The Enlightenment is, for Americans, very much over. Which is a shame, because it was explicitly founded on Enlightenment principles by the Founding Fathers, none of whom would ever survive a primary campaign in this day and age.
Science, rationality, intellectual ability, skepticism, doubt: all negatives in the Republican race (and in the Democratic one, of course). Actually knowing stuff is a deeply suspicious quality when the prime characteristics sought by Republican voters are a) feeling and b) total distrust of Washington, big cities, liberals, atheists, career politicians, foreigners, blacks, books, learning… and languages. Never mind that all the candidates are millionaire career politicians. Except for Romney, who's a billionaire who made his pile in asset-stripping companies and sacking hundreds of thousands of people.
Yes. In a true sign of progress, we've moved on from Republicans accusing Democrat opponents of 'looking French' (John Kerry spoke fluent French), to Republicans accusing each other of speaking French. Never mind that the Founding Fathers all had fluent Latin and most of them could read Ancient Greek too, as well as French…
This is a return to the 'Know-Nothings' and 'Ham and Eggs' populist movements, in which suspicion of outsiders was a mark of authenticity and honesty. A bit weird for a nation founded on immigration, and for one which has a military presence in more than two thirds of the world's countries, but American politics is well beyond logic by now.
To read: Pity the Billionaire, by Thomas Frank, about how struggling Americans have been persuaded that the financial system which ruined us all needs more freedom from government.
Showing posts with label American politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American politics. Show all posts
Friday, 13 January 2012
Wednesday, 2 February 2011
Americans: your aid needed
A friend who specialises in rightwing/conservative American politics seeks copies of political magazines. If you're going to the US, or a visitor from the US, could you save any copies you see or read of
National Review
New Republic
American Conservative.
Drop me a line via the comments and I'll sort out postage. Thanks in advance!
National Review
New Republic
American Conservative.
Drop me a line via the comments and I'll sort out postage. Thanks in advance!
Thursday, 4 November 2010
Socialist Heroes No. 1: The US Military
I mean it. The US armed forces are the world's greatest and most powerful examples of socialism in action.
I realised this when I sat in front of the TV watching Tea Party lunatics calling for small government and an end to government spending, while expressing a desire for more soldiers, bigger guns, and more wars.
But armies are paid for by taxpayers. The government takes your money and spends almost 5% of GDP and 44% of US Government tax income ($663.8 billion) on war. Massive standing armies, a huge navy, enormous Marine Corps, gigantic air force, the National Guard, covert operations, missile silos, satellites, research and development, propaganda, accommodation, vehicles, educational programs: the list is endless, and it costs a lot of money.
Brilliant.
Eh? Surely that's not a very Vole thing to say. But I do. The US is a military state. It spends almost half the tax it collects on the military. This is genius. The government knows that Americans hate taxes and distrust governments. They also know that the more you hate taxes and governments, the more likely you are to like guns and massive military force. So someone sat down and thought about how to support the US economy while keeping these loons happy, and hit on the idea of a mighty military.
Think of it like this: if you manufacture enough enemies, you can usually be at war with a couple of no-mark sandpits at any one time, while keeping a massive enemy in reserve - once the USSR, now China. Your voters therefore demand that you hugely outgun and outspend them.
This leads to massive recruitment, taking young men and women off the dole queue caused by your decline as a manufacturing economy. They serve their country, learn to be docile and obedient citizens and view the armed services as the epitome of American-ness, and they get an excellent education paid for by the state after they leave. So you're fiddling the employment market and contributing to the education system. You also employ a lot of people to teach and train these recruits while in service. Then there's the housing for your forces, and the military bases. You scatter these throughout the country until every small town has a military outpost. That keeps them patriotic and ensures that they (and their local politicians) will never object to the military expenditure because it's keeping their town alive.
You also invest massively in university and industrial research and development, providing more jobs and tying everyone into a state-regulated economy without ever mentioning the dread word 'socialism'. But that's what it is. Shhh. Don't mention it to the Americans.
I realised this when I sat in front of the TV watching Tea Party lunatics calling for small government and an end to government spending, while expressing a desire for more soldiers, bigger guns, and more wars.
But armies are paid for by taxpayers. The government takes your money and spends almost 5% of GDP and 44% of US Government tax income ($663.8 billion) on war. Massive standing armies, a huge navy, enormous Marine Corps, gigantic air force, the National Guard, covert operations, missile silos, satellites, research and development, propaganda, accommodation, vehicles, educational programs: the list is endless, and it costs a lot of money.
Brilliant.
Eh? Surely that's not a very Vole thing to say. But I do. The US is a military state. It spends almost half the tax it collects on the military. This is genius. The government knows that Americans hate taxes and distrust governments. They also know that the more you hate taxes and governments, the more likely you are to like guns and massive military force. So someone sat down and thought about how to support the US economy while keeping these loons happy, and hit on the idea of a mighty military.
Think of it like this: if you manufacture enough enemies, you can usually be at war with a couple of no-mark sandpits at any one time, while keeping a massive enemy in reserve - once the USSR, now China. Your voters therefore demand that you hugely outgun and outspend them.
This leads to massive recruitment, taking young men and women off the dole queue caused by your decline as a manufacturing economy. They serve their country, learn to be docile and obedient citizens and view the armed services as the epitome of American-ness, and they get an excellent education paid for by the state after they leave. So you're fiddling the employment market and contributing to the education system. You also employ a lot of people to teach and train these recruits while in service. Then there's the housing for your forces, and the military bases. You scatter these throughout the country until every small town has a military outpost. That keeps them patriotic and ensures that they (and their local politicians) will never object to the military expenditure because it's keeping their town alive.
You also invest massively in university and industrial research and development, providing more jobs and tying everyone into a state-regulated economy without ever mentioning the dread word 'socialism'. But that's what it is. Shhh. Don't mention it to the Americans.
Wednesday, 3 November 2010
Not for all the tea in Boston
In the end even I, a proper political junkie, had to switch off the endless coverage of the US mid-term elections (while observing in passing that the obssessive British coverage marks us as a client state: reckon CNN follows our elections that closely).
I'm sickened by the stupidity, nastiness and hypocrisy of the American political scene. Republican after Republican shouting about Obama's policies as though he had no right to make decisions, despite winning a landslide victory. Calling this morning for 'bipartisanship' after spending the last two years voting against every single Democrat idea: the Healthcare bill was watered down massively to please the Republicans, and still they voted against it unanimously.
It seemed to be such an uninformed debate - people on state medical schemes calling for the abolition of the state, bandying around words like socialist, communist and fascist. The endless calls for smaller government, while insisting that the US maintains itself as the biggest military power in the world (outspending the nearest rival by 40 times). Hysteria about immigrants from a nation founded on immigration (and wiping out the natives). They're voting against even minimal state healthcare because they don't want government deciding how you're treated: they'd rather corporations with an interest in excluding the sick do it! Most awful of all, voting for the party of corporate power, untrammelled banking power and finance capital after these people bankrupted America. The debate has shifted from persuasion to screaming abuse and naked hypocrisy, mixed with a dose of barely concealed racism. I just don't get it. I know the ideological basis of the American Dream is hardy individualism, but this is something far nastier.
Sure, Obama's failed in some ways - mostly, I feel, by not being bold enough, and not being skilled enough at getting his hands dirty. He believes, like a good university teacher should, in rational, calm discussion, while his opponents are smashing him over the head with a cosh. He's a liberal - that's the problem. While he's putting the case, his opponents (quietly funded by companies like BP), are waving things like this:
This morning, I had to switch off my radio, so depressed was I with the fate of a great country.
I'm sickened by the stupidity, nastiness and hypocrisy of the American political scene. Republican after Republican shouting about Obama's policies as though he had no right to make decisions, despite winning a landslide victory. Calling this morning for 'bipartisanship' after spending the last two years voting against every single Democrat idea: the Healthcare bill was watered down massively to please the Republicans, and still they voted against it unanimously.
It seemed to be such an uninformed debate - people on state medical schemes calling for the abolition of the state, bandying around words like socialist, communist and fascist. The endless calls for smaller government, while insisting that the US maintains itself as the biggest military power in the world (outspending the nearest rival by 40 times). Hysteria about immigrants from a nation founded on immigration (and wiping out the natives). They're voting against even minimal state healthcare because they don't want government deciding how you're treated: they'd rather corporations with an interest in excluding the sick do it! Most awful of all, voting for the party of corporate power, untrammelled banking power and finance capital after these people bankrupted America. The debate has shifted from persuasion to screaming abuse and naked hypocrisy, mixed with a dose of barely concealed racism. I just don't get it. I know the ideological basis of the American Dream is hardy individualism, but this is something far nastier.
Sure, Obama's failed in some ways - mostly, I feel, by not being bold enough, and not being skilled enough at getting his hands dirty. He believes, like a good university teacher should, in rational, calm discussion, while his opponents are smashing him over the head with a cosh. He's a liberal - that's the problem. While he's putting the case, his opponents (quietly funded by companies like BP), are waving things like this:
This morning, I had to switch off my radio, so depressed was I with the fate of a great country.
Friday, 15 October 2010
What did I tell you?
We should be playing Bullshit Bingo. After my little rant this morning about the 'independent nuclear deterrent' and Hillary Clinton's strategic intervention into the UK's budget decisions, out comes Mekon William Hague, and I could have written the script myself.
This is pathetic. This is Rocky claiming still to have it. It's the addict who claims to be able to give up any time. He's in denial. As a country, Britain's in denial. It's not a military power of the first rank at all. The US in in the first rank. China's in the second. Probably Russia, India and Israel next. Britain's well down the list.
The difference between Hague and myself is that I think that's a good thing. Let's be like the Scandinavians. Instead of demanding respect because you've got nuclear weapons, like a school bully, how about claiming the moral high ground by disarming the nukes, devoting the forces to peacekeeping, and promising to make amends for the British Empire. Thanks for WW2 and all that, but you've still got a lot to live down. Being the snide kid tagging along with the Fat American playground bully isn't principled, it's desperate.
"The UK will remain, within the context of Nato, a military power of the first rank".
"Although we will have to make some adjustments and changes and no doubt reductions, I think America can be assured that we will still remain a very important ally and still pack a very important punch," Hague told the Council on Foreign Relations.
Speaking on Friday in Brussels, William Hague said the UK would remain within the context of Nato and would continue to have an independent nuclear deterrent, formidable intelligence agencies and flexible and highly deployable forces.
This is pathetic. This is Rocky claiming still to have it. It's the addict who claims to be able to give up any time. He's in denial. As a country, Britain's in denial. It's not a military power of the first rank at all. The US in in the first rank. China's in the second. Probably Russia, India and Israel next. Britain's well down the list.
The difference between Hague and myself is that I think that's a good thing. Let's be like the Scandinavians. Instead of demanding respect because you've got nuclear weapons, like a school bully, how about claiming the moral high ground by disarming the nukes, devoting the forces to peacekeeping, and promising to make amends for the British Empire. Thanks for WW2 and all that, but you've still got a lot to live down. Being the snide kid tagging along with the Fat American playground bully isn't principled, it's desperate.
Press Release from the Death Star
The newspapers are running a story that Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State, is warning the UK and other NATO nations about cutting their defence budgets.
This is the most naked order from Imperial HQ we've seen in public for a while, which must mean they're worried, but it's far from unique.
We sometimes need to step back from the political rhetoric to look at the global political situation. When we do, it's clear that NATO is the equivalent of the Roman Empire's foederati: natives hired by the imperial power to tame them and to extend the empire's reach at low cost.
The US is, of course, much like Rome in that the entire economy depends on military spending: this is Marxism in its purest form. Whatever the Tea Party and their Republican friends say, they don't really want small government. They want heavily armed, globe-spanning government, just without any of the social stuff like Welfare, education and civil rights.
Reduce the massive armed services (the US spends ten times more on arms than the next ten countries combined), cut away the 'pork' of army bases, arms factories and so on, and the economy collapses. Entire towns will be devastated. Poor people wouldn't have an escape route via enlistment. Let's be clear: the US needs a permanent state of war to remain afloat.
Turning to the UK, it's time to honestly admit that it's a puppet. OK, British politicians might occasionally make a trade treaty decision or a fisheries agreement without Washington's approval, but on the serious stuff, nothing happens without Americans giving the word. Remember Blair's orders to his new Ambassador to Washington: "get up the arse of the White House and stay there' - keeping close to the Americans was and is far more important than the lives of Iraqis and British soldiers, more important than international law.
The more British politicians protest, the more pathetic it is. I have to laugh every time one of them says 'independent nuclear deterrent': Britain's nuclear weapons are made by, rented from and loaded by the US, and can't be launched without US permission. They don't even have 'Royal Navy' painted on them. Lockheed Martin make them, Halliburton put them on the subs. No US permission to fire = no firing. No spare parts, no computer upgrades, no movement from harbour without finding a US force waiting.
The UK is a shield and an aircraft carrier for the US, like the other 140 or so countries with US military bases on their land: if that's not a global imperial hegemony, I don't know what is.
So why is Hillary so upset? Perhaps she genuinely thinks that Britain's contribution to the anti-imperial bush wars which flare up here and there is important. But I doubt it. The US could swat like a fly any country in the world, without raising a sweat. No, Hillary's upset because our potential failure to invest in new weapons of mass destruction might indicate a failure of nerve, a little pinprick of self-interest. The US might look like a bully of it can't point to the nominal contributions of micro-states like Britain, Denmark and Italy - it needs cover to make itself look like a leader rather than a dictator.
Hillary, in short, finds our lack of faith in her - disturbing. Only at times of stress do we see the iron fist under the hegemonic velvet glove.
But don't worry. The Tories will always, always choose guns over butter, or child benefit. The Navy's been promised its two aircraft carriers, despite the lack of any actual aircraft to go on them (though the US is selling some…).
All's well. Go back to sleep.
This is the most naked order from Imperial HQ we've seen in public for a while, which must mean they're worried, but it's far from unique.
We sometimes need to step back from the political rhetoric to look at the global political situation. When we do, it's clear that NATO is the equivalent of the Roman Empire's foederati: natives hired by the imperial power to tame them and to extend the empire's reach at low cost.
The US is, of course, much like Rome in that the entire economy depends on military spending: this is Marxism in its purest form. Whatever the Tea Party and their Republican friends say, they don't really want small government. They want heavily armed, globe-spanning government, just without any of the social stuff like Welfare, education and civil rights.
Reduce the massive armed services (the US spends ten times more on arms than the next ten countries combined), cut away the 'pork' of army bases, arms factories and so on, and the economy collapses. Entire towns will be devastated. Poor people wouldn't have an escape route via enlistment. Let's be clear: the US needs a permanent state of war to remain afloat.
Turning to the UK, it's time to honestly admit that it's a puppet. OK, British politicians might occasionally make a trade treaty decision or a fisheries agreement without Washington's approval, but on the serious stuff, nothing happens without Americans giving the word. Remember Blair's orders to his new Ambassador to Washington: "get up the arse of the White House and stay there' - keeping close to the Americans was and is far more important than the lives of Iraqis and British soldiers, more important than international law.
The more British politicians protest, the more pathetic it is. I have to laugh every time one of them says 'independent nuclear deterrent': Britain's nuclear weapons are made by, rented from and loaded by the US, and can't be launched without US permission. They don't even have 'Royal Navy' painted on them. Lockheed Martin make them, Halliburton put them on the subs. No US permission to fire = no firing. No spare parts, no computer upgrades, no movement from harbour without finding a US force waiting.
The UK is a shield and an aircraft carrier for the US, like the other 140 or so countries with US military bases on their land: if that's not a global imperial hegemony, I don't know what is.
So why is Hillary so upset? Perhaps she genuinely thinks that Britain's contribution to the anti-imperial bush wars which flare up here and there is important. But I doubt it. The US could swat like a fly any country in the world, without raising a sweat. No, Hillary's upset because our potential failure to invest in new weapons of mass destruction might indicate a failure of nerve, a little pinprick of self-interest. The US might look like a bully of it can't point to the nominal contributions of micro-states like Britain, Denmark and Italy - it needs cover to make itself look like a leader rather than a dictator.
Hillary, in short, finds our lack of faith in her - disturbing. Only at times of stress do we see the iron fist under the hegemonic velvet glove.
But don't worry. The Tories will always, always choose guns over butter, or child benefit. The Navy's been promised its two aircraft carriers, despite the lack of any actual aircraft to go on them (though the US is selling some…).
All's well. Go back to sleep.
Wednesday, 15 September 2010
The Big (t)Issue
Well done to America's Republican Party. In the midst of global recession, climate havoc, mass unemployment (15% in the US), they've been electing their candidates for Senate.
So who've they gone for?
Christine O'Donnell beat a long-term congressman for the Republican candidacy. The woman whose main interests are guns, opposing abortion and - the pressing issue of our times - the fight against masturbation.
Ah, what a delightful whiff of the 1950s. When life was simple and the greatest threat facing the US was communists with boxes of Kleenex weakening the moral fibre of the nation.
People in the States seem terrified of the Tea Party and their house-trained Republican counterparts, partly because they decided that Obama's election was the signal to be as disruptive and undemocratic as possible. I'm more relaxed. I think that most Americans are pretty mainstream. The more Tea Party candidates take over the Republicans, the more people will vote Democrat: the Republicans are making themselves unelectable by being captured by their mad fringe.
The O'Donnell case is the perfect example. The US is swinging Republican at the moment, and her mainstream Republican rival could have won the currently Democratic Senatorial seat - but she can't. The Dems must be jubilant every time one of these loons gets the candidacy. Interestingly, the American primary system lets all citizens vote in party elections, so hopefully Dems are voting for these weirdos to make the real elections even easier for them.
Problem solved. Or it would be if other candidates were sane: only one of the 48 Republican candidates accepts that climate change is happening - and he's the guy who just lost the primary to O'Donnell.
So who've they gone for?
Christine O'Donnell beat a long-term congressman for the Republican candidacy. The woman whose main interests are guns, opposing abortion and - the pressing issue of our times - the fight against masturbation.
The then leader of Christian lobby group Savior's Alliance for Lifting the Truth, O'Donnell took part in an MTV series, Sex in the 90s. "The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery. So you can't masturbate without lust," she told the programme. "The reason that you don't tell [people] that masturbation is the answer to Aids and all these other problems that come with sex outside of marriage is because, again, it is not addressing the issue. You're just gonna create somebody who is toying with his sexuality. Pardon the pun."
O'Donnell, meanwhile, has questioned the focus on apparent untruths on her CV, such as claims she had a masters degree when she was in fact still awaiting the award of the bachelor's equivalent, due to unpaid university fees.
Ah, what a delightful whiff of the 1950s. When life was simple and the greatest threat facing the US was communists with boxes of Kleenex weakening the moral fibre of the nation.
People in the States seem terrified of the Tea Party and their house-trained Republican counterparts, partly because they decided that Obama's election was the signal to be as disruptive and undemocratic as possible. I'm more relaxed. I think that most Americans are pretty mainstream. The more Tea Party candidates take over the Republicans, the more people will vote Democrat: the Republicans are making themselves unelectable by being captured by their mad fringe.
The O'Donnell case is the perfect example. The US is swinging Republican at the moment, and her mainstream Republican rival could have won the currently Democratic Senatorial seat - but she can't. The Dems must be jubilant every time one of these loons gets the candidacy. Interestingly, the American primary system lets all citizens vote in party elections, so hopefully Dems are voting for these weirdos to make the real elections even easier for them.
Problem solved. Or it would be if other candidates were sane: only one of the 48 Republican candidates accepts that climate change is happening - and he's the guy who just lost the primary to O'Donnell.
Tuesday, 24 August 2010
Americans!
This woman is supposedly a serious politician in the US (via Doonesbury):
"He personally told Muslims he is a Muslim. Read his lips."
-- RNC committeewoman Kim Lehman tweeting about Obama
"[In his Cairo speech] it didn't appear to me he said Christianity was part of his religion."
-- Lehman, explaining her tweet
"I'm a Christian."
-- Obama, in the speech she refers to.Oh dear. That country does seem to be becoming a very intolerant, shrill and reactionary place. What happened to debating the issues?
Wednesday, 18 August 2010
What happens when the Silly Season and the Electoral Cycle meet?
You get Texas Republicans (yes, elected national politicians) saying very stupid things
I quite like the idea of 'terror babies'. Perhaps they'll be this Christmas's smash hit. Bearded dolls with plastic explosive disguised as pooh in their nappies. Push a button and they say 'Die infidel' and then cry tears… of blood!
The news is getting terribly Chris Morris at the moment.
Texas lawmaker Debbie Riddle is claiming that her former FBI sources say that pregnant immigrants are entering the United States to have babies for an elaborate terror plot.
Republican Debbie Riddle discussed a supposed new terror plot that has created a new term 'terror babies'. According to Rep. Riddle, pregnant women are entering the United States and giving birth to children. They then take this child, now a U.S. citizen, back to their home country and then raise them to become a terrorist. All this work, in the hopes that they will enter the United States and execute a terrorist attack.and then objecting when people ask for detail:
"They did not tell me that you were going to grill me for this specific information that I was not ready to give to you tonight."
-- TX Rep. Debbie Riddle, upset with Anderson Cooper for pressing her on the claim that "terror babies" existDepressingly, it's actually a plot to remove automatic American citizenship for anyone born in the US - particularly Mexicans, hence the frequent references to 'our Southern border'. It's well worth watching the whole thing.
I quite like the idea of 'terror babies'. Perhaps they'll be this Christmas's smash hit. Bearded dolls with plastic explosive disguised as pooh in their nappies. Push a button and they say 'Die infidel' and then cry tears… of blood!
The news is getting terribly Chris Morris at the moment.
Saturday, 14 August 2010
This man is running for major office for one of America's two leading parties
What can I say? Apart from: Timothy McVeigh, The Unabomber and many more.
See Fascist Don's website.
See Fascist Don's website.
Wednesday, 7 July 2010
Tuesday, 1 June 2010
Wolverines!
The big news (to me at least) apart from David Laws's defenestration (guilty, but the Daily Telegraph is clearly on a homophobic, anti-Lib Dem crusade to destabilise the coalition from the right), is the remake of infamous, awful, horrendously racist and rightwing 1980s film, Red Dawn.
This kind of rubbish always appears when a nation is culturally stressed: the 80s was packed with neo-fascist militarism in response to getting a huge and well-deserved hammering in Vietnam.
The interesting thing about Red Dawn the remake is that the evil, invading Other is no longer the Soviet Union with support from Cuba and the Mexicans, but China - clearly Hollywood's bothered by that country's financial, military and soft power.
Why is it that Americans are so keen to produce films in which they're the plucky underdogs resisting the cruel oppressors. A quick review of history: it happened ONCE, when you (very impressively) chucked the British out (though they burned the White House in 1812). Since then, Mexico, Puerto Rico, the Phillipines, Cuba (repeatedly), Diego Garcia, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada and Iraq have reason to differ - and that's not including all the countries tossed around by your mates. The US hasn't been the resistance since 1789.
Star Trek, the Rebel Alliance, the A-Team (now a film too), Red Dawn, Terminator, Jaws and a host of other texts suggest that you're in deep denial about being the Empire. At least in the 1950s, your Westerns featured a sheriff who was sure that he was Doing The Right Thing, enforcing justice and the American Way even if that did mostly consist of killing as many Native Americans as possible. Now you seem insecure, always looking for ways to appear the plucky underdog. Give it up. The first stage is to admit that you are a global superpower. Then you can think about the responsibilities that brings, rather than pretending that you're the victims here.
Meanwhile, here's a thought. It looks like the European hegemony is well and truly over, thanks to the activities of the bond markets. America may well be next, given that China's buying up Africa and quietly collecting as much US Treasury debt as possible. The question is, why fight it? You obviously approve of superpowers dominating the globe - give someone else a go.
One fascinating fact about the Red Dawn remake that supports my suggestion that it's time to ask somebody else for help is this: the scenes of urban devastation were all filmed in Detroit, because that's what it looks like - one of the former richest cities in the US has lost a massive chunk of its population to drugs, drink, murder and escape. Huge swathes of residential and industrial areas are abandoned and the economy is dead. Well done, capitalism. (New Orleans has also been used for post-apocalypse scenes too).
If you're not convinced, read Gwyneth Jones's Rainbow Bridge, in which the assorted rock stars and hippies who've been forced to take over England after representative government collapses, eventually realise that a Chinese takeover is by far the best option, and devote their efforts to persuading the remains of the armed forces and other bands to choose life over principle (there's a lot of sex and Arthuriana in it too).
OK, I'm mostly joking - the Chinese regime is almost as awful as some of our allies, such as Saudi Arabia. But as the product of Britain's colonial rapaciousness, I've learned a thing or two. Subaltern cultures adapt, survive and maybe even prosper. States aren't innocent, or they don't remain so - they all want to invade someone. If you do it enough, and use the right weaponry, you get a permanent seat on the Security Council.
Me? I'd like the Norwegians to invade, or one of their neighbours. Seriously. Greener, good food, high taxes, great healthcare, high degree of equality, low crime, less conspicuous consumption, better welfare provision, better education - and yet they're still much, much richer than the Anglo countries. Ask the CIA!
This kind of rubbish always appears when a nation is culturally stressed: the 80s was packed with neo-fascist militarism in response to getting a huge and well-deserved hammering in Vietnam.
The interesting thing about Red Dawn the remake is that the evil, invading Other is no longer the Soviet Union with support from Cuba and the Mexicans, but China - clearly Hollywood's bothered by that country's financial, military and soft power.
Why is it that Americans are so keen to produce films in which they're the plucky underdogs resisting the cruel oppressors. A quick review of history: it happened ONCE, when you (very impressively) chucked the British out (though they burned the White House in 1812). Since then, Mexico, Puerto Rico, the Phillipines, Cuba (repeatedly), Diego Garcia, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada and Iraq have reason to differ - and that's not including all the countries tossed around by your mates. The US hasn't been the resistance since 1789.
Star Trek, the Rebel Alliance, the A-Team (now a film too), Red Dawn, Terminator, Jaws and a host of other texts suggest that you're in deep denial about being the Empire. At least in the 1950s, your Westerns featured a sheriff who was sure that he was Doing The Right Thing, enforcing justice and the American Way even if that did mostly consist of killing as many Native Americans as possible. Now you seem insecure, always looking for ways to appear the plucky underdog. Give it up. The first stage is to admit that you are a global superpower. Then you can think about the responsibilities that brings, rather than pretending that you're the victims here.
Meanwhile, here's a thought. It looks like the European hegemony is well and truly over, thanks to the activities of the bond markets. America may well be next, given that China's buying up Africa and quietly collecting as much US Treasury debt as possible. The question is, why fight it? You obviously approve of superpowers dominating the globe - give someone else a go.
One fascinating fact about the Red Dawn remake that supports my suggestion that it's time to ask somebody else for help is this: the scenes of urban devastation were all filmed in Detroit, because that's what it looks like - one of the former richest cities in the US has lost a massive chunk of its population to drugs, drink, murder and escape. Huge swathes of residential and industrial areas are abandoned and the economy is dead. Well done, capitalism. (New Orleans has also been used for post-apocalypse scenes too).
If you're not convinced, read Gwyneth Jones's Rainbow Bridge, in which the assorted rock stars and hippies who've been forced to take over England after representative government collapses, eventually realise that a Chinese takeover is by far the best option, and devote their efforts to persuading the remains of the armed forces and other bands to choose life over principle (there's a lot of sex and Arthuriana in it too).
OK, I'm mostly joking - the Chinese regime is almost as awful as some of our allies, such as Saudi Arabia. But as the product of Britain's colonial rapaciousness, I've learned a thing or two. Subaltern cultures adapt, survive and maybe even prosper. States aren't innocent, or they don't remain so - they all want to invade someone. If you do it enough, and use the right weaponry, you get a permanent seat on the Security Council.
Me? I'd like the Norwegians to invade, or one of their neighbours. Seriously. Greener, good food, high taxes, great healthcare, high degree of equality, low crime, less conspicuous consumption, better welfare provision, better education - and yet they're still much, much richer than the Anglo countries. Ask the CIA!
Wednesday, 31 March 2010
Honk if you're illiterate
Right - home for cleaning, cooking and MORE WORK!
But I'll leave you with some beautiful photographs. I know it's mean, and that there are plenty of people on the left who can't spell, but someone has taken the time to collect images of all the wrongly-spelled anti-Obama placards, including some proclaiming the superiority of the English language.
Enjoy.
But I'll leave you with some beautiful photographs. I know it's mean, and that there are plenty of people on the left who can't spell, but someone has taken the time to collect images of all the wrongly-spelled anti-Obama placards, including some proclaiming the superiority of the English language.
This one really confused me for a minute.
Enjoy.
Monday, 22 March 2010
"This is what change looks like" or "armageddon"
Congratulations to my American readers: you're now going to get a healthcare system which may just help the poor and middle-classes. It's still going to be utterly rubbish compared with the Canadian, UK and European systems (it's not universal or funded through taxation) but in American terms, it's an earthquake because it at leasts hints at the idea that we're collectively responsible for each other (Michael Tomasky has a good piece on the philosophical issues).
Shame on the Democrats who opposed it and those who extorted the exclusion of abortion, on the Republicans generally (every single one voted against making affordable healthcare available), and it's a shame that Democrats who supported it will lose their Congressional seats barring a miracle.
I've never considered vaccination and first-aid as 'armageddon'. What a strange man. Still, welcome to civilisation.
Shame on the Democrats who opposed it and those who extorted the exclusion of abortion, on the Republicans generally (every single one voted against making affordable healthcare available), and it's a shame that Democrats who supported it will lose their Congressional seats barring a miracle.
Thousands of protesters gathered outside Congress at the weekend, shouting "kill the bill". Some directed racist and other derogatory remarks at African-American members of Congress, including John Lewis, one of the veterans of the 1960s civil rights movement. One congressman was spat on.
Another protester shouted "faggot" at Democratic congressman Barney Frank, who later told the Politico website: "It's like the Salem witch trials, and healthcare is the witches. There is mass hysteria."
The Republican leader in the House, John Boehner, described the bill as armageddon
I've never considered vaccination and first-aid as 'armageddon'. What a strange man. Still, welcome to civilisation.
Tuesday, 9 March 2010
Peace and brotherly love
This is one man's encounter with prominent Christian and governor of Florida, Charlie Crist:
Last night as I was leaving a pizzeria in Downtown St. Pete, I ran into a small group of people around Florida Governor Charlie Crist who was campaigning for a US Senate run. So, I walked over waited a moment to gain his attention and shook his hand. As we were shaking hands I asked him if he really believes that the letters he sent to Jerusalem prevent hurricanes from hitting Florida.
His smile immediately dropped and he replied "Who's more powerful than God." That wasn't really an answer so asked him again to which I got a similar reply. While this was happening one of his people put a "Charlie Crist for US Senate 2010" sticker on me. Then when I told Charlie that I did not believe in God he turned beat red and ripped the sticker off of my chest. He did a 180 to start shaking other peoples hands, and turned to scream over his shoulder that he feels sorry for me.
Thursday, 21 January 2010
Shelley the Republican, I think I love you
She's like all of Ewar's letter-writers rolled into one. She's so quotably insane that she's clearly a parody. This is all from the 'God's Hitlist' section. Apparently God spends his time pondering the respective positions of America's political parties, and He's made His choice… Beware - this is an exhaustive list of His dislikes, as dictated to Shelley the Republican. Why He dislikes Chelsea Clinton and Kurt Vonnegut is left unclear… Daniel and Emma: I hope you're honoured to be equated with paedophiles and Linux users, as vegetarians. I'm deeply honoured to be on the list under several categories.
Heaven's clearly no fun at all.
Heaven's clearly no fun at all.
His expectations are abundantly clear and well documented in His bestselling book – The Bible. Any questions as to your behavior and conduct in your time on Earth find quick answers there. Should I have gay sex? No. Should I take the Lord's name in vain? No. Should I vote Republican? Generally, yes, since they are the only party that believes in God and God’s word.
God’s people hitlist: God wants them dead because they harm America!
Barack “The Muslim” Obama
(aka “Homobama”, “Barack Osama”, “Husein the Terrorist”)
Tristan Shuddery (He died due to auto-erotic asphyxiation in Room 66 of the Motel 6 in El Reno, Oklahoma on March, 15 2007. He was found the next day by the housekeeper. He was our friend and and part of the STR writer crew but he turned against God. He died and God won!)
Cory Doctorow ( Pro-hacker liberal, runs a satanic blog called “Boing” )
Richard Dawkins
Michael Moore
Hillary Clinton
Bill Clinton
Chelsea Clinton
Cindy Sheehan (Has publicly repented from her sins – God won!)
Al Gore
Al Franken
Barrack Osama
Boris Yeltsin (God Won)
Kurt Vonnegut (God Won)
George ?Greasy Greek? Soros
Charles Darwin (God Won)
Marcel Marceau (God Won)
James Cameron
=============Wrong Choices
God’s lifestyle choices hitlist : God hates people that belong to one of the groups below because they harm America!
Gays
Liberals
Abortionists
Animal Rights People
Environmentalists
Muzlims
Vegetarians/Vegans
Pedophiles
“Global Warming/Cooling” Believers
Linux users
“Purpose Driven” churches
Mormons
Germans
Government school teachers
The anti-smoking lobby
College Professors
Poets
Hybrid Cars
=============Harmful groups and parties
God’s groups and parties hitlist : God hates people that are member or support the groups and parties below because they harm America!
Democrat Party
Hezbollah
Hamas
UCLA
=============Harmful bands
God’s music hitlist : God hates people that listen to the bands below because they harm America!
Neil Young
Slipknot
Madonna
Red Hot Chilly Peppers
Bono
Patti Smith
Bob Dylan
Little Richard
The The
David Rovics
All hip-hop and other musical forms that promote and encourage degraded, drug-addicted and murderous black culture
Any and All American Idols
Friends, Family and Fans of Any and All American Idols
The Dixie Chicks
Linda Rondstadt
Ravi Shankar
Fish
Bruce Springsteen
Doris Day
Anyone who has ever appeared in, listened to, rented or bought in any form the “musical” Rent
God and woo in one!
Ben Goldacre directs our attention to a magical confluence of Republican politics, bigotry, Christianity and the worst of junk science.
It's glorious. I'd love to see the peer-reviewed evidence for that '100% effective', and I now realise that drinking fluids is a useless method of 'hydrating' myself compared with homeopathy. That explains why I look like a prune.
Be sure not to miss the link to 'God's Hitlist'. That's loving of him.
Finally a 100% effective cure for homosexuality!
Friends,
Do you know somebody who is suffering from homosexuality? Leading psychologists such as James Dobson agree that homosexuality is a sick diseased perversion which must be cured. However until now ex-gay therapies have been expensive and hard to obtain. Despite our prayers and best lobbying efforts most insurance companies will not pay for treatment to cure homosexuality. That may all soon change thanks to the re-discovery of a 200 year old remedy: Homeopathy.
Thanks to the homeopathic treatment’s high water content they can actually provide much needed moisture. This has been proved to help maintain your body’s fluid balance.
According to Dana Ullman, America’s leading Homoeopath there is a 100% natural cure for homosexuality: Natrum Bromatum. This medical wonder can stop all homosexual urges after only one week of use. Dana has used Natrum Bromatum to cure more than ten homosexuals of their deadly perversion. Thanks to his innovative treatment these men are now living healthy and productive lives. Three of them are married with children. How many people has standard medicine cured? Not one I will bet.
It's glorious. I'd love to see the peer-reviewed evidence for that '100% effective', and I now realise that drinking fluids is a useless method of 'hydrating' myself compared with homeopathy. That explains why I look like a prune.
Be sure not to miss the link to 'God's Hitlist'. That's loving of him.
Thursday, 14 January 2010
Who killed Haiti?
It was God.
At least, if you listen to tele-evangelist and former US Presidential candidate Pat Robertson (6 minutes into the video). He's one of the most influential religious and political figures in the US. Apparently the Haitians struck a deal with the devil to achieve independence from the French (back in reality, it was a brilliantly organised slave uprising).
Presumably Robertson thinks the the American Revolution was also a diabolic plot against God's Anointed Empire (the British). Presumably he endorses slavery too… You can read a list of his stupidest opinions here. I particularly like this one, which I have on a postcard:
At least, if you listen to tele-evangelist and former US Presidential candidate Pat Robertson (6 minutes into the video). He's one of the most influential religious and political figures in the US. Apparently the Haitians struck a deal with the devil to achieve independence from the French (back in reality, it was a brilliantly organised slave uprising).
"They were under the heel of the French, you know Napoleon the third and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said 'We will serve you if you will get us free from the prince.' True story. And so the devil said, 'Ok it’s a deal.' And they kicked the French out. The Haitians revolted and got something themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after another."
Presumably Robertson thinks the the American Revolution was also a diabolic plot against God's Anointed Empire (the British). Presumably he endorses slavery too… You can read a list of his stupidest opinions here. I particularly like this one, which I have on a postcard:
"the feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."
Thursday, 31 December 2009
Behind every successful man…
Good afternoon. It's New Year's Eve here, but the absence of snow or even cold means it could be any autumn day, thanks to what we've done to the planet.
It's just struck me that this holiday, my media intake has narrowed to newspapers, a quick look through my bloglist, and books. I've watched one television programme (Dr Who: pretty good), listened to no Radio 4, and no music radio (no point, my hearing hasn't yet recovered). Instead, I've been reading for hours on end, and it feels wonderful.
Today's books is Curtis Sittenfeld's American Wife. I'd never heard of it (or her) before - it was just one of those books which caught my eye in a bookshop - the kind of thing that can't happen online. My tastes run from 'classics' (though I hate the term) to modern poetry, through science fiction and all points between, but it's a long time since I tackled a 'Great American Novel' other than Delillo and Auster. American Wife sounds like a saga or one of those muted tales of smalltown emotion (nothing wrong with that), but it's much more: it's an imaginative take on Laura Bush's life (no, come back, it's good). Sittenfeld is clearly intrigued by the reserved yet interesting public persona of the former First Lady, a woman who seemed too intelligent to end up with Bush and his 'policies', and yet was fully on board - or so it seems, for this novel suggests that Mrs President had her doubts.
From this jumping-off point, the author explores - with reference to what's known of Laura's life - the complex events and cultural pressures which led to this ordinary midwesterner ending up with Bush. Sittenfeld's too intelligent to make it a polemic: instead, 'Alice' is a rounded, complicated character who is symptomatic of her background, a woman dragged along by history thanks to her more human, localised choices.
It's not a biography of Laura Bush - too much is imagined and beyond the realms of speculation (I'd be surprised if Laura Bush did have a teenage abortion, though her words are placed in Alice's mouth at key moments) - instead it's an exploration of a culture, of American womanhood, of class, politics, power and place. Most of all, it's about loss: of love, of freedom, of opportunity, of self-expression and of ideals. Yes, it lacks the hard-edged selfishness inherent in Bush-republicanism, but as an imaginative exercise, it's utterly gripping.
It's just struck me that this holiday, my media intake has narrowed to newspapers, a quick look through my bloglist, and books. I've watched one television programme (Dr Who: pretty good), listened to no Radio 4, and no music radio (no point, my hearing hasn't yet recovered). Instead, I've been reading for hours on end, and it feels wonderful.
Today's books is Curtis Sittenfeld's American Wife. I'd never heard of it (or her) before - it was just one of those books which caught my eye in a bookshop - the kind of thing that can't happen online. My tastes run from 'classics' (though I hate the term) to modern poetry, through science fiction and all points between, but it's a long time since I tackled a 'Great American Novel' other than Delillo and Auster. American Wife sounds like a saga or one of those muted tales of smalltown emotion (nothing wrong with that), but it's much more: it's an imaginative take on Laura Bush's life (no, come back, it's good). Sittenfeld is clearly intrigued by the reserved yet interesting public persona of the former First Lady, a woman who seemed too intelligent to end up with Bush and his 'policies', and yet was fully on board - or so it seems, for this novel suggests that Mrs President had her doubts.
From this jumping-off point, the author explores - with reference to what's known of Laura's life - the complex events and cultural pressures which led to this ordinary midwesterner ending up with Bush. Sittenfeld's too intelligent to make it a polemic: instead, 'Alice' is a rounded, complicated character who is symptomatic of her background, a woman dragged along by history thanks to her more human, localised choices.
It's not a biography of Laura Bush - too much is imagined and beyond the realms of speculation (I'd be surprised if Laura Bush did have a teenage abortion, though her words are placed in Alice's mouth at key moments) - instead it's an exploration of a culture, of American womanhood, of class, politics, power and place. Most of all, it's about loss: of love, of freedom, of opportunity, of self-expression and of ideals. Yes, it lacks the hard-edged selfishness inherent in Bush-republicanism, but as an imaginative exercise, it's utterly gripping.
Wednesday, 7 October 2009
What will life be like under the Tories?
Let's look at the ultimate free market economy shall we, one which has followed what the Tories are planning to do? All this is directly quoted from this article:
The state government was so deeply in debt that it began to issue IOUs instead of wages. Its unemployment rate has soared to more than 12%, the highest figure in 70 years. Desperate to pay off a crippling budget deficit, California is slashing spending in education and healthcare, laying off vast numbers of workers and forcing others to take unpaid leave. In a state made up of sprawling suburbs the collapse of the housing bubble has impoverished millions and kicked tens of thousands of families out of their homes.
Outside the Forum in Inglewood, near downtown Los Angeles, California has already failed. The scene is reminiscent of the fallout from Hurricane Katrina, as crowds of impoverished citizens stand or lie aimlessly on the hot tarmac of the centre's car park. It is 10am, and most have already been here for hours. They have come for free healthcare: a travelling medical and dental clinic has set up shop in the Forum (which usually hosts rock concerts) and thousands of the poor, the uninsured and the down-on-their-luck have driven for miles to be here.
The queue began forming at 1am. By 4am, the 1,500 spaces were already full and people were being turned away. On the floor of the Forum, root-canal surgeries are taking place. People are ferried in on cushions, hauled out of decrepit cars.
Yet California is currently cutting healthcare, slashing the "Healthy Families" programme that helped an estimated one million of its poorest children. Los Angeles now has a poverty rate of 20%. Other cities across the state, such as Fresno and Modesto, have jobless rates that rival Detroit's. In order to pass its state budget, California's government has had to agree to a deal that cuts billions of dollars from education and sacks 60,000 state employees. Some teachers have launched a hunger strike in protest. California's education system has become so poor so quickly that it is now effectively failing its future workforce. The percentage of 19-year-olds at college in the state dropped from 43% to 30% between 1996 and 2004, one of the highest falls ever recorded for any developed world economy. California's schools are ranked 47th out of 50 in the nation. Its government-issued bonds have been ranked just above "junk".
Between 2004 and 2008, half a million residents upped sticks and headed elsewhere.
Riverside is an area in the southern part of the state where the desert has been conquered by mile upon mile of housing developments, strip malls and four-lane freeways. The tidal wave of foreclosures and repossessions that burst the state's vastly inflated property bubble first washed ashore here.
One in four American mortgages that are "under water", meaning they are worth more than the home itself, are in California. In the Central Valley town of Merced, house prices have crashed by 70%. Two Democrat politicians have asked for their districts to be declared disaster zones, because of the poor economic conditions caused by foreclosures. In one city near Riverside, a squatter's camp of newly homeless labourers sleeping in their vehicles has grown up in a supermarket car park – the local government has provided toilets and a mobile shower.
For some campaigners and advocates against suburban sprawl and car culture, it has been a bitter triumph. "Let the gloating begin!" says James Kunstler, author of The Long Emergency, a warning about the high cost of the suburban lifestyle. Others see the end of the housing boom as a man-made disaster akin to a mass hysteria, but with no redemption in sight. "If California was an experiment then it was an experiment of mass irresponsibility – and that has failed," says Michael Levine.
Mendota … boldly terms itself "the cantaloup capital of the world", now has an unemployment rate of 38%. That is expected to rise above 50% as the harvest ends and labourers are laid off. City officials hold food giveaways every two weeks. More than 40% of the town's people live below the poverty level. Shops have shut, restaurants have closed, drugs and alcohol abuse have become a problem.
The state that once promised opportunities for working men and their families now promises only desperation.
Now, the future might be brighter for California than it seems - it attracts highly-educated migrants, and there's a burgeoning green tech economy, but overall, California is the poster child for capitalism. I don't mean that capitalism has gone wrong there - it's gone right. The idea is to transfer wealth from the poor masses (either through harvesting the surplus value of their labour, or by indoctrinating them into consumerism) to the bourgeoisie - except that millions of Californians are now discovering that, contrary to their understanding, they're actually the proletariat, living 50 miles away from the low-paid jobs to which they commute.
This is the world of The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein's term for the rightwing opportunism which sees crisis as the chance to impose savage, inhumane policies on the helpless. We aren't in a mountain of debt because Labour wasted money (the Tories keep calling it Labour's debt): we're in trouble because Labour presided over the deregulation of financial prudence and authorised greed - and the Tories only complained that they weren't deregulating fast enough. The difference between the two is that Labour could at least point to the (minimal) taxes flowing into the treasury - the Tories oppose tax and government.
So the logical outcome of Osborne's speech is that we'll see the withdrawal of comprehensive social care, healthcare, local services, bigger class sizes at all levels, less after-school activity, no school meals, more playing fields sold off, a stagnating minimum wage… and more freedom for the people who got us into this mess: their kids are privately educated and insured anyway.
If you don't believe me, look at the 1980-1987 period. That led to riots, by the way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)