Operation Scheduled Departure

The Bush administration has launched a new initiative in its war on NAFTA refugees by inviting them to deport themselves at their own expense. Surrendering would incur no penalty other than to return to one's home country, where the same conditions that encourage border-crossing -- landlessness, joblessness and hunger -- remain.

The move may be seen as a last-ditch effort for the White House to expel as many "illegal people" before the end of the Bush term. The administration's prior strategy -- raiding private homes with tactical assault teams in order to "capture" illegal suspects -- proved less popular with local communities.

***

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) opened Mexican markets to subsidized US agro-exports -- like corn -- which undercut local farmers. It also eliminated Mexican subsidies for small and mid-sized farming, displacing many peasant communities, and consolidated land-holdings under multinational conglomerates. This had the anticipated effect of pushing Mexican peasants either into domestic manufacturing or, in many cases, over the border and into the US.

Mustafa Barghouti: Palestinians have already compromised a compromise

FT

"In one case, an experienced terrorism prosecutor who was considered by some in the DoJ as 'head and shoulders' above other ­candidates was denied a counter-terrorism job by Ms Goodling because his wife was active in Democratic politics. The post was later filled by a registered Republican candidate who did not meet the basic experience-­related qualifications of the job."

That's What She Said

"When you have a systemic challenge like the war in Darfur, it requires more than a few mercenaries, even very well equipped and very well trained," he said.

[UN chief of peacekeeping Jean-Marie] Guehenno was responding to a question about an editorial in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal titled "Mercenaries for Darfur."

What Batman and Bush Have in Common

from the Wall Street Journal

There seems to me no question that the Batman film "The Dark Knight," currently breaking every box office record in history, is at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war.

This is the best piece of political satire not to appear in The Onion in a very long time.

Murdoch's Journal

The Wall Street Journal has sponsored a poll asking American voters whether they better identify with the "background and values" of a white POW on one hand, or a non-white, multi-ethnic, Ivy league-educated man who was raised by a single parent in Indonesia and whose middle name is "Hussein," on the other.

The responses form the basis of a front-page feature in today's paper -- so dense with intrigue one gets the impression it was applied by trowel with Mr. Murdoch's own quaking hands.

Petrol-funded US thinktank says 100% green energy possible in 10 yrs

from the FT

Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington thinktank, said: "Mr Gore has moved a long way from the solutions recommended in An Inconvenient Truth : replace your light bulbs with compact fluorescents, buy a hybrid car, and telecommute from home.

"We couldn't come close to [his] goal of producing all our electricity from solar, wind, and geothermal energy in 10 years without coercive, even authoritarian government."

It's not always easy getting the "other side" of a story, journalistically speaking. Especially when one side is Al Gore speaking about global warming. Invariably, protesters will either be energy companies or -- as in this case -- the organizations funded by them.

This is a good example of how even high-end reporting can be undermined by the twin perils of time-constraint and a lack of willing takers.

The paradox in this case is that Mr. Ebell is right: confronting global warming will require governmental "coercion" of the interests he represents, as prescribed by an overwhelming majority of Americans -- in other words, a fairly straightforward democratic process. That he has chosen to label this authoritarian is more than likely because the outcome does not benefit his employers.

Alterman on Obama



Listen to Boromir talk about all the good he would do for Gondor if only he could have the ring of power!

"If you want to be effective in this country, you have to operate from within the consensus." Alterman does not elaborate on whose views make "the consensus," but what he is talking about is elite consensus, not popular consensus.

Elite consensus on Israel, for example, has been to back its most reactionary elements, whereas popular consensus (in the US but also worldwide) has favored a negotiated two-state settlement with the Palestinians. But since popular concerns do not count, our elected leaders must "get things done" by deftly balancing the demands of various elite groups.

Suggesting that democracy might be a welcome ALTERnative to one or another group "doing some good" on everybody else is nothing more than a romantic recipe for electoral loss. That may be true, but how much do we gain by winning, and is it enough?

Whites satisfied with racial progress

from the Financial Times

According to a survey by the University of Chicago, 79 per cent of the US's blacks believe either that they will not achieve racial equality in their lifetime, or that it will never be attained. In contrast, almost two-thirds of whites believe it has already been achieved.

I can't fail to reference William Kristol's op-ed following Obama's Philadelphia speech on race in March, when he wrote, "Over the last several decades, we’ve done pretty well in overcoming racial barriers and prejudice."

Now, if you had to choose between America's two favorite races -- aka "white" and "black" -- which would you guess William Kristol belongs to?

Martin Luther King, Jr. just loved the limelight

It should be clear to everyone of respectable opinion that Martin Luther King, Jr.'s role in the civil rights movement was largely inspired by his insatiable love for attention, and that his assassination stemmed mainly from his jealously of younger upstarts like Malcom X taking the bullets first.

Michael Eric Dyson, sociology professor at Georgetown University and Baptist preacher has this to say about Jeremiahgate:

If YouTube were around when Martin Luther King Jr. preached to black churches, I'm afraid he would be as viciously condemned as Jeremiah Wright, for he said the following to black congregations: "America was founded on genocide, and a nation that is founded on genocide is destructive."

It's worth remembering that King was widely condemned for his opposition to the Vietnam war and his "Poor People's Campaign" for economic justice by the very Northern establishment types who loved him so for exposing the myriad sins of the South. It is very important when you are endorsed by power never to step outside the role you are assigned to.

Change We Can Upheave In

from the New York Times

This country needs a healthy and open discussion of race. Mr. Obama's repudiation of Mr. Wright is part of that.

Are you a person of color who would like to be praised for initiating a much-needed national discussion on race? Easy! Just find another person of color who is already talking about race and denounce them. Then keep quiet. This time-honored trick will earn you many a friend in high places.

NYT: Black preacher too charismatic

Yesterday the New York Times ran what was for all practical purposes an editorial on Jeremiah Wright disguised as a news story. Among the insights to be gained was this gem:

[I]t turns out that Mr. Wright doesn’t hate America, he loves the sound of his own voice.

It's hard to know what particular tool the author thought an African-American pastor would use to ply his trade if speaking was too much in bad taste.

Wright is accused of enjoying himself too much, speaking excitedly -- and on topics ranging from the bible to world affairs to black history! He is also indicted for making the very forum that developed in response to the media's portrayal of him as "anti-American" too much about himself and not enough about Obama. In conclusion, Jeremiah Wright is simply too much the black preacher, and too little the campaign asset to be useful to anyone of importance at the Times or within the Democratic party.

Official anthem of the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999

The Rub: Wright is Right, but not quite White

Barack Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, has a knack for saying things that are broadly incomprehensible to people in high places.

Here is one example:

Jesus said, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on you. Those are biblical principles...

Now, to be sure, one can debate the extent to which the United States has done "terrorism on other people," particularly if one was raised within its borders, and especially if one has, with hard work, ascended to some position of importance within either its media or university system, or other avenue of influence.

But here is a useful rule of thumb: people who aren't in the line of fire can do lots of things that the people who are can't. When you are hiding your family from US produced ordnance, or from the "security services" of your US-backed dictatorship, you need not debate with loved ones over the "quality" of the experience being provided courtesy of the American tax-payer. And in the event that you lose a loved one, you need not debate internally whether or not it was "worth it" -- human life being a finite resource, it probably wasn't.

Do such circumstances come about as a result of US policy? It is the kind of question that is best posed to a Nicaraguan farmer or a Saudi Arabian woman -- people who live in close proximity to the effects of our policies -- rather than, say, our highly-educated friends at Harvard or NBC; or at the editorial pages of the New York Times -- people who hear the kinds of things Jeremiah Wright says and faint. Not that there is anything wrong with them -- they just don't see very far beyond their own experiences, nor are they paid to do so.

Carter bitch-slaps Bush on Middle East

It is not a good sign when the business of a nation must be carried out on a volunteer basis by ex-statesmen who have not held office in over a quarter century. Nevertheless, Jimmy Carter's meeting with Hamas leaders in Syria this week was the most constructive development in the Mideast "peace process" since the Bush administration adopted the crisis as its pet cause.

In talks with Carter, Hamas consented to respect any agreement negotiated between rival faction leader Mahmoud Abbas and Israel, provided such an agreement was ratified by Palestinians in a referendum.

The Bush administration reacted with wrath at Carter's initiative, as it undermined the ongoing US/Israeli narrative that "there is no partner" for negotiations in Gaza, a popular justification for the ongoing military and economic embargo there. Mideast scholar Juan Cole writes that up to a million Palestinians now face starvation as the UN has been prevented from distributing food aid by the blockade.

Employers unite against the Employee Free Choice Act

Lee Scott, CEO of Wal-Mart, is desperate to protect worker's rights against a Democrat-backed labor reform bill likely to pass under the next administration, according to Thurday's Financial Times(1,2). Wal-Mart joins a growing coalition of business groups -- including the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Retail Federation, and the US Chamber of Commerce -- dedicated to lobbying against the bill.

"Our members believe this legislation is really detrimental to democracy and freedom of choice," said Jeri Gillespie of the National Association of Manufacturers.

The Employee Free Choice Act would change the way unions gain recognition from employers and the government by requiring majority signatures on membership cards in a workplace. According to organizers, this practice, standard in Canada and Western Europe, would make it harder for employers to disrupt their activity through intimidation and illegal firings.

Under current law, employers can recognize a union if a majority of employees sign a statement of support. However, employers also have the right to request a secret ballot, administered by the National Labor Relations Board. The new law would eliminate this prerogative, which includes "captive audience" meetings with employees to argue against union representation. Employers often hire "union avoidance consultants" to help undermine organizing efforts throughout the ballot process, and utilize the legal system to postpone or reverse the outcomes.

Lee Scott, however, chooses to frame the issue as a profound loss for workers: "It is terribly unfortunate that people are not talking about the fact that you are giving up your right to a secret ballot," he said. In his view, this opens up grave possibilities, such as employees being "subjected to the individual pressure of people calling you and knowing where you stand."

For most workers, the prospect of being fired by their employer for suspected union activity might weigh heavier on their minds than the non-binding judgment of their peers. According to Bruce Raynor of the Unite Here union, "Currently it almost behooves an employer to dismiss union supporters and break the law, because the penalties are so slight."

Nevertheless, the Wal-Mart chief bemoans what he see as the pernicious influence of powerful minority interests in the American workforce: "I think it's just unfortunate that it has become something that has been driven by a small group of people that have just extraordinary political influence."

But according to Rob Green, a lobbyist for the National Retail Federation, there is hope that the combined power of America's largest business lobbies might defeat a bill sponsored by a cabal of working people's organizations, bankrolled by the bottomless pockets of their mostly blue collar members.

"We're looking ahead to 2009. What we're trying to do this year is to educate legislators and the public at large about the details. We think the more the public learns, the less they like it."

Observations on the Klein/Scahill Guardian article

from The Guardian

While Clinton and Obama denounce the war with great passion, they both have detailed plans to continue it. Both say they intend to maintain the massive green zone, including the monstrous US embassy, and to retain US control of Baghdad airport.

Many liberals are committed to the idea that simply having a Democratic president will reverse the course of destruction that Bush has set, but I think this view is dangerously shortsighted. This is particularly true with foreign policy, which has always been shaped much more by large economic lobbies (multinational business and defense contractors, namely) than the general public, who tend to pay greater attention to the domestic issues that directly affect them. This is why if you look at historical trends in US foreign policy over time, they often remain constant through administrations of either party, because the economic actors who sponsor them operate largely unchallenged.

In other words, if Clinton and Obama can get you to endorse them without making a real commitment to withdrawal we cannot rule out the following sequence:

1. Obama/Clinton gets elected.

2. Liberals go home, leaving the important work of running the country up to someone who is preferable to Bush, in keeping with the theory that the Democrats will set the country straight.

3. The energy industry, defense contractors, etc. show up at the White House and on Capitol Hill everyday, flush with cash and other support for the incumbents, making very persuasive arguments to aides and think tanks and Council on Foreign Relations members as to why it is not in America's strategic interest to "abandon" Iraq.

4. Liberals are at home watching Jon Stewart or playing Xbox -- at any rate, not placing pressure on the administration or Congress to accomplish what they want.

5. Al-qaeda-type groups continue to capitalize on the presence of the world's largest superpower occupying an Arab country.

6. Something gets blown up, again, here at home.

The Scoop on Social Security

from the Financial Times:

Politicians understand that, with the Social Security Trust Fund surplus declining, they will no longer be able to borrow from them under the table while announcing fictitiously smaller deficits to justify continued expenditures and tax cuts. And they will have to generate funds from other sources of revenue to redeem the bonds after 2017. Rather than admit too much was borrowed recently, and must now be repaid, they want to reduce Social Security benefits. This puts much of the burden on the middle class, who created most of the surplus that has been used to hide the real size of the deficits.

Fundamentally, the Social Security issue is not one of "entitlements" but of the obligation of our government to honour its debt and not reduce Social Security benefits.

People my age talk about the impermanence of Social Security like it is a law of nature, but like any other public initiative, it merely requires adequate funding to exist. The postal system would be "in crisis" too if they never changed the postage rate or otherwise secured funding from the government, after all.

Social Security will exist as long as the public recognizes its importance and does not allow it to be dismantled by interests who stand to gain from its dismantling.

Really though, my view is that even if the government somehow "got rid of" social security, they would have to reinstate it again immediately, because leaving people no guarantee of income does not exactly lead to a "harmonious society," as the Chinese like to say. This is why even under the Bush privatization plan, Americans would have been highly restricted in how they invested "their" retirement funds: Uncle Sam knows whose door gets knocked on when large numbers of people lose everything in an economic downturn. Wiser observers in the government and corporate world already understand this: it is not good for business to have a national riot. This is why an article like this will appear in The Financial Times.

A Note on Working with Others in Impoverished Times

Since my co-workers and I do not garner "ample" wages from the highly-profitable activity we undertake on behalf of our employer, I try to lift their spirits by talking up the advantages to having a squeaky clean bank account, purged of "that evil money." This can have a tremendous effect on people who struggle in a perpetual state of barely making ends meet, and who never before considered the spiritual contribution their employer was making in their lives.

Clinton/Obama: "More insidious" on Iraq

Samantha Power Can't Possibly Be a Real Name

So Samantha Power resigns as foreign policy advisor to the Obama campaign because she actually had something to say -- not that it had anything to do with foreign policy -- for the first time. Well, it's one less reason to avoid voting for Obama. I will miss the many "ums" and "ahs" that she contributed to her NPR interviews, after boldly asserting that there are "profound" differences between Clinton and Obama on foreign policy. Maybe she won't have to worry herself over that Secretary of State job that she humbly wasn't considering until the NPR host twisted her arm. She can go back to Havard and write another best-seller on war crimes that other countries commit, ignoring the carnage Harvard's churned out over the years. Even her name sounds like an invention. Obama has truly granted my greatest wish.

9/11 Conspiracies (cont.)

Now take the example of 9/11.

In order to believe that the Bush administration orchestrated the attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and presumably the White House, one has to explain why people in the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the White House would attack their own institutions in order to accomplish any policy objective, foreign or domestic (the WTC representing Wall Street, who largely staff the executive branch). It stands to reason that if the Pentagon wanted to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, Donald Rumsfeld would have found some other means to do it besides flying a plane -- or firing a rocket, depending on what conspiracy theory you like -- into his own offices.

Secondly, one has to believe that multiple officials in multiple agencies thought that attacking themselves was a good idea, and that the murder of American civilians and personnel was worth whatever objective they sought to achieve.

Thirdly, not one of them had second thoughts -- or first thoughts, for that matter -- that this was fucked up when it was proposed to them, nor took the obvious hero's route at exposed it all to the press, making it the biggest story of all time. Nor did they expose it afterwards -- not even when the lucrative 9/11 conspiracy industry was born. This alone would have been worth an appearance on Oprah or Larry King.

Nor did any of the 9/11 conspirators reflect on the fact that they might get caught anyway -- hence the end of the Republican party -- or that the planes might not hit their intended targets, or that huge, high-risk projects of these kinds tend to be unpredictable, with too many variables to be easily controlled -- so why not stick to what has always worked in the past?

Finally, you would have to discount over a decade of Islamic fundamentalist rhetoric and action targeting the US for its military presence in Saudi Arabia and for supporting corrupt regimes throughout the Middle East -- in other words, that the same groups who tried to blow up the World Trade Center and large portions of New York City in the mid-90's were also part of this conspiracy, and by extension the Clinton administration as well.

As much as large institutions like the government deserve to be questioned, they should not be credited with a level of competency in their classified actions that can not be similarly observed in any of their public affairs. It is inexplicable to me that the same people who have failed so miserably in every undertaking they have conceived since 9/11 -- again, failing by their own standards -- can somehow be plausibly held up as masterminding a project far more risky and complicated than even the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, which have not exactly yielded the desired outcomes.

9/11 Conspiracies

At a time when so much is going wrong with the US comprehensively, it's hard to bear the amount of energy that is being devoted to saying that 9/11 was an inside job. 9/11 was not an inside job. I mean, maybe it was an inside job. It was as much an inside job as George Bush and his cabinet are the most competent criminal masterminds in the history of our species. In reality, they are merely criminal. We know this from the things they take credit for -- torture, wiretapping, and taking more time to pacify Iraq and Afghanistan than it took Hitler to conquer all of Europe. These people are not masterminds, just brazenly and belligerently self-serving, and not particularly capable even by that standard.

Governments often benefit from external threats, real or perceived. And it often happens that they generate them when such threats are in short supply, as a pretext for whatever actions they hope to pursue. But this usually amounts to provoking a small scale incident which can then be fed to the media as an act of war. For instance, this month the US press reported that Iranian speedboats acted "aggressively" towards large, heavily armed American naval vessels in waters outside of Iran. The original story was that the speedboats approached the Naval fleet at high-speeds, with radio-communication of a voice saying, "You will explode in a few minutes." They dumped "boxes" in the water -- who knows what they were, nobody asked, including the US media -- and sped away. The Pentagon later released video of the incident, boxes not included, in which they admit to having combined the audio and video after the fact, leading to charges of fabrication by the Iranians, who said the encounter was a routine ID check, and subsequently released a video confirming this. The Navy now claims it doesn't know where the source of original transmission came from. Hilarious and incompetent, as high-stakes propaganda attempts often are, though obviously dire for the people put at risk by such stunts.

Kucinich

Because the policies of Biden, Richardson and Dodd do not diverge significantly from those of their higher-profile peers, I'll jump ahead to Kucinich, who I believe is responsible for pushing Edwards into what was previously an upper-tier vacuum on the left. Had Edwards failed to make this move, it would have invited the rise of an alternative candidate from below, all while exposing him to continued losses to Hillary on terrain that she dominates. Richardson is apparently the establishment preference in this regard, with his party connections and energy sector ties. But, like so many candidates, Richardson cannot meaningfully distinguish himself on policy grounds; thus, he is forced to wait in the wings for the colossal misstep of his first-tier opponents which might lend relevancy to his campaign. In contrast, Kucinich's legitimacy is drawn from popular social movements -- the anti-war, environmental, civil rights, and social justice causes, for example -- which doubtless alienate significant portions of the owning classes, thereby precluding the kind of financing which becoming president in this country necessarily requires, but nonetheless resonate deeply with large swaths of the public.

News Digest from the Financial Times

Sick of it all

"Bellicose comments" from the White House on Iran are "not particularly helpful" according to Central Command chief, Admiral William Fallon, who stated that military action against the country "is not in the offing."

"None of this is helped by the stories that just keep going around and around that any day now there will be another war," he said.

"It astounds me that so many pundits and others are spending so much time yakking on this subject," to which the admiral might have added, "and by that I don't mean throwing up." Alas, it would seem one does not inherit the helm of Central Command with the deployment of double-entendre alone.

Hard for Dick

Meanwhile, Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy has outlined the obstacles hawks face within the administration while pressing for another war: "The national intelligence director is saying we have time before the Iranians get the bomb, the secretary of state is saying diplomacy still has a chance, the secretary of defence is saying the military is at breaking point and the political advisers are saying another war would probably not be a good idea." So suck on that, Dick!

Bush's little helper

In case you missed out on the spectacle, Connecticut senator Joe Lieberman last week accused the Democratic party of being dominated by a "hyper-partisan, politically paranoid" liberal base who "are inclined to see international problems as a result of America's engagement with the world" -- or, as less-demented observers still call it: "Iraq."

Edwards

To John Edwards' credit, he has moved closer to popular concerns as his campaign has been superseded by Clinton and Obama, adopting positions that would otherwise be the domain of Kucinich alone. Edwards has accepted public financing and has made "a New Deal-style suite of programs" the centerpiece of his campaign, including free schooling from pre-kindergarten to college. Significantly, he was the first of the front-runners to lay out a coherent universal healthcare plan, long before his two leading opponents; and to the extent that his plan does not invite insurance or pharmaceutical lobbyists "to the table," it is superior to the later offerings.

It is unlikely that Edwards' positioning on these issues derives from any deeply-held principles, but, as with his late acceptance of public financing (he accepted it after he was out-financed anyway), is instead a calibrated response to political realities "on the ground." In effect, everyone is being outplayed by Clinton on the right, and with the Clinton/Obama amalgam firmly entrenched in the center, Edward's best chance has been to move left in a populist bid to appeal to voters on economic issues that typically alienate the US aristocracy. Edwards was not getting enough money from the possessing classes to compete with Clinton and Obama, anyway; subsequently, he was left with little incentive to run a campaign tailored to their concerns. If Edwards is to win the nomination, he will have to create the kind of upset in Iowa and Ohio that he has clearly committed himself to in the second half of his campaign. The fact that he is polling comparably to Clinton in these states is an indication of the kind of audiences he has there, and a testament to the logic of the strategy he has adopted.

Obama

One can't be blamed for hardly knowing where to begin with Barack Obama, since one hardly knows where he stands on anything. This is not entirely his fault, as it is apparent the national media give much more coverage to Clinton. However, Obama has not done himself any long-term favor by running his campaign on persona, even if it has gotten him this far. At least the negative attention which coalesces around Clinton can be tied to her policy proposals, which after all presupposes that she has some, thus rendering them positive in comparison to someone's that are not known. What does Obama have of his own besides "hope" and a desire to "change the tone" in Washington? And anyway, how is this accomplished -- or, even better, why is it desirable? Washington needs to be strung up, not coached on diction. This is just the kind of empty rhetoric which adds nothing to the debate.

Of course, Obama has policies -- good policies -- but one only learns of them by visiting his website. That is not a good thing, since he should be running on them, and making sure people know about them. For whatever reason, that is not happening. The media doubtless play their part, but so does reducing oneself to a "brand" in a presidential campaign.

Some reflections as the air turns cold

Perhaps the time has come to make some mention of our presidential hopefuls, painful though it may be for my fingers to tap the accursed keys. By way of an introduction, I will only say that my observations here should reflect many hours of shielding myself from most of what passes for "campaign coverage" -- or, the tallying of that quickly depreciating entity, someday to be remembered fondly as the American dollar, as it is deposited into the respective "war chests" (or, in the case of Kucinich, "sanity's tip jar.") However, as it is virtually impossible to talk "politics" without being pulled into the same vortex of refined inanity that accompanies celebrity concerns of any occasion -- sport, film or whathaveyou -- I am resigned to offer some elementary observations.

Clinton

Hillary Clinton is as terrible a place to begin as any; so, for our purposes, she should prove satisfactory. What is the best thing that can be said her? Indisputably, she is a woman; clearly, this holds monumental symbolic value in a nation that preferences men. As president, she would truly be the first of her kind. Unfortunately, so was Margaret Thatcher, which only underscores the reality of how dangerous the conquest for power really is. It is the reason why Frodo threw the One Ring into the fire, rather than adorn it for the feminist cause or for any cause: because power becomes an end in itself -- invariably so in its concentrated forms. To paraphrase Foucault, it is hardly a service to the woman's cause to bow at the altar of the very god which dominates and exploits them -- not sexist attitudes, per se, but the infrastructure of power which amplifies their effects until they prove harmful. Of course, passage of an Equal Rights Amendment under Clinton is a real possibility; on the other hand, it is virtually assured that many innocent people will pay the price for her presidency with their lives in whatever foreign theaters she hopes to act out her "executive resolve." The value of human gain must always be weighed with the human costs which accompany them; this is the balance which power always strives to conceal.

Naturally, Clinton cannot be singled-out in the conquest for power, since this is what pursuing the presidency currently means. But it is worth underscoring the inevitable violence of power, especially so in instances where we perceive some likely benefit to ourselves -- in this case, having a woman as president. We do ourselves a disservice to ignore the full spectrum of probable outcomes of a Clinton presidency, whatever conclusions we finally draw from them.

Into the Wild

Chris McCandless left society in the early 1990's, ostensibly in protest of its modern dimensions. The resonance of his story, now over a decade old, persists because while many people identify in contemporary society a broad range of deficiencies, few modify their lives boldly enough to register the full depth of their objections. That McCandless was successful in this regard is doubtless a significant part of what has drawn audiences -- including those that documented his life -- into a sympathetic reading of his account.

McCandless's grievances with modern society were never articulated coherently so much as communicated through his lifestyle. To the extent that he employed a principled critique, he mostly derived it from naturalist writings of the 19th century, or moral philosophers from the same period, such as Tolstoy. Many of these writers extolled simple living in pastoral settings as a means of preserving independence against the dominant institutions of their time -- organized religion and the state, namely. These entities were viewed as unduly coercive at best, actively immoral at worst. The solution prescribed by these writers involved disengagement from mainstream society for the moral health of the individual and clearer discernment of "truth," though usually as a precondition for some alternate, sustainable kind of engagement with the world (as opposed to permanent seclusion).

It is possible to imagine a different outcome for McCandless had his rebellion been informed by different, or at least more varied, intellectual traditions. In one respect, this has to do with intrinsic limitations of 19th century naturalism as applied to late 20th century US society. Opportunities to "live off the land" are not what they may have been in Thoreau's day, when small farming was still a viable enterprise, and land, especially in remote regions, could be had for cheap (at least for those permitted to own it). This is why McCandless was more likely to wind up wandering a state park than anything else: they offer the greatest space for the least commitment, and are less prohibitive than private lands. However, that they also attract people invariably contributed to greater risk-taking in the pursuit of a "genuine" exchange with nature. Such risks would have been less necessary in the 1800's, when "the wild" could not yet be classified as a commodity, and therefore required no exotic undertaking to experience it.

Another consideration when evaluating the role naturalism played in the ultimate fate of McCandless is what drew him to it in the first place. While it is possible he was predisposed to a heightened appreciation for nature, the evidence suggests that McCandless's break with convention drew greater inspiration from his anger at forms of authority which were inducing distress in his personal life. Salient among these was his parents' unsolicited overtures to help administrate his post-graduate development, coupled with the homogenized, materialistic values that such an arrangement implied. McCandless responded to these pressures mainly through evasion, his flight from his family and their lifestyle probably being one of the most destructive options available to him, at least judged by its consequences for others -- arguably for himself, as well.

It is plausible that the fundamental reconciliation which McCandless sought in his wanderings had more to do with knowing how to engage with authority satisfactorily than objecting to modern life per se. Never living past his early 20's, he had not learned how to creatively respond to that which aggrieved him in a way that might also reinforce the relationships he valued. There is no clearer example of this than the equal treatment he dispensed toward his parents, whom he discounted, and his sister, whom he adored. Arguing that this was a necessity is only true under the assumption that McCandless couldn't have stood up to his parents openly, and then proceeded with his plans accordingly. But his reading of nature as a viable alternative to the problems inherent in human relationships created a disincentive to learn how to constructively address them. A different exposure might have led him to become a union organizer or poverty campaigner, civil rights activist and so on -- i.e., someone who confronts social ills without boycotting society. He also might have challenged his parents' presumptions about the kind of person he was meant to become. It will remain an open question what the outcome of such an approach could have been.

White House champions progressive taxation

While the Bush veto on expanded children's healthcare continues to stand unscathed, it is interesting to learn of the underlying motivations behind the White House position. I'm not referring here to the philosophical uneasiness among modern-day conservatives in using public money for public purposes -- what our president in this case calls "socialized medicine" -- though this reason is well known. It appears there may be some "compassionate conservatism" at play as well: The White House has opposed the means of funding the proposal, which would involve higher taxes on tobacco. Their reasoning? The taxation would be regressive, because poor people smoke in greater numbers than the affluent; as such, it would be an unfair burden for them to bear. Doubtless this is good news for poor smokers everywhere -- just so long as they don't smoke those cigs beneath any of our nation's bridges.

Ahmadinejad in NY

Iran's president spoke at Columbia University today, opening a sluice chute of supposed "controversy" over whether the event should be allowed to happen. My own feeling is that it is better to be speaking than bombing or shooting at each other; perhaps this is why the neo-conservatives who favor war with Iran are so upset with the event, as it does not directly further their cause. It is why they try so hard to generate controversy around the mere fact that he has come here to speak, since he is a figure they want to demonize.

An awful lot of the accusations employed against Ahmadinejad as a justification for war have little substance behind them. For one thing, the president is the highest elected official in the Iranian system, with powers that are limited to some domestic areas, not international affairs. He does not have control over the Iranian military, for example. This calls into question the relevance of what Ahmadinejad has to say about international concerns, Israel included, since he has no real authority on the subject; it also leaves accusations of "dictatorship" open to question, since Iran's president is at least directly elected (unlike the religious clerics who make the central decisions affecting the country) . These are things the neo-cons and other right-wingers invariably omit when they beat their drums for war.

It's also interesting to learn that Ahmadinejad was denied a visit to ground zero when Iran (along with many other countries) expressed sympathy with the US after 9/11, and the Iranian people held candlelight vigils for the victims.

Here is a transcript of the Columbia talk.

Nationalism and Culture

Just as "the will of God" has always been the will of the priests who transmitted it and interpreted it to the people, so "the will of the nation" could only be the will of those who happened to have the reigns of public power in their hands and were, consequently, in a position to transmit and interpret "the common will" in their own way. This phenomenon need not necessarily be traced to inherent hypocrisy. Much more reasonably can we in this instance speak of "deceived deceivers"; for the more deeply the enunciators of the national will are convinced of the sacredness of their mission, the more disastrous are the results springing from their inherent honesty. There is deep significance in Sorel's remark: "Robespierre took his part seriously, but his part was an artificial one."

-- Rudolf Rocker

On Politics

What's interesting about people's attitudes towards politics is that the same people who love things like The Matrix will take the blue pill when it comes to the "matrix" that surrounds them daily.

Who needs Al Qaeda when we can destroy our own infrastructure through the combined powers of war spending and neglect?

FT/Harris Poll: Public rejects "globalization"

Much hand-wringing must be underway in corporate PR offices around the world: Apparently, people are not happy with the way companies do business, nor do they trust or admire their executives, according to a recent poll.

According to the prevailing analysis, such attitudes are regrettable insofar as they leave the average citizen vulnerable to the "rhetoric" of "populist politicians." Such inversions of reality are common in instances where business has provoked the wrath of the general population: Unable to acknowledge any contradiction between private enrichment and social health, it is the political system which must be blamed. However, if democratic representation has any value, it is an odd argument which complains that politicians might abuse their constituents by adopting their position.

Letters from Iwo Jima

Most acclaimed war films already deal with the insanity and suffering of war; Letters from Iwo Jima tries to do it without seeming to know very much about the Japanese particulars that should carry the film -- thus offering viewers little more than a change of uniform. The subjects might as well have been Portugese; Eastwood never goes deeper than universal themes of familial ties and loyalty to country, saying nothing about what Japan was fighting for in a geopolitical sense, or how this narrative played itself out in the mind of the average Japanese soldier in periods of adversity -- all the more so in moments of despair.

A more masterful interpretation might have focused on the noble myths perpetuated by the Japanese state which persuaded decent people to commit great evil -- precisely by engendering in them the notion that it was good. This is also a universal feature of war, though wouldn't it have been fascinating to learn how it unfolded in a particular historical context -- such as the allied assault on Iwo Jima, from the perspective of the Japanese? Instead, we are treated to a string of Japanese-themed stereotypes, which, while probably true and relevant to the occasion, are nonetheless a little too familiar to American audiences to be the whole explanation here: The Japanese are duty-bound and subservient to authority -- hence the trouble they find themselves in at Iwo Jima.

For reasons like this, the screenwriting convinced me only of the author's familiarity with Japanese custom, not the historical specifics of the chosen setting (to say nothing of the political realities). Any kind of scholarship of the Japanese during WWII would have been welcomed in the development of this story; it might have taught many an interesting lesson about the varied dynamics at play in this unique setting, and lent authenticity to an otherwise banal approach.

"Reasoning" from the Scriptures

Into my possession has been delivered a item of great personal interest: an official Jehovah's Witness guide to doctrine and proselytization entitled Reasoning from the Scriptures. Already a fan of such underappreciated discards as The Watchtower and Awake! as found on any metro-Philly public transportation line, this was a welcome development. As with business and government publications, it is one thing to read what is written for general consumption and another to read what is written for people operating within a given institution.

I have always been impressed with the amount of research Witnesses bring to their publications. Not surprisingly, this is often scriptural in nature, but frequently extends to include the work of contemporary scholarship. General interest items such as those featured in Awake! regularly cite mainstream scientific and other expert sources, often with no obvious religious agenda.

Reasoning from the Scriptures is persuasively written and generously supported from a wide range of external sources. The text is organized by subject, and there are many -- everything from birthdays to government to sex. A section on evolution quotes text from Darwin and draws on scientific findings relating to the fossil record. Another chapter devoted to the "cross" consults the original Greek word, stauros, which has traditionally meant a stake or "upright pole," and suggests that today's popular symbol is not accurate in relation to the crucifixion of Christ (or anyone else in that period). This was news to me and of particular historical interest.

To its credit, Reasoning often concerns itself with basic questions of accuracy like these, doubtless fitting for a publication designed to bolster engagement with skeptical audiences. It opens with an introduction on usage, including How To Respond to Potential Conversation Stoppers, which includes sample dialogue. In all cases, the tone is respectful: for example, nowhere is it suggested that pressure or manipulation be employed to gain or keep an audience. Its motivating ethos seems to be that some people are more receptive to new information than others; what's important is communicating that information well when it is welcomed. This was an issue I was very curious about regarding Jehovah's Witnesses prior to reading this text, since their eccentricities are prone to confusion with the eccentricity of other not-well understood religious groups.

My only real grievance with the publication is the same one I maintain towards the religion as a whole, and this primarily relates to its distribution of concerns. For example, it is unconscionable to me in a Christian guidebook, apparently "comprehensive" in subject matter, that "poverty" somehow goes unmentioned. In this respect, Witnesses seem to place a heightened emphasis on some biblically-prescribed activities and concerns to the apparent exclusion of others. In itself, this is probably to be expected; for my part, I would tend to pay more attention to something like the Sermon on the Mount -- e.g., how my behavior affects others right now -- rather than worrying about the implications of Armageddon, which I don't think is very well understood by anyone, to put it mildly.

Witnesses seem centrally concerned with the role that preaching played in the life of Jesus, and to that end I think they do an admirable job. Unfortunately, until they start talking more about the responsibilities we have towards one another as articulated in the Gospel vs. the end of the world and getting some real estate in heaven, it will be hard for me to relate to their basic mission.

Some notes on Donnie Davies's "The Bible Says": Why it is fake, why it is funny.

Watch this video and permit me to register my feelings on...

Why it is fake:

Apparently the authenticity of this video and its author has sparked some debate on the "internets." My hypothesis is that it is fake, for the following reasons. None of these stand as conclusive proof of fakery, though, so beware.

1. He's not playing the guitar. I understand that's not necessary (indeed, common) in music videos, but the fact that Donnie Davies neither strums in anything resembling a plausible rhythm, nor appears capable of forming chords should warrant an explanation.

2. He's wearing an unbuttoned pink shirt, is purposelessly mustachioed, and in "other ways" completes the perfect parody of himself.

3. The lyrics are rife with double entendres: "Read the bible/you'll be sure/to enter heaven/there's no backdoor"; "Righteous man/get on your knees***/there lies no virtue/in sodomy"; "Jesus, my saviour, is the only man for me"

4. Inexplicably poor songwriting, even by the standards of Christian fundamentalism: After singing "God Hates Fags" three times in the refrain, it was thought necessary to add, "If you're a fag, [God] hates you too" though this qualification imparts no new information.

5. Donnie Davies' website -- for instance, his program CHOPS: "Changing Homosexuals into Ordinary People" (see http://www.lovegodsway.org/C.H.O.P.S.) -- features no credible contact info or external reference for verification purposes.

Why it is funny:

My wife tells me it isn't, but that's only because she hasn't paid enough attention to THIS:

1. The expression on Donnie Davies' face when he sings "sodomy."

Amen,

Ryan

Support for Bush

It's at an all time low, and descending. At this point any support -- even an athletic support -- would go a long way towards helping the president's cause in Iraq.

Foley

So far, all that's been proven is that Foley is gay and he sent lurid emails to a kid. Somehow, this seems to be enough to warrant abstaining from voting for the members of the entire republican party. ... Torture, Constitutional challenges, the Iraq War, and the 9/11 commission report are all issues that have gone on for years...and somehow Foley is the biggest news to come out.

Often neither party benefits from discussing relevant policy issues because their positions are too unpopular with the public, and changing positions would threaten the support of their financiers. So they appeal to voters through non-policy considerations like "character" or "values" -- whether you actually earned your war medals, and so on. It seems a lot of energy goes into this by the mutual consent of both parties, as a way of concealing what they actually stand for: They're more comfortable playing a game of character assassination with each other than talking about their policies in public. Unless people organize around issues that concern them and force their representatives to respond, this kind of thing seems to be the status quo of political campaigns.

Just as an example, initiatives that enjoy the overwhelming support of the public -- like universal healthcare -- will never gain any traction in either party unless politicians feel they can afford to support it -- meaning the public is so mobilized on the issue they constitute a sufficient counterweight to the political influence and financial backing of the HMO's, insurance industry, pharmaceuticals and other private interests that directly profit from the current healthcare mess.

To the Financial Times:

Jacob Weisberg's defense of Bush administration policy leading up to the current Arab-Israeli crisis seems ill-timed ("One bout for which Bush is not to blame," July 20). Whether the US could have done something differently to prevent the conflict seems far less important than what it might do now to stop it: for example, supporting a ceasefire instead of obstructing it. Pressuring Israel to end its campaign in southern Lebanon might save hundreds of innocent lives; by the FT's own numbers ("Lebanon has worst day as 58 die in raids", July 20) this remains true regardless of how Hizbollah responds. In defense of the most vulnerable, all sides must be called upon to stop; but this will not realistically happen while the US and Israel stand in the way.

Evangelicals in San Francisco

The evangelicals message is not a loving, accepting one (dripping with irony that they do it in Jesus' name), but have you seen some of the signs that the gay counter-protesters had or heard any of their chants?

This story seems typical of the "culture clash" variety, where the fact that people with different views enter into conflict and "do the darndest things" is hyped as if some sort of real transgression occurred, or evidence that one side (i.e., the one you already disagree with) was somehow out of bounds. Yes, people behave badly, say mean things, and are perhaps not as tolerant of each other as they should be; but since none of these things are illegal or unconstitutional, there isn't much of a story here other than the fact that gays don't mix with evangelicals. Go figure.

SFGate.com

The American Iraq Debate

Iraqis favor a greater UN role in resolving the situation as it stands, and I think probably just about everyone else in the world does too, including most Americans -- or at least they would if it were presented to them as an option. The problem is that it hasn't: American intellectuals have done a masterful job framing the Iraq question as a debate between themselves, with plenty of soul-searching on and heated exchanges over what to do now, as though their near-total failure thusfar has only earned them greater authority on the future of the nation. But the question shouldn't be left to the Americans to decide, at least not exclusively, as Iraq is not their country.

Clemency for the CCP

Unlike the Soviet Union, the Chinese Communist Party has brokered deals with the West permitting access to markets and resources still under heavy regulation by the central government. This has generated large revenues for the negotiating parties -- the CCP, Chinese industrialists, and foreign investors -- but has left questions about democracy and human rights for the population-at-large unanswered.

The Iraq/Wife-beating Analogy

With regard to [the] wife-beating analogy, it's funny because I've also thought this in the same terms, though I would frame it differently as I think it can be broken down into much simpler issues:

If someone is beating their wife, should the already-established community norms for dealing with this sort of thing--i.e., calling the police--be used; or should the most heavily-armed neighbor (who coincidentally believes he has the best ideas about how to run a household) independently decide to take the law into his own hands and "liberate" the woman from her husband by force because, in his opinion, the police aren't effective?

After all, who is going to say the neighborhood isn't better off without the wife-beater?

Cultivating the "Business-friendly" Environment

Guy de Jonquières in today's Financial Times

Business-friendly autocrats promise several things that managers and investors prize highly -- above all, stability. A western investment banker bent on expanding in China told me recently that his greatest worry about the country was not its shaky financial system, rampant corruption or risk of an economic downturn: it was the uncertainty that would ensue if the Communist party lost power.

In Indonesia, one of businesses' biggest complaints after the overthrow of the Suharto dictatorship in 1998 was that ... they were no longer sure who to bribe or how much to pay.

More Republifun: On Hamas

The more likely long term result of an Hamas government is the utter destruction of the Palestinian people. Israel has the means to prevent its own destruction and will severely punish an enemy that so flagrantly boasts about destroying Israel.

I'm encouraged that you recognize the fundamental power deficit enjoyed by the Palestinian people vis-a-vis the Israeli state. You object to the Hamas program because, in your view, it advocates the destruction of Israel. Whether or not this is an accurate summary of their position, I certainly agree with you that it is wrong. However, even if it were true--again, your central concern here--you acknowledge that the chances of this happening are unlikely. Again, I agree. Much more likely, as you point out, is the continued destruction of the Palestinian people at the hands of their much more powerful occupiers, who, in fact, are already in the position of managing their destruction. Surely you agree that actual crimes take precedent over hypothetical ones which have little to no chance of success, as you have said. Then it follows that a moral response is to turn one's attention to those being destroyed, rather than monitoring their reactions for impolite rhetoric which you can then hold up as further justification for their destruction.

NeoCons Admit Being Wrong on Iraq, But Who Needs Convincing?

Andrew Sullivan in 2003.

Andrew Sullivan now.

(Andrew has learned a "tough lesson," though "tougher for those tens of thousands of dead, innocent Iraqis and several thousand killed and injured American soldiers." Too bad he didn't think of that earlier: it doesn't exactly take a fortune-teller to predict that modern warfare in urban areas will produce thousands of innocent casualties of precisely the sort of folk he claimed to be "liberating"; though perhaps not being there, nor being Iraqi, old man Sullivan felt comfortable he was making the correct decision for them. Thanks, Andy, for being such a trusty friend to your newfound corpsely companions.)

More melancholy musings at The Independent (via The Angry Arab News Service).

It Would Be Neat If You Were Smart

It kills me that in much American analysis of Iraq, no matter how critical, the neo-con objective of spreading goodness throughout the world is somehow taken at face value. Criticism invariably turns to how "freedom," etc., can most effectively be doled out, particularly in terms of dollar costs (though American lives are important too); or can goodness can be spread to others at all: How many columns has Tom Friedman written pleading with Iraqis that they might stand up and make our occupation successful? (I don't know myself: I don't consider paying the New York Times money for what was previously free an especially attractive deal for "younger people" such as myself, though I have heard NYT staff make the pitch.) Now that we've destroyed their infrastructure and invited destabilization into the society, Tom Friedman wants to know why the Iraqis haven't taken their lack of water and electricity and run with it.

There is nothing "neo-" about being baldly interventionist, nor is there anything "neo-" about casting it in humanistic terms; these must be among the most ubiquitous conventions in all of human history--right up there with sex and pooping. Yet anyone who argues that their motivation for copulation is "Wilsonian idealism," or that the "meal of freedom will produce no waste" when one's buttocks are deployed over Baghdad, will be rightly deemed suspect without very compelling evidence, or at least a doctor's note--two things American commentators seem content to do without.

Chomsky's Vacation

Noam Chomsky has often commented that he is "waiting for the world to go away" before he can [insert carefree recreational activity here]. I have interpreted this to mean "death will be a welcome reprieve from having to debate people like Bill Bennett and Alan Dershowitz," though I could be wrong. It may simply underscore that Christopher Hitchens is a jackass, as everything that Chomsky says implicitly does.

Ports and other Foreign Ownership

from Nouriel Roubini's Blog

The current political saga and debate about the purchase by a Dubai-based company of the management of six US ports misses the most crucial point: with a US current account deficit running towards $900b this year and probably above one trillion $ next year, in a matter of a few years foreigners may end up owning most of the U.S. capital stocks: ports, factories, corporations, land, real estate and even our national parks. This is basic accounting: if you run a current account deficit (import more than export, spend more than your income, save less than you invest) you need to borrow from the rest of the world to finance such excess of spending (on private and public consumption and investment) over your national income.

White House on Abu Ghraib: "We took kinky gay sex to the enemy, so it wouldn't happen here."

Also in the headlines:

Bay-area BDSM enthusiasts "scared straight."

Blowback: Brokeback Mountain; "How could it happen here?"

Freedom of the Press Secretaries


Scott McClellan on torture at Abu Ghraib

That's the difference between the United States and some countries in the world that systematically engage in torture. When we find abuses or atrocities like that, we show the world that people are held to account; we show the world that we take these matters seriously, and we take steps to prevent that from happening ever again.

McClellan later explained that because Al Qaeda are "trained to provide false information," he feared the outsourcing of the press secretary position to terrorists.

Guess who's back?

Reflection

It seems to me that when somebody demonstrates a consistent inability to handle firearms responsibly, you take their guns away.

Below: US-Iraq relations, 2003-present.

Freedom of Provocation

It's not hard to understand the anger felt by many Muslims these days. If somebody published a series of cartoons depicting myself as being independently wealthy, socially magnanimous and great in the sack, you can well be sure a firebomb or two would be lobbed from the ex-girlfriend camp.

A Friend in War

from The New York Times

The president did not use the National Guard speech to defend the surveillance program undertaken by the National Security Agency since he took office. But he did defend his general anti-terrorist policies in several ways.

He said, for example, that his "aggressive strategy of bringing the war to the terrorists" had not cost the United States international support but, rather, had enhanced America's standing. A shining example is Pakistan, he said.

"A little over four years ago, Pakistan was only one of three countries in the world that recognized the Taliban regime in Afghanistan," Mr. Bush said. "Today, Pakistan forces are risking their lives in the hunt for Al Qaeda."

...Mr. Bush praised President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan for remaining a United States ally despite threats on his life.

Here President Musharraf is shown with some of the decorations bestowed on him by President Bush for risking his life in the hunt for Al Qaeda.