Informed Insights, or Carping Commentaries

'What Have Those Muslim Women Got to Hide?'

2006-11-17T18:28:00.000-08:00

"Dutch government proposes a ban on wearing burqas in public"
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article1993583.ece

Some authorities want to force women to wear the burqa in public. Others want to forbid them from wearing them in public.

Why does women's clothing need to be specially regulated?

“They Don’t Deserve Us”: The Rats Desert the Sinking Ship

2006-11-14T09:07:00.000-08:00

In his column “Here Come the Odious Excuses”, Robert Fisk addresses the recent “mea-culpas” of the neo-conservative intellectuals who supported the war in Iraq. Clearly one thing they have NOT learned from the sorry mess that is the Iraq war is humility- in fact, they are as arrogant in acknowledging the failure of that adventure as they were at promoting it in the first place.

It is good that people like Fisk are willing to spend time reading their pearls of wisdom and then report back to those of us who do not wish to subject ourselves to continuous waves of anger and depression. I believe in knowing your opponent’s arguments, but only up to a point. I don’t want to immerse myself in them to get to know their every wretched detail. I know someone who does do that, but then he seems to get a kick out of getting angry. I get angry but I don’t enjoy it. I start to move in the direction of away when he starts recounting neo-con arguments in great detail.

The problem is that however bright intellectuals may be, their intellect becomes a force for ill rather than good when it is directed through the lens of ideology. Ideology breeds arrogance because the believer identifies himself with the fundamental presuppositions of the ideology- and an ideology does not allow its fundamental presuppositions to ever be proved wrong. The important thing to keep in mind is that not only does success prove the ideology to be fundamentally right, but so does failure. For instance, when a country adopts “free market” policies and its economy collapses, free market ideologists conclude not that there is something wrong with the free market policies, but they weren’t applied strictly enough. And when the catastrophic nature of the war in Iraq becomes plain to all, those who claimed that invading Iraq would transform the Middle East in a paradise of pro-western/pro-Israel liberal democracies now say the problem is not with their ideology but with the Arabs. It’s like doing experiments on people and blaming them for dying from the experiments: “they weren’t strong enough.” The fact that this response is racist is no surprise- the idea always was that Arabs understand force, and so if enough force is applied to them they will be “reshaped” in desirable ways. Now they are saying that even violence is not enough to reform the Arabs- therefore they must be incorrigible.

Of course, ideology is an important ingredient of imperialism, and the racism that underlies imperialism (“these backward savages may yet be saved by our beneficent guidance”) is not dispelled by its failures, just turned to “these backward savages are beyond salvation, and not worthy of our beneficent guidance. Screw them. They deserve everything we have to throw at them- and more.”

Review of 'Between States'

2006-11-11T17:36:00.000-08:00

I went to see Darren Ell’s photographic exhibition, "Between States", after weeks of procrastination. It consists mainly of photographic portraits of people who are, as the title suggests, caught in a sort of stateless limbo here in Canada. In some cases, this limbo is endured as imprisonment. Both Hassan Alurei and Mahmoud Jaballah, detained on secret evidence supposedly linking them to terrorist organisations, are shown in their orange prison jump suits, clutching black wires in their hands, against a white wall. Mohamed Harkat, now out of prison on strict bail conditions, is in civilian clothes and under a tree, yet he is clutching the same black wire.

Another form of imprisonment is sanctuary, although this is willingly endured by some as an alternative to deportation. Sanctuary is when refugees facing imminent deportation are sheltered by a church congregation, in the hope that the government will not send police into the church to arrest them. A moving depiction of this form of imprisonment is to be found in the photograph of Alvaro, Marcela and Miresa Vega, a Colombian family that lived in St. Andrew’s Norwood United Church for 567 days, until they were allowed to stay on compassionate grounds. I saw this family at a special service a couple of years ago, when they had already endured almost a year and a half of not being able to leave the church. Ell’s photograph shows them looking out from a window onto the rooftop aside the church- their only view of the outside world.

Another Colombian is also another one of those being threatened with deportation on the basis of secret evidence. Ampero Torres, whose ex-husband and brother are members of the rebel army FARC, is accused of links to this group, now classified as a "terrorist organisation" by the Canadian government. The fact that the UN High Commission for Refugees found that her life had been in danger in Columbia hasn’t prevented our government from trying to send her back there.

Another refugee in sanctuary in a Montreal church is Abelkader ("Kader") Belouni, a blind diabetic who sought sanctuary in St. Gabriel’s Church in Pointe-St-Charles last January 1. Seeing him in the large photograph on the wall in front of me reminded me of seeing him at the press conference held in early January to announce that he was doing this. I’ve missed all the events held there since. I really must make a point of going to one soon.

The caption mentioned that currently, ten people are in sanctuary in Canada.

The other component of the exhibition was to be found via a pair of headphones, where I heard bits of the testimonies of the refugees portrayed. One voice would be followed by another, followed by another, and so on, then we’d come back to the first one….it was put together in such a way that, after a while, you could hear an overall story being told.

Because they are "between states", it is easy for the authorities to subject refugees to treatment that would be considered scandalous when applied to a citizen. Yet refugees do not inherently pose more of a security risk than do citizens. There is no logic to the laws treating them so differently, except that they can. But if national security requires that secret evidence should be enough to tar refugees as terrorists, then it must also require that it be enough tar citizens as such too. Does it? Should we have to give up our freedoms in order to preserve them? No? Then let us respect the rights of refugees too.

What Are We Remembering?

2006-11-10T15:13:00.000-08:00

Rememberance Day always leaves me with mixed feelings. One the one hand, I think it's very important to remember what it means to fight in a war, and what it means to die in a war. But its effectiveness on that score is undercut by the nationalistic/militaristic sentimentalism by which it seems that our soldiers who died in wars are the only casulties of war worth remembering, and that they all died for noble principles, died so that we could be free, etc. etc. It is said that they "fell" in battle; that they "laid down their lives", sacrificing themselves so that future generations might enjoy freedom and democracy, etc., etc.

I'm not a strict pacifist. I don't say that there can never be any violence, anywhere, under any circumstances. I would like to be able to say that, but I feel that it would be wrong of me to say that people are not to defend themselves from attack or from heavy oppression, especially since I'm not in a position of being attacked or oppressed. That said, the reality of war is not that it is a noble sacrifice in which people willingly lay down their lives for their country and for freedom. The reality is that war is a horrendous atrocity, which is at best a necessary evil, and most of the time isn't even necessary. The reality is that people have their lives torn from them- they rarely give them up willingly. There is a differance between risking one's life (willingly or unwillingly) and giving it up willingly for a sacrifice.

Even the Second World War, of which it can convincingly be said that Allied soldiers did preserve freedom in some parts of the world, was a catastrophe in human terms. Tens of millions of people were killed. Many others were made refugees. Most of Europe lay in ruins by the end of it. Parts of Asia were also devastated, and the war also featured the first (and so far only) nuclear bombings, at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Fighting the war may have been a necessary evil, but it was a great evil all the same.

As for the war from which Rememberance Day originates, World War One, it is difficult to see that those who fought in it preserved freedom and democracy in Canada. Had we sat out that particular war, how would Canadian democracy have been imperilled? Would the German Kaiser have sent his troops across the Atlantic? No, the only reason why Canadians fought in that war was because we were still part of the British Empire.

This is not mere academic quibbling about history, for the same justifications for that war are now being used to support the idea of our sending troops abroad to "promote freedom", thus securing our own freedom. You would think, then, that if we were not in Afghanistan, hordes of "jihadis" would even now be attempting to conquer western Europe and North America in order to take away our freedoms. Not so. The reason why many Muslims support "holy war" against the "West" is not because they want to rule the "West", but because they've had enough of being ruled by the "West", either directly through military occupation or indirectly through "pro-Western" tyrannies. As Robert Fisk puts it, they want to be free- of us.

Memory is important, but memory can be selective. How we choose to remember has a bearing on the choices we make that will determine our future. So let us remember, but let us also think about what we are remembering, and about what we might be forgetting.

So There!

2006-11-08T14:04:00.000-08:00

"I don't believe this is a civil war; the Iraqi PM doesn't, and our ambassador there doesn't."- George W. Bush, speaking of the situation in Iraq

Well, there would seem to be a consensus then...

Micheal Ignatieff on Torture

2006-11-04T15:36:00.000-08:00

I am not a fan of Micheal Ignatieff, the former academic who wishes to become our next Prime Minister. He has supported the invasion of Iraq, and U.S. hegemony generally, in the name of speading freedom and democracy worldwide.

I was also annoyed by his response to accusations that he`s supported torture in his writings, claiming that of course he does not support torture, because a relation of his was tortured to death by the Nazis. Would he have accepted such an argument if a student had made it in a paper during his years as an academic? Someone could be against the torture practiced by the Nazis against a relative, but be for the torture practiced by the "good guys" (us) against dastardly terrorists for noble ideals- and as we shall see in the next article, Ignatieff excuses a lot in the name of noble ideals.

However, he has a much stronger case when challenges people to actually look at what he`s written. I`ve not read everything he`s written, but I`ve read two pieces of his on the subject of torture (« Evil under Interrogation: Is Torture ever Permissible? » http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2004/ignatieff_torture_ft_051504.htm) and « If Torture Works » (http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7374%60), and they do not support the allegation that he supports torture. In fact, he comes out quite clearly against it- although the way he frames the issue can be misinterpreted.

In the latter article, for example, begins with these words : « The debate over torture is not as simple as it seems. Those of us who oppose torture under any circumstances should admit that ours is an unpopular policy that may make us more vulnerable to terrorism. »

People have, I think, seized on the first sentence and the second part of the last, neglecting to note that he speaks of « those of us who oppose torture under any circumstances should admit that ours is an unpopular policy». Later on, he makes it clear : he opposes torture not because it never works or could not save lives (he thinks it probably could), but because to do so would be a betrayal of « who we are ». The worrying thing he does say here is that « If we are against torture, we are committed to arguing with our fellow citizens, not treating those who defend torture as moral monsters »- suggesting torture should be treated as a reasonable proposal that we may disagree with, but not completely abhor. To my mind, this is too weak- if torture is not monstrous, and if it can save lives, then Ignatieff`s arguments against it look very thin indeed. Thus the problem is not that he supports torture, but that his opposition to it is ineffective.

There`s also the issue of « coercive interrogation ». First of all, it seems to me that the adjective « coercive » is redundant when applied to « interrogration », since interrogation is inherently coercive. When someone is hauled off to the police station to « answer a few questions », that person is being subjected to the coercive power of the state, and as for the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, let`s just say that their whole experience is one of coercion at the hands of Uncle Sam.

Clearly, there are levels of coercion that are not forms of torture. But there are forms of coercian, that, like torture, are designed to « break down » uncooperative suspects. There is also a point at which they become torture.

One problem with breaking people down is that the innocent can be broken down as easily as the guilty. Many wrongful convictions have resulted from people confessing to things they didn`t do under dubious circumstances. You see, if the police were to believe that I`d committed a crime, once it came to interrogation the whole point of it could be to get me to confess to the crime.

We have laws to protect the rights of criminal suspects- and of prisoners of war- precisely to limit the coercive power of the state so that abuses and miscarriages of justice can be prevented. Such laws should not be simply tossed away as inexpediant when a government sees fit to declare war on an evil such as terrorism. Again, Ignatieff is right when he says that of course there is bound to be some coercian involved in interrogation, but is lamentably weak when it comes to arguing for the state`s coercive powers to be limited.

Michael Ignatieff, Noble Dreams, and Imperialism

2006-11-04T15:33:00.000-08:00

Michaeal Ignatieff, the former academic who would be our next Prime Minister, has been accused of supporting U.S. imperialsm, and of supporting torture.

In my last article, I argued that he has not supported torture. On the contrary, he clearly states his opposition to it. Unfortunately, the arguments he makes in support of this strong stance are themselves rather wishy-washy and ineffective.

In this article, however, I show that he has supported U.S. imperialism in his writings. His argument in favour of some form of "idealistic imperialism", however noble it may sound, serves to mask the reality of empire- empires are about power, not noble ideals. Where the requirements of imperial power conflict with the ideals that supposedly motivate the imperial project, it`s the ideals that fall by the wayside. An empire is based on the idea that the imperialists must have control over the world, or over large parts of it, or all is lost. What are ideals when faced with such an imperative?

In his 2005 article "Who Are Americans to Think That Freedom Is Theirs to Spread? (New York Times Magazine, 26 June 2005, http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/ksgnews/Features/opeds/062605_ignatieff.htm), Ignatieff supports U.S. hegemony, though not without some criticism over details. He says that "If democracy plants itself in Iraq and spreads throughout the Middle East, Bush will be remembered as a plain-speaking visionary. If Iraq fails, it will be his Vietnam, and nothing else will matter much about his time in office….The consequences are more likely to be positive if the president begins to show some concern about the gap between his words and his administration's performance. For he runs an administration with the least care for consistency between what it says and does of any administration in modern times."

But isn’t there an inconsistency between that and his claim that there has been a "democratic turn in American foreign policy"? If there`s a gap between rhetorical support for democracy and real support for democracy that`s "unprecendented in modern times", then this "democratic turn" would seem to be merely rhetorical. And the facts bear out such an assertion. Ignatieff notes that "Latin Americans remember when the American presence meant backing death squads and military juntas". He fails to note that today, it merely means supporting a military coup against Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and threatening to cut off aid to Nicaragua should the Nicaraguans have the gall to elect Daniel Ortega as president. He does note that in the Middle East the U.S. continues to support tyrants- he fails to note how the Iraqi elections came about as a result of widespread popular demonstrations for elections (the original U.S. plan being to bring in a largely appointed "constituent assembly"), how the U.S. failed to support the democratically elected Lebanese government this past summer when their country was under assault from "the only democracy in the Middle East", and how the U.S. and other countries are punishing the Palestinians for their democratic choice early this year.

The methods may change, but the ultimate aim remains the same- control.

In this light, one can appreciate the true irony of statements like "The charge that promoting democracy is imperialism by another name is baffling to many Americans. How can it be imperialist to help people throw off the shackles of tyranny?"

Ignatieff claims that Eastern Europeans supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq because they remember how "when the chips were down, in the dying years of Soviet tyranny, American presidents were there, and Western European politicians looked the other way."

True, Eastern European governments supported the invasion, for some very practical reasons (which Ignatieff does mention in passing). This is not the same as saying that people in those countries supported it. In fact, polls taken in those countries suggested that there was little popular support for the invasion of Iraq. I guess those East Europeans need to learn a thing or two about gratitude, eh?

Ignatieff takes the claims of "American idealism" just a little too seriously. For instance, he says that John Kerry's presidential campaign "could not overcome liberal America's fatal incapacity to connect to the common faith of the American electorate in the Jeffersonian ideal….the American electorate seemed to know only too well how high the price was in Iraq, and it still chose the gambler over the realist. In 2004, the Jefferson dream won decisively over American prudence"

No, what won the 2004 election for Bush was fear, and his proffered antidote to fear, "security"- including measures that run counter to the "Jeffersonian ideal". Even "exporting freedom and democracy" was supposed to be good for security. Most Americans, I suspect, are not interested in sending troops to die in some foreign country just so that foreigners can vote for their rulers. The same goes for Canadians. Bush also claimed that "taking the fight to them" (Who? The Arabs? The Muslims?), prevented "them" from taking the fight to "us". Better Baghdad than Washington D.C., in other words. Although many Americans weren’t totally convinced that Bush was on the right track, there seemed to be a risk in changing horses in midstream, as well as a risk that Kerry would just be "weak" on security, since his ideas on the subject seemed to shift just a little too often.

But Ignatieff, that super-intellectual, prefers the level of high-flown ideas and ideals to dealing with the nitty-gritty of political reality. He even seems to believe that ideas, if we believe in them, can themselves make a war worthwhile. Apparently, we can therefore ignore the reality of the power politics behind the war. In reality, no war is ever simply about ideals. Even the Second World War, commonly cited as a "good" war, was not an "idealistic" war. It was fought against a real threat to security (German expansionism motivated by Nazi ideology) and was fought alongside the brutal Soviet Union, which ended up occupying Eastern Europe and subjecting it to its form of tyranny.

By the end of the article we see Ignatieff appealing to an almost religious mysticism, looking to "Jefferson’s dream" that must "somehow do its work": "Its ultimate task in American life is to redeem loss, to rescue sacrifice from oblivion and futility and to give it shining purpose. The real truth about Iraq is that we just don't know -- yet -- whether the dream will do its work this time."

Dreams don’t work. People do. Plans can work, or not- but to plan effectively one must deal with reality. Dreams motivate people, of course, but we cannot rely on them to do anything for us. Yet a mystical belief in the power of noble dreams to somehow make horrible, sordid realities shine with purpose is in the end all that "idealistic" supporters of the war have left to hang on to.

The Art of War?

2006-11-03T04:35:00.000-08:00

Iraq a 'work of art in progress' says US general after 49 dieJulian Borger in WashingtonFriday November 3, 2006The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1938419,00.html

"On a day in which 49 people were killed or found dead around the country, Major General William Caldwell, the chief military spokesman, argued that Iraq was in transition, a process that was "not always a pleasant thing to watch.

"Every great work of art goes through messy phases while it is in transition. A lump of clay can become a sculpture. Blobs of paint become paintings which inspire," Maj Gen Caldwell told journalists in Baghdad's fortified green zone."

I don't know much about art, but I know what I don't like.

I Love Vermont!

2006-11-02T15:56:00.000-08:00

Vermont poised to elect America's first socialist senator
Midterms 2006: Cantankerous campaigner strikes chord with voters.

Don't Blame Us...What Can WE Do? (Shrug)

2006-11-01T09:20:00.000-08:00

In the National Post, Bruce Pardy ("WWF report wrong about Canada's 'print'") claims that the recent World Wildlife Fund “Living Planet” report is wrong to say that Canada’s “ecological footprint” (negative impact on the environment) is among the worst (4th highest) in the world. This ranking, he says, reflects the “prevailing world view of the international environmental intelligentsia that the world's environmental problems are the fault of Western industrialized countries, each of which owes a debt to developing nations.”

“But it isn’t true”, says Pardy. He makes the following argument: True, on a per capita basis we consume far more in the way of national resources and exude far more in the way of harmful byproducts (including greenhouse gases) than do people in India and China, let alone people in sub-Saharan Africa. But in fact we are “living within our biological capacity”, and so are other “high-footprint” but low population density countries such as Finland, Australia, Sweden, New Zealand and Norway. For you see, what all these countries have in common with us is this: low population densities and plenty of natural resources. Thus, “even given the large amount of environmental resources consumed by each of their citizens, the total ecological load in these countries is still smaller than what their natural resources are able to provide. These are not the nations imposing massive environmental externalities on the rest of the world.”

Who then are the burdensome nations of the world? “The United States is in ecological deficit, but so are China, India and the oil-producing countries of the Middle East. These nations create significant environmental burdens upon the globe because their impacts exceed the capacity of their own ecosystems.”

Pardy does acknowledge that our being in “ecological credit” has nothing to do with any virtuous behaviour on our part: Canada is in this position "(not due to) superior environmental governance or resource management skills, but because it has a small population in a large, resource-rich territory. That's an accident of history.” Yet he still concludes that “Canada and these other developed countries are not the main culprits for global environmental problems.”

In other words, we have plenty of resources to waste, so our wasting of resources is not a problem. The problem is not that the world’s rich consume too many resources- the problem is either that the poor consume too many resources, or that there are too many poor. Perhaps we should consume the poor, as Jonathan Swift once suggested. The implication is that China and India, for example, are major culprits for environmental problems because unlike us they have high population densities and comparatively few natural resources. What are they supposed to do about that? Is there anything we should be doing about that? Pardy doesn’t say.

Pardy then goes on to suggest that there is little point in our trying to reduce our impact on the environment, because, you see, we are such a small country (in terms of population), and so our contribution to solving the problem will necessarily be slight. By the same reasoning, no one should ever vote because no single vote ever makes a decisive difference, and no one should give to charity unless one is rich enough to make a major contribution to the budget of the fundraising organization.

He also asks whether the growth in human impact on the planet can be halted “while maintaining democratic systems and fundamental freedoms.”

Well, look at it this way: the longer we put off making adjustments to our profligate lifestyles, the harder it will be to avoid draconian measures further down the line. When the crunch comes, people will likely choose survival over more abstract notions such as democracy and freedom, especially if our democratic institutions are seen as having been ineffective at averting catastrophe. Since I am partial to human rights, freedom and democracy (and survival too) I would prefer it if we could avoid that dilemna altogether. We’ll have to quickly overcome attitudes like Pardy’s if we’re to have a hope of doing so.

Destroy the Environment, and You Will Destroy the Economy

2006-10-30T17:13:00.000-08:00

An economist with solidly establishment credentials (World Bank, etc.) now makes the same points that have been widely dismissed when made by environmentalists:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6096084.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6098124.stm

A BBC report on this makes the point that even Tony Blair, who rushed to endorse this report, pledged not to do anything to hurt business, "confusing business with the economy".

'The problem lies in the unwillingness to recognize that your own terrorism is terrorism'

2006-10-27T16:15:00.001-07:00

Chomsky on terrorism. >by Saad Sayeed >Excalibur

Although Chomsky, being an American, is naturally concerned about American terrorism and American-supported terrorism, his point is broader than that. No one is prepared to admit to being a terrorist or to supporting terrorism, but what is terrorism? Who is prepared to operate according to a consistent definition? For too many, terrorism is what "they" do to us and our friends. What we and our friends do to "them" is "self-defence against terrorism". On this blog I've criticised Israel and those who claim to love it for using this logic, but they are sadly very far from being alone in this.

An interesting point- Chomsky notes that this is not the first "War on Terror". In the 1980's, the Reagan administration declared a global "war on terrorism", while committing and supporting horrendous acts of terrorism in central America, among other places. In 1986 (20 years ago- how time flies!) the U.S. carried out bombings of Libya that would have been condemned as acts of terrorism if carried out in the U.S. or Europe (What other differance was there? That the bombs were dropped from planes? Come on!). It's no accident that many of those complicit in the crimes of the Reagan administration are up to their old tricks with Bush the Second.

And what of Canada's role? Well, the Right want us to be right in there in far-away countries destroying the threat posed by "radical Islam", rounding up the usual suspects from the Muslim "fifth column" for indefinate detention to be followed at some point by rendition to torturers in their "home sweet homes", and generally doing our bit in the war for civilization.

The scary thing is, we're already doing a lot of that. But we'll be doing still more if scaremongering articles like Mark Steyn's cover story in this week's (October 23-30, 2006) issue of Maclean's Magazine have enough influence. The magazine cover, as described in Seven Oaks Magazine: "The dark, ominous image features a background mass of people entirely covered in full black face veil. In the foreground, a young pre-teenaged girl -- the only one with her face uncovered -- looks up with a dark menacing stare. The subheading on the cover hints at Steyn's argument: "The Muslim world has youth, numbers and global ambition. The West is old, barren and exhausted." (see more at http://www.sevenoaksmag.com/commentary/macleans.html)

Apparently, among other things, Steyn accuses "Big Government" of weakening popular resolve to fight terrorism- although like many a right-winger he equates Big Government with the welfare state, not with dramatic increases in military spending, nor military operations abroad, nor measures that curb civil liberties. Are military "interventions" abroad less "invasive" and "intrusive" than government interventions in the economy or in society?

Anyway, enough of this. Muslims are not the enemy. The enemy are those who would set us against each other for their own purposes. Some of the enemy are Muslim, but most are not.

People and Other Commodities 5: Have You Heard?

2006-10-27T09:39:00.001-07:00

Have you heard? Time is money. But how much money exactly? What’s the monetary value of my time? Does it have to do with my salary? Say I make $ 15 an hour- is that it? But then, some people make a lot more than that. Is their time worth more than my time? Is their time of better quality? And what about the many people who make less than I do? Is it that their time is worth less money than mine, or that their money is worth more time?

How do you like to spend your time? Is it the same way you like to spend your money? You know, money talks and time will tell- I wonder what they’re saying about us.

OK- that’s a bit personal, isn`t it?- a bit intrusive, a bit challenging. I didn`t mean it like that- I was just thinking with my fingers as they caressed the keyboard and…OK, we won’t go there- this isn’t about cybersex.

I mean, well...do you want to hear about how I like to spend my time? And no, it doesn’t involve cybersex. This isn’t that sort of article, I keep telling you. Actually, I like to waste my time, the same way I waste my money- on books, on music, on ideas- on sex too, but I must try to keep my mind off it while I write this. Actually, sometimes what I enjoy most is being able to lose track of time- to lose myself in time, trusting that I`ll find myself in time. I like it when I can spend time thoughtlessly- irresponsibly!

I guess the last time I had like that- I was out in the countryside, out there in nature, just absorbing it and being absorbed by it. I`m not romanticizing nature, mind you- I know it`s not all benevolent. The laws of nature can be harsh and unforgiving, like the laws of the global economy. Have you heard?- the economy is the new nature, our second nature. Like the original nature it has vibrancy and growth, but this new and improved nature boasts infinite and exponential growth, and provides for all- or it will in the fullness of time, just needs to keep on growing I suppose.

And some people say we must focus most of our energies on nurturing this new nature to keep it growing. But I don`t think that way of looking at things is very balanced, and we should always seek a good balance. And by the way, I really hope you don`t get the wrong idea just because I keep mentioning political issues, that I`m some sort of raving radical or something. Heavens, no- I believe in moderation and compromise in all things.

That`s why I like the idea of sustainable development- a compromise balancing the needs of the environment and the needs of the economy. It’s a very popular idea- everyone’s in favour of it- in theory at least. You see, I'm not the only one who believes in balance. Everyone thinks there should be some kind of balance- a realistic balance, of course. Some people say that there’ll be no healthy economy without a healthy environment, but others say that those people are unbalanced. Governments of course need to balance competing interests- like the interest of oil companies to get rich quick from the tar sands of Alberta versus the interest of my generation and future generations to not be subjected to catastrophic climate changes.

Have you heard? Canada’s New Government doesn’t like the Kyoto Protocol on climate change because it was made in Japan and they want something made in Canada. I guess certain types of globalisation are better than others. We can buy our products from halfway around the world, but there can be no global response to global warming.

But of course this doesn’t mean that Canada's New Government doesn’t want to act to rein in our greenhouse gas emissions, just that they’re very patriotic. O Canada! And now they’ve just come out with their “Made in Canada” strategy which commits this great country of ours- O Canada!- to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half- by 2050. Oh…Canada.

Well, best to look on the bright side. The ice caps may melt, the seas may rise, lowlands and islands may be flooded out, and the prairies may be turned to desert, but all the while I'll be comforted by the thought that when I'm in my dotage, we'll be contributing only half as much to these catastrophes as we were 47 years earlier. A gift from this government to me in my old age.

Mind you, the people behind this exceedingly long-term policy will likely not even be around to see the fruits of their plan, 44 years from now. What a shame that is. What a shame that despite such long-term thinking Canada's New Government won't even last 44 months, let alone 44 years. Well, all that means is that they don't have to make themselves accountable for actually achieving anything. They don't have to do anything that would require them to commit to shorter term targets- let someone else take care of it. Later. Oh dear, I feel an attack of cynicism coming on. Stop.....breathe deeply, and embrace sincerity. There, that's better....

So what do we do now? Where are the ideals that could lift politics above the level of crass political calculation and ideological insensitivity? Where`s the vision? Where`s the leadership? Where are the leaders who`ll have the vision to make us do what needs to be done? I don’t know. Maybe there aren`t any. Maybe.....maybe it`s going to be up to the followers to lead, and the leaders to follow so as not to be left behind. Not that I`m advocating anything like that, but…hmmm…maybe I should have written about sex after all. Oh well. Maybe next time.

(Fat chance- if I ever do succeed in writing something convincingly dirty, it’s going straight to “Lickety Split ”. But most likely Amber has no need to worry about that possibility)

People and Other Commodities 4: Living Beyond the Earth's Means

2006-10-25T07:16:00.000-07:00

The World Wildlife Fund has just released a report (“Living Planet Report 2006”) according to which humanity is using natural resources at a rate that ‘s 25% faster than the rate of replenishment of those resources. (Canada is listed among the worst offenders). If true, this means that our current lifestyle is not only ecologically but economically unsustainable. After all, if we chop down all the forests, at a certain point they will be gone, and then whatever economic benefits we may have gotten from the forests will be gone. When you add the fact that deforestation tends to lead to either chronic flooding or desertification, there are further economic impacts- and by that I mean impacts on people’s ability to make any kind of living at all.

Unfortunately, capitalist markets as classically understood (remember “supply and demand”?) are not going to help. You would think that the sensible solution to the fact that a resource is dwindling would be to reduce use of that resource. But “supply and demand” doesn’t work like that. Remember how it’s supposed to work: as the supply of good or service x goes down, the price of x goes up. Selling x becomes more profitable, so more people go into selling x, the supply of x goes up, and the price starts going down again. The market achieves equilibrium- in theory anyway.

But what happens when x is a non-renewable resource like oil? The price goes up, so more people go into the business of extracting and selling oil. The Alberta tar sands, for instance, suddenly become attractive to investors. Since it costs a lot of money to extract oil from the tar sands, it only makes economic sense to do so when the price of oil is high.

So the market reaction to the scarcity of oil is not to cut back on oil use, but to hone in on whatever oil resources are left, and so we continue with our oil fix until the wells are so close to running dry that the price of oil soars beyond the reach of just about everyone.

Clearly, then, we can’t rely on the “free market” to rein in our ecological profligacy, even if we take its claims at face value.

People and Other Commodities 3: Left Behind?

2006-10-23T13:52:00.000-07:00

Bob Rae says that the Ontario and federal NDP are "wedded to a culture of opposition and protest", "have great difficulty embracing the lessons of the postwar world about the relationship between markets, society and government",and "cannot escape a knee-jerk reaction to business entrepreneurship and wealth creation".

That's funny. The NDP aren't even really a socialist party- they don't envisage nationalizing anything. The old CCF would have difficulty recognizing them. If one were to ask the NDP why they don't push for the (re-)nationalization of industries and utilities, they would likely say that the tools that worked in the past don't necessarily work now. Like the other parties, the NDP agrees with the idea of a "mixed economy"- the debate is over what sort of mix it should be, and even that debate is fairly limited in scope.

As for the "lessons of the postwar world", let's look at what policies were being put in place during the period of greatest economic growth after the Second World War. This was the period from about 1950 to about 1973. In most countries the role of government in the economy increased, often dramatically so. New social programs were introduced and consolidated. Government debts, which were huge at the end of the Second World War, were not "paid back" but were allowed to decline over time relative to rapidly growing economies. International trade expanded dramatically, but capital flows were subject to controls that seem almost unthinkable now. Unemployment rates generally remained low in North America and even lower in the United Kingdom and many other European countries- lower than they are now, by the way. Low interest rates? Interest rates were low then too, rarely going above 5%.

This relatively rosy picture began to unravel in the mid-1970s with the first oil crisis, bringing in inflation, rising unemployment, and rising government deficits, just as capital markets were starting to be "liberated" from controls. Pretty soon people like Reagan, Thatcher and Mulroney came along to bring in their "free market" solutions to these problems- and the rest is history.

So, when Rae accuses the NDP of not learning the lessons of the postwar years, are they the lessons that these pioneers of neo-liberalism preached to us in the 1980's? Are they the lessons that have become dogma ever since?

Rae has, for instance, embraced the neo-liberal idea that "competitive tax rates" for business are a "precondition to prosperity". If only it were true. "Competitive tax rates" do not in themselves create prosperity (except for the rich). They do not add to global economic growth (unless we assume that corporate taxes are inherently bad for growth- an unproven assertion). A country's tax rates can only be "competitive" in comparison with another's- so "competitive tax rates" may boost one country's growth at another's expense. A country may gain from moving its rates lower than that of a "competitor"- until its competitor follows suit.This erases any competitive advantage, but it does leave corporations with more money.

The problem for those wishing to sit out this race to the bottom is that not playing the game may hurt a national economy in the globalized marketplace. However, that is largely due to the "free trade" agreements which have ushered in "globalization", allowing investors to move their capital in and out of countries as they see fit, not having to commit to anything or meet any conditions. If social democratic parties were really interested in doing so, they could push for substantive changes to these agreements, such that capital flows could be regulated by countries in the public interest. But this idea is anathema to the "pragmatism" Rae is pushing. Except...if an idea is anathema to it, is it really that pragmatic? Just because it's accepted by the powers that be doesn't make it non-ideological.

As for Rae's suggestion that the NDP should have followed the lead of Britain's New Labour- who's he kidding? Do we really need two federal Liberal parties? Surely one is enough, and it is now good enough for Rae. He's found his new home- hope he's happy- but why shouldn't points of view outside of the neo-liberal consensus have major parties to represent them? The worst thing about New Labour is that it's a denial of the hope that there can be anything better than what was set in motion by Thatcherism- and anyone who still has that hope is now consigned to the sidelines of British politics.

If anything, the trouble is that the NDP aren't forceful enough in saying that there are alternatives. They're actually rather conservative, in my opinion. By the way, this is where Rae is correct in saying that they're just into opposition and protest. They're fighting a rearguard action against neo-liberalism, without even being very forceful in questioning neo-liberalism's assumptions. I think they need to learn to be bold again. Once their ideas were at the forefront- ideas like Medicare, the Canadian Pension Plan, and Unemployment Insurance. If they could present bold ideas again, they could avoid just clinging on to what's left to salvage of social democracy in Canada and actually enunciate what a social democracy of the 21rst century could look like in Canada.

Just a thought.

People and Other Commodities 2: The Depersonalized Economy

2006-10-22T16:26:00.001-07:00

"Have you heard? The government doesn't like the Kyoto Protocol because it was made in Japan, and they want something that's "made in Canada". Funny- we can buy products from halfway around the world, but there can be no global answer to global warming."- a Montreal Paul, "Have You Heard?"

A couple of months ago I was having technical problems with my computer, so I called the technical support line. When I got through to someone, I had tremendous difficulties communicating with him at first. Then it dawned on me- Indian accent- I'm probably talking to someone in India! You know, one of those outsourced Indian technical support call centres that are all the rage in the global economy. Well, why not? Many if not most of the componants of my computer are made in China:

La la la la la la la la lala la

It's all made in China

La la la la la la la la lala la

They must be rich in China...

A couple of years ago my brother, having just completed training to work in technical support, had the rug pulled out from under him when outsourcing became the "in" thing for companies to do. What could he do? Emigrate to India? He went back to the drawing board.

On the other hand, I suppose outsourcing has been good news to the Indians who have the requiredbackground and expertise- they've got jobs, and while they're paid a fraction of what people would be paid here, it's still much more than most other people in India would be making. Whether on balance this is the solution to India's problems with poverty is less clear. How does this helpthe impoverished farmers in the countryside? Will they all have to migrate to the cities to find any kind of opportunity?

In the end, such issues are of little concern to the people and corporations who are behind outsourcing and other wonders of "globalization". They're just into safeguarding their own positions in the economic system, which is so depersonalized that it is easy for all of usto deny responsibility for the consequences of our economic decisions. In fact, it takes real effort to take responsibility. This, I suspect, is a strongly seductive aspect of this system. You don't have to take responsibility, and should twinges of concern lead you in the direction of doing so, the system actually discourages you from going too far in that direction. In this system, the lives of most people are incidental- the bottom line is the bottom line- or more accurately, the bottomline is what allows the people in charge of companies to accumulate more and more wealth and power.

People say that capitalist globalization is efficient. It is efficient at seeing to the "bottom line" as defined above, but not when it comes to assuring a good quality of life for most people. In fact, it often seems to be making more and more demands of people- worklonger hours to be worthy of decent pay! Factor in these human costs, and then factor in the costs to the environment, and it doesn't look so efficient after all.

It seems strange that so many of our products must now be transported long distances- across giant oceans, across continents- at tremendous cost (especially to the environment). But it's profitable for the right people, so it's "more efficient" than making products more locally.

Once we consider definitions of "efficiency" beyond "that which most efficiently produces private profit',we may see things differantly. If we think in terms of quality of life, rather than just maximizing economic activity (which is what "economic growth" means), we might want to consider what sort of economic relations would be most to our common advantage. We might want to have them on a more human level, a more personal level.

I guess that over time, we shall see if we're still capable of thinking in such terms.

The Politics of Division

2006-10-21T06:02:00.000-07:00

An American journalist's view of Harper

"As an American journalist visiting my wife's relatives in Canada, I've always been struck by how ardently the country's political discourse focused on substance — the budget, health care, schools, roads — with little of the cheap theatrics and angry divisiveness of U.S. politics and punditry. But in my visit this past summer, I noticed that the tone of Canada suddenly had changed." >by Richard Fricker
http://www.rabble.ca/politics.shtml?sh_itm=96ea8d831f53196ffbf2b536241afe53&rXn=1

Telling. That's the neo-can strategy (also practiced by Mike Harris in Ontario)- identify the parts of the electorate who could buy into your policies and promote conflict between them and and those groups who won't buy into your policies, and who can become the 'enemy', targeted by government rhetoric and governmrnt policy. The Lebanon conflict is a clear example. The government's position was designed to pit the Jewish community and non-Jews who buy into the "clash of civilizations" view of Islam v.s. the world, against Muslims who may, at the drop of a hat, be suspected of supporting terrorism or even being terrorists, and against "anti-Israel" leftists. Thus, if Lebanese-Canadians protested their country being turned into rubble, it couldn't be just that. Oh, no. For you, see, Lebanon was being turned into rubble "in self-defence" against terrorism. Terrorism, by the way, is what is done "by a known terrorist group" (e.g. Hezbollah), according to Harper. This explains why governments never commit terrorism. So, to oppose what Israel was doing "against terrorism" was to support terrorism.

We need to resist such polarizing policies. Why is it so difficult to acknowledge that everyone has the right to peace, security and dignity? I mean, everyone- so let's resist the siren song of those who'd play some of us against the rest of us- it musn't be seen as a matter of "either-or". Why say- "we support Israel, therefore we don't lose sleep over Lebanese civilians", or "the bombings of Lebanon are an outrage, therefore the Israelis will get what's coming to them". My main criticism of Hezbollah is not that it's a "known terrorist group" (compare its actions with those of Israel during the war, with those of the Syria that tortured Arar, with the U.S. that tortures detainees and razed Fallujah in Iraq, with the armed followers of the main government parties in "democratic Iraq", or the Palestinian groups that have committed suicide bombings in Israel- oh wait, we recognize them as terrorist- must be 'cos they're too Muslim for us). No, my problem with it is that it does the "either-or" dance just as Israel does, just as Harper does.

Things Fall Apart

2006-10-20T14:32:00.000-07:00

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1904962.ece
http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article1904932.ece

It is so depressing to read the news out of Iraq. Things are even worse than most critics of the war predicted. What’s happening there goes beyond insurgency- it is the disintegration of the basic trust that’s necessary for communities and countries to hold together and function.

Why the death squads in Iraq? The Shi’ite death squads target Sunnis, suspecting them to be "terrorists", while Sunni terrorists target Sh’ites. Interestingly enough, a couple of years ago American investigative journalist Seymour Hersh wrote an article alleging that certain people with the American occupation forces were encouraging the formation of death squads to counter the mainly Sunni insurgency. After all, that strategy had worked in Central America in the 1980's. Remember also that a couple of years ago the occupation forces had a close call when Sh’ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr’s militia briefly rose up against occupation forces following the razing of the mainly Sunni town of Fullujah, raising the prospect of a united Sunni/Shi'ite uprising against the occupation. Occupation forces reeled against the onslaught and it was soon recognized that Sadr would have to be placated to keep the insurgency mostly Sunni. Today, Sadr’s army commits some of the worst sectarian atrocities with virtual impunity.

It seems likely that what is now a civil war is the consequence of U.S. "divide and conquer" tactics. Recently it’s often been reported that occupation forces and Iraqi army units stand by while death squads go into neighbourhoods. Briefly, the sectarian violence provided an argument for the occupation, but now that it’s clearly out of control the U.S. policy, if that’s what it was, has backfired, and very, very few people see the occupation forces accomplishing anything positive.

Those responsible (Bush, Blair and co.) may now say that tactics need to be revisited, but who will be held accountable for the breakdown of a society?

To be fair, it was a society already under heavy strain before the 2003 invasion. Saddam Hussein long favoured the Sunnis over the Sh’ites, brutally suppressed Kurdish and Sh’ite uprisings, and got Iraq into ruinous wars, while the United Nations gave its blessing to the U.S., U.K., Canada and other countries as they first demolished Iraq’s infrastructure, then subjected its people to ruinous sanctions. There is plenty of blame to go around, but few will be held accountable, although Saddam will likely be hanged or shot or otherwise disposed of. After all, when the game is imperialism, it’s never the imperial masters who bear the brunt of any violence- it’s those on the recieving end of imperial policies. Plus ca change...

Naive or Delusional

2006-10-19T14:08:00.000-07:00

In this article:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/afghan_cda_mackay
our foreign minister, Peter MacKay, claims that to take of withdrawing from Afghanistan "demoralises our troops" and makes insurgents bolder.

In other words, to have an open debate about our presence in Afghanistan is bad for the war effort.

I'm sorry, Mr. MacKay, but this is not acceptable. This assumes that we should all just accept that our troops should be there, even though it has never been clearly explained what expect to achieve there and how.

No doubt it would be naive to simply assume the insurency can be wished away. But it looks like assuming that it can simply be bombed and shot away is almost as delusional.

Perhaps it is naive to call for peace talks with the Taliban. After all, these are not nice people. On the other hand, sometimes one must talk to people who aren't nice. In fact, we are already. Many of the folks we're doing business with right now in Afghanistan are scarcely any better than the Taliban. Many Taliban-style laws have been re-imposed by our allies there, and education for girls is now on the decline following a brief post-Taliban renaissence.

There are no easy answers here. But "stay the course" is just a slogan, not a plan.

The Tories' Green Gift For My Old Age, And For Future Generations

2006-10-19T11:37:00.000-07:00

OTTAWA (CP) - The Conservatives released the centrepiece of their "made-in-Canada" environment agenda Thursday - a Clean Air Act that would cut greenhouse gas emissions in half, but not until 2050.

The bill, aimed at dispelling the notion that Tories are soft on the environment, sets no short-term targets for cutting greenhouse emissions. In the long term, it says the government will seek to cut emissions by 45 to 65 per cent by 2050.

So, I have this to look forward to in my old age. The ice caps may melt, the seas may rise, lowlands and islands may be flooded out, and the prairies may be turned to desert, but all the while I'll be comforted by the thought that when I am in my dotage, we'll be contributing only half as much to these catastrophes as we were 44 years earlier.

The idea that this government can make a commitment to targets 44 years down the road without making any shorter-term ones is any case totally preposterous. In fact, it amounts to no real commitment at all. This government can't make promises about how things will be in 44 years if it can't commit to any specific targeted actions now. What this in fact appears to amount to is the hope that sometime, someone will get around to tackling this seriously. "Just not us, and not now."

People and Other Commodities 1: Why Bother Catching Up?

2006-10-18T14:07:00.000-07:00

"Unions defend Quebecers' work ethic after Bouchard comments"
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2006/10/18/bouchard-quebecworkethic.html

It seems that our former premier is telling us that we’re “falling behind” Ontario and the United States because we work fewer hours.

Sounds like the mentality of someone for whom “productivity” is all. But what is productivity for? What do we gain by more productivity? Possibly more money to pour into the health care system to treat those who haven’t been taking care of themselves ‘cos they’ve been too busy making money. More economic activity does not automatically translate into a better quality of life. Some forms of economic activity do the opposite. If we really want to be efficient, let's have "efficient" growth- growth that does not increase our toll upon the planet, that does not make unreasonable demands on the time and energy of people, and that actually makes for a better quality of life in our communities.

Can't Please Everyone II

2006-10-13T05:09:00.000-07:00

Seems Ignatieff is now saying again that Israel did commit war crimes, but has added that Hezbollah did too. This statement is actually in line with what reputed human rights organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have been saying, although of course Israel routinely dismisses any criticism of its human rights record by these groups.

However, he also said that Israel has the right to defend himself. Well, I’m not going to argue against that in principle, but what does this principle have to do with Israel’s sustained and massive attack on Lebanon last summer? Did the Israelis have the “right” to do that? But then, did anyone in Lebanon have the right to resist being attacked? Or does the right to self-defence apply to some but not to others?

When Ignatieff said that he “wasn’t losing sleep” over civilian deaths, he was doing so in a context in which he was clearly defending Israel’s bombing of Qena, implicitly denying that it was anything like a war crime. So he’s changed his mind since then. Now, changing one’s mind can be a good thing- but why has he changed it? And why did he change it when talking to a Quebec TV audience? Forgive my cynicism, but I imagine he thought he might get more votes in Quebec by “clarifying” his position in this way. It’s unfortunate that he didn’t speak out against the atrocities when they were happening.

Farming is bad for health?

2006-10-12T10:27:00.000-07:00

Breast cancer more common in farm workers: study
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/10/12/breastcancer-farm.html

"Women who had worked on farms were 2.8 times more likely to develop breast cancer than non-farmers randomly selected from the region's population, according to the study in Thursday's issue of the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences"

and

"Exposure to pesticides or other farm contaminants such as diesel fumes or growth hormones may explain the increased risk, said study author James Brophy, executive director of the Occupational Health Clinic for Ontario Workers in Windsor."

Brophy and his colleagues factored out traditional breast cancer risk factors such as genetics, smoking, age, number of children and use of hormone replacement therapies.

Consider that this is where the food we eat is grown, and that the toxins that are probably responsible are spread far and wide- into the water table, in residues on foods- although their effect on farmworkers is no doubt far more concentrated.

This reminds me of a book I'm reading where someone, asked to provide an example of irony, answers "the fact that we 'clean' our homes with substances that are identified as poisons on the containers they come in- with skulls and crossbones no less."

You Can't Please Everyone

2006-10-11T16:17:00.000-07:00

Thornhill MP Susan Kadis withdrew her support for Michael Ignatieff over he called the massacre of civilians by Israeli bombs a "war crime" on a French-language TV program.

He was explaining away his ealier comment about Qana, in which he said he "wasn't losing any sleep" over civilian deaths in Lebanon- a remark he later said was a "mistake". That comment apparently didn't offend Ms. Kadis, but it offended other people (like me, for example). And now that he has offended the Zionist lobby, he insists he's a "lifelong friend of Israel" (from the cradle to the grave!)- and "clarifies" his position yet again by calling ithe Qana massacre an "unjustified' and "terrible" human tragedy- of the sort that happened to both sides.

Come off it,"Iggy"! You're starting to remind us of Paul Martin!

Yes, there was tragedy on both sides. People on both sides were murdered and terrorized. But not quite to the same extent. Trying to be "balanced" in assessing a fundamentally unbalanced situation is itself unbalanced.

As for Ms. Kadis, she said she found Ignatieff's earlier "unprovoked comments" "very troubling," given that Israel's attack on Qana was a response to the "brazen kidnapping" of Israeli soldiers and missile attacks by Lebanese-based Hezbollah guerrillas.

"This was an attack intended to root out a recognized terrorist group who were raining down thousands of missiles on Israel," she said.

— which were themselves attacks in response to:
— tens or hundreds of thousands of bombs raining on Lebanon in response to:
— the "brazen" kidnapping of two, yes two, soldiers, in response to:
— Israel holding thousands of detainees held indefinitely without charge.

When we started bombing Yugoslavia while they were "rooting out" the terrorist KLA from Kosovo, arguments such as the one made by Ms. Kadis cut little ice. Was it that the Serbs didn't have enough "lifelong friends" in Canada? In any case, Slobodan Milosovic, who ordered this "rooting out", recently died in a cell in the Hague during his war crimes trial.

But of course, we don't put our "lifelong friends" on trial, do we?

If At First You Don't Succeed....Give Up?

2006-10-06T05:23:00.000-07:00

I heard the minister of human resources on CBC radio just now say that the cuts to literacy programs are justified because these programs are ineffective. She said something like "Since 1994, one million more canadians have literacy challenges- this has got to stop."

What has got to stop? The increase in low-literacy adults, or trying to help them? If the latter, the cuts are justified. If the former, how cutting the programs helping them is going to "stop" it is unclear.

If the government believes that these programs don't provide value for money, that's one thing. But they're not offering any alternative ways of helping low-literacy adults. Unless they believe that helping low-literacy adults is inherently a waste of money, as implied earlier by Treasury Board Secretary John Baird, then it seems to me that the focus should be on offering programs that are more effective, not less. It is not as though people in the field are unaware of the limitations of these programs- they reach only a fraction of those who could benefit from them, for example. Also, there could be more training and professional development in the interest of quality control. But those things would take more money, not less. We in the literacy field would have to show that more money could actually result in more value for money. But if we did, would the government even listen? There's the rub.

Experience and Ideology

2006-10-02T17:57:00.000-07:00

I'm not Jewish, but I grew up in a Jewish neighbourhood. We were "goyim", but we weren'ttreated as outsiders. I went to nursery school at the Jewish Y. That was the only timethat we celebrated Jewish holidays. I still remember lighting a menorah that I'd made atthe nursery school. Oh yes, and I went to a day camp at the Jewish Y. When we had medical problems, there was the Jewish General Hospital at our disposal.

Having grown up among Jews, and given that Israel is a democracy, a westernised "oasis"in the frighteningly foreign territory that is the Middle East, a place whose peoplesare associated with images of violence, I should be identifying with Israel rather thanwith the Palestinians and the Lebanese, right?

When the war in Lebanon was raging on, I was just imagining- would some of the Jewish peopleI've known, who've accepted me as friends at various times- would they hate me if they knewwhat I really thought of what Israel was doing?

I know of Jews who, needless to say, feel this sort of thing far more strongly. The Jewish community is admirable in many ways because it really is a community, so well organizedin taking care of each other (and even of non-Jews!)- but that organization has another side.Those who go against the institutional (Zionist) view of the Jewish community risk being treatedas traitors. I heard of Jews being called "self-hating Jews". A Jewish friend told me thatan she was at a meeting where an anti-Zionist Jew was called a "dirty Jew" by a right-wing Zionist.

I was heartbroken to see the community I'd grown up in mobilizing in favour of atrocities. It shows how nationalism (and other ideologies) can bring out the worst in otherwise decent people. I love people, but not their ideologies. Ideologies are used to hurt people. They distortnoble ideals, turning them into cruel jokes.

Zionism is an ideology. Some of the ideals that were in Zionism were good, but they've been distorted by the requirements of an ideology of people with the power to oppress other people. Even when modern Israel was founded, the flip side was the disposession of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians- refugees to this day.

I don't believe that there will be a two-state solution. They may talk in Israel about"disengagement", but Israel won't stop trying to rule over the Palestinians in one way oranother. After all, Israeli troops continue to ravage the Gaza strip. The Palestinians are not allowed to elect their own government without interference. Israel can't leave the Palestinians alone, because its very existance is predicated on the denial of the existance of a Palestinian people with rights comparable to those of the Jews- or at least that's how Zionists seem to feel deep down. But eventually, I believe that Israel in its current form will be- not destroyed, but transformed. Everything now is pointing to a one-state solution- and it's not people who are "anti-Israel" who'll be the cause.

More from 'Canada's New Government'

2006-09-28T10:51:00.000-07:00

“I think if we’re spending $20 million and we have one out of seven folks in the country that are functionally illiterate, we’ve got to fix the ground floor problem and not be trying to do repair work after the fact”- federal Treasury Board President, defending his government’s cuts to adult literacy programs

OK, and by the same logic, we should be spending our health care money on prevention, not on “repair work after the fact”.

One would think that with a $13.2 billion surplus, this sort of either/or proposition would be unnecessary. The cuts to adult literacy programs will “save” $17.7 million over two years!

These cuts are a cynical symbolic exercise designed for the Conservatives to demonstrate their “fiscal prudence” on the back of marginalized groups in society. The damage caused to people by them will far exceed the benefit caused by “saving” this money, but the Conservatives are betting that most people won’t care, as long as they’re not being personally affected.

All Hail "Canada's New Government"!

2006-09-28T05:39:00.000-07:00

“Canada’s New Government is committed to the swift return of duty deposits to individual softwood producers, and to a level playing field for all companies benefiting from the Agreement we have signed with the United States,” said Minister Emerson.("Canada's New Government Delivers a Plan to Return Billions to Canadian Softwood Producers", September 13, 2006)“The new Expenditure Management System will make responsible spending the norm for how Canada’s New Government does business. It will require that all new and existing programs go through a systematic and rigorous examination. This will ensure that this Government only approves funds that are actually needed to achieve measurable results in a way that is effective, and provides value for money on behalf of Canadians.” Backgrounder - Effective Spending, September 26, 2006http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/media/nr-cp/2006/0925_e.asp

"New" governments that engage in branding gimmicks get old really fast.

Who Has the Right to Self-Defence?

2006-09-27T20:27:00.000-07:00

Tonight I went to this event about the war in Lebanon, in order to table for an organization I'm part of. Somehow my roomate got wind of this and asked me if this was "anti-Israel" and "pro-Hezbollah". I quipped "I hope not" in answer to the last question. However, I have to say that there was definately a "pro-Hezbollah" vibe, with salutations to the "resistance".

My feelings about Hezbollah have been ambivilent at best. But the fact remains that Hezbollah did resist Israeli aggression in Lebanon. One can say that it was wrong to kidnap Israeli soldiers. But then, why is Israel detaining thousands of Palestinians and Lebanese without charge? People say that Hezbollah is a terrorist group. Why? Because it doesn't recognize Israel? Who calls Israel terrorist when it refuses to recognize the Palestinians as a people with full political rights? Is it because Hezbollah has fired rockets into northern Israel, killing and terrorising civilians? OK, we've got a better argument here. But do you know how many civilians Hezbollah killed during the war? 30, or a bit more. How many civilians did Israel kill in the last war? Over 1000! Think about that, and then consider- who are the terrorists?

Those who say that Israel had the right to defend itself by invading the territory of others deny those others the right to self-defence.

I still believe, as I've stated before, that Hezbollah as well as Israel committed war crimes. However, as the figures above indicate, the gravity of the crimes are not of the same magnitude. This is mainly due to the power imbalance between the two sides, although there is also the fact of Israeli aggression, which is itself a crime. Still, Hezbollah could not have killed that many civilians. Perhaps if they could have they would have but now we are in the realm of the hypothetical. In the real world, in the world of what is and what has been done, Israel had the power to kill that many people and they used it. They had the power to terrorize the population and destroy the infrastructure of a country and they used it.

During the war, the people subjected to this onslaught were almost alone. If they praise Hezbollah's resistance, let us ask ourselves- who else was on their side? And Israel would have sent troops deep into Lebanon, were it not for the fact that Hezbollah was putting up fierce resistance on the ground. No one else was resisting the Israeli invasion. And there's something else. We're not the only ones with pride. We're not the only ones who don['t like being always kicked around. Israel has long seemed militarily invincible, able to beat up on Arabs with impunity. People admire Hezbollah for stopping the Israeli military in its tracks- although of course it was unable to stop the air massacre.

What people have to recognize, before they start with their labels of "anti-Israel" and "pro-Hezbollah", is that if we are going to only recognize the rights of certain select groups of people, like Israeli Jews, then we should at least not kid ourselves into thinking that we are being humanists or bravely resisting anti-Semitism. In fact, we are being racist. Israeli Jews have the right to live in peace with political rights but then so does everybody else. If it's just us and our friends, then we are the oppressors.

A War in the Mind

2006-09-13T07:45:00.000-07:00

The war in American hearts and minds Andrew Stroehlein 11 - 9 - 2006

Andrew Stroehlein, an American-born journalist who has worked in war zones around the world, returns to his homeland to find that the "conflict mentality" he has encountered in other global regions has taken root in the United States too.

Very telling. A couple of caveats: Stroehlein talks as though the media is merely giving the people what they want rather than manipulating people's fears. Surely it does both- the fear and the media manipulation of that fear are mutually reinforcing. The media also tends to very willingly convey government propoganda, believing that basing an article on a government press release is more "objective" than to talk to those opposed to or harmed government policies. Political manipulation has been more deliberate- the media have a commercial interest in stoking fear, but the government has a political interest. Of course they have already existing anxiety to work with- but this is what political demagogy does. A demagogue can’t manufacture fears or resentments out of thin air- he manipulates what’s already there, amplifying it- taking advantage of the mass media to engage in political manipulation.

Then there’s this quote: “US foreign policy has hardly been squeaky clean in the past, but even its greatest critics would admit it is very rare for the American public to silently sanction the deployment of hundreds of thousands of its young men and women to invade a country that did not attack first - and to continue that support despite heavy casualties, scandalous abuses and the extended deployments of its soldiers, which have put enormous stress on countless families.”

Well, it’s rarely been necessary to send hundreds of thousands of American troops anywhere since World War II , but none of the countries invaded by the U.S. attacked the U.S. first. As for Vietnam, it definitely did not attack the U.S. before hundreds of thousands of American troops came to call. Initially there was little public opposition to the Vietnam War, although by 1968 it had become significant enough to end Lyndon Johnson’s presidency. On the other hand, even then, a higher proportion of Americans supported that war than now support the war in Iraq. Even in 1972, Richard Nixon routed anti-war candidate George McGovern in the presidential election because Americans were afraid of “America” appearing weak and defeated on the world stage.

The difference, though, is that while large numbers of Americans were willing to march in the streets against the Vietnam War, and large numbers were even willing to do so before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, now that the Americans are apparently committed to be there, few people are actually standing up and shouting that they must leave.

Civilization Through War

2006-09-12T07:15:00.000-07:00

The war on terror is no less than the "struggle for civilization," U.S. President George W. Bush said Monday night on the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

"America did not ask for this war, and every American wishes it were over, and so do I," Bush said. "But the war is not over - and it will not be over until either we or the extremists emerge victorious."

One question: What would it mean to "emerge victorious" in this "war"? Unless there is an answer, what this "war" really is is a blank cheque for Bush and co.- an open-ended license for them to do anything they like in the name of "fighting the war on terror."

Throughout history, the people who've talked about spreading and safeguarding "civilization" have tended to be imperialists. Bush is therefore part of a long tradition- his discourse is nothing new, although the incompetence and sheer corruption of his administration is something to behold.

In the late afternoon of an earlier empire, Indian nationalist activist Mahatma Ghandi was asked what he thought of western civilization. "I think it would be a good idea", he replied.

Terror Takes On Many Forms

2006-09-11T15:41:00.000-07:00

After 9-11, the Bush Administration declared a "war on terror". Since terror comes in many forms and is in many places, this is perhaps the most open-ended war in human history. Well, in theory, anyway. For this is not a war on any old terror- this is a war on so-called "Islamic" terror. The idea is, there's all these rabid extremist Muslims out there who hate "our freedoms", and so we must fight them.

However, a recent poll of Canadians suggests that many Canadians have at least an inkling of the truth. However deplorable their ideologies may be, the Muslim "extremists" have been resisting foreign domination, and this is why they have popular support in many countries. 9-11 was clearly a response to American interference in the Middle East.

We followed the Americans into Afghanistan not long after the Twin Towers fell, and we said that we would help rebuild Afghanistan following the toppling of the Taliban. A few years later, there seems to have been little rebuilding, and we are now focused on fighting a war of counterinsurgency. The Taliban were a nasty lot to be sure. Few would mourn the demise of that regime. But a few years later, they're the resisters of foreign occupation, and it's looking like there's no way to defeat them by force of arms. We seem to have stumbled into the same trap as the Soviets did, and the British before them.

The NDP have called for our troops to withdraw from Afghanistan. I have mixed feelings about that. I certainly don't want to leave Afghanistan to chaos and/or rule by the Taliban. On the other hand, the Soviets could have argued the same thing, and they had a point- after they left, Afghanistan was left to chaos, then to Taliban rule. But they could hardly continue fighting local resistance forces ("Muslim extremists", don't you know) indefinately. At a certain point, they had to give up and go home. If we cannot defeat the Taliban militarily, then the only thing that remains is to determine the conditions under which we will withdraw. Will Afghanistan be better off if we withdraw later rather than sooner? I don't know the answer to that, but I suspect that if we carry on there like we have been, things will just be worse when we at last decide to leave.

Peter MacKay said that we can't be neutral in the fight against Muslim extremism. No doubt he thinks that this is a very principled position. Yet in the name of standing against Muslim extremism, it seems that many other forms of iniquity are to be permitted. I remember the statement he made when Israel started attacking Lebanon. This statement went through a number of twists, turns and spins to avoid mentioning what it was in reaction to- Israel's attack. Instead, it held Hezbollah responsible for the humanitarian crisis which would result from the situation- who or what would cause this crisis was not mentioned. Israel was not mentioned once. It was one of the most torturous, intellectually dishonest statements I have ever had the misfortune to hear from our government.

It is rather conveniant to equate "terror" with fanatical Muslims. It is also wrong. I end with a statement British journalist Robert Fisk made from Lebanon, during that war, when President Bush was fulminating against "Islamic fascism":

So I sat on the carpet in my living room and watched all these heavily armed chaps at Heathrow protecting the British people from annihilation and then on came President George Bush to tell us that we were all fighting "Islamic fascism". There were more thumps in the darkness across Beirut where an awful lot of people are suffering from terror - although I can assure George W that while the pilots of the aircraft dropping bombs across the city in which I have lived for 30 years may or may not be fascists, they are definitely not Islamic.

The West's Generosity to the Palestinians

2006-09-10T12:33:00.000-07:00

"British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Sunday said the world should restore contacts with the Palestinians if the ruling Hamas group agrees to form a unity government, but only if the coalition accepts Western demands to renounce violence and recognize Israel."

To understand the context in which Mr. Blair is making this statement, have a look at these articles in the British paper The Independent.

'Gaza is a jail. Nobody is allowed to leave. We are all starving now' http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1372026.ece

'West Bank fragmented by occupation' http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1372012.ece

So Blair is generously suggesting that the noose can now be loosened, provided that the one being strangled recognize the executioner's right to live in peace and security.

I mean, I don't like Hamas, but they were democratically elected. True, so were the Nazis. But in this situation, to talking about the people being oppressed as potential oppressors seems grotesque, to say the least. While people prattle on about Hamas being a threat to Israel, what Israel is doing to the Palestinians, with our assistance- right now, as you read these lines- goes way beyond "threat".

As for "renouncing violence" and "recognizing Israel", such obligations ought to be reciprocal. But of course they aren't. After all, Israel has the right to defend itself, right? And the Palestinians don't have the right to defend themselves? Evidently not. There is indeed racism afoot here- and I'm not talking of anti-semitism.

The Bush Administration's "Top 10 Proofs That We Are Winning the War"

2006-09-06T13:39:00.000-07:00

1) Attacks by insurgents have gone down

2) Attacks by insurgents have gone up (the "last gasp" of the insurgency)

3) Saddam Hussein, mastermind of the insurgency, is in jail

4) al-Zarquawi, mastermind of the insurgency, is dead

5) There is an elected Iraqi government

6) There is an Iraqi army

7) The benefits the spread of democracy has brought to the Palestinians and the Lebanese

8) Acts of terrorism are taking place en masse in Iraq, not in the U.S.

9) Iraqis are now more focused on killing each other than they are on killing our troops

10)There are still parts of Iraq that are relatively peaceful. Why don't the media report on that? Why don't they report on where there aren't daily suicide bombings and death squad massacres? Because they've got it in for us, that's why. So there.

The Need for Hope: Are we All Just Doomed?

2006-08-31T10:59:00.000-07:00

Looking on rabble.ca, I found one of the bleakest and most despairing columns I have ever come across. Written by an American who seems to be having a really bad day, he basically says Bush will continue to do damage until early 2009, the Democrats will not be any better if they get one of their own elected as president in 2008, most Americans will continue to work harder for less and won’t seriously question it, freedoms will continue to be eroded, then after oil production peaks and supplies run low, we will face the double-whammy of economic collapse and environmental catastrophe. And so on….

All these things are real, or real dangers anyway. But piling them on like this is no way to resist the “inevitability” of such a feared future. When fears become that overwhelming, people are demobilized. Actually, speaking of inevitability, this guy says “of course this will happen”, and “of course that will happen”.

We can’t just paint the future in dark colours, nor in rosy colours. Without fear of what might happen, people won’t change their lives. Without hope of what they might be able to achieve, they won’t either. They’ll just ignore the warnings and hope they don’t come true. And who could blame them, really.

I wrote something recently in which a character cries out “We need hope! It’s the only hope we’ve got!”. Although it sounds facetious, there’s still some truth there, isn’t there?

Evil, the Sequel: Who Wears the Jackboots?

2006-08-23T10:21:00.000-07:00

From a CP report: "Jason Kenney (a Tory MP) says the fact that Hezbollah has a politicial wing doesn't change the fact that it is a terrorist group dedicated to the eradication of Israel. He says Germany in the 1930s had a political party which ran in elections and provided social services but it was also dedicated to violence against the Jewish people... There is nothing to negotiate with an organization motivated by hate, he says."

You know, there are those who equate Israel with Nazism too. I don't find that terribly enlightening either. Certainly if one looks at who has actually been crushing other peoples of late, one could say that the jackboot is on the other foot these days, but there are levels of oppression that are not quite as bad as that carried out by the Nazis. As for Hezbollah being like the Nazis- if Hezbollah had the power to do to Israel what Israel has just done to Lebanon, I'd be more worried. What capacity does Hezbollah actually have to destroy Israel? None. The only valid point in Kenney's statement is that being a political party doesn't stop a political organization from being hate-filled and perncious. But is there really nothing to talk about with Hezbollah? Simply equating them with the Nazis is not an argument, anymore than equating Israel with Nazi Germany is.

Even worse, Kenney says that "the decision by three opposition MPs - a Liberal, a New Democrat and a Bloc member - to visit Lebanon this week offers political legitimacy to Hezbollah. " Not only do we not have anything to talk about with Hezbollah, we apparently have nothing to discuss with the Lebanese, nor need we concern ourselves about looking at the consequences for them of Israel's attack on them. Nice.

Meanwhile, Liberal leadership hopeful Gerard Kennedy has distanced himself from the Liberal MP who was with the visiting delegation of MP`s (Borys Wrzesnewskyj), saying:

"I think that you can't sanction violence. We have to operate according to principles and one of the principles is not to acknowledge bodies that will not abide by basic human rights and international law," Kennedy said.

Really? Surely this "principle" would lead to us not recognizing Israel- and I am against not recognizing Israel, by the way. Do I really need to trot out all the examples of Israel`s human rights and international law violations? Furthermore, we could also not, as a matter of principle, recognize China, Syria, Iran, and...the United States. As for "not sanctioning violence", allow me a moment to break into derisive laughter- unless Kennedy is a strict pacifist he is talking gibberish. If to recognize a body was to sanction its violence, then our mere recognition of a country like Israel (or the United States) as a legitimate body would sanction all its acts of violence. I`m not into realpolitik. I am into dealing with the reality of how the world actually is, and not getting diverted by"principles" that no one has any serious intention of applying across the board, and which are therefore not principles at all, but rather a whole lot of rhetorical hot air.

Evil: Where Do You Find It?

2006-08-23T10:20:00.000-07:00

From Robert Fisk's diary (Independent, Aug. 20, 2006):

"An Israeli calls me from Los Angeles. She thinks she has discovered a reason why the Lebanese Red Cross may have been targeted by the Israeli air force. "I will send you a fax proving that they are helping the Hizbollah," she says.

I await the fax, which turns out to be a New York Times report from southern Lebanon, recording how the Red Cross gave medical assistance to wounded members of the Hizbollah. I call Rachel back. The Lebanese Red Cross helped wounded American marines after they were suicide-bombed in Beirut in 1983, I tell her, and they gave help - and were criticised for it by their Lebanese neighbours - to wounded Israelis after a suicide bombing in Tyre the following year. Isn't it the duty of all Red Cross teams to help all those who are suffering? "Perhaps, but they should have detained the Hizbollah," comes the voice from Los Angeles. What? The Red Cross is now supposed to imprison Israel's enemies?

I receive another fax from Rachel. "I am for dialog (sic) but not with the Devil, Nazis et al," she says. "Reality and justice are derived from the ability to discern between good and evil, between truth and lies, and between the fireman and the arsonist. Keep safe."

What is evil incarnate? How is evil manifested? What made Hitler evil, for example? Or, to be more practical about it, what made Hitler capable of such evil?

It was his utter conviction in the sheer evil of his "enemies". He could murder millions of Jews because they were "evil"- not human, but pernicious vermin in human form. In his mind, the ability to discern between good evil, between truth and lies, and between the fireman and the arsonist, was very sharp indeed. And it enabled him to be evil.

Of course, his "discernment" was in fact wrong. He saw evil where there was no evil, and failed to see good where there was good. He saw everything through the lens of his hateful ideology. Whereas, one could argue, one would be right to classify Hezbollah as "evil".

But Hitler is merely an extreme example of the tendency to see those who are "in your way" as pure evil, and therefore fit only for destruction. There are many sides to Hezbollah- it also provides social services to the population. Is that evil? And what of its suppoerters? Are they all evil?

If it is evil for Hezbollah to take Israeli soldiers as prisoners, then what are we to make of Israel still holding thousands of Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners, without charge, after many years? Are all those prisoners too evil to be freed? The stated aim of Hezbollah in taking those Israeli soldiers prisoner was to secure the release of some of these prisoners. Was that an act of pure evil, then?

There are reasons to believe that the immediate prisoner issue was less important than the fact that both Israel and Hezbollah were quietly preparing for a showdown. But even then, the prisoner issue is important. Israel withdrew unilaterally from southern Lebanon in 2000, but did not even attempt to settle outstanding issues such as prisoners, because, of course, virtuous Israel can never descend to the level of talking with evil Hezbollah.

For those who think of Hezbollah as nothing more than an evil organization, consider this question: Do you say that its actions are evil because it is evil, or do you say that it's evil because its actions are? Because if it's the latter, then those who would fight evil need to look at their own actions, lest they wind up fighting evil with evil.

This concern apparently isn't shared by those who seem to confuse defending the interests of a foreign country with defending the interests of the Jewish community. (Look, I understand that Israel has an importance to the Jewish community for nationalistic reasons, but surely Israel has a diplomatic corps in Canada to state its case) Frank Dimant, vice-president of B'nai Brith Canada, said he finds it "outrageous" that Canadian MPs want to speak with a known terrorist organization when Canadian troops are dying at the hands of another in Afghanistan.

"(Wrzesnewskyj) (one of the MP's who suggested that maybe it's silly not to talk to Hezbollah- ed.) doesn't seem to understand that we're at war with terrorists, and that includes Hezbollah," he said. "It is not Canada's job to be a peacemaker here, but to stand with a sister democracy."

You see? There is a war between good and evil. The boundery between good and evil is plain to see. It is the boundery between the terrorists, who are all the same, and all in cahoots- and the democracies, who are all the same and whose interests are the same.

Mind you, anyone familar with the circumstances under which modern Israel came into being might recall that the main Zionist political groupings in British occupied Palestine had armed wings that committed acts of terrorism. Had the British stuck to the principle that "we will never talk to terrorists", there would be no Israel today. And, sticking to early Israeli history for a moment, wasn't using massacres to terrorise Palestinians into fleeing their lands en masse so that another people could take that land for themselves terrorism? If it wasn't, then what is?

Unless we accept that Hezbollah leaders, members and supporters are just plain evil, and that's all there is to it, then the question becomes- why do they do bad things and support bad things? When they do, it is because they themselves work from a stark distinction between good and evil- children of the light on one side, creatures of the darkness on the other. Of course we must destroy the creatures of the darkness. Don't you see? They are trying to snuff out our light- the light of God, of truth, of reason, of...whatever it is. And when they're not actively trying to snuff out our light, they're plotting to snuff out our light, or they're training their young to snuff out our light, or they're the young being trained to snuff out our light.

But seriously, yes, we must discern between good and evil and between truth and lies- but we need to discern them most of all in our own words and actions. Are we reducing other people to nothing? Are we demonizing them so we can blame them for all the evils that beset us and destroy them for the sake of our own security?

Thus when MPs go to Lebanon and report the devestation wrought by Israel's attacks, Diamont responds that the world should not forget the rockets that were aimed at civilian targets in Israel. No doubt, but he surely would like the world to forget the bombs and rockets that were aimed at civilian- yes, undeniably civilian- targets in Lebanon. And unlike Hezbollah rockets, Israeli bombs usually managed to destroy things- and, often enough, people too. People who were worth nothing to those who ordered the bombings. To me, that's evil.

A Thought Experiment (originally posted Aug. 19)

2006-08-23T10:18:00.000-07:00

Israel's raid deep in Lebanese territory raises an interesting philosophical question: what is the distinction between an offensive action and a defensive action?Israel says it carried out this raid to stop arms shipments to Hezbollah from Syria and Iran, and therefore counts as "defensive". Does it? Let's try a little thought experiment:During the war the United States expedited shipments of bombs and missiles to Israel, because Israel had dropped so many on Lebanon that it was running low. Suppose that Lebanon had attacked these shipments. Or, even better, suppose it had attacked IDF weapons storage facilities and airbases within Israel. Would this have counted as self-defence?Of course, this thought experiment is outlandish. If Lebanon had the ability to attack shipments of American weapons to Israel and disable Israel's airbases and weapons facilities, then it could also shoot down Israeli bombers, and Israel wouldn't dare to conduct raids deep into Lebanese territory, "defensive" or otherwise. Once again, we are faced with reality- Israel can defend itself; Lebanon can't. But suppose if someone could have destroyed those arms shipments. Suppose some of those bombers had been shot down from the sky before they could drop their bombs. Suppose a large number of Israeli aircraft had been destroyed on the ground by raids into Israel. Imagine how many lives could have been saved.What a pity there was no one to defend the civilians of Lebanon.

Previous Political Postings

2006-08-23T09:00:00.000-07:00

I Wanted to be Wrong

Against all odds, the ceasefire in Lebanon is basically holding- so far, anyway. So far my prediction has not come true! How sweet it can be to be wrong.Both sides are claiming victory, which reminds me of a quote from a Terry Pratchett book (to paraphrase: “Both sides claimed victory, but as usual, the actual score was “Ravens 10 000, Humans 0”) Anyway, it seems the Israeli public is not buying the idea that Israel won. True, it initially allowed itself to be whipped into a frenzy of gung-ho militarism, but certain realities are now sinking in. The mighty IDF cannot defeat a guerilla army in the hills of southern Lebanon, nor can it isolate Hezbollah within Lebanon through collective punishment administered from the air. Hezbollah seems to be more entrenched than ever within Lebanon. The last international force that tried to do Israel’s dirty work in Lebanon retreated with its tail between its legs after the bombing of the Marine barracks in 1983.Only a few months ago, Amir Peretz represented the hope of a rejuvenated Labour Party as a leftist force in Israeli politics. After having unwisely accepted the post of Defense Minister and conducted this disastrous war, that war may now finish his political career. I hear that the calls for his resignation grow louder by the day. And the shine has also come off of the Prime Minister, Olmert, triumphant in the elections of a few months ago, now embattled under attacks from both left and right.Meanwhile Iran and Syria are crowing. It is the misfortune of the Lebanese to be in the caught in the middle of this insane power struggle.

Flamboozling, and the Alleged Non-Relationship Between Mortality and Morality

(Words from British reporter Robert Fisk- excerpts from “Tea and rockets: café society, Beirut-style”, The Independent, Aug. 13. 2006)“A long radio interview with an Israeli professor who says "the number of people killed [in this war] doesn't reflect morality". Well, at more than a thousand Lebanese civilians dead against a few dozen Israelis, it can't reflect morality because, if it did, that would suggest Israel was committing war crimes.”

The Israeli professor's statement is yet another example of the mentalist-essentialist theory of morality in action. This moral theory is divorced from the world of fact: it says, "Never mind the facts- morality is in the ego- how we define ourselves as moral beings by what we proclaim/believe to be true about ourselves. We define ourselves as people who don’t target civilians. A thousand civilians die under our bombs? Sheer coincidence, for by definition, we do not target civilians."But seriously, possibly the only real difference on the subject between Israel and Hezbollah- apart from the fact that Israel’s sheer power has enabled it to kill about 30 civilians to Hezbollah’s one- is that while Hezbollah makes no apologies about going after civilians, period, Israelis make no apologies about going after civilians because they are able to delude themselves into thinking that what is most obvious about what they are doing is simply not their responsibility. Does Israel’s comforting self-image elevate it over Hezbollah’s brutal honesty, or honest brutality? No more than Hezbollah’s honest brutality elevates it over Israel’s delusional brutality.

Fisk continues: “But Hizbollah will also have their day of reckoning. Who gave them the right to bring this cruelty down upon the head of every Lebanese? Who gave the Shias permission to go to war for Lebanon? There will be questions in Israel too. How come the Israel Defence Forces, famous in legend and song, could not defend the people of Israel, despite slaughtering so many Lebanese civilians? "NOTE: In another article, Fisk states that: “The US saw this war as an opportunity to humble Hizbollah's Iranian and Syrian sponsors but already it seems as if the tables have been turned. The Israeli military appears to be efficient at destroying bridges, power stations, gas stations and apartment blocks - but signally inefficient in crushing the "terrorist" army they swore to liquidate.”- Robert Fisk: “As the 6am ceasefire takes effect... the real war begins” (The Independent, Aug. 14, 2006 )

Flamboozling

“Cody has invented a great new word: to "flamboozle". It's what politicians do to their people when they go to war. Ehud Olmert has been flamboozling the Israelis and Sayed Hassan Nasrallah has been flamboozling Lebanon's Shias. We may have a ceasefire at the weekend. So the end of the flamboozling may be nigh.” Sadly, I doubt it, but here’s hoping anyway. We might as well have hope, or we are lost.

Friday, August 11, 2006: "You Have Been Duly Warned" : First Come the Fliers, then the Bombs

Robert Fisk reports on the document Israel air-dropped on Beirut yesterday: "Yesterday's air-dropped Israeli document ordered Shia Muslims in Beirut's Hay al-Selloum, Bourj al-Barajneh and Shiyah districts to abandon their homes "immediately". In other words, the Israeli army wishes to "cleanse" every civilian out of the 12 square miles between Beirut airport and the old Christian civil war frontline at Galerie Semaan.This malicious document ends with a sinister threat - which breaks all the relevant rules of the Geneva Conventions - that "each expansion of Hizbollah terrorist operations will lead to a harsh and powerful response and its painful response will not be confined to Hassan's gang of criminals" (i.e. Hizbollah).So what does "not be confined to" mean? That it is the civilians who will pay the price - this time in Beirut - as they have in the Israeli air force massacres of southern Lebanon over the past three weeks?Well, stand by for more Hizbollah atrocities and more Israeli atrocities."(from "Hizbollah's iron discipline is match for military machine" The Independent, August 11, 2006)

Oh dear. No doubt this last statement is yet another example of pernicious "moral equivilence" (a staple of the 'anti-Israel left")- because, by defintition, the actions of a terrorist group must always be far worse than those of a legitmate state. Thus, if Hizbollah commits atrocities, Israel does not. Right? Those who don't accept this reasoning place Israel on the same level as Hizbollah (morally equivilant) and thus deny it legitamcy as a state, thus agreeing to the destruction of Israel, which is furthermore to be anti-Semitic. Got all that? See how cunningly people disguise their anti-Semitism in the guise of concern for human beings!

Wednesday, Aug. 9, 2006

An interesting perspective (from George Monbiot, a self-acknowledged "peacenik") on the current war in Lebanon, which suggests that Israel's assault had been planned for some time and that it was simply waiting for the right moment to strike.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1839244,00.html

Incidentally, Robert Fisk (who makes clear his disdain for both Israel and Hezbollah in his reporting from Lebanon) reported that it seemed that Hezbollah had also been planning for this, and that is why it's got such an arsenal of rockets now.

Both sides were prepared, cynically prepared. The only ones who weren't prepared were the Lebanese (apart from Hezbollah), and they're the ones bearing the brunt of this. Both sides claim to act in self-defence. Both are in fact guilty of aggression. It is merely due to the tremendous power imbalance that Israel has done far damage than Hezbollah. That power imbalance is a reality that must be taken into account. Does Israel face a serious threat to its existence? If Israel was having done unto it what it now does unto others, I could take that idea seriously.

Aug. 7, 2006: The Time for Peace is Now

I went to a demonstration for peace in Lebanon yesterday (to clarify: the peace is to be in Lebanon- and Israel- but the demo was in Montreal, starting from Parc Lafontaine). It was much larger than the last one I was at- tens of thousands of people were there. It was great weather for a demo- blue skies & sunshine.

I had mixed feelings about some of the chants, especially since there were supporters of Hezbollah in the crowd who had their own chants equating Hezbollah with resistance. This is interesting. Hezbollah is unable to do anything about Israeli bombing, so their “resistance” appears to consist mainly in retaliatory rocket attacks on northern Israel. (Or are the Israeli bombings in “retaliation” for the Hezbollah rocket attacks? A pretty pointless argument, don’t you think?) Yes, there's nothing like retailiating for ensuring your security- "even if we can't prevent death from coming down on you from above, we'll make damn sure people on the other side of the fence pay for your lives with their lives."

Seen in that light, Hezbollah is indeed “resisting” the Israeli onslaught, but let’s not forget that they also provoked it. On the other hand, I was taught as a child that being provoked doesn’t excuse very much. Perhaps it’s this that biases me against Israel’s “the best defense is a strong offensive” brand of “self-defense”. That, and the facts on the ground, and in the ground, underground (six feet under). There’s also the fact that if I were to respond to provocations as Israel is doing, I’d be locked up for my “measured responses”, as a danger to society. But then, the term “diplomatic immunity” can mean many things, can’t it?

Actually, what’s happening is quite simple when you think about it. Israel’s foreign policy is based on the idea that its interests require that it be feared throughout the region. Hamas and Hezbollah made brazen attacks upon Israel, and this required a devastating response, otherwise Israel might no longer be feared. Are we supposed to believe that in Lebanon Hezbollah has been lurking on all the highways, in the power plants, hospitals, factories and communications stations, using bridges as launching pads for missile attacks, and that when people flee their villages on the orders of the Israeli army there must be terrorists hiding among them? No. Israel has been making an example out of Lebanon. It doesn't need to launch air attacks that specifically aim to cause civilan casulties- all it has to do is massively bombard populated areas with a reckless disregard for human life and of course it will spread terror and death among civilians. That'll learn 'em. Now it continues its onslaught on Lebanon in order to not lose face, just as Nixon prolonged the Vietnam War for years so that the U.S. would not appear to be a “helpless giant” in the face of communists. On the other side, as long as Hezbollah can go on being widely seen as heroic resisters of Israeli aggression, there'll be little incentive for it to stop its own outrages.

In the face of this, what should we do? Well for starters, we shouldn't support it, and we should try to help the belligerants find a way out of their madness. So thank you, Stephen Harper, for bringing me out into the streets yesterday. You thought it better to join in the madness yourself, in your own way. I'll resist it as best I can, in my own way.

Peace- Paix- Pax- Paz- Shalom