Why Windows Isn't Ready for the Desktop
Heh.
This is a very nice piece of satire. From the article:
Now the object of this article was not to make GNU/Linux appear perfect, but instead to demonstrate that it can provide a superior desktop experience for many over the traditional proprietary operating system. GNU/Linux has millions of users and is growing because of its ability to excel in so many different areas, so the next time someone tries to tell you that 'GNU/Linux isn't ready for the desktop', ask them, 'Whose desktop do you mean?'.
The biggest point of the article is one I've made before: when you install MS Windows, you have an operating system. That's it. You still have to install all the applications you will be using.
But when you install a modern Linux distribution, it comes with hundreds and hundreds of applications. This concept is alien to most users; it's difficult to believe that you install one thing, and then after that you have virtually everything you need to operate a computer.
My Political Identity
I listened to John Kerry's
acceptance speech last night. It was the first speech from the DNC I'd listened to, though I've read transcripts of most of them. I've said it before, I so want to believe in this guy. But this is a guy who wants to increase the size of the military (he wants to add "40,000 active duty troops"), to continue to fight this ludicrous War On Some Nouns, claiming that he can fight a "smarter, more effective war on terror." As if changing the President will mean we can now somehow fight this unintelligible war intelligently.
There are so many things that Kerry's can't even get right. Like, for example, opposing "democracy" and "communism" as binary opposites. He doesn't even get that communism -- in the Marxist, theoretical sense -- requires democracy.
He defends the concept of "preemptive war," saying that he will "get the terrorists before they get us."
He wants to continue neoliberal economic policies: "we will trade and compete in the world. But our plan calls for a fair playing field -- because if you give the American worker a fair playing field, there's nobody in the world the American worker can't compete against." Sounds OK, but what is a "fair playing field?" Is this what is meant by Freedom? As in Free Markets? What exactly are the global labor relations at work here?
Kerry wants to "honor this nation's diversity," yet he said "I see us as one America -- red, white and blue." Can't have it both ways. This just reaffirms the danger of political homogenization that results when there is a "two-party system" and both parties are very close in the political spectrum.
So I got to thinking, where do I fit in this spectrum? Who are my political affiliates? Who are my brethren, my comrades? Republicans or conservatives are so far beyond the threshold of consideration that I don't even need to mention it. The liberals or the Democrats are so close to the Republicans to warrant no serious consideration either. The political climate of America is strange ... all we have left are the bizarre, crossbred love children of a donkey and an elephant. I think I prefer "Donkephant" to "Elekey."
Even the progressives are swallowing the "anybody but Bush" logic that is nothing more than an admission of defeat (do the math...if one is willing to accept "anybody but Bush," then that individual has already lost).
That leaves the radicals, the anarchists, and the Marxists. But I suppose that leaves me in good company...
The Virtual Enclosures in Action: Copyright and The Patriot Act
Those of you who know me through my
Virtual Enclosures piece will not be surprised by this. Apparently, the Patriot act has been invoked by the FBI to gather evidence in a copyright infringement case. My first reaction is that this is proof that the Patriot Act has nothing to do with fighting terrorism, but rather is aimed at curtailing the civil rights of US citizens.
Read the story for yourself:
SG1Archive.com is one of the most popular fan-run websites among the Stargate community. In addition to providing very active fan discussion forums, broadcast schedules, production news, and episode guides, the site heavily promotes the sale of the show on DVD. As of this writing, direct links from SG1Archive.com to Amazon.com have resulted in the sale of over $100,000 worth of DVDs. Many more DVDs have been sold to international fans of the show through sites like Blackstar.co.uk. Upon hearing this news, Stargate executive producer Brad Wright called the site "cool" - which Adam took as an endorsement of his work.
However, instead of thanking Adam for his promotion of their product, officials at MGM and the MPAA have chosen to pressure the FBI into pursuing criminal charges. Adam was first tipped off about the investigation when the FBI raided his and his fiancee's apartment in May of 2002 and seized thousands of dollars worth of computer equipment. Adam later received a copy of the affidavit filed in support of the search warrant, and was shocked to discover that this document, prepared by the FBI, contained significant amounts of erroneous and misleading information. For example, two social security numbers were listed for Adam, one of which is not his. References were made to a cease and desist letter sent by the MPAA to an email address that did not exist. His online friendship with other Stargate fans across the globe was portrayed as an international conspiracy against the MPAA. And perhaps most disturbing of all, it was later revealed that the FBI invoked a provision of the USA Patriot Act to obtain financial records from his ISP. The FBI's abuse of its powers did not stop there. When they seized Adam's computer equipment, he was given written documentation stating that it would be returned within 60 days. The equipment that they did return did not arrive until more than 8 months later, and only then after much prodding from his lawyer. Much of it was damaged beyond repair - one laptop had a shattered LCD screen, an empty tape backup drive was ripped apart for no apparent reason, his fiancee's iBook was badly damaged when it was pried apart with a screwdriver. The FBI's computer crimes staff is either incompetent (at least when it comes to Macintosh computer equipment) or else they just don't give a damn.
So here we go. A fan site, that increases the revenue of the show being promoted, is being persecuted.
The logic here is all too clear. In this case, the desire for social control supersedes even profit. This is the virtual enclosures in action.
OpenOffice Styles
The Stylist feature in OpenOffice writer is, in my view, what sets it apart from Word. It allows documents to stay consistent as they grow in size. This is a good thing. Once you get used to it, it's very easy to format documents consistently as they grow in size.
There are two articles by Bruce Byfield, Part One and Part Two that explain the use of the Stylist quite well. If you are at all considering moving away from the bloatedness and inconsistency of MS Word, go read these articles, download OpenOffice, and get cracking.
War Is Good Business
Thomas Cahill's article,
War Is Good Business, Invest Your Sons and Daughters: A Thumbnail History of America's Dark Side And Suggestions To Save The Planet, was forwarded to me on one of the listservs I'm on. It's a great article.
I tried to google it, but it isn't up anywhere. But it's important enough that I decided to put a copy up on this here site. Go read it.
Hypnotized by the BuShites
This article provides an interesting analysis of the recent political rhetoric of the BuShites, comparing the political rhetoric to techniques of mass hypnosis, specifically those used by Hitler. It's an interesting comparison, actually. The article makes several good points:
Perhaps the clearest likeness between the two men [Bush Jr. and Hitler] lies in their use of emotionally induced hypnosis to plant in the mass consciousness an image of themselves as protectors of their subjects from threats to national survival both inside and outside the fatherland.
Change "fatherland" to "homeland," and you begin to see the parallels. This strategy, appropriated by Bush in his demonization of Saddam Hussein, reflects some advice given by Hitler in his book,
Mein Kampf: "The efficiency of the truly national leader consists primarily in preventing the division of the attention of the people, and always in concentrating it on a single enemy."
A salient example of Bush's technique can be found in this analysis of his state of the Union address in 2003:
In search of support for shaky WMD charges against Saddam, Bush found the torture issue and put it on the front burner in his January 2003 State of the Union address: "This dictator who is assembling the world’s most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues and rape."
Bush went on to urge Americans to come together in an orgy of fear induced self hypnosis by mentally imaging the dreadful prospect of Iraqi sponsored terrorists attacking the U. S., and tried again to link the Iraqi leader to the 9/11 attack on the twin towers: "Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans - this time armed by Saddam....We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes." If Saddam had not existed, Bush would have invented him.
The key point of hypnotism is the nature of the information being expressed in the address. On one hand, there is the clear, reasoned transfer of information. On the other hand, hypnosis is the intential limiting of the listener's consciousness, which can take several forms. Intentionally oversimplifying the problem to narrow or dualistic terms is probably the simplest, ie, "you're either with us or you're with The Terrorists(tm)."
The author of the article is himself familiar with hypnosis. Regardless, an interesting analysis.
"Depleted" Uranium
I just came across this article, called
Depleted Uranium: The Trojan Horse of Nuclear War. Looks interesting. DU could be responsible for the Gulf War Syndrome. Hard to say. But this issue -- a form of nuclear war -- needs to be addressed in the American consciousness.
John Chuckman
I just discovered the writings of John Chuckman. From his bio statement:
John Chuckman is former chief economist for a large Canadian oil company. He has many interests and is a lifelong student of history. He writes with a passionate desire for honesty, the rule of reason, and concern for human decency. He is a member of no political party and takes exception to what has been called America's "culture of complaint" with its habit of reducing every important issue to an unproductive argument between two simplistically defined groups. John left the United States as a poor young man from the South Side of Chicago when the government embarked on the murder of millions of Vietnamese in their own land because they happened to embrace the wrong economic loyalties. He lives in Canada, which he is fond of calling "the peaceable kingdom."
Interesting background. He's certainly angry at America, his tone is seething. There are two articles. The first is
Insanity In America, where he gloats over recent reports "that there is more mental illness and insanity, far more, in America than you find in other advanced societies." In the study,
"a Harvard Medical School researcher, found evidence of mental problems in 26.4% of people in the United States, versus, for example, 8.2% of people in Italy." I can't say I'm surprised. The structure of American society requires such intense cognitive dissonance that millions of people crack and go bugfuck. I wonder how many of those 26.4% are Bush supporters?
The second article, America's Pathetic Liberals: The Sequel, is the most scathing critique yet not only of Michael Moore and Fahrenheit 9/11, but of the American Liberal culture I've ever seen. From the article:
Michael Moore's role is to make American liberals feel good about themselves without having to question the practices of a society which cast an increasingly long, cold, dark shadow over the planet. The job pays well, and Moore is becoming a wealthy man, a kind of well-kept court jester for those with occasional twinges of liberal conscience or human decency.
Moore's film revels in exactly the kind of inconsistent thinking, full of unwarranted assumptions, thick with suggestions of undefined conspiracy, typical to one degree or another of most media in the United States. The thinking also is typical of a President who keeps telling us he decimated Iraq and spent a hundred billion dollars to save American lives.
You may ask, we know Bush is a brutal, rather psychopathic man, so how can he be like so much of middle America? You see, middle America is not the harmless, gentle place it seems in Hollywood's confections. It is the place where thirty-year old couples assume they are entitled to a five-bedroom home on a sprawling lot in the suburbs with at least two lumbering vehicles in the driveway. It is the place which ignores the ugly parts of its own society, the ghettos, the broken-down schools, the lack of healthcare. It is the place where the relentless demand for still more endangers the planet's future. And it is the place that drives America to global empire.
Bush is not, as so many American liberals claim, out of step with American history. Childish slogans about taking back America or, even worse, "Dude, Where's My Country?" are just that, childish. Bush is an awkward, unpleasant exemplar of enduring American behavior and values. Did the invasion of Iraq represent different values or attitudes than the "Remember the Maine" invasion of Cuba? How about the invasion of Mexico, or the seizure of Hawaii, or the holocaust in Vietnam and Cambodia? Does the Patriot Act represent anything different than the Alien and Sedition laws of John Adam's day or the dark excesses of the FBI under Hoover?
Be very careful how you vote to get rid of Bush. Kerry has never so much as condemned the war. He has never condemned Bush, except by repeating official-report findings all thinking people on the planet understood a year before the official report. Kerry's view of the Middle East, frantic pandering to Israel's darkest interests, promises no end to future troubles. He is an unrepentant, unimaginative supporter of global empire.
That brings us to the real tragedy of America and the real cause of 9/11 and so many other horrors: America's swaggering readiness to play the game of global empire with all the brutality and incivility that it implies. You tell me how a confused film like Moore's, even if it contributes to toppling a confused President like Bush, adds anything to resolving America's great dilemma of insatiable greed and willingness to do terrible deeds while mouthing high-sounding ideals.
Not much to add to that. Though I do think that Chuckman is conflating "the people" and "the government" into something called "America." You have to distinguish the two; despite the illusion the the government is "of, by, and for the people," it clearly is not these days.
Furthermore, if it is indeed true that America has thrice the insanity rate of the rest of the west, then it follows that there is an external cause to this insanity. Therefore, these "American nutcases" are victims, and are therefore worthy of compassion. Mr. Chuckman doesn't seem to be exhibiting much in the way of sympathy. It's easy to rail agaist those at the top of the hill, but the question is, what can be done about it?
Hammering the dead horse
OK, yet another good definition of neoliberalism. This one comes from George Caffentzis, in his piece (credited to
Midnight Notes), called
Respect Your Enemies--The First Rule of Peace: An Essay Addressed to the U.S. Anti-War Movement. George says the following of neoliberalism:
We are told that Communism collapsed in 1989, but many have argued
that the political economy of post-WWII capitalism, Keynesianism,
collapsed a decade before to be replaced by a system that was called
at first Thatcherism and Reaganism, and later neoliberalism and/or
globalization. This system claimed that the basic institution of
modern society ought to be the Market not the State, and that the best
form of all social interactions is the commodity form. This conception
of social life had a great propaganda triumph with the dissolution of
the Soviet Union and the Eastern European socialist bloc. More
importantly, it set into motion a remarkable shift in the economic
policies of most Third World countries (under the name of Structural
Adjustment Policies) that opened them to foreign investment, lower
tariffs, and unrestricted movement of money across their borders.
Finally, it undermined the guarantees of subsistence (early
retirement, unemployment benefits, health care, free education, etc.)
that the working class in Western Europe and North America had won in
a century of struggle (Midnight Notes, 1992).
The early 1990s was a remarkable period of triumph for neoliberalism
and globalization. Never before had the economic policies of the
planet been so homogenous, while institutions like the International
Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization were
given the financial and legal power to keep the governments of the
planet true to the rules of the neoliberal global economy.
Up until July 1997, the supporters of this political economy seemed
invincible. Then, the "Asian Financial Crisis" struck. Ever since,
there have been breathtaking reversals that have put neoliberalism
into question more rapidly than the rapid pace of its triumphs. We
need not detail the recent stock market bubble burstings, the
recessions, the financial system collapses, the dramatic devaluations,
and the dot.com fiascoes. They constitute an international crisis of
neoliberalism and globalization -- but not simply because the 1990s
globalization boom ended in the "loss" of trillions of dollars in a
very short time.
That's a much more concise history than I gave. Read the rest of the article if you're curious.
those freaky (neo)liberals are ruining this country...
OK. So the definition of neoliberalism in the previous entry is verbose and not at all concise, though I still think it's valuable. I want to give it another go.
So what is neoliberalism? And why am I so obsessed with it?
The best answer to this question requires some background. I come from a fairly white-bread, middle class background. When I was a kid, I thought I'd be a lawyer or an engineer, and be making 6 figures by now. After all, I was an intelligent kid, and an intelligent kid in my situation of white, upper-middle-class privilege should dream about how he will be able to profit from The System, right? I was a Republican. I hated cats. I can actually remember cheering when the US bombed Libya in 1986.
So what has this to do with neoliberalism?
First of all, neoliberalism is an economic term, and not precisely a political one, except to the extant that economics is politics. Secondly, the "liberal" in neoliberalism does not apply to what Rush Limbaugh calls "liberals." Funny, but the rest of the world regards the term "liberal" to be very different from how it is regarded in the US. In the US, "liberal" means roughly "left wing," whereas throughout the rest of the world "liberal" indicates a stance on the right.
Liberalism, from an economic perspective, refers to the laissez-faire attitude in capitalism, that the market governed by Adam Smith's "invisible hand" phantom will take care of itself. It is the fundamental belief that the profit motive is the best way to ensure progress as a society. That by encouraging the relentless pursuit of profit for personal, selfish gain, society is best served, because people will strive to be most productive, which benefits everyone in society.
Sounds OK, on the surface.
But there problems with it, and most of the problems have to do with how this attitude has developed historically. Around the end of the 19th century, the notion of a "corporation" came into being in the way it exists today; basically from a legal perspective, corporations are equivalent to persons, and are entitled to the same legal protections under the US Constitution that people receive. This was decided in 1886 by the US Supreme Court, in the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company decision. If you're interested, you should read the previous link. The basic story is that the judge in that case asserted without question the doctrine of corporate personhood, and since that doctrine ended up "on the record," it was assumed by law from then on. This case has been the foundation for corporate law since.
So I ask again: what has this to do with neoliberalism?
The problem comes when you apply the classical liberal economic principles of "free market" economy to the present political/economic climate, in which corporations are persons.
If a person -- or a corporation; there is no distinction in the eyes of the law -- can operate freely without government intervention, then the relentless pursuit of profit (the goal of any corporation) can run unfettered. And since a corporation is just another kind of person, then there is no putting the needs of people ahead of the needs of corporations.
So this is the essence of neoliberalism. Liberal economic policies, applied anew to corporations. Neo-liberalism.
Now even still, what's wrong with that? You also have to consider the notion of globalization. Corporations are now multinational, although most corporations are controlled in the US. Virtually all the land in the US (and for that matter the world) is already owned. The corporations cannot continue to grow their profit margins with only the US population as its customer base. Furthermore, American workers have, by global standards, high wages and decent working conditions, a result of a very long labor struggle. Labor is much cheaper overseas, so we see more and more products being made in different countries from where they are sold.
Furthermore, there are international money organizations that control how these international commerce situations develop. These are the IMF (International Monetary Fund), The WB (World Bank), etc. These organizations are largely controlled by the US, and more specifically by US corporate interests. So while corporations are, legally, on an "equal level" with persons, the reality is that these organizations manipulate global economic conditions to favor the corporations over the people. Their biggest tool for doing so is the "Structural Adjustment Program," which has historically had very negative effects on poor people worldwide.
So it comes back to the title of Chomsky's book excerpted below: profits over people.
This mode of capitalism (neoliberalism) took hold in the early to mid 1970s, replacing Keynesianism which was dominant from WWII until then. It can be no coincidence that 1973 was also the peak of the earning power of the American working class. The oil crisis took hold then. The upheaval and hope of the 60s gave way to the complacency and consumerism of the 1980s. Underlying all of these changes is the spectre of neoliberalism.
a definition of neoliberalism
Several people have asked me about the term "neoliberalism." I've tried to provide good defnitions of this term, but I recently came across a very good one, written by, of all people, Noam Chomsky.
This definition decomes from his book,
Profits Over People, a title that is in itself a fairly apt description of neoliberalism. But Chomsky's definition is this:
The Washington Consensus
The neoliberal Washington consensus is an array of market oriented principles designed by the government of the United States and the international financial institutions that it largely dominates, and implemented by them in various ways-for the more vulnerable societies, often as stringent structural adjustment programs. The basic rules, in brief, are liberalize trade and finance, let markets set price ("get prices right"), end inflation ("macroeconomic stability"), privatize. The government should "get out of the way"-hence the population too, insofar as the government is democratic, though the conclusion remains implicit. The decisions of those who impose the "consensus" naturally have a major impact on global order. Some analysts take a much stronger position. The international business press has referred to these institutions as the core of a "de facto world government" of a "new imperial age."
Whether accurate or not, this description serves to remind us that the governing institutions are not independent agents but reflect the distribution of power in the larger society. That has been a truism at least since Adam Smith, who pointed out that the "principal architects" of policy in England were "merchants and manufacturers," who used state power to serve their own interests, however "grievous" the effect on others, including the people of England. Smith's concern was "the wealth of nations," but he understood that the "national interest" is largely a delusion within the "nation" there are sharply conflicting interests, and to understand policy and its effects we have to ask where power lies and how it is exercised, what later came to be called class analysis.
The "principal architects" of the neoliberal "Washington consensus" are the masters of the private economy, mainly huge corporations that control much of the international economy and have the means to dominate policy formation as well as the structuring of thought and opinion. The United States has a special role in the system for obvious reasons. To borrow the words of diplomatic historian Gerald Haines, who is also senior historian of the CIA, "Following World War II the United States assumed, out of self-interest, responsibility for the welfare of the world capitalist system."
You can see that this definition comes dangerously close to the pseudo-Heideggerian or conspiracy theorist's "They," as in "They" are pulling the strings of world government. And indeed, these "They" are somewhat phantomish. But the description is apt. All of us, at least all of us in America or in the west, participate in the neoliberal system to some extent. But many people profit greatly from the system, and seek to protect it. Thus the close ties between American policy and global economics. This is the essence of neoliberalism; it is important to realize that the economic policy goes hand in hand with the state power and associated military might to protect it. Hence perpetual war, most recently in Iraq.
Someone else says now is the time to switch to Linux
Yeah, I know. Yawn. I've been saying "switch to Linux" for probably 2 years now. But now, with all the
security issues surrounding Microsoft products lately, eWeek is asking whether
Isn't Now the Time to Try a Linux Desktop?.
Well, yeah. Duhhhh....
Anyone who reads this website(or my old one) knows that I have been a free software activist for several years. The points I have been making for a long time are just starting to reach public awareness. It's to the point where I just can't abide working on Windows, like I have to do when I'm at work.
The author of the article does make some good points in regard to how IE bugs and Mozilla bugs are fixed. First, he looks at Microsoft's policy:
Let's look at the latest security news about Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox. Microsoft's fix for one of the latest Internet Explorer holes was to deactivate the broken part, ADODB.Stream. Some fix.
The folks in Redmond still don't have solutions to IE's other problems, and they can't even give users a straight answer on when you can expect a fix.
Yes, it appears that XP SP2 will take care of this set of problems, but what about people using other versions of Windows? Will there be a similar broad-ranging patch for them? They sure won't be getting an updated version of Internet Explorer, since Microsoft has made it clear that there will no future standalone versions of IE because IE is now part of the operating system.
Now, he compares this to Mozilla's response to similar bugs in their browser:
Now, let's look at the latest Mozilla bug. This bug affects the Mozilla suite, the Firefox browser and the Thunderbird e-mail client. Just like the IE ones, it enabled crackers to run remote programs on Windows computers—no others—and it had been described in theory long before anyone demonstrated an exploit for it.
In early July, a way was shown on how to exploit the problem. By July 7, it was fixed. IE bugs? Still unfixed.
You know there might be something to this whole notion that open source speeds up security development.
Gee. Maybe. He. Has. A. Point.
Sorry, I can't help but be self-righteous and indignant on this issue. :-)
World War 3 Report
I just found a new online magazine,
The World War 3 Report. According to the site, the WW3 report
monitors the global War on Terrorism and its implications for human rights, democracy and ecology. We scan the world media and Internet with a critical eye for distortions and propaganda. Our only loyalty is to the truth.
Every week, we cover the top stories in the War on Terrorism, as well as important stories overlooked by the mass media. Everything we report is sourced, and we endeavor to fact-check and probe deeper when something smells funny--whether it comes from the New York Times or a fringe web site. We annotate with historical, cultural and political context when it is relevant and overlooked by our source.
Sounds good to me. I've started reading around, and so far the articles look good. Yet another source of info...
More Moore critiques
There are more critiques of Fahrenheit 9/11 that I'm reading, and they are interesting. In
"Why Does 'Fahrenheit 9/11' Pursue Conspiracy Theory?" Yoshie Furuhashi writes:
In order to analyze the problem of decades of collaboration between Washington and Riyadh as well as other unsavory allies, fighting against the Communists, nationalists, and other official enemies of Washington during and after the Cold War, he [Michael Moore] would have to go beyond the crimes of the George W. Bush administration, but doing so would implicate Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton (as well as all presidents of the United States, especially the ones who came into power after the US decidedly replaced Britain and France as the hegemonic imperial power) in the violent project of repression inside and outside Saudi Arabia.
This is a more detailed articulation of what I've been saying; the policies of the BuShites are not new in themselves; the only novelty is that they seem to be operating more openly and recklessly than in the past. There is no reason to believe that Kerry won't continue this decades-long tradition of American imperialism.
In another article, "Manufacturing Dissent: Michael Moore's Noose for the Left", Shlomo Svesnik makes some very pertinent points, pointing out many cognitive dissonances in the film. Among them:
For starters, the film can't make up its mind if it is taking an anti-war, pro-tolerance position or faulting the White House for being too lax in pursuing the War on Terrorism. That the film gets away with this equivocation seems indicative of prevalent sloppy thinking on the American left--which will come back to bite us on the ass in due time.
This article may be one of the angrier critiques of Fahrenheit 9/11 that I've seen. But there is a lot at stake; though ousting Bush is currently the largest preoccupation of The Left(tm), there are larger issues at stake. Painting the problem of the BuShites with such a large, oversimplistic brush can be very damaging to The Left. This article concludes:
Michael Moore, whatever his much-hyped working class origins, has become a part of the otherwise hated "media elite" no less than the networks and newspapers that manufacture consent for the endless war. If we let our cheering drown out any misgivings about the subtly dangerous (if garbled) ideas he is purveying, we are still being empty receptacles for propaganda--just propaganda that we like this time.
Beware Mooremania--this is manufactured, mass-produced dissent. And it is no substitute for the real thing.
I like this concept of "dissent lite." It feels good, and it gives people a place to put their rage toward the BuShites. But the hollowness of Moore's arguments in the film demonstrate that The Left is overripe for rejuvenation.
It comes down to the fact that the American Two-Party system has managed to consolidate power too narrowly. People still think in terms of political dualism, with each pole represented by "Democrat" and "Republican," or more generically "Liberal" and "Conservative."
It will be interesting to see what this overripeness on The Left will result; can another party gain enough strength to seriously challenge the Democrats? Or is the current state of the Democratic party the response of Empire? Right now, many on The Left are so worried about the BuShites that they are railing against others on the Left -- Ralph Nader, for example.
The "anyone but Bush" meme, therefore, can be taken as a defense tactic by Empire to preserve its power. And it appears to be working quite effectively.
The Weather Underground
No, I'm not talking about
the website for weather. I'm talking about
the Weather Underground Organization, also known as
the Weathermen. Apparently, there was a
documentary film made recently about them. I saw an
interview with the filmmakers, it looks very interesting.
I don't know much about them, but I do want to check out the film; there is a BitTorrent link for those intrepid sea robbers out there.
The narrow political dialogue in America
I've been thinking more about Kerry, Michael Moore, and the political dialogue in America. I think that one effect of Fahrenheit 9/11 is that it will definitely shift the political dialogue to highlight the wrongdoings of the BuShites. This is, in part, a good thing; public awareness of the blatant, reckless, and overagressive actions of the BuShites should be higher in public awareness.
The problem is that I fear this shift in dialogue will reinforce the "anyone but Bush" meme. Moore's polemic against the BuShites creates the illusion that everything was hunky-dory until they stole power. This is simply not the case.
As an example of what I mean, look at the recent speeches by Kerry, according to CNN:
He accused Bush of misleading America over Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction and al Qaeda connections, and said the president had broken his promises to build "a true international coalition," honor the U.N. weapons inspection process and go to war only as a last resort.
But while Kerry says this, he and Edwards also defended their decision to vote for the war in Iraq:
"Based on the information we had the time that we had it, it was the right vote," Kerry said. "The problem is the president did not honor what he said he would do in the exercise of the authority that he was given."
Edwards, eating a lunch of salad and pasta beside Kerry at a conference table in the Boeing 757's front cabin, added: "Not only that, he abused the authority."
So again, they're correct about the actions of the BuShites. But they seriously gloss over their own part of the responsibility for the Iraq invasion. When the BuShites were making their claims about Iraq, Saddam, and WMDs, nearly everyone knew or suspected that they were lying. Kerry and Edwards themselves claimed, above, that the BuShites should have respected the UN inspections process. Yet they still voted for the invasion.
Why? There is cognitive dissonance here.
It is interesting to look at some of Bill Clinton's comments about Iraq. Remember, sanctions continued under the Clinton administration, sanctions that had grave and devastating consequences for the Iraqi people. In an interview on CNN, Clinton defends his decision to continue the sanctions:
I basically believe that the policy that I inherited, which was basically to keep Saddam Hussein in a box and under sanctions, unless and until he fully complied with the U.N. resolutions, was the right policy. It wasn't so great for the Iraqis, but he didn't present a substantial threat to anyone else.
This policy is questionable, even for someone like me who isn't privy to all the details of the Iraqi situation. The sanctions obviously had little effect on Saddam, but devasted the Iraqi people, a reality that Clinton himself admits.
It is policies like this one that lead to such international hatred of America, and ultimatley to things like 9/11. Everyone who dies as a result of American foreign policy reinforces this hatred.
I'm just not convinced that Kerry and Edwards will reverse this trend, though I do concede that they probably would not operate as recklessly or as openly as the BuShites.
Respect Your Enemies
I just re-read the
Is Truth Enough? article by George Caffentzis. It struck me in two ways. First, in relation to the
transfer of power to Iraq, George wrote the following:
the situation is going to change on July 1, 2004 [note: the transfer actually happened two days early, on June 28th]. Using a classic "prestidigital" trick, the Bush Administration on that day will swiftly transform an occupying army into an "invited police force" asked to keep order by a "transitional" government concerned about terrorism in its borders. At that very moment, guerrilla resistance fighters will officially become terrorists, and hence open to the kind of treatment accorded to fighters in Afghanistan (including shipment to Guantanamo). Our movement will then have to face the consequences of this categorical slight-of-hand, since we will find ourselves attacked by the Bush Administration as supporters of terrorism.
George's prediction, apparently, is coming true, as today the new "Iraqi" government adopted an
"emergency powers law" -- a description that sounds all-too-familiar to the USA-PATRIOT act -- which "gives the interim government the power to declare martial law, set curfews and detain suspected insurgents." Sounds familiar. I hope they are making more space at Guantanamo Bay.
The second thing that struck me about George's article is in relation to the main themes of my thinking lately, specifically about John Kerry and the criticism of Fahrenheit 9/11. George writes:
The antiwar movement's lack of interest in the Bush Administration is one reason why we fail to grasp the underlying imperatives propelling its actions. We look at the ungrammatical President, the secretive Vice-President, the Dr. Strangelovian Secretary of Defense and the Lady Macbeth-like National Security Advisor and conclude that they are "just" lackies of a right-wing conspiracy fueled by the "majors" in oil industry. Such reductionism is not completely accurate, for they are responding to a major crisis throughout the machinery of capitalism that goes beyond (but definitely includes) the profits of the oil companies and the "control of Mideast oil." The Bush Administration has offered a "solution" to this crisis: a war on terrorism, and all that it means. Their political replacements (perhaps the Democrats) might offer a more multilateral, more union-friendly varient of "the war on terrorism" or a completely "new" solution, but either option must deal with the world-wide crisis of neoliberalism, because that is their business as residents of the White House.
This crisis of neoliberalism is the one unifying, underlying factor that explains US foreign policy in the last three decades. It explains why 9/11 happened in the first place, and it explains why the US government has responded in seemingly illogical ways with its war on terror. There is no solution to the crisis of neoliberalism that does not entail dramatic reorganization of the global economy. And if such reorganization does not happen willfully, carefully, and intellgently, then it will collapse on itself.
We are facing a choice between fundamental change directed intelligently, or collapse, chaos, violence, and greed as desperate people fight viciously for the scraps of flesh left from the dead thousand-scaled dragon of neoliberalism.
Fahrenheit 9/11 a conservative film?
I saw Michael Moore's movie the other day in the theater. While it was well put together, I did have some problems with it. I hadn't taken the time to work out exactly what the problems were, but then I read
this critique of the film over at Common Dreams, written by Robert Jensen. In it, he claims that Fahrenheit 9/11 is a conservative film. How can this be so, when so many "right-wingers" are raging against it, and "left-wingers" are bowing down to it in record numbers?
The critique raises many excellent points (all boldface in all the following quotes were added by me):
Is the administration of George W. Bush full of ideological fanatics? Yes. Have its actions since 9/11 been reckless and put the world at risk? Yes. In the course of pursuing those policies, has it enriched fat-cat friends? Yes.
But it is a serious mistake to believe that these wars can be explained by focusing so exclusively on the Bush administration and ignoring clear trends in U.S. foreign and military policy. In short, these wars are not a sharp departure from the past but instead should be seen as an intensification of longstanding policies, affected by the confluence of this particular administration's ideology and the opportunities created by the events of 9/11.
This is a very important point, and it is closely connected to what I have been thinking about lately regarding John Kerry. It seems to me that the vast majority of his support comes from the "anyone but Bush" crowd. But this argument of "anyone but Bush" is fatally flawed. Jensen continues:
I agree that Bush should be kicked out of the White House, and if I lived in a swing state I would consider voting Democratic. But I don't believe that will be meaningful unless there emerges in the United States a significant anti-empire movement. In other words, if we beat Bush and go back to "normal," we're all in trouble. Normal is empire building. Normal is U.S. domination, economic and military, and the suffering that vulnerable people around the world experience as a result. This doesn't mean voters can't judge one particular empire-building politician more dangerous than another. It doesn't mean we shouldn't sometimes make strategic choices to vote for one over the other. It simply means we should make such choices with eyes open and no illusions. This seems particularly important when the likely Democratic presidential candidate tries to out-hawk Bush on support for Israel, pledges to continue the occupation of Iraq, and says nothing about reversing the basic trends in foreign policy.
So what is the danger of Moore's film? How can it possibly be labelled "conservative"? Here is Jensen's conclusion:
It is obvious that "Fahrenheit 9/11" taps into many Americans' fear and/or hatred of Bush and his gang of thugs. Such feelings are understandable, and I share them. But feelings are not analysis, and the film's analysis, unfortunately, doesn't go much beyond the feeling: It's all Bush's fault. That may be appealing to people, but it's wrong. And it is hard to imagine how a successful anti-empire movement can be built on this film's analysis unless it is challenged.
The statement I highlighted above says it all. As evil as the Bushites are, the problems in America were around long before they established a chokehold on power.
You have to be careful with blanket statements like "anyone but Bush." This is magic 101: be careful what you ask for. There is no reason for me to believe that John Kerry will make a noticeable difference. The sooner mainstream America realizes this, the sooner we can begin to undo the damage of our nation's long and potent history of empire-building.
Kerry, Edwards, Strength, and Haircuts
So John Kerry has chosen John Edwards to be his running mate. I didn't see video of the announcement, but the photos I saw struck me in a singular way: as he stood on the pulpit, there were signs saying "A Stronger America." What does this mean?
As I wrote a few days ago, I have seen nothing resembling strength, integrity, authenticity, courage, or inspirational leadership from Kerry, or indeed any of the major Democratic candidates (excepting Dennis Kucinich, and to a lesser extent Howard Dean).
Surely Kerry's firsthand memory of war in Southeast Asia, provided those memories aren't buried too deeply underneath the crushing weight of 30 years in the corporate/political machine in Washington, would preclude him from believing that A Stronger America can be achieved through military action. The United States already has the strongest military in the world, yet it is shorthanded for the activities it is engaging in. This tells me that the US military is trying to be too strong.
I've heard nothing from Kerry apart from playing-it-safe in his speeches, so as to offend as few people as possible. He's saying the same things politicians in America have been saying for decades. I want to believe, but all I hear are hollow platitudes driven by polls, by how people will react, by a desperate fear of controversy of any sort.
Is this strength?
I think not. Strength comes from a place of authenticity, which I do not see in Kerry. I have no idea what Kerry believes, all I hear are the poll-driven, calculated statements of his speech writers.
Strength would be speaking his truth from his heart, not reading the prefabricated words of others.
Strength would be taking the Bushites to task for their warmongering, and taking himself to task for voting to allow it in the first place.
Strength would be listening to the increasingly populous Progressive movement, embodied in the Democratic party by Dennis Kucinich.
And finally, strength would be getting a different haircut than Bill Clinton. This also goes for John Edwards' haircut being different from Al Gore's. It's like a time machine; if you don't wear your glasses and look at Kerry/Edwards, it looks remarkably like Clinton/Gore from a decade ago. Get a new hairstylist, guys...
Corporate U.S. Flag
You, too, can order one of
these:
Get 'em while they're hot...
Kerry On?
This article by Martin Schram, published in the Cincinnati Post from my ultra-conservative hometown, explains exactly why I'm so suspicious of Kerry. From the article:
But there is one place where you really haven't heard those tough truths spoken -- and that's any place Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry is speaking. That is too bad and quite sad. Because now more than ever in modern history the American people need and deserve to be told the tough but undeniable truths about the choice we face and the decision we must make on Election Day.
After I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 last night, there was a guy campaigning for Kerry outside the theater. I got really really angry at Kerry, and I wasn't quite sure why at the time. Now I know. It's the same reason why I don't trust Kerry. Here's my logic:
- Post-9/11-America is a scary place. Americans have never in their lives been exposed to such danger. The Bushites have done their best to exacerbate these fears in Americans, with the color-coded threat levels, the Dept of Homeland Security, and other such nonsense.
- As a result of this fear, many Americans blame Bush, and have adopted the "anything but Bush" and "get this guy out of office at all costs" attitude.
- This attitude, I believe, is a direct reaction to the fear. People who adopt it, on some level, want to return to the feeling of safety in pre-9/11-America. Clinton embodies this sense of safety, and Kerry seems very much like Clinton.
- The problem with this logic is, pre-9/11-America is what caused 9/11. In other words, without American foreign policy since WWII, there would have been no 9/11. So this desire to get back to a place of safety is actually not as safe as they would like to believe. It just rewinds in time to a place where we weren't aware of the danger.
This article is right on the money. John Kerry is in an unprecedented position to do a tremendous amount of good, and effect some seriously positive change in the world. To do so will require quite a bit of courage. The sad part is, I have seen not one iota of courage from him in this area. Every time I listen to him, I hear him saying the same kind of crap that American politicians have been spewing for decades.
I want to believe in Kerry. I think he's got to be the favorite to win the election this year, assuming of course that there will actually be a real election. But for to believe in him, I need for him to open up to his heart, and do what he knows is right, not what will be most likely to win him votes. It's a situation of safety, vs. honor. It's a tough lesson, but these days I'd try to choose honor every time.
The Commoner
I just saw that
my article has been published in vol. 9 of
The Commoner. From the introduction to the issue:
The first contribution by James W. Lindenshmidt is a detailed analysis of the dynamic of revolution and counter-revolution of cyberspace. Borrowing from the theoretical frameworks of Midnight Notes and of this journal, he explains the nitty-gritty of the creation of virtual commons and the open and subtle strategies promoted by capital to enclose and commodify this space. In this way, it is possible to identify how capital creates scarcity in a post-scarcity virtual space. These enclosures of the virtual commons are not enforced by shotguns or by depleted-uranium missiles. The virtual enclosures are perfectly enforceable, because the rules of enforcement are being architected into the code of the Internet itself. Cyberspace is malleable, and it is increasingly being cast into a space with an infrastructure of built-in, centralized control.
This publication has been brewing for a while. I'm glad to see it's seeing the light of day. I'm looking forward to reading the rest of the articles.
Homeland Security recommends Mozilla?
Believe it or not,
it's true. Even they can see the wisdom of abandoning Internet Explorer.
I know several people that are switching to Mozilla Firefox. It's easy to do, switch and most likely you won't regret it.
The Whispering
My life has been insanely busy as of late. Among this busy-ness has been a tremendous amount of creative output, just beginning, for my music and the album recording. Somewhat paradoxically, a big part of this output has entailed a lot of input, namely technical manuals learning how to use the recording gear.
As a result, apart from some light blogging on this site, my writing has come to a standstill. I haven't had time or energy or inspiration to write lately. But today, for the first time in a long time, I felt the call to begin writing again.
I may not act upon this call, at least not right away. I have no idea what I'd write about. Perhaps it's time for a larger writing project again. I'm not sure I have the stomach for more political rants and analysis on the dangers of the current intellectual property culture. Perhaps something more metaphysical would be to my taste. But every time I conceive of such a project (a good friend and I have sort of danced around the idea of collaborating on such a project for a long time now), it occurs to me that I can't see why anyone would want to read what I have to say on such subjects. Pretty ironic, that I can go effortlessly into rant mode when it comes to Intellectual Property, or Linux, or the Bushites. As if anyone really wants to hear about this...
Another part of me knows that writing, though I enjoy it (to an extent) and I feel I have some skill, requires enough time and attention that it presently can be no more than a hobby for me. My attention is commanded by other things, things that I am not willing to sacrifice for writing. I've waited too long to record my own music. Now that the process is finally, after so many years, underway, it needs as much attention as I can give it.
Regardless, though, I heard the call of the scribe today. Perhaps I need to listen closer, and decipher the whisperings floating through the mists, and distinguish them from the rhythmic white noise lapping at the shore all around me. The whispering, the articulate sighs that pass over lips like a spent lover drifting off to sleep, what do they say?
