Canadian PM Stephen Harper has 42 minutes of face time with Barack Obama in Washington today. While Canadian institutions (notably healthcare) are being compared favorably with those of the US, quite rightly, here are some other things to remember:
Read the rest of this entry »
The much-predicted demise of newspapers can’t happen too soon, so it seems to me, if we want a well-informed citizenry.
It was a 19th-century gibe that “newspapers are half advertisements — and the rest lies between them.”
But the lies can be subtle — and usually lie (sorry) in the unstated assumptions (unstated, they’re harder to refute). But occasionally they break cover.
Take this morning’s Afghanistan article on the front page of the NYT, the country’s agenda-setting paper (and its agenda is put in place by its executive editor Bill Keller, a right-wing Democrat). It was written by long-time foreign and military reporter, Thom Shanker.
Half-way thru, we find the following, a complete paragraph:
The military’s counterinsurgency effort in Afghanistan
is focused on protecting the population and
preventing the Taliban from destabilizing the country.
The Obama administration’s transparently false propaganda assertion is presented as simple fact. If it weren’t about killing people, the only reasonable response would be disbelieving laughter. But instead members of the political class in the US take that as one of their assumptions in the coming “debate about Afghanistan.”
Read the rest of this entry »
Remarks of President Barack Obama – As Prepared for Delivery
Address to Joint Session of Congress
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Madame Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, and the First Lady of the United States:
I come before you tonight in a spirit of remorse — which, I find, requires more audacity than hope does.
Read the rest of this entry »
The Lincoln birthday celebrations seem to have included little attempt to learn from the past. Lincoln is celebrated — by few more than the current president, who insists upon a resemblance — but there’s little critique of the devastation over which Lincoln presided. The end of chattel slavery is taken to be a retrospective justification of his launching of the war. (The actual economic and social position of American slaves and their families in the years after the Civil War is less attended to.)
I can find only one statement of a contrary view by a present-day American politician:
Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. It should have been done as the British empire did — buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans? And the hatred lingered for 100 years. Every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. (Ron Paul)
David Green writes to recommend “How Israel brought Gaza to the brink of humanitarian catastrophe” by Avi Shlaim in The Guardian, Wednesday 7 January 2009. (“Oxford professor of international relations Avi Shlaim served in the Israeli army and has never questioned the state’s legitimacy. But its merciless assault on Gaza has led him to devastating conclusions.”) He describes Shlaim’s piece as “An historical, detailed passionate summary,” and he’s quite right.
I do think however that Shlaim gets one point wrong, a point that has some significance for understanding the factions in the US government. Writing about the national unity government formed in the spring of 2007 by Hamas and Fatah (after Hamas had won a democratic election in 2006) “that was ready to negotiate a long-term ceasefire with Israel” — Shlaim says
Israel began to encourage the corrupt and pliant Fatah leaders to overthrow their religious political rivals and recapture power. Aggressive American neoconservatives [sic] participated in the sinister plot to instigate a Palestinian civil war. Their meddling was a major factor in the collapse of the national unity government and in driving Hamas to seize power in Gaza in June 2007 to pre-empt a Fatah coup.
But David Rose’s article (“The Gaza Bombshell,” Vanity Fair, April 2008) describes how
the White House [sic] tried to organize the armed overthrow of the Hamas-led government after Hamas swept Palestinian elections [in 2006] … the administration boosted military support for rival Palestinian faction Fatah in the aim of provoking a Palestinian civil war they thought Hamas would lose.
The point is that this plot was carried out not by neocons but by the “realists” in the administration — and the neocons were outraged, because the plot involved arming the Fatah faction, while the neocons insisted that all Palestinians of whatever faction should simply be suppressed. Their detestation of the realists’ policy led two leading neocons, David Wurmser and John Bolton, to become the primary sources for Rose’s expose — revealing how marginalized the neocons had become in Bush’s second administration. (Wurmser resigned as Cheney’s Mideast adviser in July 2007.)
The point is important because the same people who were running US Mideast policy in 2007-08 will be running it in 2009-10 — and not just SecDef Gates. The “loss” of Gaza to Hamas was not due to the neocons but to the realists of the “permanent government.” –CGE
Perhaps it betrays my essentially reformist rather than revolutionary disposition to think that there is something wrong with what Eliot has Abp. Becket say in Murder in the Cathedral –
The last temptation is the greatest treason:
To do the right deed for the wrong reason.
However much that may be a guide for oneself, Christians at least (and Eliot thought of himself as one) are cautioned against judging the motives of others. We’re reduced to trying to descry the good action and leaving alone the heart’s reasons that the reason does not know (in others at least).
But there can be as we might say operational differences in opposing the war (a) because it’s wrong, or (b) because it’s done wrong.
They’re obvious as soon as an appropriate remedy is proposed: the alternative is (a) stop doing it, or (b) do it better.
It may be that this distinction — indeed antithesis — has been exploited to neutralize the anti-war movement in the five years since the largest anti-war demonstrations in human history. In any case, that movement does seem to have been successfully neutralized, and it wasn’t an accident.
Read the rest of this entry »
This is a sample of the new video version of News from Neptune (radio with pictures), from the studios of Urbana (IL) Public Television, with thanks to Jason Liggett. It features CGE and David Green. Topics include *elitism and contempt*, *class in America*, and *the Pareto principle*.
New programs will be posted inshallah in the new year.
Don’t tax productive economic activity, tax wealth. Remove all corporate taxes (that’s practically been done) but also remove the civil rights of corporations as “legal persons.”
But wealth owned by corporations should be assigned to individuals (principally shareholders) for accounting purposes and then taxed. (We do that now informally — that’s why we say Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are rich.)
Wealth should be taxed in a way that reverses the accelerating trend to inequality (and plans for that exist). Under the pressure of neoliberalism, those European countries that had (small) wealth taxes have removed them (except France and Switzerland).
Removing taxes from productive investment (but not speculation — the Tobin tax) would presumably create jobs, as would the removal of income taxes (a much larger stimulus than is being contemplated). But the existence of jobs shouldn’t depend on whether they enrich corporations. People have a right to exercise their talents of head and hands in a useful way, and government must organize and apply that work. Everyone has a right to a job and a livable income.
I defended these proposals — which are hardly original — when I ran for Congress in Illinois’ 15th Congressional district in 2002. –CGE
Friday’s NYT has an obit for an Italian anti-fascist, Vittorio Foa, who recently
died at 98. Jailed by Mussolini, he led a left-wing labor union after WWII and
was a socialist senator. The Times describes him delicately as “a leading
intellectual of the non-Communist left [who] in the 1960s inspired some
extra-parliamentary leftist groups.”
La Repubblica published his impatient answer to the question of what today’s
left should do:
It’s a waste of time and sense to try to define a leftist identity. You have to do what’s right and necessary for the country. It’s up to posterity to decide whether it came from the right or the left.
Amen. Requiescat in pace. La lotta continua.
Senator Barack Obama said Wednesday he would order a surge of U.S. troops – perhaps 15,000 or more – to Afghanistan as soon as he reached the White House [Globe & Mail 20081022].
Obama’s position has been clear for some time. But it’s been expressed in such a way that he and the Democrats have been able to eviscerate the anti-war movement, owing to the false notion that he was an anti-war candidate.
Remember that the largest anti-war demonstrations in human history occurred before the Bush administration’s descent upon Iraq, with more than a million dead? Where did that sentiment go? In fact, it never went away — three-quarters of he American populace still disapprove of the war. But the American parody of democracy has made that fact irrelevant.
It testifies to a form of control — of media, of propaganda, of politics, and of what is generally thought — that any 20th-century totalitarianism would envy, that the Democrats and Obama have been so successful in co-opting and neutralizing the anti-war movement.
The only answer we have is to begin to build a serious movement in opposition to the Obama administration and its war policy, in the first place by exposing its lies — such as his lie that we are deterring terrorists by killing children in AfPak.