08.29.06

Seen and not Heard

Posted in Politics, Current Events, Governance at 8:05 pm by diantus

Since the very beginning of his government, I have felt that George Bush’s near total ineptitude with the English language has been a national embarrassment.  It is completely unacceptable for a president, the representative of American interests at home and abroad to have the communication skills of a twelve year old.  Major American news outlets should not be able to assemble entire segments to debate the issue of a leader’s mental competence (watch the video).  I am tempted to settle this by saying “shame on you America,” since I never understood how someone whose greatest skill is soliciting pity for the trouncing he receiving at the hands of his debate partners. 

A talented speaker can mean so much.  I might have disliked Reagan’s policy, but at least it didn’t cringe every time I heard the man speak.  I have to read Bush in transcript form, where they edit out the mistakes and sometimes the content.  This means that my assessment of this president is based on generally polished versions of what he says.  Since he still offends me to the level that he does, he must be that much worse live.

            With this in mind, can we really be surprised when a foreign leader finally calls him out.  The president of Iran, has challenged Bush Jr. to a debate (link).  The administration will, of course, ignore this call, citing political tensions (hopefully) or cowboy bravado (likely).  The sad part is that Bush would lose in such a debate against a sycophantic religious nutjob like Iran’s president, because he is incapable of expressing himself and likely has an incomplete understanding of the issues (as it seems does the US media).

            While I’m sure we could go back and forth over who is a less pleasant and more dangerous leader – certainly longer than I would like to admit, Bush is the leader of the free world and has the moral high ground against tyrannical Iran by virtue of the country he leads.  A democracy is always preferable to an out and out dictatorship, and religious fundamentalism is never preferable to anything.  While George Bush is an unapologetic fundamentalist, he at least needs to pretend to have a concern for individual liberty by virtue of the individual liberties that America still affords us.

            Mr. Ahmadinejad is charismatic and well-spoken.  While you may be correct in agreeing with nothing he says, he would debate our president into the ground, and it would be a horrible embarrassment to all of us.  Even when surrounded by the sometimes difficult accents of other foreign leaders, our president manages to sacrifice all wit and linguistic depth that English has to offer.  The inability to communicate is the single unforgivable sin in politics and for good reason.

            To be a politician, your most important job is to communicate.  Being brilliant helps, but if you cannot get your ideas across in a digestible and sophisticated manner that can be appreciated by specialists and laymen alike, you are rightly doomed.  What use is President Bush as a diplomat?  What possible role does he have in addressing the nation?  Reagan was a monster, but he was a charismatic monster, Al Gore showed us that all the brains in the world couldn’t save you from the incomprehension of the babbling masses – you needed panache.  FDR, perhaps the greatest statesman in American history, was a great communicator, followed closely by Bill Clinton, whose razor sharp understanding of policy and politics was matched only by the depth of his speechmaking.  It is the greatest irony that George W. admires Churchill as much as he does (Link) – and Churchill was as powerful a public presence as he was (even in black and white).

            No, there is no forgiving Americans our tolerance of this clown to whom we have given our collective voice.  If George is really the voice of the nation, it is time to cut out our tongues.

08.24.06

Staring Down the Winds of Change

Posted in Theory, Politics at 8:07 pm by diantus

Politics is a funny business.  In the realm of theory, it straddles this place somewhere between science and ethics.  Like sociology, it forces us to evaluate our behaviors and how to manage the whole of a society’s interests into a cohesive and functional whole.  It is especially true of the American left that they don’t like being told that there are fixed rules to the way people will behave.  The trouble is that the evidence is increasingly starting to suggest that human beings do follow certain laws and trends, and that the various regulations imposed on our behavior might not be the best route to creating a political and social structure that best allows for human flourishing.  In fact, the very idea that there may be inborn differences between us is a painful one that can lead a person down a very slippery slope indeed.

            With this in mind, I would like to illustrate the question of political opinion and fact by calling your attention to the recent demotion of Pluto from planet to dwarf. 

At first I was upset.  My whole life had seen nine planets in my local system, and the idea of more was enticing.  I saw it as a broadening of the cosmopolitan nature of our solar system.  Getting another planet was like putting an upscale coffee shop in a small town.  It made me feel more like we were a bigger part of the galactic neighborhood: “visit Earth… we have ten planets!” 

Then they killed Pluto.  I mean, it really is just a ball of ice making its way haphazardly around the solar system, and threatening to bump into Neptune, with its respectable circular sensibilities.  Pluto was that mysterious rebel outsider – elliptical and misshapen.  Sure is had a moon, but its diameter is comparable to the distance one would have to travel in order to get from LA to New York.  That is, if it were actually round, which it isn’t.  What kind of moon could this puny stellar body have anyways?  After reviewing the evidence, astronomers the world over concluded that Pluto didn’t really qualify as a planet and had to be stripped of that title.  Or else we wind up calling everything a planet.

It is really hard to think of our solar system as only having eight planets in it.  It is kind of tricky to know that our understanding of our universe could be so wrong about such a fundamental feature for over a century.  But I am relieved that the weight of history and tradition did not stop the scientific inquiry from making adjustments when a previously held assumption proved false.  It gives me hope for politics.

After all, politics is effectively the study of how governments and societies work.  It, like astronomy, makes assumptions about the way the universe functions.  These assumptions are largely based upon historical examples and existing precedent.  Its predictions come from already tested theory, and its laws are few and flexible. 

Politics is also notoriously slow to change.  While Pluto may be millions of miles away and of no real bearing on our day to day lives, Washington is close by.  People are dying in Iraq today, and North Korea is threatening nuclear holocaust tomorrow.  Astronomy has the luxury of being able to take a long time in its deliberations.  It will take an earthborn probe over nine years to reach Pluto.  An ICBM could hit New York or Tehran in under ten minutes – all as a result of the theories and assumptions made by distant politicians.  It is unfortunate that when subjected to the horrendous pressures that politics can subject our leaders and thinkers to, the best answers that they are willing to give are the ones that we already have.  We choose not to move anywhere because the stakes all seem to loom so large.

Genuine and positive political change will come only when we scholars and you politicians decided that the time has come to re-evaluate our Plutos.

08.22.06

In Defense of the American Farmer

Posted in Politics, Current Events at 5:06 pm by diantus

As should be clear to even the most casual observer, the west has an ever increasing apprehension concerning terrorism and globalization.  More then simply terrorism, the outbreak of fighting in the Lebanon has heightened fears of state-sponsored terrorism.  When nations like Iran, who control huge oil reserves, threaten wage a low intensity economic war against the west by artificially limiting supply it only contributes to growing fears and a general feeling of helplessness.  Never in American history has so much of our attention and energy been focused on our inability to face down an enemy who is willing to give everything to destroy us.  Nevertheless, modern terrorism is impossible to understand without including in one’s analysis an understanding of global interdependence, and neither is the American backlash against the world.

            It is perhaps with this in mind that politicians have become increasingly interested in the notion of self reliance.  It is an intriguing notion really.  After spending the better part of the last forty years encouraging the world to be more open to global trade, there is this sudden push to retreat and find clever ways to reduce our dependence on the outside world.  Maybe that’s what Ken Salazar had in mind when he decided to make the drafting of an upcoming farm bill into a national security issue.  His fear is that without the massive subsidies that the federal government dumps on farmers, the United States is likely to become hostage to those nations from where it imports food.  Which is the stupidest notion that I have ever heard.

            First of all, the age of national self-reliance is dead.  Especially in the United States where our consumption far outstrips our ability to produce.  We will always need to import oil, steel, and bananas.  To say nothing of manufactured goods, which account for the lion’s share of US imports.  Salazar has failed to grasp some very simple concepts or to do his homework on the issue.  Agricultural imports account for about fifty percent of domestic consumption, and of that, almost twenty-five percent are non-competitive items like bananas and rubber.  Agricultural tariffs in the US are quite high, and subsidies to farmers are such that over-production and wastage are pretty serious issues.

            In the end, the developed west produces more food than it needs and the neurotic protection of its domestic producers is one of the biggest blocks to furthering global economic integration at its current stage.  The most recent set of trade talks broke down over the refusal of the US and the EU to reduce their protective tariffs and end their practice of dumping surpluses on the global market.  The level of hypocrisy involved in these negotiations boggles the mind.  Advanced economies are trying to force developing nations to open their economies to western finished goods while denying them the ability to export the one thing that makes them really competitive – agricultural products.

 We have an obsession with protecting the farmer and his idyllic way of life.  That is really what Salazar’s populist bid is about.  There is no link between national security and agriculture, only a political plea to a powerful special interest.  The sad part is that the day of the family farm is over.  Instead, the corporate monster of agribusiness has taken over the heartland.  Family farms cannot hope to compete with the factory farms that are spreading across the nation, and furthering a culture of corporate subsidizing does not interest me in the least.  Instead, if we are to embrace a system of free trade and global integration (which is the only way to really fight terrorism now), we need to do it fully and completely, accepting the fact that there are avenues for which our economies are no longer fit to remain competitive.  Besides, by forcing the farmer to work within the global economy, the promise of higher efficiency and smarter, renewable farming may give the US a competitive advantage.  As it is, we’re propping up an expensive and broken system, but it is a powerful lobby with a grip on the American public conscience.  I don’t see anyone lamenting the fall of the American tech worker.

08.16.06

Zombies!

Posted in Satire, Current Events at 4:40 pm by diantus

            Today’s post is going to be something of a deviation from what I normally do.  Admittedly a lot has been happening in the world.  The conflict in Lebanon has finally ended and the settlement is actually pretty positive.  I am incredibly tempted to lambaste our president for declaring it a complete victory for Israel and a crushing defeat for Hezbollah, but he’s an idiot and everyone is getting after him about that point.  No, instead I’m going to talk about a curious article I stumbled across today about Laura Bush (Link).

            As you know, I fall into the democratic camp simply because I have an unbearable, seething hatred for republicans and their fundamentalist noise machine.  This is contrasted by the fact that I only despise democrats.  In the end, I feel poorly represented by both, but really prefer the one that is willing to leave me alone.  That being said, I want to raise my glass in tribute to Laura Bush – the republicans’ secret weapon.

            I suppose it is refreshing to a party dominated by reactionary zealots to have first lady back in the white house who knows her place.  After all, Hillary is still refusing to butt out of politics, and having her as engaged in the process as she was during the Clinton administration seemed to ruffle a lot of feathers.  Not so Laura Bush.  From all appearances she is quiet, doting, and blessedly out of the way.  It barely seems possible in the modern age.

            Now I don’t know a lot about the woman.  As best as I can tell, she’s probably smarter that her husband, and something of a victim in all of this, but I’m going to make fun of her anyways.

            From the first time I saw Laura Bush, I knew exactly what she was: a zombie.  She is a special kind of zombie though.  Like Lenin, her body has been painstakingly preserved in order to resemble the highest grade 1980’s plastics.  The smile that is constantly attached to her head is interchangeable, and her speeches must be preprepared on CD (the quality is better).  The question on everybody’s mind of course is why would the Bush administration want a Zombie in the White House?  Why would Tom “the Hammer” Delay go for it?  Can Cheney run fast enough should (God forbid) Laura ever become hungry and feral?

            The answer, my friends, is state sponsored terror.  In order to maintain the proper levels of outrage and fear in the streets, the republicans have used everything in their arsenal thus far.  The entire power structure that they are creating relies on keeping the public cowering and praying for rescue.  Laura Bush is there in case we ever actually catch Bin Laden.

            Think about it.  If we actually catch him and thereby end all terrorism ever (remember – hearts and minds are for pussies), we won’t need the patriot act or Donald Rumsfeld anymore.  When Laura Bush, a prominent public figure, transmutes into a horrible undead killer, not only can George probably get himself another term, but the republicans can keep playing the bull-headed security goon card despite a growing public sentiment that the domestic situation is getting much worse and should be addressed progressively.

            I can see the slogans now:

“Murderous zombies won’t listen to hippy diplomacy.”

“Science made Laura, faith will unmake her.”

Laura has to stay in the white house right now because it is one of the most secure places in the country and a president can’t be single.  They must have a family, so George did the only thing he could.  He hired himself a couple of actresses to occasionally play daughters at public events, and reduced overhead by using the Laura zombie as a mock wife.  Though I doubt they sleep together, since I’d imagine that she feels something like a fresh fish (and probably smells about the same).  After all, the public appearances are few, and all she needs to do is nod a lot when people say that the children are the future.  After all, the children are the future, otherwise how do we keep from running out of sweet sweet brains?

So, is Laura a valuable republican asset?  Absolutely.  Not only is she the model obedient first lady, but when the flip the switch, she will become the model “subject 0” for the zombie apocalypse.  All I can say is hail our republican overlords.  They keep us safe from Laura.

08.09.06

Anarchy in Beijing?!

Posted in Theory, Governance at 8:56 pm by diantus

            I love punks.  They’re aimless, relentless, radically in advance of the sensibilities of the common man, and constant reminders to me that I am not at all hardcore.  Punks are a symbol of genuine rebellion.  They advocate nothing (meaningful) and strive endlessly for political objectives that are forever obfuscated to those of us who are built up in the realm of theory.  In the end, perhaps the punk ideology has no commitments because there is an unspoken understanding that real freedom cannot be defined or categorized.  It really is about doing whatever.  They say punk is dead.  In truth, it was never really alive.  It was a frayed concept to begin with that only became more and more chaotic with the years.  Punk would be disingenuous if it could hold on to a set of ideological commitments.  At some point, you have to break stuff.

I get on to this subject because of a recent (Article) I came across on punks in China, and how its really hard to agitate for whatever brand of social change the Pabst and the acid happens to be suggesting to you is a good idea when the central government will just come in and politely arrest you.  The first though that should cross the mind of any good member of the heavily indoctrinated American middle class in the realization that it really is great to live in a country where I can shave my head into a purple Mohawk and menace businessmen on their way home from work by screaming political slogans, before running home and writing some nonsensical lyrics about frying the American Eagle that I will promptly set to loud and toneless music.  It is awesome, and is something I plan to take more advantage of in the future.  But I digress.  The point is that punk represents unrestrained freedom in my mind, or at least an aspiration.

It is with this in mind, that I want to talk about dissent.  Dissent is really the essence of the punk/anarchist movement.  Drawing on roots in Marxism and Anarchism, punks may not always be the most articulate sponsors of change, but they flaunt themselves like a visual attack on convention.  But in the previously mentioned article on the underground punk scene in China, one of the subjects of the article says something that hit very close to home for me: “”When we were younger we believed in politics, but we found it to be useless,” said Lei, Misando’s lead singer, listening to a mix of The Pogues and Madness on his bassist’s home computer.”We used to have a song about police injustice, called ‘The Soul of Chinese Cops.’ But we’re not politicians or the president. We can’t change the system.”

I used to believe in politics too.  I think a lot of people did really.  Today though, I don’t really think anyone honestly believes in the process.  The last two hundred years have recorded some of the most titanic struggles between rulers and ruled that the world has ever known.  Something has happened to us in the last forty years here in America, and it seems to be plaguing the Chinese too.  No one cares enough to get angry.  Protest is no longer a set of mass movements dedicated to overturn some injustice or create some bold new initiative.  There is aimlessness in American politics, to say nothing of our growing apathy that has driven our aspirations into the dirt.  We don’t believe that we can make a difference.

You know what though?  We’re right.  The systems under which we live are pretty well invincible.  They don’t have to do anything we ask, simply by claiming majority mandates.  We are asked only the questions that they will allow us to answer, and are not really allowed to respond with our own.  We have no say in the political discourse.  The latter half of the twentieth century taught us that painful lesson.  The evidence of this is present in the attitudes of our extremists and the mainstream alike.  The extremists, like the punks or the Baptists, wander.  They are content solely to protect themselves from the corroding influences of the outside.  The mainstream, especially the educated mainstream, either grumbles or doesn’t even bother paying attention any more.  There is a sense that the promise of democracy has been lost, and it was never the engine of liberation that it was meant to be (unless you’re rich).

The truth is that government is stable.  The powerful can simply play lip service to the concerns of the citizenry and be just fine.  We are ruled by an elaborate PR campaign, the purpose of which is to hold you enamored of a government that requires only your tacit consent to function.  To beat the thing, the mainstream has it right.  Ignore it, and it will go away.  The right wing has been usurped by religious crazies because they are convinced that they can somehow push through an agenda of religious fundamentalism and stave off the inevitable influx of outside influences into their pristine little lives.  We all know that this is false, that they will fail, and that these things will get in anyways.  The future will be determined not by those who react the most harshly to the conditions of government, but by those who are prepared to walk away from the whole shoddy affair.

The only real way to fight off the influence of unwanted political forces is to let go of them.  Government needs you to consent; it requires your rebellion to legitimate it.  The punks are only shocking because of how they measure up to expected norms.  Power is relative to the society in which it is exercised.  The same is true with rebellion.  What is needed more than a legislative agenda, is a plan for the transfer of power from the top, to the bottom.  Centralized democracies do no promote, they only restrain with visions of liberty.

« Previous entries