Classic bit of honesty from the Democrats. That party obviously does an excellent job of deceiving the American public into thinking that they offer some kind of alternative to their closely related brethren in the Republican party. This comes from the hearings on confirming John Bolton as ambassador to the U.N.
U.S. Senator Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT) — "My objection isn't that he's a bully, but that he's been an ineffective bully ..."
This just sums up well what interests the U.S. political party serves and what their intent is. To have delusions that one of the two factions of this party might offer anything but crass support for U.S. imperialist policy reflects either naivete or dishonesty.
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Definition of Self Defense
Just so everyone is clear on the concept, genocide is not self defense. If someone attacks your person and you defend yourself, that is self defense. If someone invades your home and you use force to remove them from your home, that is self defense.
Although that seems pretty simple and straightforward, many people like to repeat arguments that fail to grasp this simple concept. If you and your friends go into a house, kick out the residents, and then start firing at the legal owners when they try to reenter, that is NOT self defense. If you start throwing bombs over the fence at your neighbor, that is NOT self defense. If you just up and build a new fence halfway through your neighbor's yard while they are away at work, you can expect them to tear it down when they come home at the end of the day. Attacking them for doing so is NOT self defense.
Although I expect the U.S. and Israeli governments to spout this malarkey, please don't repeat it ... it's an insult to the intelligence of us all. When Israel attacks infrastructure and ambulances, that is not to cut off supply lines but to terrorize a population. Israel has infamous special ops that have openly carried out assassinations, so why are we to believe that mass barbarism is acceptable? When an entire region of people, to the tune of millions, is displaced from their homes out of fear for their lives, the invading army responsible is the terrorist organization. Hezbollah, as backward as they are, are a result of Israeli policy against the Lebanese population ... to condemn them, you must first condemn the nation and system that brought them into existence.
If a man takes a woman prisoner and keeps her locked in a room, raping her every day and starving her half to death, what would you think? If that woman, using the last bit of her strength, kicks the man in the balls, is that fighting dirty? When he then beats her unconscious, is he acting in self defense?
Although that seems pretty simple and straightforward, many people like to repeat arguments that fail to grasp this simple concept. If you and your friends go into a house, kick out the residents, and then start firing at the legal owners when they try to reenter, that is NOT self defense. If you start throwing bombs over the fence at your neighbor, that is NOT self defense. If you just up and build a new fence halfway through your neighbor's yard while they are away at work, you can expect them to tear it down when they come home at the end of the day. Attacking them for doing so is NOT self defense.
Although I expect the U.S. and Israeli governments to spout this malarkey, please don't repeat it ... it's an insult to the intelligence of us all. When Israel attacks infrastructure and ambulances, that is not to cut off supply lines but to terrorize a population. Israel has infamous special ops that have openly carried out assassinations, so why are we to believe that mass barbarism is acceptable? When an entire region of people, to the tune of millions, is displaced from their homes out of fear for their lives, the invading army responsible is the terrorist organization. Hezbollah, as backward as they are, are a result of Israeli policy against the Lebanese population ... to condemn them, you must first condemn the nation and system that brought them into existence.
If a man takes a woman prisoner and keeps her locked in a room, raping her every day and starving her half to death, what would you think? If that woman, using the last bit of her strength, kicks the man in the balls, is that fighting dirty? When he then beats her unconscious, is he acting in self defense?
Monday, July 24, 2006
The Inevitable Shrinking Middle Class
There was a nice article in today's L.A. Times entitled That Raise Might Take 4 Years to Earn as Well. Now, not only are blue-collar workers facing wage stagnation, but so is the "middle class." Of course, stagnation is an improper term, since things are getting worse, not staying the same. I put "middle class" in quotes because this is a manipulative term used in the U.S. press and by economists to avoid a real definition of class.
The guy getting spotlighted says it well, "Nothing else was going down except wages." Our economic boom is rumbling over not just the people at the bottom, but even those in the middle. This just seems like common sense, since you can only depress wages against the workers as the bottom for so long before they spread to other sectors of the population. Anyone at all familiar with Marxism is also aware of the shrinking middle class as a feature of capitalism.
Another gem is from a fellow at the Economic Policy Institute, "The administration is saying the only reason people are not sharing in the recovery is they don't have the right skills." People on the ground know this is a lie, but it is nice to see the statistics bear it out.
Of course, the article then blames outsourcing overseas. These are great emotional statements that work to stir people up against the wrong problem (most analysis of this issue are anecdotal and miss many aspects of the problem). The article does hint at part of the real problem, that corporations work to push more and more work on people and more of it down onto lower wage and skill categories. This is precisely one reason why a shrinking middle class is inevitable under this economic system.
The other issue they touch on is the notion of an "over-educated" population. This is such a wonderful condemnation of our society ... the notion that we might be over-educated. Our society is so bankrupt that it cannot use people's intellectual capacity, and in fact sees it as a burden. We have the greatest productive capacity in history and face innumerable problems that might be solved if people actually had the time and resources to work on them, yet "we" are over-educated. It certainly gives some additional insight into our deteriorating school system.
The guy getting spotlighted says it well, "Nothing else was going down except wages." Our economic boom is rumbling over not just the people at the bottom, but even those in the middle. This just seems like common sense, since you can only depress wages against the workers as the bottom for so long before they spread to other sectors of the population. Anyone at all familiar with Marxism is also aware of the shrinking middle class as a feature of capitalism.
Another gem is from a fellow at the Economic Policy Institute, "The administration is saying the only reason people are not sharing in the recovery is they don't have the right skills." People on the ground know this is a lie, but it is nice to see the statistics bear it out.
Of course, the article then blames outsourcing overseas. These are great emotional statements that work to stir people up against the wrong problem (most analysis of this issue are anecdotal and miss many aspects of the problem). The article does hint at part of the real problem, that corporations work to push more and more work on people and more of it down onto lower wage and skill categories. This is precisely one reason why a shrinking middle class is inevitable under this economic system.
The other issue they touch on is the notion of an "over-educated" population. This is such a wonderful condemnation of our society ... the notion that we might be over-educated. Our society is so bankrupt that it cannot use people's intellectual capacity, and in fact sees it as a burden. We have the greatest productive capacity in history and face innumerable problems that might be solved if people actually had the time and resources to work on them, yet "we" are over-educated. It certainly gives some additional insight into our deteriorating school system.
Friday, July 21, 2006
And in North Korea ...
There's never a shortage of FUD in any given issue of the daily paper. Quick rule of thumb to find FUD is to read an article about any nation the current U.S. administration has differences with. Today's example: U.S. Pursuing Talks With 4 Nations on N. Korea.
The most obvious FUD, or FUD semi-retraction actually, is that Christopher Hill, a State Department spokesman, said he could not confirm that Iranian officials had witnessed the recent missile testing. The great thing about these tactics, and why they are used so often, is that all you have to do it put it out there (true or not) and then retract it later. The L.A. Times adds to this by placing the article right next to an article about Iran (another subject of heavy FUD in the U.S. press).
The article has a number of other lies and half-truths. For example, "the North Koreans don't seem to want to go to six-party meetings right now." It also labels this as a "boycott." This is a half-truth. The North Koreans are willing to engage in talks, but the U.S. has been foot-dragging. Oh yeah, and there are those sanctions the U.S. has on North Korean. One reasonable explanation for the missile tests is actually that they were a means of forcing talks to reconvene, since the U.S. was clearly trying to line up all of the other six parties against North Korea. In particular, China was invited in May to watch U.S. joint military exercises. As North Korea's largest ally, this was a strong indication of further isolation.
What is funny is that North Korea has been asking for two-party talks from the get-go. So, statements by Hill that the "U.S. would have no problem with one-on-one contact with Pyongyang on the sidelines of six-nation negotiations" are evading. The U.S. really wants to get its allies and others in the region to do the work, and particularly to pay the cost. The U.S. is the one who doesn't want to "torpedo" the six-party talks.
In the end, the U.S. state line is that North Koreans "pride themselves on being opaque" and that's what the media regurgitates. Why can the U.S. push this line? Because the media never talks about the details of North Korea unless it is backed by a U.S. policy. I've studied Korean history, and I have to say that nothing here seems opaque to me. North Korea is acting in a rational manner given its situation.
It is an interesting situation now. Of the six parties, there are three factions. North and South Korea obviously don't want war and don't want the North to suffer, but instead move toward something like reunification on a basis that won't devastate either economy too much. China and Russia as semi-neutral; they don't want war or complete deprivation, but have totally different interests. And then you have the U.S. and Japan who are clearly hostile to North Korea.
Japan is interesting here, since that nation is clearly trying to expand its military and get rid of its constitutional prohibition on warfare. But, under Bush's definition of self-defense, Japan could claim justification in participating in a war against North Korea even with that restriction. I don't think a war is likely at this point (initial estimates are that something like 100,000 people would die in the first week of a war between the U.S. and North Korea). Really, South Koreans are the only ones in a position to head things in a positive direction, but if they had the resources to do it alone things would be better off already.
One thing I'd love to see is a good, neutral timeline of events for North Korean-U.S. relations over the last decade or so. Every one I've come across online is biases toward U.S. foreign policy aims.
The most obvious FUD, or FUD semi-retraction actually, is that Christopher Hill, a State Department spokesman, said he could not confirm that Iranian officials had witnessed the recent missile testing. The great thing about these tactics, and why they are used so often, is that all you have to do it put it out there (true or not) and then retract it later. The L.A. Times adds to this by placing the article right next to an article about Iran (another subject of heavy FUD in the U.S. press).
The article has a number of other lies and half-truths. For example, "the North Koreans don't seem to want to go to six-party meetings right now." It also labels this as a "boycott." This is a half-truth. The North Koreans are willing to engage in talks, but the U.S. has been foot-dragging. Oh yeah, and there are those sanctions the U.S. has on North Korean. One reasonable explanation for the missile tests is actually that they were a means of forcing talks to reconvene, since the U.S. was clearly trying to line up all of the other six parties against North Korea. In particular, China was invited in May to watch U.S. joint military exercises. As North Korea's largest ally, this was a strong indication of further isolation.
What is funny is that North Korea has been asking for two-party talks from the get-go. So, statements by Hill that the "U.S. would have no problem with one-on-one contact with Pyongyang on the sidelines of six-nation negotiations" are evading. The U.S. really wants to get its allies and others in the region to do the work, and particularly to pay the cost. The U.S. is the one who doesn't want to "torpedo" the six-party talks.
In the end, the U.S. state line is that North Koreans "pride themselves on being opaque" and that's what the media regurgitates. Why can the U.S. push this line? Because the media never talks about the details of North Korea unless it is backed by a U.S. policy. I've studied Korean history, and I have to say that nothing here seems opaque to me. North Korea is acting in a rational manner given its situation.
It is an interesting situation now. Of the six parties, there are three factions. North and South Korea obviously don't want war and don't want the North to suffer, but instead move toward something like reunification on a basis that won't devastate either economy too much. China and Russia as semi-neutral; they don't want war or complete deprivation, but have totally different interests. And then you have the U.S. and Japan who are clearly hostile to North Korea.
Japan is interesting here, since that nation is clearly trying to expand its military and get rid of its constitutional prohibition on warfare. But, under Bush's definition of self-defense, Japan could claim justification in participating in a war against North Korea even with that restriction. I don't think a war is likely at this point (initial estimates are that something like 100,000 people would die in the first week of a war between the U.S. and North Korea). Really, South Koreans are the only ones in a position to head things in a positive direction, but if they had the resources to do it alone things would be better off already.
One thing I'd love to see is a good, neutral timeline of events for North Korean-U.S. relations over the last decade or so. Every one I've come across online is biases toward U.S. foreign policy aims.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
What's Israel's Reach?
As the L.A. Times continues to cover the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in the same lop-sided manner as everyone else in the U.S. media, they ran a graphic today of Hezbollah's reach. In this graphic, they depict the different kinds of missiles that MAY be at Hezbollah's disposal and their ranges should Hezbollah be able to fire from the heavily guarded Israeli border. They also focus on the fact that these are missiles produced in Iran.
About the Iran issue. Apparently, the U.S. and Israel are the only countries allowed to sell arms to other countries and groups. The press has been full of unsubstantiated statements and inferences about Syria and Iran's connection to Hezbollah, and this is yet another one of them. The press certainly doesn't condemn allied dictators for using weapons against innocent people when they use arms produced by the U.S. or Israel (Israel apparently arms much of Africa).
This graphic is pure FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt). There are missiles listed that have not been fired by Hezbollah. Furthermore, there is no reliable intelligence to say that they even own some of these missiles.
It is also interesting that, at least in the version of the graphic in front of me, Lebanon is not depicted as a country! It has a label, but it seems to be floating over the Mediterranean without any cities or borders. Is this just a subliminal message about Israel's intent?
But the main thing I want to ask is: What is Israel's reach? This is not the first time the L.A. Times has run a graphic of Hezbollah's military capacity, but I've yet to see them show Israel's. Let's have a full listing of their missile capacity. Let's also see their helicopter and airplane reach, since – unlike Hezbollah –– they have a very well-equipped air force that they are using to terrorize thLebanesese population and destroy their infrastructure. Also, Israel has nuclear weapons. What is their reach? What countries are within the reach of Israel's nukes?
In any case, this is yet another good example of the "Freedom of the Press" and how unbiased U.S. newspapers are. Hey, maybe they aren't printing the Israeli information because it would just be too big to fit on the page?
About the Iran issue. Apparently, the U.S. and Israel are the only countries allowed to sell arms to other countries and groups. The press has been full of unsubstantiated statements and inferences about Syria and Iran's connection to Hezbollah, and this is yet another one of them. The press certainly doesn't condemn allied dictators for using weapons against innocent people when they use arms produced by the U.S. or Israel (Israel apparently arms much of Africa).
This graphic is pure FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt). There are missiles listed that have not been fired by Hezbollah. Furthermore, there is no reliable intelligence to say that they even own some of these missiles.
It is also interesting that, at least in the version of the graphic in front of me, Lebanon is not depicted as a country! It has a label, but it seems to be floating over the Mediterranean without any cities or borders. Is this just a subliminal message about Israel's intent?
But the main thing I want to ask is: What is Israel's reach? This is not the first time the L.A. Times has run a graphic of Hezbollah's military capacity, but I've yet to see them show Israel's. Let's have a full listing of their missile capacity. Let's also see their helicopter and airplane reach, since – unlike Hezbollah –– they have a very well-equipped air force that they are using to terrorize thLebanesese population and destroy their infrastructure. Also, Israel has nuclear weapons. What is their reach? What countries are within the reach of Israel's nukes?
In any case, this is yet another good example of the "Freedom of the Press" and how unbiased U.S. newspapers are. Hey, maybe they aren't printing the Israeli information because it would just be too big to fit on the page?
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Bush is Not Stupid
Ever since the election in 2000, many people on the left has liked to call Bush stupid. It comes in many forms, but many a comedian has made a name for themselves by poking fun at the seeming idiocies of George W. Bush. This, of course, gets turned around by Bush and his supporters, as a demonstration of "liberal elitism" ... and they aren't wrong.
This has been a rather powerful tool. It allows people to claim that something was done because Bush is stupid, rather than seeing (or admitting) that Bush and his advisors are consciously pushing a particular policy. But this is a tool. Bush is consciously mis-speaking, consciously presenting himself as a bit of a buffoon ... or rather, presenting himself as being just like the "common man."
On that note, and this is something I've been telling people but didn't have a link to provide, a friend passed along this clip:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1342132664644484246&sourceid=igoogle
I disagree with the editor's conclusion. Bush is not senile. He is a politician and, like marketing gurus, an expert in presentinghimself to the public. This video, rather than showing senility, shows that Bush made a conscious decision between 1994 and 2000 to shift his image. It is an act and a policy.
Back to the issue of "liberal elitism." This tactic of Bush's is actually quite ingenious. What it does is drive a wedge between "liberal" intellectuals and workers. The intellectuals, by making fun of Bush in this manner, are making fun of working people. There are many workers who do in fact make the verbal stumbles that Bush so deftly imitates; and who can doubt why, given the state of education in the United States. While these workers may not align themselves with Bush, the intellectuals by their actions push them away. This at a time when what is needed are intellectuals who can play a role in real left politics and discussion.
This has been a rather powerful tool. It allows people to claim that something was done because Bush is stupid, rather than seeing (or admitting) that Bush and his advisors are consciously pushing a particular policy. But this is a tool. Bush is consciously mis-speaking, consciously presenting himself as a bit of a buffoon ... or rather, presenting himself as being just like the "common man."
On that note, and this is something I've been telling people but didn't have a link to provide, a friend passed along this clip:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1342132664644484246&sourceid=igoogle
I disagree with the editor's conclusion. Bush is not senile. He is a politician and, like marketing gurus, an expert in presentinghimself to the public. This video, rather than showing senility, shows that Bush made a conscious decision between 1994 and 2000 to shift his image. It is an act and a policy.
Back to the issue of "liberal elitism." This tactic of Bush's is actually quite ingenious. What it does is drive a wedge between "liberal" intellectuals and workers. The intellectuals, by making fun of Bush in this manner, are making fun of working people. There are many workers who do in fact make the verbal stumbles that Bush so deftly imitates; and who can doubt why, given the state of education in the United States. While these workers may not align themselves with Bush, the intellectuals by their actions push them away. This at a time when what is needed are intellectuals who can play a role in real left politics and discussion.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
