedchamber. I'm afraid I did not sleep well last night thanks to my moist circumstances. I am the kind of guy--were you to ever sleep with me--who likes a light frost on the bureau before bedtime. I'm not a particular fan of cold, but it casts into sharper relief the warmth around me, preserved as it is by the series of buffers (e.g., blankets, comforters, "human shields," etc.) I employ for that purpose. It is the bane of my closest associate and business partner, whose circulation is better suited to the surface of the sun--or shall we say several centigrade greater than what I now endure.

Wachovia Admits Ties to Slavery

from The Philadelphia Inquirer

Wachovia Corp., the nation's fourth-largest bank, has asked African Americans to forgive the company for its history of owning slaves and using them as loan collateral.

"We apologize to all Americans, and especially to African Americans and people of African descent," Wachovia chairman Kennedy Thompson said in a statement yesterday. Based in Charlotte, N.C., Wachovia is the leading bank in the Philadelphia area.

History's Recurring "Liberal" Threat

from Foreign Affairs (May/June 2005)

In the late 1920's, a group of [German] intellectuals known as conservative revolutionaries demanded a new volkish authoritarianism, a third Reich. Richly financed by corporate interests, they denounced liberalism as the greatest, most invidious threat and attacked it for its tolerance, rationality, and cosmopolitan culture.... [T]he Nazis vilified liberalism as a Marxist-Jewish conspiracy, and, with Germany in the midst of unprecedented depression and impoverishment, they promised a national rebirth.

...In his first radio address to the German people, 24 hours after coming to power, Hitler declared, "The national government will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built up. They regard Christianity as the foundation of our national morality and the family as the basis of national life." German elites proved susceptible to this mystical brew of pseudoreligion and disguised interest. Churchmen, especially Protestant clergy, shared this hostility toward the liberal-secular state and its defenders; they were also filled with anti-Semetic beliefs, although with some heroic exceptions.

AFL-CIO Kills Health and Safety Department

from Confined Space

AFL-CIO staff wore black to work today, and for good reason. Coming only a few days after Workers Memorial Day, 169 positions were eliminated, including half of the four-person Health and Safety Department's professional staff. Deborah Weinstock and Rob McGarrah have been given notice that their positions will no longer be funded, although it is unclear when these changes will take place. What's left of the department -- Director Peg Seminario and Bill Kojola -- will be merged into the newly-created Government Affairs Department. 52 new positions will be created at the federation.

This is a sad day for workers, for the labor movement and for all those who care about the health, safety and working conditions of American workers.

AFL-CIO Warned Against Protest

from The New York Times

The Bush administration has warned the nation's biggest labor federation that union-run pension funds may be breaking the law in opposing President Bush's Social Security proposals.

In a letter on Tuesday to the A.F.L.-C.I.O., the Department of Labor said it was "very concerned" that pension plans might be spending workers' money to "advocate a particular result in the current Social Security debate."

Chalabi Gets Petroleum Minister Post in New Iraq Government

from Informed Comment

More details of the new Iraqi cabinet are now out. The big and rather ominous surprise is that Ahmad Chalabi is the temporary Petroleum Minister. It has not in the past been easy to pry him out of positions once in them. And, in the past, whenever he has been around big money, a lot of it has mysteriously disappeared. Some are saying that at least he has the background to deal with foreign oil companies. But lots of Iraqis have such a background. The point is that Chalabi doesn't know anything about the petroleum industry and also has a poor business reputation to put it lightly.

The Nation and the Middle East, Cont.

from The Angry Arab News Service

My dear friend Joseph Massad wrote an excellent critique of the lousy piece on the war on Middle East studies at Columbia University in the ostensibly leftist Nation magazine... Scott Sherman, who seems to believe that you need to blame the victim for his victimhood, offers a typically weak and vapid response to the letters that reached the Nation, and only a handful of which were published. Sherman, as Angry Arab was told by inside sources, scrambled to find one token critical Arab to offer him praise in this section of the letters to the Nation but alas could not find any. And if the mainstream Washington Post does not print a news item that is not based on at least two sources, Sherman--you shall notice--is satisfied with one anonymous source merely to smear Joseph Massad.

Grassroots Fight Ensues as Schwarzenegger Favors Business Interests

from The New Standard

Facing a deficit estimated in the billions for the upcoming year, California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has adopted an aggressive strategy to roll back state spending. His campaign to control the budget has touched off a battle with the state’s labor and grassroots organizations, some of which are suggesting the actor-turned-politician is proving incapable of standing independently from the business interests that helped fuel his campaign for office.

Whole Foods

from Znet:

In July 2002, employees at the Whole Foods Market in Madison, Wisconsin, made history when they voted to become the first unionized store at the natural foods mega-chain. The United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW)-supported organizing drive was motivated by lower-than-industry wages, absence of a legally-binding grievance procedure, and other unfair labor practices. The pro-union vote also sparked a determined and eventually successful year-long campaign by the chain's notoriously anti-union CEO John Mackey to defeat the only union shop among its more than 150 stores.

Poll: Syria More Popular than US in Lebanon

from The Angry Arab News Service

Which country is more unpopular than Syria in Lebanon? Take a guess. No, it is not Micronesia. Try again. Yes. You guessed right. It is the US. According to a national Zogby poll conducted in Lebanon, US is more opposed than Syria by a sample of the Lebanese population.

Wangari Maathai

from The Progressive

You don't have to recognize only those who bring warring parties together or those who stop a war or the production of arms. For us to enjoy peace, we need to manage our resources more responsibly. We need to share our resources more equitably, both globally and nationally, and we can only do that in a democratic space. If we don't have space to discuss, to dialogue, to listen to each other, to respect each other's opinions, we're going to use our power to control our resources at the expense of those who don't have them. By doing that, we create a lot of enmity, and eventually we have conflict. In Kenya I see these things happening all the time: resources become depleted, water becomes finished, wells dry up, and the next thing you hear is that tribesmen are fighting a war.

I consider it important, indeed urgently necessary, for intellectual workers to get together, both to protect their own economic status and, also generally speaking, to secure their influence in the political field.

- Albert Einstein (commenting on why he joined the American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO)

"Mission Accomplished" from the BBC


Inside Iraq as you'll never see it on CNN. Required viewing for all Americans:

http://www.muslimwakeup.com/bb/viewtopic.php?p=250&

(Choose "Save target as" to download and view...)

Slavery

from Confessions of an Economic Hitman

Today, we still have slave traders. They no longer find it necessary to march into the forests of Africa looking for prime specimens who will bring top dollar on the auction blocks in Charleston, Cartagena, and Havana. They simple recruit desperate people and build a factory to produce the jackets, blue jeans, tennis shoes, automobile parts, computer components, and thousands of other items they can sell in the markets of their choosing...

The old-fashioned slave trader told himself that he was dealing a species that was not entirely human, and that he was offering them the opportunity to become Christianized. He also understood that slaves were fundamental to the survival of his own society, they they were the foundation of his economy. The modern slave trader assures himself (or herself) that the desperate people are better off earning one dollar a day than no dollars at all, and they are receiving the opportunity to become integrated into the larger world community. She also understands that these desperate people are fundamental to the survival of her company, that they are the foundation of her own lifestyle. She never stops to think about the larger implications of what she, her lifestyle, and the economic system behind them are doing to the world--or of how they may ultimately impact her children's future.

Morality and Power

In making a moral evaluation of any policy, past or present, we have to inquire into the motives of the policymakers. There is a tendency among ideologues from both ends of the spectrum to deduce hidden motives and/or apply unspoken dogmas (such as economic determinism, for instance) to their analyses, without bothering to look up what policymakers actually thought they were doing.

Since I proceed from the assumption that all power is used for "the good" of those in a position to exercise it, the question of how power justifies itself--whether as divinely ordained, mandated by crisis, or democratically inspired--is not morally relevant. All power justifies itself; and since it is not the tendency of humans to view themselves as criminals, the fact that those in positions of authority internalize the noble intentions of their institutions proves nothing. Adolf Eichmann certainly did not see himself as a monster; he was simply fulfilling his institutional role within the Third Reich. Stalin industrialized the Soviet Union. The Spanish and Portugese brought "civilization" and Christianity to South America. We settled land left "idle" by the Native Americans. A hundred years later we defended South Vietnam against its own population by laying waste to the nation. And we continue to prop up deeply unpopular regimes in Latin America and the Middle East because, after all, they're better than "the alternative"--a catch-all expression (interchangable with "communism") for "any government who feels a responsibility for the welfare of its people," and not the needs of US investors, financial institutions, manufacturing corporations, etc., to paraphrase the late George Kennan. So, no: I don't make moral evaluations based on the stated intentions, sincere or otherwise, of those in positions of authority over the lives of others. Morality relates specifically to behavior and its predictable human consequences, not "intent."

Was Bush Right?

It's one thing to ask the question as if the only opinion that mattered was ours--as if we were the only ones affected by our decision to resort to force. I'm sure it's easy for American politicians, intellectuals, and pundits to feel satisfied with a policy that asked so little of them--in taxes or in the risk to their personal well-being or that of their loved ones. But since morality does not principally deal with how we feel about ourselves--but rather how our behavior affects others--it follows that one does not pose these questions to oneself.

The main moral question of Iraq, as I see it, relates to the violence we necessarily imposed on the victims of a tyrant so that we might remove him. In this case, hundreds of thousands of people, no longer among the living, that we are responsible for, due to our choices. The Iraqis who were killed certainly had no say in it, nor the family members that lost them. The question we should be asking is whether they think it was worth it, since either they or their loved ones might still be alive today otherwise. Personally, I don't feel comfortable speaking so confidently about what is "right" in such circumstances, particularly when an alternative--and preferably democratic--solution might still have been found.

The Other Pope

from Informed Comment

John Paul II was a complex man and among the more intellectual popes in history. Because of his admirable stance against Stalinism in Eastern Europe (which did not in fact involve any denunciation of communism or socialism per se) and his anti-abortion stance, he is often claimed as an ally by the American Right (which is mainly Protestant and mainly about the best interests of wealthy business people).

But John Paul II was often an inconvenient man, whose moral vision would be upsetting to the US Republican establishment if it were taken seriously. He opposed the death penalty, to which George W. Bush is so attached. He opposed the Iraq War. He condemned laissez-faire capitalism and cared about the exploitation of workers, who he felt should have a dignity that is seldom bestowed upon them by the Walmarts and other firms in the US. And he cared about the rights and welfare of the Palestinian people in a way that virtually no one in the American political establishment does. He symbolically blessed the Palestinian claim that Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Palestinian people.

That is, the Pope's message sometimes had a strong progressive content, and he was in some important ways on our side. That progressives might have had differences with him on some issues should not forestall our celebrating his progressive legacy. The American Right appropriates shamelessly anyone who even halfway agrees with them. We on the left must learn to make sectional alliances and commemorate those areas of agreement we have with people like John Paul II.

The Central American Free Trade Agreement

from The Wall Street Journal

The legislative battle over the Central American Free Trade Agreement is heating up, and if we are to believe the grandiose claims put forward by Cafta's supporters, this deal will create great jobs at home, close our trade deficit, lift Central America out of poverty, and solidify democratic reforms there. It will also boost global trade talks and allow supporters to paint themselves as "pro-growth" and "pro-jobs." Wow.

But we've heard these arguments before: 11 years ago, when Congress debated the North American Free Trade Agreement; 10 years ago, with the ratification of the World Trade Organization agreement; and five years ago, when China joined the WTO. In each instance, the American people were told the deals would open markets abroad, improve U.S. competitiveness, spur jobs and growth, and eradicate poverty.

It didn't work then and it won't work now.

American fundamentalists

from Informed Comment

The cynical use by the US Republican Party of the Terri Schiavo case repeats, whether deliberately or accidentally, the tactics of Muslim fundamentalists and theocrats in places like Egypt and Pakistan. These tactics involve a disturbing tendency to make private, intimate decisions matters of public interest and then to bring the courts and the legislature to bear on them. President George W. Bush and Republican congressional leaders like Tom Delay have taken us one step closer to theocracy on the Muslim Brotherhood model.

The "Ownership" Swindle

from The Nation

There is a long tradition of American capitalists not only mobilizing small-business and professional support for the elite, but also shifting working-class aspirations to undermine the potential of radical labor and political movements. Instead of delivering on the promise of upward mobility, American capitalism in the late nineteenth century delivered home ownership as a substitute for owning one's land or tools. After the elites forcibly smashed working-class organizations, like the Knights of Labor and anarchists, that demanded an end to wage slavery during the post-Civil War industrialization, the workers' movement increasingly turned toward securing an American, or living, wage instead of demanding control over industry. In the early twentieth century, after Populists and Progressives raised public awareness about the corrupting power of big corporations, there was a wave of interest in industrial democracy as a necessary complement to political democracy. During the 1920s, America began to develop consumer capitalism and a democracy of shoppers alongside a brief infatuation with stock markets.

Democracy in Iraq

As Tom Friedman strangely points out, what the Bush administration intended for Iraq (US-written constitution, caucuses, etc.) has been thwarted every step of the way by Iraqis, whose organized demands for free-elections--including the non-violent resistance of which Sistani has been the symbol--eventually compelled the US/UK to allow them to happen.

Examining the Right--and wrong

The contemporary right likes to focus on concentrated power in government--a legitimate concern which I share, for obvious reasons. The contemporary dishonest right (typically those in power) focus exclusively on the power of government because they advocate a different kind of concentrated power--private control over the economy in the form of corporations--and because they recognize a flaw in government not present in corporate institutions: government is potentially democratic. Corporations, if you bother to look at their internal distribution of power, are not. Well, the reason why traditional conservatives were so concerned with government is because concentrated power is dangerous no matter where you find it. At the same time, they recognized that government had the potential not to be totalitarian, which is why they championed its democratic forms. How we judge government, economic institutions, or anything else should be on the basis of whether they are democratic or not. That's the only thing that gives them any legitimacy; I don't care what you're talking about. If they're not democratic, then they're one or another form of tyranny--as any classical Enlightenment figure (for instance Adam Smith, who had quite a bit to say about this) would readily tell you--and deserve to be dismantled, thus diffusing power and widening the scope of human liberty, in the classical conception.

Beware the conservative who blames everything on government without taking into account other forms of concentrated power in society. What these powerful interests advocate is not getting rid of all forms of illegitimate authority (see libertarian socialism, a branch of anarchism), but simply replacing one for another--and, in this case, eliminating the potential for democratic rule by the citizenry in the process. Private management of the economy combined with the attenuation of democratic federal structures is fascism.

The World Bank

from The Angry Arab News Service

PAUL WOLFOWITZ to head the World Bank. Will he promise to bomb all poor countries to end poverty? Will he promise that the Iraq war will eventually spread prosperity on earth? Will he demand that poor countries praise Israeli oppression of the Palestinians in return for aid? Next appointment: Bush to head the Physics Department at MIT. And Ashcroft to head the National Organization for Women. Rumsfeld will head Greenpeace.

White House to Launch Push for Pro-Business Regulation

from The Wall Street Journal

The Bush administration is expected to launch a push for business-friendly regulation, possibly including streamlined and more flexible pollution standards, chemical-handling rules, and workers' medical-leave protections.

Consumerism is not democracy

In response to the assertion that consumer choice is "democracy in economics"...

Our relationship to corporations as consumers is only one among many. Yes, we can exercise consumer freedom. Is that the same as political liberty? If I lock you in a mansion with every distraction and amusement as your disposal, does your freedom to choose among limitless options make you free? Political freedom implies the power to influence the outcome of end choices. Maybe people would prefer a version of Windows that doesn't suck for 3 years before Microsoft bothers to work out the bugs. That seems reasonable. Not much anyone can do about it since Microsoft is the industry standard, and what people want is irrelevant since they all (by necessity) want Microsoft, at least if they work in most business environments. Or maybe skilled machinists in the 80's would have preferred technology which put more power into their hands during the production process, not undermine it so that their jobs could become the mundane drudgery it is for their unskilled replacements who barely make a livable wage. But that's another type of relationship we have with corporations: as employees. How much of a "vote" do we have in this capacity? None, unless it's imposed by other means. I suggest we not weaken this means.

Managing Activism: How to Neutralize Democracy

from The Center for Media and Democracy

Managing Activism is written for PR practitioners whose clients engage in risky businesses (fossil fuels, pesticides, genetically engineered foods, nuclear waste, toxic dumps, animal testing) and who therefore become the targets of "activist groups" including "environmentalists, workers' rights activists, animal rights groups and human rights campaigners." Don't expect much sympathy for the activists. Deegan is a battle-hardened PR veteran and a committed soldier in the war against activists who "in an increasingly pluralistic society" present what she calls "a growing threat to organizations of all shapes and sizes. And because activists employ a wide range of aggressive tactics such as generating bad publicity, seeking government and legislative intervention, encouraging boycotts, etc., they can cause severe disruption, including damage to reputation, sales, profitability, employee satisfaction and, of course, share price."

Wal-Mart Workers Vote 17-1 Against Union

from The Wall Street Journal

Workers at a Wal-Mart Stores Inc. tire department in Colorado on Friday voted 17-to-1 against union representation. A spokesman for the United Food and Commercial Workers said the group will ask the National Labor Relations Board to throw out the result. The union claims workers had been subjected to intimidation before the vote and Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, added employees to the unit to dilute the strength of the union supporters. In addition, the union says the Bentonville, Ark., retailer unfairly disallowed a union representative to observe the election. A pro-union worker who was scheduled to observe suffered a seizure prior to the vote. Wal-Mart rejected the union's request to have one of its representatives serve as a substitute. A Wal-Mart spokeswoman said the union was offered an opportunity to provide another worker to observe but couldn't find one. She said any workers added to the operation were a response to business needs and not part of an antiunion effort. The spokeswoman said the company doesn't tolerate harassment or discrimination.

How dare some say, 'Support our Troops'?

from The Portland Press Herald

Someone recently informed me that they didn't know that my son was being deployed to Iraq and asked why I hadn't told them. I really didn't have an answer.

Wal-Mart Brings Child Labor Back

from The New York Times

Wal-Mart has faced previous child labor charges. In March 2000, Maine fined the company $205,650 for violations of child labor laws in every one of the 20 stores in the state. In January 2004, a weeklong internal audit of 128 stores found 1,371 instances in which minors apparently worked too late at night, worked during school hours or worked too many hours in a day. Company officials said the audit was faulty and had incorrectly found that some youths had worked on school days when, in fact, those days were holidays.

Assorted Nerds Ask: Will China Be the Next Superpower?

They've got a lot of poor people with no rights, if that's what is meant by "economic powerhouse," etc., in the business press. Yes, that can translate into high profits--for foreign investors and the government officials who set up the deals. What happens to the rest of us is incidental. There may be some benefits; probably a lot of harm done to people in both countries.

As to China becoming a military rival of ours, it's sort of a weird fascination. Obviously the government is in a position to do very well, considering the wealth of "human capital" they have to attract investment. Which means more money for guns and bombs so they can be better tyrants and repress their population even more and cause all kind of trouble in the region, etc. And, yes, maybe someday even pose a threat to the US. But if that's so much of a concern now, it doesn't make much sense to participate in it.

A Passionate Response, and My Reply

First of all, we do not live in a democracy, so it would be ridiculous to expect that our media serve as a democratic institution. The media actually functions in much the same way that government does. It is a pluralistic system of competing interests. As there is an audience, a program will arise and as there is a program, generally an audience will arrive. If this fails to occur than the idea or media has little saliency in the polity.... And, as for the polarization of the media; is that not a little more intellectually honest than the preposterous notion of an unbiased news source? I actually prefer the more candid, up-front bias. Just as it was in the old days...

European news coverage is no more broad than that of America. Most nations have only one major newspaper. The United States can count at least 5 papers all over a million in circulation.... In fact, a good bit of the "broad" international reporting that you speak of comes from Reuters and the AP, all of which are posted in every major newspaper throughout the world. Here is an interesting note, however, of all the major western countries, the US is the only with no tabloid style paper in the top 5. Do you consider Camilla, the Page Six girls, and French popstars to be a broad news gathering experience? Once more, your vaunted BBC can be heard on NPR. Does the BBC broadcast American news programs to its listeners to give them another perspective? NO, what you consider to be broad coverage are reporters who all work from the same organization, but report from different parts of the globe.

...The fact of the matter is that it takes a certain kind of person to have broad interests outside of their own lives and communities. There is no greater number of those in Europe than in America. And for those in America, there are 400 cable channels, thousands of online newspapers, BBC on NPR and streaming 24 hours a day, and millions of websites great and small.

Of course Europeans complain that the world and media are to America-centric and that we do not have to learn about them as much as they about us. But, isn't that common sense? We have been a dominant power for 60, some say 100, years. It is only reasonable that we receive more coverage. We have a much greater impact on the world. We give more money, by a gross proportion, than any other nation. We consume more resources, we import more, we export more, we have been the leading source of technological advancement. I could go on and on, but like Tony Bliar said, the measure of the country is the number of people trying to get in rather than leave. If we are so narrow, why do the aristocracies of the world send their children here for education? Why is the United Nations here? Why the financial and political center of the world? Simply having those institutions would seem to mean that there are a variety of sources from which the citizens can, and do I might add, learn.

I will not deny that many Americans are ignorant about other cultures and geopolitcal struggles. But, it is a fallacy to think ignorance and exceptional American trait.

I think what you are talking about is developing a more informed citizenry rather than the facade of too few and too narrow media sources. And I imagine you would rather like to have control of what exactly those people digest from the media.

I don't think the idea of US democracy or its meaningful application in our everyday lives is ridiculous at all, and I'm sure you don't either. And while I'm interested to hear your many views, I'm not interested in arguing or defending points that 1) I never made, or 2) that I in fact agree with since they don't bear on anything I said. For instance, I never said anything about Americans having less access to other sources of information than anybody else (the central thrust of what I understand to be your response); my argument was that the programming which serves our communities is less sophisticated and less broad by comparative standards due to (I think) uniquely high levels of media consolidation and lack of regulation in these markets (again, comparatively). (E.g., It's generally recognized that the "spectrum of debate" in the US--liberal vs. conservative--is ridiculously narrow compared to other places, which incorporate a much wider range of political views.) Other than that, nothing much to add to what I've already said.

Q&A

But let me ask you another question. How is a government run news program more democratic and less oriented to propaganda than a multi-various selection of private news organizations?

There's no reason to expect that it would be. Institutions are democratic to the extent that people have meaningful control over them. That means participating in them--something which highly-concentrated ownership of any kind precludes, regardless of form. If we want democratic media that reflects the concerns of the general public, media ownership and control should be diffused, thus widening the scope of involvement.

Also, what makes you think that Americans are less sophisticated and broad in their media selections?

The fact that the programming is less sophisticated and less broad, something that correlates closely to centralization of media power and absence of (potential) counterveiling forces (in the form of regulation, etc.) which still exist elsewhere. Personally, I think this accounts for the increasingly hostile denunciations of media as "liberal" or "conservative," depending on orientation. When there's only one voice which explains reality, it's only natural that you want it to be yours.

Democracy vs. Capitalism

The conflict between democracy and capitalism is that private ownership and management of productive property excludes popular participation in the central economic decisions that affect everyone (except in cases where such ownership is so diffuse that it extends to most people in the society; no longer the case here, if ever). Individual action and participation means more than going to the polls every four years. It means acting and participating in the institutions of the society, not being excluded from them on the grounds that some specialized class (bureaucrats, executives, generals, royalty, clerics, etc.) reserve this right for themselves, whatever the benevolence of their intentions. In the former Soviet Union, this centralization of power developed in the form of a totalitarian state; in the US, as collectivist legal entities (corporations). In the USSR, the state largely dominated economic institutions; in the US, corporate power dramatically pervades the state. In either case the effects on the general population have been a profound attenuation of their influence over the society--a striking parallel between systems, despite many other (not minor) differences.

What Do You Think?

A question I came across today:

As [with] the majority of Canadians I consider my views on political issues to be very liberal and I've only too often noticed that Americans seem to take a more conservative root when debating political issues such as drug laws, abortion and same sex marriage all of which I have no problems with. So my question is for any Americans; why is it that you guys are so conservative where did these values root from? is it a religious thing or is it just something that you believe in? or am I making to much of a generalization?

The reason I think this way is because I see your presidents views and notice that you had no problem re-electing him.

Honesty Needed on Social Security

from The Denver Post

With almost 50 years of solvency ahead of us, we have the time to determine the best way to invest our Social Security dues without engaging in risky schemes or cutting benefits. Unfortunately, President Bush is taking a different approach because he does not believe in the program. He is creating an artificial urgency to help push a solution in search of a problem.

Of Lies, and Lying Liars

from The Center for Economic and Policy Research

Social Security is currently more financially sound than it has been throughout most of its entire history. To cover any shortfalls that may occur over the next 75 years would require less than we came up with in each of the decades of the 1950s, 60s, 70s, or 80s. All we have to do to save Social Security is to keep the privatizers' hands off of it.

EPA Study Accused of Predetermined Finding

from The New York Times

The Environmental Protection Agency's inspector general charged on Thursday that the agency's senior management instructed staff members to arrive at a predetermined conclusion favoring industry when they prepared a proposed rule last year to reduce the amount of mercury emitted from coal-fired power plants.

Mercury, which can damage the neurological development of fetuses and young children, has been found in increasingly high concentrations in fish in rivers and streams in the United States.

Mayor of New York "Not Very Republican" on Social Security, Challenger Says

from The New York Times

"I've never thought that privatizing Social Security made a lot of sense," said [New York mayor Michael R.] Bloomberg, who, like Mr. Bush, is a Republican. "I think what you'd see is that people would invest...unwisely."

He added, "These are not monies that people should be speculating with."

...[Former City Council minority leader] Mr. Ognibene used Mr. Bloomberg's comments to once again paint him as a disloyal Republican. "He's trying to be negative rather than be supportive of the president's initiative to try to save Social Security," Mr. Ognibene said yesterday. "From that point of view, it's not very Republican."

Study: When the False Comes First, People Forget the Correction

from The Wall Street Journal

The news media would do well to keep in mind that once we report something, some people will always believe it even if we try to stuff the genie back in the bottle. For instance, six months after the invasion, one-third of Americans believed WMDs had been found, even though every such tentative claim was discomfirmed. The findings also offer Machiavellian possibilities for politicians. They can make a false claim that helps their cause, contritely retract it -- and rest assured that some people will nevertheless keep thinking of it as true.

School of the Americas

from The North American Congress on Latin America

The United States uses its power to penetrate and transform other states for its own purposes, a defining feature of imperialism. In the Americas, U.S. hegemony has always depended on soldiers to uphold a particular kind of capitalist order, and regional military forces have long served as basic tools of this U.S. imperial project. The [School of the Americas] has played a vital role in this undertaking, having trained over 60,000 troops from its post-WWII founding to its 2001 reincarnation as the [Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation]. It forms part of a hydra-headed repressive apparatus-encompassing armies, police forces, paramilitaries, arms manufacturers and think tanks-that consumes ever-more public resources as cold war pretexts give way to neoliberal policies generating widespread discontent. This apparatus, and the School's role within it, remains important as regional governments rely on the armed forces to control the social and economic disorder that, to a considerable degree, results from their own policies.

For the Mightiest Nation, War is Fun



from BBC News

The US Marine Corps has publicly upbraided one of its generals for his comments describing shooting people in Iraq as "fun".

Discussing fighting in Iraq, the General said he liked brawling and enjoyed shooting people.

The Marine Corps said Lt Gen James Mattis had been "counselled" concerning his remarks, made during a panel discussion in California.

Human Rights Watch Condemns Meatpacking Industry

from The New York Times

For the first time, Human Rights Watch has issued a report that harshly criticizes a single industry in the United States, concluding that working conditions among the nation's meatpackers and slaughterhouses are so bad that they violate basic human rights.

The report, released yesterday, frequently echoes Upton Sinclair's classic on the industry, "The Jungle." It finds that jobs in many beef, pork and poultry plants are sufficiently dangerous to breach international agreements promising a safe workplace.

Remembering Operation Paperclip



from BBC News

The CIA has been urged to release documents about Nazi war criminals hired by US intelligence officials during the Cold War era.

See also CIA Admits Employing Nazis

War at Wal-Mart

from Business Week

The AFL-CIO is planning an effort modeled on its powerful get-out-the-vote political machine. Headed by a veteran labor and Democratic politico, Ellen Moran, it aims to engage hundreds or even thousands of union members to do mailings, phone banks, and work-site visits to convince labor households and, later, the public, that Wal-Mart undercuts living standards. The campaign won't call for a boycott, but labor leaders say focus group studies they've done show that some people may shop elsewhere if told of Wal-Mart's actions.

For American Companies, a Gift from the Public

from The New York Times

When Congress passed a one-time tax break on foreign profits last fall, lawmakers said their main purpose was to encourage American companies to build new operations and hire more workers at home.

But as corporations are gearing up to bring tens of billions of dollars back to the United States this year, adding jobs is far from their highest priority. Indeed, some companies say they might end up cutting their work forces.

Halliburton's Inflated Costs Keep Generals Guessing (and Undersupplied)

from The Wall Street Journal

In December, Halliburton's giant Kellogg Brown & Root unit, which provides basic services such as food, postal service and telephones to the 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, submitted a detailed estimate to the Pentagon for expected spending in the year starting May 1, based on a list of Army requirements. The company said its costs for the year could exceed $10 billion.

But the Army has budgeted just $3.6 billion to support the KBR- provided services during the same period -- nearly $7 billion less than KBR's estimate.

Since then, the Army has been trimming its requests to close the gap. In an interview, Gen. George Casey said the difference now stands at closer to $4 billion. Still, he said, "To say that we're not worried would not be true. Someone has made some assumptions that have driven the costs through the roof."

The Last Word on Social Security: Hands Off!

from A Tiny Revolution

Conservative Republicans have hated Social Security since before it began. In 1935, Republican Senator Daniel Hastings said Social Security would "end the progress" of America. Ever since, conservatives have been claiming Social Security is about to collapse. When people who are now receiving Social Security checks were starting to work in the 1960s, conservative Republicans were telling them they'd never see a dime. Bush himself, when he was running for Congress in 1978, said Social Security would "go broke" within ten years.

However, until now conservative politicians have never made any serious attempt to kill Social Security. That's because Social Security is extremely popular. And as much as conservatives dislike Social Security, they dislike losing elections even more. Social Security has often been called the "third rail" of American politics—touch it and you die.

But things have changed. Not Social Security itself; it's fine. But conservatives think that—after saying since 1935 that Social Security is about to collapse—they've finally gotten Americans to believe it. As a recent internal White House memo put it, "For the first time in six decades, the Social Security battle is one we can win."

The person who wrote this was being honest: conservatives have been fighting against Social Security for 60 years. It didn't have anything to do with a "crisis" in 1945, 1965, or 1985. And it doesn't now.

Now, you may be wondering: why exactly do conservatives hate Social Security? Why do they think something so many Americans like is so terrible?

Here's one answer: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

President Bush's plans for Social Security would mean Americans would be required to hand billions and billions of dollars over to Wall Street. As Fortune magazine recently put it, Wall Street is "salivating" over this. Even the Cato Institute, a Washington think tank that has pushed for privatization for decades, says that "financial institutions in particular" would benefit.

Pentagon Considers Contra-Style Terror Tactics in Iraq

from BBC News

With no end to the Iraq conflict in sight, some US military strategists have been considering tactics used during the civil war in El Salvador, a brutal and bloody campaign that lasted for years.

...The shield which stopped a guerrilla victory in El Salvador was in reality a reign of terror. Tens of thousands of those killed in the war were rebel sympathisers, tortured and murdered by the security forces. It was a well-organised, dirty war in which the CIA was heavily involved. Horrendously mutilated corpses - sometimes decapitated - were left in full public view. Using fear, the policy succeeded in denying the rebels open civilian support.

Some in the Pentagon have now been mooting the idea of training Iraqi hit squads to target insurgents and their sympathisers to quash open civilian support for them.

But for this to work would mean out-terrorising the Iraqi rebels, a difficult task indeed.