Here is a post from a fb friend, quoting David Deida. My response follows. It’s not just about David Deida, though, it’s all the talk about “the masculine” and “the feminine.” He just happens to the be one of the primary proponents of this way of thinking. There were a number of other comments, but I just included my own.
“You have probably met a woman who seemed fantastic, only to discover she has some emotional weirdness that you don’t really want to deal with. She seemed incredibly sexy, but also a bit “bonkers”, saying one thing one moment and another the next. You have probably also met some very reasonable and trustworthy women who don’t seem to constantly change their mind and, in fact, with whom you could have good conversations that don’t end up frustrating you. Although you may love these women and enjoy spending time with them, they don’t arouse your passion as much as the women whose words you wouldn’t trust to remain true for an afternoon, but who move their body in a way that drives you wild.
“Why can’t a woman be more like a man?” many men have wondered. But, of course, it is precisely those ways in which a woman is least like a man that most attract you sexually, if you have a masculine sexual essence. A woman’s feminine shine, the energy that moves her body, her utterly refreshing spontaneity and mystery, not to mention her delightful smile, are what attract you. And the more feminine a woman is at her core, the less she is likely to evidence strong masculine traits, such as speaking clearly and unequivocally about thoughts and desires, rather than primarily expressing her feelings of the moment.
A woman with a more feminine sexual essence will say she loves you one moment, and then, when you have done something you are not even aware of, she will say she hates you. This is the beauty of the feminine; to her, the masculine grid of words and events is less relevant than the fluidity of relationship and feeling. Thank God for such women, who make no apologies for their oceanic depth and riptides of emotion.
When a woman is encouraged to be at home with her feminine essence she is at home with energy, be it sexual or spiritual. For such a woman, there is no disconnection between sex and spirit. Her sexual surrender, if she is with a worthy man, is the same as her devotional or spiritual surrender. She opens from head to toe, receiving divine love-force deep throughout her body, so that she is rippled, arched, and undulated by its boundless flow.
You will only be happy in intimacy if you choose a woman who is your sexual reciprocal as a partner (if you have a masculine sexual essence that would be a woman with a deep feminine essence). And, you will only be able to survive such an intimacy if her dark and light sides are equally embraceable to you. It takes time to develop such skill and strength, but in doing so you learn to provide your woman, as well as the world, with a man whose gifts are uncompromised by fear of feminine power and chaos.”
— David Deida
The Way of the Superior Man
Well, I did read Way of the Superior Man. Or, at least 3/4 of it, before I chucked it across the room. This quote is a good representation of what is contained in the book. As [a previous post] has already pointed out, Deida blithely conflates gender-irrelevant character traits and behaviors with abstract concepts of masculine and feminine. According to Deida “Speaking clearly about thoughts and desires” is a “masculine” trait — apparently one we should not expect to find in a woman, especially not an “incredibly sexy” one. To me that seems blazingly misogynistic.
“A woman with a more feminine sexual essence will say she loves you one moment, and then, when you have done something you are not even aware of, she will say she hates you. This is the beauty of the feminine…” Sorry, no. That is not the beauty of the “feminine.” That is simply childish, immature behavior from a woman with no self-awareness.
Whether you’re a man or a woman, if you’re not insulted by the quote above, you really haven’t understood what Deida is saying. It’s patronizing. And the problem permeates all of Deida’s work, not just this quote.
Yet, he is inexplicably popular in certain circles. What to make of that?
There is much work to be done for all of us in being more compassionate people and better communicators, that’s for sure. That work is hard work, because it challenges us to grow, which entails some growing pains. It forces us to look at ourselves, to deal with ambiguity. If we want more peace, love and understanding between the sexes then that’s what we need to do.
Deida wraps his essentially reactionary message in new-age jargon and appropriated tantrik language, allowing his followers to sink back into the comforting familiarity of the dysfunctional status quo.
If temper tantrums and fickleness are passed off as simply “being in your feminine energy” then that lets you off the hook in terms of examining your behavior and how it affects those around you. That’s the appeal — you don’t have to do the hard work of personal growth, you can continue with your “emotional weirdness” (his term) and feel perfectly self-righteous about your deplorable behavior. The message for men is no better. The net effect is not a brave step into enlightenment, but a cowardly slide back to 50’s-era sex roles, albeit with a glitzy new-age-tantrik facade.
Thankfully, Deida is simply wrong. There exist women who are reasonable and trustworthy — and also drop dead sexy. In fact, those are exactly the kind I personally find sexy. There are also men who are sensitive, vulnerable and who like to “ripple, arch and undulate.” LOL
It’s not because the women have masculine traits, or the men have feminine traits. It’s just because those are human traits that are available to anyone, regardless of their sex. It is in all of our best interests to de-sexualize these traits — and Deida, in reinforcing and validating the idea that there are masculine and feminine traits, is doing exactly the opposite. I think Deida’s philosophy is actively harmful to relations between the sexes.
I’m pretty sure he denies that this is what he’s doing, but after reading some of his work and seeing him in person, that’s my opinion.
I’ve been meaning to write about the NSA surveillance program for some time now. Finally, prompted by the October 26 demonstration in Washington, D.C., I’m getting around to it. Who has been following the continuing controversy? I have the impression that many Americans are apathetic, cynical and resigned to the idea that government surveillance is here to stay and there’s nothing that can be done about it. In my opinion that’s an insidious and dangerous viewpoint.
For those who have not been paying attention, the upshot of whistle blower Edward Snowden’s revelations is that the NSA has been secretly monitoring truly massive amounts of phone and Internet data. Who you contact, when and where, in some cases what you say – all that information is being tracked and stored. You can get caught up on the details here. Also important, and not mentioned in that link, is the issue of “parallel construction.”
There are lots of reasons why this is important. I’ll mention one aspect of the context in which this is going on that I think is particularly significant.
As a nation and as a planet we are confronting some very serious issues. Climate change, environmental degradation, human rights abuses, overpopulation, water scarcity, poverty, and so on. These problems are the natural result of the systems which have created them. I say that without expressing any moral judgment about the systems themselves. Those systems have also created some benefits. But we are at a tipping point where the problems caused by existing systems are leading to some very nasty consequences.
Since those pressing problems are so deeply embedded in our existing systems they are difficult to eradicate. You can’t just change the problem, you must change the system which has given rise to it. In particular, we must change our political system, that is, the system by which power is allocated and exercised.
“America does not have a functioning democracy at this point in time.”
– former US president, Jimmy Carter quoted in Der Spiegel
Unfortunately, political change is extremely problematic. Our democracy has been compromised. Corporate lobbyists write the laws, inserting language that exempts them from legal liability and from application of existing laws. Heard of the “Monsanto Protection Act” or the “Halliburton Loophole”? We’re not even talking about the meetings behind closed doors. This kind of stuff is right out in the open!
Our electoral process has also been destroyed though gerrymandering, voter id laws, and Supreme Court decisions like Citizen’s United which ensure the continuing, corrupting influence of money.
“Congress maintains a 90% incumbency rate despite only having a 10% approval rating.”
– Daily Show correspondent John Oliver
The idea that we are living in a democracy is dangerously naïve. It’s foolish to think a system will engineer its own demise. If you are waiting for the US government to take meaningful action on Climate Change, you can stop holding your breath. It’s not going to happen. Meaningful action entails more than just driving a Prius. It means huge collective changes in the way we live – and in the profits of Exxon.
If we are going to change the systems that are killing our planet and creating so much suffering, we need to “alter or abolish” the existing political system. Yes, we have the legal right to do that, and I would argue, the moral obligation. And in order to create that kind of popular, sweeping change we need to organize.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The reason NSA surveillance is so troubling is that it’s an incredibly powerful tool in the hands of the government-corporate complex. It will be used to reinforce the power of those already in power, to fortify the economic and political systems which must be demolished if we are to create a livable future. It will be used to prevent us from organizing and creating peaceful political change. And the alternative to peaceful political change is some horrifying combination of “no change” and “not peaceful.”
So, I hope you will join me in making your voice heard, in speaking out against NSA surveillance, and in creating peaceful political change. Because, in the words of Benjamin Franklin, “We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.”
Newt Gingrich seems like an unusual poster boy for polyamory.
Of course, he was quick to distance himself from the allegations by his ex-wife that he had asked her for an “open relationship.” What else could he do, embroiled as he is in a contest to be the least disliked Republican candidate? When asked about the issue in a recent debate he attacked the moderator with a premeditated fury, apparently gaining the audience’s approbation. But if you listen to him and you listen to his ex-wife — I mean, who you gonna believe?
There’s something funny because the more vehemently he denies it, the more I believe his wife. Regardless of whom you believe, it’s a bit startling to hear the allegation about him. Really? Newt Gingrich and “open relationship” in the same sentence? His denials are incredible, of course, and reek of hypocrisy — a scent that must be so omnipresent as to be undetectable.
And yet. There’s something genuinely poignant about him asking his wife for an open relationship. I don’t know why he asked her for that instead of for a divorce. However, I do know of the many reasons other people make that request. Generally it boils down to wanting to hold onto what is valuable in one relationship while exploring what there is to be learned in a new one. It’s a human experience. How we choose to answer that question is an individual matter, but most of us have had to grapple with it at some time in our lives.
Here is a BBC article with a sympathetic take on polyamory sparked by the Gingrich incident.
On the other hand, maybe Gingrich was just another liar trying to make the best out of a bad situation. When you get caught cheating you’ve got to think fast! Another divorce probably didn’t look good for a man with presidential aspirations in a party that extols “family values.” That’s the thing that gets me — by cheating he screwed up his “monogamous” relationship, and also of course screwed up any possibility there might have been for an open relationship. (And if you’re going to ask your partner for an open relationship, here’s a hint, you might want to do it in person, not on the phone after you’ve been caught cheating!)
So now Newt and open relationship are the linked topics of scandal, and prompting some interesting conversations. He’s done us a service by broaching the topic, however inadvertently, and in such a public way. Gingrich’s divorce and attempt at open relationship is probably a personal tragedy for him. For the rest of us: an invitation to a conversation that touches on honesty and love and respect and the role they play in the many permutations of partnership.
I attended the debate a few weeks ago, sponsored by Occupy Oakland’s Events Committee, between advocates of non-violence and advocates of a “diversity of tactics.” It was held in the First Unitarian Church of Oakland, and the pews were packed, with people lining the walls. What follow are my thoughts and comments.
For those new to this conversation, the phrase “diversity of tactics” is used both in the literal sense of a range of distinct tactics, and also as a euphemism for property destruction and more aggressive confrontations with police. The phrase has been with us for quite a while; I remember its use by black bloc anarchists at the WTO protest in Seattle in 1999.
From the outset, I should say that framing the debate as being between nonviolence and “diversity of tactics” is not the best path to take. Understandably, none of the anarchists want to go on record publicly advocating illegal acts. This makes for a somewhat convoluted debate, since they can’t utter the thesis they are trying to defend! But the two sides are not balanced in the sense that nonviolent civil disobedience is relatively well defined in theory and praxis, whereas “diversity of tactics” is deliberately vague. You must always put it in quotes.
Also, we are likely to associate the word “diversity” with “racial diversity,” which, on the left at least, has positive connotations. To be against diversity insinuates something unsavoury, which is probably why the term is used by its proponents.
Here, I don’t have to use the euphemism, so I’m going to talk about the tactic of “property destruction,” and “diversity of tactics” will retain its literal meaning.
Anyway, the underlying issue isn’t really the merit of one tactic versus another. It’s the unwelcome imposition of the property destruction tactic on the nonviolent civil disobedience tactic. Unwelcome, of course, in the eyes of the people engaging in NVCD. Is it really necessary to enumerate the problems that occur when you organise a large demonstration that you publicise as nonviolent, and then have a tiny minority of participants engage in property destruction? There are many. The one I’d like to single out, though, is the problem of coherency.
There is a clash of narratives. The NVCD thesis is that the hegemony of the state is dependent on its use of violence; and by exposing that violence the state’s illegitimacy is exposed, leading to radical (the root, not the leaves) change. I suppose this is predicated on the idea that the legitimacy of the state derives from the consent of the governed. On the other side is the idea that violence is ineluctable; if you are not subjected to violence it is only because you are not a threat to the existing distribution of power, that real change entails some level of violent confrontation. By provoking escalating levels of police violence, increasing numbers of people are “radicalised,” leading to revolutionary change.
I don’t mean to do violence to either side by abbreviating or misrepresenting their narrative! However, I do want to make an argument for coherency. Coherency is a “logical or natural connection or consistency.” Coherency is powerful! As an analogy, light that is not coherent is benign, but light that is coherent, in the form of a LASER, is very powerful indeed. Ideas are like that. Coherency makes them contagious, persuasive, powerful. The point is that these two narratives are inconsistent. That’s not to say they can’t be effective independently, just that they are different enough in significant ways that they are mutually incoherent.
A demonstration which is simultaneously violent and nonviolent is incoherent. A demonstration that is perceived as violent and nonviolent, or can easily be portrayed that way by the media, is effectively incoherent. Incoherency undermines either narrative. So, barring some unlikely capitulation by one side or the other, the solution with the most coherency would be to separate – in time and space – the demonstrations of mass civil disobedience from the acts of property destruction. I assume the NVCD panelists would welcome that proposition, and of the anarchist panelists I think at least two of them would probably accede to that.
If you don’t accede to that, what are you saying? That you favour an incoherency that undermines the best efforts of equally well-intentioned activists? That you’d rather do your thing even if it means preventing others from doing theirs? That you refuse to allow a diversity of tactics – in the literal sense of the phrase? If you understand that coherency is more powerful than incoherency, what justification can you make for creating an incoherent muddle of a demonstration?
It’s important to understand that the paradigm of power in which we live is one of domination. That is, power is typically exercised over someone or something. One race over another, men over women, rich over poor, mankind over nature… powerful over powerless. The nature of a paradigm is that it permeates our very being. Like the fish that don’t know they’re wet, we take domination for granted. It’s easy to see the paradigm of domination replicated in this schism.
On one side, people bringing property destruction to a nonviolent demonstration are imposing their tactic on the others. And on the other, “How do you control that many people?” asked one man from the audience. If one person in a crowd of thousands decides that now’s the time to smash a store window, what’s stopping him? Some of the anarchists were particularly incensed by the efforts of demonstration “peace keepers” to thwart their tactic. In both cases, the activists are acting within the paradigm of domination. How do you impose your will over another’s. It’s a zero sum game, and that’s a recipe for stasis.
This reminds me of something from game theory called the “prisoner’s dilemma.” I’ll write more about that in a separate post. For now, I’ll just say it’s encouraging that this debate took place, and I would love to see more of them. Let’s keep the conversation going! At the same time, a debate is probably not the best format. How about a dialogue? As long as there are people who are willing to engage, there are other ways of engaging that are more likely to produce results.
Fear was expressed by one woman in the audience – but I was already thinking that fear had pervaded the earlier debate. Fear of the brutality of a system that senses it is being threatened, fear that we may fail – ourselves, each other, future generations, the planet. Fear of each other. “What happens if you win,” said the woman, addressing the anarchist side of the forum, “What happens to us?” Violent tactics inspire the fear that violence will be used against ourselves someday.
One of the panelists, a member of Iraq Veterans Against War, posed the question “How do you know that, instead of a revolution, you don’t end up with a civil war?” No real answer was offered, and it hung in the air, a troubling reminder of our inability to predict the future. He also reminded the audience, if it was even necessary, of the overwhelming superiority and tactical advantages of police and military. It’s one thing to confront pepper spray and beanbags; quite another live ammunition.
If you support a real diversity of tactics you must allow other tactics their integrity, otherwise you are merely re-enacting the “power over” paradigm that is a fundamental part of the overall problem — and that is a self-defeating behaviour we cannot afford.
Comments are welcome.
“Are you a pacifist?” begins the leaflet passed out at Occupy Oakland, “YOU hold the cock of the Empire in your supple hands.” Definitely an attention grabbing introduction to a screed that goes on to criticize non-violence and seeks the “total annihilation of capitalism.” There is much to comment on here, not least the sexual allusion. But I can’t help but feel a certain ennui reading the puerile diatribe. It takes me back to 1999-2000, when the same sorts of arguments promoted by a small group at the anti-WTO “Battle in Seattle,” and the subsequent demonstrations the next year in Washington, D.C. and Prague. Having seen these sorts of tactics up close and personal, and having thought about it quite a bit, I have a few comments.
Police know how to respond with force, and they have the unfortunate propensity to respond to every problem with what they know best. In addition, they have the means to escalate that force well beyond what most people are willing to engage in. So, all the bold talk of “taking on the police” is just that: talk. However, pushing for violent interactions plays into the hands of police because violence is their strong suit. Thus for peaceful revolutionaries, violence and property destruction is tactically a dumb approach. Why else would a “law enforcement” agency field agents provocateurs to incite it? Duh!
A revolution is a systemic change; it’s axiomatic that a revolution is illegal! It is a radical restructuring of the existing order of things, particularly power relationships. It’s not unreasonable to assume the power elite will resist the new order, and will resist movement toward that state of flux, of social anarchy, which precedes it. Will they use physical violence to suppress it? My magic 8-ball says, yes, if it appears violence would be effective. Violence is what you use, what you need to use, when you are in danger of losing, for instance when you are outnumbered… When you are 1% dominating the rest of the planet. Now, if the power elite (and by that I mean to include the government they control) retains for itself the exclusive right to use force, up to and including physical violence, to keep themselves in power… what then? I would suggest that the best strategy is to choose a different battlefield. However, if push comes to shove, I do think there is an argument to be made that defending oneself from violence using whatever means are at your disposal is perfectly legitimate.
“I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.”
— Thomas Jefferson
Anyway, the main problem comes because the “wild ones,” as they call themselves, who want to incite violent confrontations with police are essentially taking advantage of the presence of the much larger presence of those who do not. They argue for a “diversity of tactics,” while ignoring the fact that they are imposing their tactic on the rest of the demonstrators. Among the negative side effects of this are that it 1) enables media to portray demonstrations as violent, 2) discourages people who eschew violence, for whatever reason, from participating, 3) endangers other demonstrators by provoking police retaliation. No doubt they would like to think of themselves as the valiant vanguard of the revolution, but in fact their tactic validates the existing structure of power, and impedes efforts at change. Our goal should be to demonstrate the impotence of police brutality, not to provide excuses for its use.
Some would draw dividing lines between “us” and “them,” between demonstrators and police. But as we rethink the way society is structured, I think this is something we might redesign. In some spiritual sense we may “all be one,” but a social utopia that reflects that ideal is a distant dream. Pragmatically, it’s more useful to redraw those lines of demarcation. Could we think of “us” as people who eschew violence as a means of political expression and “them” as those who resort to it? I’m willing to believe there are police who are also part of the 99%, and who resent being used as pawns of the power elite — and that there are demonstrators whose personal rage blinds them to how to they are damaging the prospect of a real revolution.
When I was in Prague for the IMF/WorldBank meeting and protest I finally concluded that if we expected to do anything about changing exploitative economic policies, we would have to first have to deal with the schisms in our own ranks. The protest itself was moderately disastrous. Suffice it to say that it’s hard to call people’s attention to the intricacies of economic policy when the newspapers lead with a picture of a cop in flames from a Molotov cocktail. All the efforts of the event’s organizers and the thousands of other protesters, were vitiated by those who attacked the police. So I would really not want the same thing to happen with the Occupy movement.
OccupyTogether is our revolution. May we all be guided by feelings of deep love.
No one knows for sure what people do in the voting booth. Our votes are anonymous. However, donations to candidates and political parties are a matter of public record. And now you can easily view them, thanks to the Fundrace 2008 mashup put together by the folks at the Huffington Post.
Yep! You could be living next door to someone who funds a candidate who jokes about bombing Iran — or obliterating it — and not even know it. We’re talking about the incineration of thousands of innocent men, women and children! Your coworker could be supporting the party that brought us the Iraq war, legalized torture, environmental catastrophes, economic ruin, and so much more. Until now it was difficult to find out. But not anymore!
Now you can easily search by name, by profession, by geographical location, and by employer (including 2004 donations). These people have literally put themselves on the map! Their cash donations have enabled the unmitigated disaster the last eight years have been, the corruption, the incompetence, the blind arrogance, the war crimes, the thousands of deaths, the violations of human rights… The least we can do is invite them over for tea and cookies, and some frank discussion of values I’m not suggesting you employ any “special methods of questioning.” But why not take the opportunity to dissuade them from supporting state sponsored murder?
The site is http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/, or just click on the map below:
Whether that new guy you’re seeing is actually a Republican or just
dresses like one?
FundRace makes it easy to search by name or address to
see which presidential candidates your friends, family, co-workers, and
neighbors are contributing to. Or you can see if your favorite
celebrity is putting money where their mouth is.
FundRace gives you the technology to do what politicians and
journalists have been doing for years: find out where the money’s
coming from, see who it’s going to, and solve the mystery of why that
crazy ex-roommate of yours is now the Ambassador to Turks and Caicos.
If you use the site, or contact your neighbor, coworker or family member because of it. Drop me a line and tell me how it goes!
An October 17,2004 New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind quoted an unnamed aide to George W. Bush:
The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” … “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
If that stings a bit – good! There’s some truth in it. The left has been largely reactive to Bush initiatives, rather than taking the initiative themselves. The result has been a failure to reverse Bush’s faits accomplis, and inability to prevent him from creating “new realities.” That is not to say that opponents of the administration have been lacking in zeal, nor disparage the good work of good people trying to make a difference. However, too often we seem to be moved to action by our outrage, our reaction to the latest depredation. By then, it’s too late, and we are left to judiciously study the terrible new reality that has been created. Unless we learn to be proactive we will always be one step behind “history’s actors” in the White House.
Nowhere are the potential consequences of inaction more catastrophic than in the planned attack on Iran. Unlike the invasion and occupation of Iraq, which involved the mobilization of large numbers of troops and materiel, the plan for Iran is a three-day blitzkrieg of airstrikes against 2,000 targets. Such an attack does not require the same kind of logistical planning as a ground invasion. It would be executed within hours of Bush giving the order. This time we will not have months to marshal moral indignation, or to mobilize opposition. Waiting to react means failure. If we are to prevent the attack, we must be proactive, not reactive.
It’s easy to call for initiative, but more difficult to propose specific actions. What avenues of political expression are available and effective? Massive street protests seem to have lost their appeal since the start of the Iraq war. Dismissed as a “focus group” by Bush, their ineffectiveness is manifest. Sure, we have the right to petition our government for a redress of grievances, but that’s meaningless when the government feels no obligation to respond to them. If we had mobilized twice the number of demonstrators before the Iraq war, would we have prevented the “shock and awe” that lit up the skies over Baghdad? I don’t think so. There’s nothing wrong with street protest, but it’s a bit naïve to expect such peaceable assemblies to sway the Bush administration from its lethal course.
The vote is another means of popular political expression, but one that has been compromised. There are many factors: doubts about the integrity of the electoral system, the influence of money, gerrymandered districts, media manipulation, voting machine machinations, outright electoral fraud, exclusion of third party candidates, etc. Any intelligent observer can see the game is rigged. Furthermore, even when it works, voting is a long-term strategy. Again, it doesn’t hurt to participate and eke out what gains may be found in the voting booth. But real change – systemic change – via the ballot seems unlikely.
The 2006 midterm election brought an outpouring of anti-war voters, a Democratic landslide and a glimmer of hope. However, the subsequent failure of the Dems to cut off funding for the war underscored the fact that Democrats are not committed to ending the war. A solid majority of Americans wants to end the war, and yet it continues. At this point, it would be hard to say that our government represents its citizens in any meaningful sense.
Meanwhile, we continue to go through the motions. We can write letters to the editor and our congressperson. We can sign online petitions. We can march in demonstrations. We can contribute to an anti-war candidate who will eventually be eliminated by his party – if the media doesn’t do it first. We can stage vigils. We can fulminate against Bush and his cronies. That’s what we’ve been doing and it hasn’t gotten us very far.
I don’t mean to sound cynical, but I do want to cultivate a sense of hopelessness. We have to stop doing what doesn’t work. Hope is like an addiction that keeps us trapped in passivity and ineffectiveness. Paradoxically, embracing hopelessness is the key to moving from reactivity to action Hopelessness is not despair! Embracing hopelessness means stilling the soothing internal voice that tells us everything will be okay, and allowing ourselves to experience fully whatever we’re feeling. It means accepting the likelihood that things will not work out okay without our changing who we are and what we do. Giving up the hope that the Democrats will save the day, or that the Bush enterprise will collapse under the staggering weight of its corruption and incompetence, leaves us with the sobering realization that if change is to come we are the ones who must bring it.
Our social context is changing. Today we are connected to more people than ever before in the history of humanity, and there is an immediacy to those connections – they can be accessed instantly and en masse. Today’s metaphor of organization is the network, and it’s revolutionizing how we do business, how we entertain ourselves, how we relate to one another. It has the potential to revolutionize politics, too, but that potential has yet to be realized. What happens when a distributed system like a network collides with a hierarchical control system like the US political system? The history of that encounter has yet to be written. Certainly, we see politicians trying to exploit and co-opt the online world. We also see the network taking on the political status quo, as the chaotic democracy of the blogosphere investigates and exposes corrupt politicians. There is much more to be said about the interaction of these two organizational systems. For now, I want to focus on something called swarm intelligence.
The term swarm intelligence comes from the field of network theory. It’s an attempt to describe the behavior of complex systems of independent agents. Think of a flock of birds, a school of fish, or a swarm of insects. Without a leader the flock finds its way South, the school of fish evades its predators, and insects create large, complex habitats. These are called emergent behaviors: complex patterns arising out of relatively simple interactions. There is a beauty and natural genius to the swarm intelligence of insects and other animals. What makes people different, perhaps, is that we can be aware that we’re part of a swarm. In other words, we can simultaneously appreciate our autonomy and the intelligence we create when we act together. That’s what creates a Brilliant Swarm.
Brilliant Swarm isn’t the answer to the question of what to do about our vexing political impasse. Instead, it poses the question “What are the ‘relatively simple interactions’ we could engage in that would lead to emergent collective behaviors that are politically effective?” A Brilliant Swarm is a laboratory for exploring that question.
With self-organization, the behavior of the group is often unpredictable, emerging from the collective interactions of all of the individuals. The simple rules by which individuals interact can generate complex group behavior. Indeed, the emergence of such collective behavior out of simple rules is one the great lessons of swarm intelligence.
– Eric Bonabeau, PhD.
It’s part of the nature of a Brilliant Swarm to generate unpredictable solutions to political problems – problems like, “How can we stop the US from attacking Iran?” And unpredictable (and therefore unorthodox, creative, novel) solutions are what we need, because what we’ve been doing hasn’t really worked.
Margaret Meade wrote “never doubt that a small group of committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” Brilliant Swarm is about creating such a world-changing group – a group where we find allies, ideas, and constructive challenges. It’s about creating a model that other agents of change can adopt and modify. And it’s a vision of many swarms in alignment, acting in harmony.
On a personal level, Brilliant Swarm reflects my desire to surround myself with brilliant, committed, spiritually grounded, politically active and fun people. The fun part is important! By fun I mean laughter, sensuality, play and so on, whatever makes us come alive. If it’s not fun it’s not sustainable, and if it’s not sustainable it won’t be effective. What’s more, if it’s no fun nobody will want to participate. Fun is a political necessity!
More than just fun, imagine how it would feel to stop a war, to reassert democratic authority over a government that’s spinning out of control! Wouldn’t that feel great? It would sure beat feeling angry and powerless!
In the end, the Democrats funded the war in Iraq. Without any meaningful limitation. After all the words, words, words, there was the act. We are given the illusion of opposition, and the reality of complicity…and culpability. Which to believe? Dems can claim to have voted against the war in Iraq, while still having funded it. Hmm. Let me think…
I admit, I allowed myself to hope, back in November, 2006. How refreshing to embrace hopelessness once more! But not in despair, no. This hopelessness is the embrace of reality; harsh, yes, and terrifying and brutal. But real, and horribly beautiful. Hope addicts us to passivity, a complacent acceptance of the status quo, and the comforting but erroneous notion that our mere demur absolves us of responsibility. Hopelessness is the antidote to the fantasy that politics will ever change without
our personal involvement.
The Democratic cavalry will not come charging over the hill to rescue us. They are enraptured by dreams of re-election, of power. The DLC will not abandon the hubris of empire. Au contraire!
And after all the words, words, words of criticism and condemnation, the smug Dems believe we will still vote for them, because they have played their cards well, and they are the only game in town. They keep throwing good lives into the devouring maw of violence. How many more?
Here’s more from David Korn:
The Dems’ Self-Defeat on the Iraq War Vote
A majority of Americans are opposed to the war in Iraq. An overwhelming majority of Democrats are opposed to the war in Iraq. And yet, the Democrats vote to fund it. How can they stray so far from their base? How can they defy the manifest wishes of their constituents with such impunity? It’s because they are secure in the belief that voters have nowhere else to turn, that the hegemony of the two-party system remains unassailable. If we want to stop this war, and prevent the next one, it’s
imperative that we challenge that assumption. Yes, that requires courage and audacity! But what have we got to lose? I’m sending Nancy Pelosi this note, and including a copy of my re-registration to drive the point home. Join me!
As always, your comments are welcome.
Well, the Democrats passed their spending bill which will fund the Iraq war through August, 2008 — although, don’t bet there won’t be requests for more money. Contemplate that as you wrestle with your Form 1040. That’s where your money is going.
Also, despite his threats, don’t bet that Bush won’t sign the bill when it eventually arrives on his desk. He may not like the timetable, but other than that he gets to escalate the war for most of the rest of his term, and there are loopholes which could keep it going indefinitely. For more details, see
But let’s leave discussion of the unconscionable Democratic dereliction for another time.
Just for fun — and I’m a firm believer in making politics fun — why not create a little political theater of our own? The Democrats are clearly thinking it’s still business as usual. How about throwing a wrench in the works?
Suppose we were all to register or re-register with another party, say, the Green Party, a party with an unambiguous anti-Iraq-War platform. Most states allow you to change your registration. In California you can change up to 15 days before the election.
Would the Democrats get the message if they suddenly discovered overnight they had lost 10% of their base? Vanished. Phffft! I bet we would get some articles of impeachment moving through committee realfast!
Of course, you could still vote for a Democrat later if you thought it was the prudent thing to do. Or you could just change your registration back to Democrat, or whatever it was. But imagine shaking things up like that!
Watch the pollsters spin. Watch the pundits sputter. Watch the politicians scramble. It’s like voting in the 2008 election right now!
Right now, Democrats appear to be turning their backs on all the voters who turned out to stop the war in Iraq. But this re-registration strategy could spread like wildfire — if you do a little spreading of your own! Send it to your own email lists. Write about it on your blog. Mention it in conversations. It’s a loophole, one of the few remaining avenues of personal political expression not compromised by money. It’s a small loophole, but if we run enough of our disaffected Democratic friends through it it will definitely have an effect!
Re-registering is free, it only takes about 5 minutes, it’s satisfying, and it could turn out to be highly entertaining. Do it right now, while you’re thinking about it. California voters can go here, to fill out the form online:
For more information about this strategy, check out:
Seriously, we have to let both the Democrats and Republicans know that we have other choices. (And not-voting is not a choice, since that has no effect on an election’s outcome.) At some point, Democrats have to learn that they have to do more than just not be Republicans! This strategy is a painless way to remind them that ultimately they serve at the pleasure of the public. They seem to have forgotten.
P.S. I’m interested in knowing how many people re-register, so if you do so, please drop me a line. Thanks.
Another foray into film reviews
Aficionados of impaling, dismemberment and decapitation were regaled recently with the release of "300," a film about the battle of Thermopylae. While there is no dearth of violence in the media these days, this graphic novel adaptation cannot fail to elicit a visceral response in even the most inured moviegoer or newspaper reader.
You may read more elaborate descriptions elsewhere. Suffice it to say that 300 gives us the hackneyed "good v. evil" scenario. The Spartans are handsome, good and honorable and the Persians are evil, ugly and despicable. Yawn. It’s the same old, same old.
Now, I have to admit, I enjoy a good impaling as much as the next guy. I’m not squeamish. And there is a certain appeal to the cinematic simplicity of solving complex problems with the expedient of violence, no matter the improbability of that in real life. But it’s impossible not to take into account the context in which this allegory is taking place, namely the looming confrontation between the US and Iran.
As you are aware, or certainly should be aware, the first step in waging a war of aggression is demonizing the enemy. Is it just an accident that this film is being released at this particular time? We can’t answer that, but… it certainly seems suspect. The Persians are, after all, the ancestors of the Iranians. And the Spartans are, it is suggested, somehow our own ancestors, at least culturally — although perhaps the Athenians would better claim that title. In any case, the Spartans in the film are plenty American — ripped abdominal muscles, hooha, semper fi caricatures.
Frank Miller, the author of the graphic novel is fairly candid about how he views our current "clash of cultures."
- "Our country… is up against an existential foe, yet we behave like a collapsing empire. Mighty cultures aren’t conquered they crumble from within. Americans are behaving like spoiled brats." — Frank Miller
Miller sees the current events in the Middle East as a confrontation between the modern west and a "6th century barbarism." He asks, "Why are people so self-absorbed?" If anything, Miller is as bellicose as the Bushies.
At the very least, you have to question the wisdom of releasing such a film at this time. Throwing gasoline on the fire in the Middle East hardly seems like a wise thing to do — unless what you really seek is to inflame passions, and cultivate a hunger for war.
Of course, one could read the film from another angle. The story of a hegemonic super-power, intoxicated with illusions of divine right, greedy and corrupt. Hmmm. Remind you of anyone? Meanwhile…
U.S. Opens Naval Exercise in Persian Gulf
But the overall effect of the film, regardless of speculations as to intent, is to advocate war. Keep an eye out for more propaganda. Watch the implacable machinery of war produce yet another monster.
The Lives of Others
The other film, and one I enjoyed immensely, was The Lives of Others. It *works* on so many levels it’s hard to know where to begin. Just see it. One thing to keep in mind is the vastly greater technological resources available to Bush’s American "Stasi." It’s not just the real-time monitoring capabilities, impressive as they may be. It’s also the archiving and data mining capabilities. What you do now may be innocuous. But if you were to ever join the revolution (nudge, nudge!) and were to come to anyone’s attention, your whole history would be available for instant perusal. Your credit card purchases. The web sites you visited, and which pages you viewed. Groups you belong to. The people to whom you have sent emails, and received them from. Those whom you called on the telephone and how long you spoke. And their friends, too. The Stasi was able to tyrannize a country with much less.
As always, comments, retorts, rejoinders, and asides are welcome!
I’ve been thinking a lot about the administration’s plans for Iran. Am I the only one?
I mentioned it to a number of people over the weekend, and got very disturbing responses. Some people had absolutely no idea what I was talking about. Some people didn’t understand that the plan being formulated is for a nuclear attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. One man confidently asserted that it’s all just sabre rattling, that the administration wasn’t stupid enough to actually attack.
To me, it seems like the administration is employing the same plan they used for Iraq. Demonization, assertion of a threat, distorted intelligence, disingenuous gestures at negotiation, threats and provocation, and ultimately a manufactured casus belli.
Of course, it’s not just the administration that’s in favor of nuking Iran. The top Democratic presidential candidates have all gone out of their way to indicate that "all options are on the table," "all options" being the polite way of saying first-strike nuclear attack in which potentially hundreds of thousands of human beings are incinerated and poisoned.
With the Democrats and Republicans trying to "out-hawk" each other on Iran, there is no countervailing political force. Thus, an attack seems all too likely. Given their record, I think they *are* stupid enough to attack Iran.
So I find the apathy among my friends and associates regarding Iran *appalling*. If an attack is to be prevented, who will do it? Not Congress, not the Democrats. They can’t even bring themselves to deal with the actual disaster of Iraq, let alone the potential disaster of Iran. If our feckless legislators can’t stop our reckless executive, who then has the power to prevent this horrifying human tragedy?
At this point, I’m not interested in debating whether maybe nuking Iran might be a good idea. For me, that debate is dead, it’s offensive, and it’s a waste of time.
What is interesting to me is getting ahead of the whole process, brainstorming with others who would like to actually prevent an attack from happening. Therefore, I invite any of you who share my concerns, and my determination to be an actor — not a reactor — to contact me. Since not all of you agree with this endeavor, or perhaps are even interested in it, I will be setting up a dedicated list on my own server. Not a list for endless discussions, hand wringing, diatribes and complaints; a list with the aim of preventing a war. All are welcome.
Thanks for listening –
Here are a couple more recent articles on Iran, one from conservative Patrick Buchanan and one from Seymour Hersh. (The Hersh article also describes how the Bush administration is funneling money to… Sunni extremists in Lebanon allied with Al Qaeda? Fact is stranger than fiction!)
Patrick Buchanan, 3/3/07:
If Americans sickened by the carnage of Iraq wish to stop an even more disastrous war on Iran, they had best get cracking.
Seymour Hersh, 2/25/07:
… the Pentagon is continuing intensive planning for a possible bombing attack on Iran, a process that began last year, at the direction of the President. In recent months, the former intelligence official told me, a special planning group has been established in the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, charged with creating a contingency bombing plan for Iran that can be implemented, upon orders from the President, within twenty-four hours.
Oh good, here’s a proposal to end the war I can really warm up to!
Left Field Weekly
Heat Ray to be used on Legislators
By Robert Street
February 5, 2007
In a move that threatens to raise the stakes in the debate over the Iraq war, a judicial review panel has approved use of a controversial new “Heat Ray” by non-governmental organizations. The decision, which is being appealed, comes asvoters are becoming increasingly frustrated with what is perceived as Congressional foot dragging in ending the Iraq war. “With the heat ray, for the first time voters will literally be able to hold Congress members’ feet to the fire,” said a lawyer involved in the proceedings. “This is a victory for concerned citizens, and a real advance for democracy.”
The heat ray, which is said to be harmless, uses millimeter-length waves that barely penetrate the skin but cause people to feel as if they are about to catch on fire. According to Justin Norman of Peace First, lead plaintiff in the case, the use of non-lethal “legislation accelerators” is the logical next step in a moribund democratic process. By providing a non-lethal means of focusing legislators’ attention, heat ray advocates hope to provoke immediate Congressional action on the Iraq war, and other issues they deem important.
The proposal to use the heat ray has been steadily gaining traction among activist groups. “We’ve tried letter writing, mass demonstrations, email campaigns, voting,” said Heather Klein, spokesperson for Act Out for a Change, “but nothing seems to get through to them.” Because of its non-lethal nature, the heat ray appeals to pacifists, yet is also acceptable to voters whose first choice is to dunk their representative in a pool of piranhas. It is this broad popular appeal that is making legislators on both sides of the aisle nervous. In a hastily called press conference, Democratic Majority Leader, Rep. StenyHoyer objected to the panel’s decision. “We’re already pleading with President Bush to change course in Iraq. Setting us on fire is not going to make him change his mind any sooner.” Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) said the heat ray wouldnot discriminate between those wanting to “stay the course, and those who want to cut and run,” although he quickly added that he fully supported the public’s right to own heat rays. Both agreed that a heat ray would disrupt the normal business of Congress, and hinder deliberation on symbolic, non-binding resolutions. “If we feel we’re about to burst into flames we simply won’t be able to argue about important stuff like that,” said Cantor.
Peace activists admit they will face difficulties in deploying the heat ray. Raytheon, the company that designed the weapon, is refusing to disclose the price, but it is expected to be in excess of one million dollars. However, a company spokesman acknowledged that any organization with the legal right to acquire a heat ray would be able to. This week’s ruling clears the way for organizations like Peace First to raise funds for their very own heat ray. “We’re accepting donations on the Internet,” said a hopeful Norman, “so it’s really important that this message gets out.”
Proponents of the plan claim the heat ray may ultimately save lives. “Congress has the Constitutional power to stop the war in Iraq, and to prevent an impending attack on Iran. Anything that can be done to persuade them to exercise that power is acceptable,” stated Klein. “It may be a bit uncomfortable for our Representatives, but we have to weigh that against the thousands of people who may die if we don’t act.” Mr. Norman pointed out that the heat ray does not violate the Geneva Conventions regarding treatment of intransigent government officials. “In fact, the [Geneva Conventions] don’t mention heat rays at all,” he said.
Robert Street is freelance journalist and political writer. He can be contacted at rstreet411/AT/gmail/DOT/com.
“Fool me once, shame … shame on … you.” Long, uncomfortable pause. “Fool me — can’t get fooled again!”
Or can we? Will the tricks that worked for Iraq work again for Iran? Will the media again play their enabling role?
Will Congress finally assert itself? Will enough Americans demand an end to this insanity? Or will we sit back and
passively watch it on our 50″ Plasma TV’s? If you liked Iraq, take a look at what’s coming down the track!
This article by John Pilger gives some idea of where we’re headed.
Iran: The War Begins
By John Pilger
February 03, 2007
As opposition grows in America to the failed Iraq adventure, the Bush administration is preparing public opinion for an attack on Iran, its latest target, by the spring.
Read this article at ZNet:
On the return flight from Nicaragua I saw a great, short, indie film! I liked it so much, I downloaded it from iTunes. (Only $1.99. I don’t usually buy stuff with DRM, or recommend stuff that costs money, but this was worth it!) Synopsis:
- Tired of wasting time on relationships that break up when one person discovers something they can't stand about the other, Everett decides to reveal all his terrible habits, attitudes, and hang-ups on the first date.
- Shockingly, women don't respond as he expects... until he meets Brinn, who's willing to play his game and try for Full Disclosure.
Reminds me of me! Especially fun for you Radical Honesty types. Check it out:
Here’s a tongue in cheek takeoff on YouTube’s LonelyGirl15 — LonelyDem07:
Hey, it’s raining subpoenas! It’s about time!
Oh, and the impeachment flash mob was apparently a success with over 1200 participants. I couldn’t make it, but someone sent me this link showing aerial photos:
P.S. If you missed the photos from my trip to Nicaragua, here they are:
Okay, so there was a Democratic landslide in November. Finally! A massive public repudiation of George Bush and the war in Iraq. And yet, the Democrats are planning on passing a $160 billion funding bill that would keep the war going! It’s enough to make you want to… to… run for president, if you happen to be Dennis Kucinich.
KUCINICH: Someone has to rally the American people, to let them know that the money is there right now to bring our troops home. Democrats were put in power in November to chart a new direction in Iraq. It’s inconceivable that having been given the constitutional responsibility to guide the fortunes of America in a new direction, that Democratic leaders would respond by supporting the administration’s call for up to $160 billion in new funding for the war in Iraq.
Inconceivable? That’s putting it charitably. I can think of a few other adjectives! Kucinich has some good things to say, check out the interview.
Now is the time to hold the Democrats’ feet to the fire — especially, Nancy Pelosi. Is she your representative? Have you contacted her recently? Maybe now would be a good time.
Regarding the report from the Iraq Study Group… hmmm. What did we expect? A good analysis from Bob Herbert, below. The report makes clear that the war in Iraq is a lost cause, yet tries to salvage what was undoubtedly the underlying objective of the war — strategic control of Iraq’s oil.
It’s spelled out in Recommendation No. 63, which calls on the U.S. to “assist Iraqi leaders to reorganize the national oil industry as a commercial enterprise” and to “encourage investment in Iraq’s oil sector by the international community and by international energy companies.” This recommendation would turn Iraq’s nationalized oil industry into a commercial entity that could be partly or fully privatized by foreign firms.
It’s all there in black and white, and all you have to do is download it and read it. (Google Iraq Study Group)
Or, just check out Antonia Juhasz’s explication in the LA Times:
On the important humor front:
Folk songs of the Far Right Wing
Couple role-plays the political way. Warning: sexual content
The Iraq Study Group’s report on what to do about Iraq is due out next Wednesday, but the gist of it has been made public. They say it is somewhere between “stay the course” and “cut and run.” Historian Andrew Bacevitch is under no delusions regarding the real agenda of the ISG:
Even as Washington waits with bated breath for the Iraq Study Group (ISG) to release its findings, the rest of us should see this gambit for what it is: an attempt to deflect attention from the larger questions raised by America’s failure in Iraq and to shore up the authority of the foreign policy establishment that steered the United States into this quagmire. This ostentatiously bipartisan panel of Wise Men (and one woman) can’t really be searching for truth. It is engaged in damage control.
Speaking of Iraq, NBC made the “bold” move to start calling the Iraq imbroglio a “civil war” despite the White House’s objections. The NY Times, LA Times and other media quickly followed suit. While their somewhat self-congratulatory announcement is certainly welcome, it seems a little late. They’ve finally found the resolve to report things as they are, instead of how Bush says they are. Uh, great. Wasn’t that their job all along? Where were they in the build-up to the war? They were it’s obsequious cheerleaders! Perhaps, like the Democrats, seeing which way the political winds blow, they’ve decided to change their spin. Am I being cynical? Do they think we’ve already forgotten their bellicose boosterism in 2003? While NBC concedes calling it a “civil war” could erode public support, I’d love to hear them admit they were instrumental in building public support for the war in the first place.
John Nichols lays it out in “News Flash: Major Media Begins to Think for Itself”:
An emboldened media is more symptom than cause. Likewise, the recent Democratic victories were due to plummeting public support for the war, the only meaningful protest people could make in our rigged electoral system. It wasn’t because of a huge enthusiasm for the Democratic party. Democrats enjoyed a landslide because Republicans screwed up so miserably that Democrats became less distasteful than the alternative. But you can’t make a policy out of reliance on your opponent’s mistakes.
I’m still pulling for systemic change, change that addresses the endemic corruption in Washington, corporate control of the levers of power, and so on. I’m still waiting for NBC to announce that the US attacked Iraq in a corporate-inspired bid to control its oil. That’s the kind of truth-telling we need to move out of our own quagmire of deceit. But, frankly, I’m not expecting NBC to lead on that one. When they finally use the “O-word” it will be because they were forced to by overwhelming public disgust with their establishment spin. It will be because they have to choose between telling the truth and their own irrelevancy. It will be because we will have already won.
Last week Congress passed legislation as sweeping in its scope as it is dangerous in its intent. Throwing out the long-held legal principle of habeas corpus is patently unconstitutional — but it may take years, if ever, for a case to go before the Supreme Court. Also, in a blatant attempt at retroactively legalizing criminal behavior his administration has engaged in, Dubya was given authority to determine what constitutes torture. Both of these measures were responses to Supreme Court decisions that slapped down the administration’s bizarre legal interpretations.
An excerpt from an article by William Rivers Pitt:
So much of this legislation is wretched on the surface. Habeas corpus has been suspended for detainees suspected of terrorism or of aiding terrorism, so the Magna Carta-era rule that a person can face his accusers is now gone. Once a suspect has been thrown into prison, he does not have the right to a trial by his peers. Suspects cannot even stand in representation of themselves, another ancient protection, but must accept a military lawyer as their defender.
Illegally-obtained evidence can be used against suspects, whether that illegal evidence was gathered abroad or right here at home. To my way of thinking, this pretty much eradicates our security in persons, houses, papers, and effects, as stated in the Fourth Amendment, against illegal searches and seizures.
Speaking of collecting evidence, the torture of suspects and detainees has been broadly protected by this new legislation. While it tries to delineate what is and is not acceptable treatment of detainees, in the end, it gives George W. Bush the final word on what constitutes torture. US officials who use cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment to extract information from detainees are now shielded from prosecution.
Read the full article here:
That’s a bitter pill. How ’bout a spoonful of satirical sugar?
Stick a magnetic ribbon on your SUV
GOP: Party of Family Values
And now this from the GOP, party of family values. Republican Rep. Mark Foley got caught sending porno messages to a 16 year-old boy who had been a Congressional page. The article linked below has the actual
transcripts — be warned — you might find them revolting. Attempting to put a positive spin on it, conservative bloggers are lauding Foley for “doing the right thing” by resigning. Excuse me! It is also reported that other GOP lawmakers knew about Foley’s problem months ago and didn’t do anything. There ought to be a law against… oh yeah, Foley co-chaired the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, and had sponsored numerous bills aimed at protecting children from predators.
National Intelligence Estimate
If I were a conspiracy theorist, of course, I would speculate that the Foley affair was just a desperate attempt by the Republicans to distract voters’ attention from something much, much worse — the National Intelligence Estimate. Trying to get ahead of the controversy caused by leaked excerpts, Dubya declassified the document. The gist of the report, compiled by 16 US intelligence agencies, is that US efforts are making the problem of terrorism *worse* not better. Looking at the report you have to wonder why it was classified in the first place. It’s dire conclusions are what many of us predicted before the Bush administration (with ample help from the Democratic Party) started the war, and what should be apparent to anyone paying attention. Don’t take my word for it. Don’t believe the pundit spin. Read it yourself.
So there you have it. Going into the crucial midterm elections November 7, one almost feels sorry for the Republicans. The occupation of Iraq is a disaster of the first magnitude, according to their own intelligence agencies. Dubya is having to go further afield for advice that doesn’t sound like defeat, reportedly consulting Henry Kissinger. (Does being responsible for a previous foreign policy debacle qualify him to screw this one up, too?) In order to paint the Democrats as soft on terrorism they have had to rip up the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions. And to top it all off, they’ve been protecting a pedophile, making a mockery of their claim to represent “family values.” It’s a shame hypocrisy isn’t a fatal disease.
You will no doubt have heard of Hugo Chávez’s speech last week before the United Nations. Much hyper-ventilating from right-wing media, and even the Democrats were quick to condemn his rhetorical flourish that W. was “the devil.” The reaction from the punditocracy seems hysterical. If you bother watching the speech
a couple things are evident. First of all, the comments about W. being the devil were just a small part of a much longer speech. Chávez went on to say a lot of things that were really much more damning. To focus on the “diablo” reference seems a bit disingenuous. In any case, it’s also worth noting that the speech was *very* will received by the UN members present. The problem isn’t one little word in one Presidential speech, it’s the fact that much of the world — including many in the US — agrees with Chávez, irrespective of what they think of how he expresses himself.
Is name-calling effective? Depends on what you’re trying to achieve. It certainly got him lots of ink! Given the obstinate refusal of the press to discuss the substantive issues regarding US foreign and economic policy, perhaps you take what you can get. Bill Clinton commented on Fox News that Chávez’s tactics could backfire: “It makes him look small and undermines his effectiveness.” I tend to agree, although, while that may be true in the US, Chávez is playing to a global audience that may look beyond the epithets.
Gov. Pataki made this bizarre comment: “This person has no right coming to our country to criticize our president,” Pataki said in a phone interview on FOX News.
“He can take his cheap oil and do something for the poor people of Venezuela.”
Um… Governor, that *is* what he’s doing, and that’s the “problem.” Rather than talking about whether someone has “the right” to criticize Bush, how about talking about the substance of the underlying criticism?
And these repeated assertions that Chávez is a dictator…? He’s repeatedly won overwhelming victories in democratic elections! You can’t say the same on either count for W. “Dictator” isn’t an accurate description, it’s just more name-calling.
It’s hardly news that Chávez has a low opinion of Bush. Back in March, responding to White House comments characterizing him as a demagogue, Chávez gave Bush a piece of his mind, calling Bush a coward, psychopath, assassin, ignoramus, a donkey, a liar, an alcoholic. “Eres un burro, Mr. Danger.” Those comments are now being rehashed by the media. Eh. So El Presidente has a florid vocabulary. Big deal.
The worst thing about the name calling is that it encourages Bush’s defenders to respond in kind. In doing so, the substantive criticisms that Chávez is making get conveniently swept under the rug.
What would the US media be discussing if they wanted to look at substance rather than style? Perhaps the role that petroleum plays in the conflict. Reporter Greg Palast asks Chávez some hard questions in this interview: http://www.progressive.org/mag_intv0706
The Bush administration backed a coup in Venezuela, and understandably, Chávez is a bit testy about that! Consider, for a moment, what the US reaction would be if a foreign government funnelled millions of dollars into violent anti-Bush groups, formed an alliance with dissident members of the US Army who surrounded the White House with tanks and kidnapped the President, and then tried to legitimize the coup by recognizing its perpetrators. (Maybe that’s a bad example! I’m sure there are some of us who’d love to see Bush “rendered” to some nation we’ve designated as prone to human rights “abuses.”)
To get an incredible inside look at the coup as it actually unfolded, check out “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.” This film is a little over an hour long, and very gripping. It gives a favorable view on Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution. Highly recommended.
It turns out that Chávez has been reading Noam Chomsky, and during the UN speech held aloft his 2003 book “Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Domination.” I haven’t read the book, but I’m familiar with Chomky’s work. The proposition that US policy is dictated by corporate economic interests seeking a dominant global position seems so obvious as to not be worth arguing, but I’m sure Chomsky provides copious references and footnotes to support it. After the Chávez speech, the book shot to number one on the Amazon.com bestseller list. (Next up on my political reading list: “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” by John Perkins.)
What makes Chávez the Bush Administration’s bête noire is that he is attempting to implement a fundamentally different sort of economic structure, one that is directly antagonistic to the model of economic domination and exploitation (globalization and neo-liberalism) favored by the Bushies. That, plus the fact that oil gives him the economic muscle to actually have an impact.
I am sure that the Bolivarian Revolution is not perfect. I would be surprised if there have not been excesses and mistakes. Indeed, Human Rights Watch, which supported Chávez at the time of the attempted coup, has been critical of him since then. (See: http://www.hrw.org/americas/venezuela.php).
Of course, Human Rights Watch is also highly critical of the US, so I’m not sure we’re in much of a position to hurl brickbats at Venezuela, either.
Free Speech Now is my blog site.
It reflects a variety of topics I’m interested in: Politics, Humor, how we Relate to one another as human beings sharing Planet Earth. Speaking of relating, I’m interested in your comments, especially if you have well-reasoned opinions that differ from mine. If you share my opinions that’s great. But I’m not as interested in preaching to the choir as I am in engaging with people who have different views. After all, that’s where change can occur.