Totalitarianism Today
Alina Stefanescu
alinaon@msn.com
Friday, November 1, 2002
WHAT TO EXPECT IN IRAQ
Rajiv Chandrasekaran and Peter Slevin, writers for the Washington Post foreign service, have reasonable expectations suggesting that "this time around, war will hit Iraq harder". UN officials express concern about potentially-destabilizing refugee flows to Iran, as well as the potential for famine and epidemic when the already-flimsy infrastructure in Baghdad is bombed. Attempts to plan for such eventualities have been complicated by the UN's attempt to find a non-military solution to "resolve the confrontation between Iraq and the United States", leaving many UN disaster-relief agencies on the sidelines for the time being. They "worry that requesting additional funds to stockpile goods in and around Iraq now would send a message that they believe a conflict is inevitable".
Iraq's neighbors are worried, as they should be, since American foreign policy has shifted from the initial goal of increasing trade output and exports to exporting governments (a.k.a. "regime-change"). Rumsfeld recently >a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/xml/uncomp/articleshow?artid=26848848">predicted an "early overthrow" of the Iranian government, a previously unconfessed US military objective in the region.
Problems also abound with respect to the Kurd ethnic minority, as US policy has tended to support Kurdish claims to national self-determination during the post-Gulf war period. Owen Bowcott reports from Ankara on the Turkish leadership's reaction to US support of Kurdish factions.
"Earlier this month Mr Ecevit, 77, who has served as prime minister five times, declared: "We know that the United States cannot carry out this operation without us. That is why we are advising that it abandon the idea. We're telling Washington we are worried about the matter."
Few doubt that Turkey would fall into line once war became inevitable, but it remains anxious about the economic chaos war would bring. As it frequently points out, enforcement of sanctions against Saddam Hussein's regime has cost the country between £25bn and £40bn in lost trade over the past decade.
Unemployment, in a population of 68 million, is well over 10%, and inflation is running at 35%. An influx of Iraqi refugees would further hinder recovery.
We have absolutely no fair reason to expect that the regime-change in Iraq will resemble MacArthur's creation of modern Japan in terms of either success or sustainability. The DC-based Carniegie Endowment for International Peace dismisses Bush's idealistic hopes for an American-style democracy in Iraq as mere "mirage".
Monday, October 28, 2002
WHERE INTERNET PORN, CHILDREN, AND HARVARD PROFESSORS MEET
Declan McCullough of new internet site censorship taking place across the United States and the world. The French and German google web searches won't retrieve listings for web sites that are "anti-Semitic, pro-Nazi, or related to white supremacy" as well as Jesus-is-lord.com, a fundamentalist Christian site that is adamantly
opposed to abortion.
Benjamin Edelman of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at the Harvard Law School conducts research on the actual effects of restrictive government policy on internet freedom. Edelman notices that changing judicial and legislative norms have made a significant difference in the content of internet sites accessible to the public.
Edelman's expert report for
Multnomah County Public Library et al., vs. United States of America, et al. yielded 6777 distinct web page URLs that were blocked by at least one of the filtering programs tested.
The Chidren's Internet Protection Act has a section at the end (in Section 1741) detailing procedures for expedited review of In May 2002, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a decision overturning CIPA. The decision states in part: "Any public library that adheres to CIPA's conditions will necessarily restrict patrons' access to a substantial amount of protected speech in violation of the First Amendment."
George Soros has added to his funding of ending the war on drugs by waging a war on internet censorship. The venue for this is the Global Internet Liberty Campaign.
Sunday, October 27, 2002
Radley Balko's well-considered case against war in Iraq. A must-read.
Sunday, October 27, 2002
WHEN THE STATUS QUO HAS LOST ITS SHOCK VALUE
Apparently, Gore Vidal did the unthinkable-- he published a highly controversial 7000 word polemic titled 'The Enemy Within', arguing that a 'Bush junta' used the terrorist attacks "as a pretext to enact a pre-existing agenda to invade Afghanistan and crack down on civil liberties at home". Known for his controversial political positions, Vidal certainly outdid himself, as this would make the American executive guilty of mass murder and even treason. Them's more than fighting words.
On the new pro-war left, Chris Hitchens points an accusatory finger at his former foreign policy heroes in the conservative camp who are now donning "dovecoats":
"A week or so ago I wondered when he was going to pronounce on the impending confrontation with Iraq. And I bet right. He is against it. So is his former colleague, and partner in the dread firm of Kissinger Associates, General Brent Scowcroft. The general is known to be a ventriloquist, or rather dummy, for George Bush Senior, who is now widely reported as being in the dove-camp, or dovecote. (This incidentally demolishes one facile argument, or taunt, about George W. picking a fight with Saddam Hussein as part of some Corsican conception of family honour.)
Those who don't want a 'regime change' in Iraq now include the Saudi royal family, the Turkish army, the more prominent conservative spokesmen in Congress and the Kissinger hawks. General Sharon, at least in his public pronouncements, appears to be against it as well. And somebody with a good contact among the Joint Chiefs of Staff seems to be leaking pessimistic or pacifistic material at a furious rate. Those who like to think of themselves as anti-war or anti-imperialist might wonder what there is left for them to say: all the war-loving imperialist hyenas are barking for peace at the top of their leathery old lungs."
Saturday, October 26, 2002
GLOBAL VIOLENCE DEEMED A HEALTH PROBLEM
A recent report issued by the World Health Organization focuses on violence as a global health problem which kills more than 1.6 million people around the world annually. Apparently, self-inflicted violence in the form of successful suicide accounts for about half of these deaths. Rocket science, no doubt. Is it supposed to be a statistical epiphany that violence is among the leading causes of death for people between the ages of 15 and 44? Will the WHO reccommend affirmative action quotas to deal with the apparent discriminatory tendencies which make violence responsible for 14 percent of male deaths and only 7 percent of female deaths worldwide?
14 percent of deaths among males and 7 percent of deaths among females worldwide.
Saturday, October 26, 2002
SIXTY WAYS TO LOVE NEW YORK CITY(NOT ALL OF WHICH ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION)
1. Because they have soccer championships for the homeless.
2. Nowhere are the social undercurrents of American society more evident than in Greenwich Village, wherehermaphroditism reemerges as antipathy and angst in this modern world.
3. Michael Wolff discussses the new foreign policy of intellectual disengagement plaguing the American media in every city save this one.
4. Because every legislative decision taken on the Hill doesn't pass muster until it is approved by the Homo economicus who calls Wall street home.
5. Because Beck and the Flaming Lips are playing their new albums for a Halloween show here.
6. Because there is no shortage of speculation about the Beltway sniper for criminology buffs.
7. Because The Onion is free on every other corner, which makes for a happy metro morning crowd.
8. Because local media is wise enough to offer advice on problems like faulty gay-dars.
9. Because the op-ed pages are still stacked with opposition to Mayor Bloomberg's attempt to Californicate NYC smoking laws.
10. Because the Soft Boys are playing here tonight.
11. Because great upcoming novelists here deal with the most important themes of modern ennui.
12. Because it's the only city where third-party candidates get taken as seriously as sushi sales.
13. Broadway.
14. The Blue Note Jazz club.
15. Because few New Yorkers lie about their continuing and costly courtship of eternal youth.
17. Ice skating in Central Park.
18. The man working at the Deli who spoke in Romanian to me when he handed me my change.
19. The scent of long nights that settles like a fog above the morning streets.
20. Martin's roof, and the martial/marital arts it inspires.
21. The guys in the Dominican quarter who still walk around with "jamboxes" up to their ears. I miss the eighties-- the Cold War was so much easier than all this modern technological crap.
Thursday, October 24, 2002
THE ETYMOLOGY OF "ABSURDITY"
The word "absurd" can be traced back to 200 A.D., when it was coined by Church father Tertullian. He argued that the surest sign of Christianty's truth is its absurdity-- after all, who could possibly invent such an irrational protagonist as Jesus? Tertullian's argument was a simple one, remembered in the pharse Creo quia absurdum est, traslated to "I believe it because it is absurd". If I chose to accept this argument, maybe the case for a war against Iraq would make more sense.
Thursday, October 24, 2002
GULF WAR VETS AS A CASE AGAINST ANOTHER GULF WAR
Uh-oh. Looks like my disgruntled veteran theory about the sniper may have been true. Wonder if the war on Iraq will produce any more crazies for our children's generation? Radley Balko and Gene Healy brought up the trend towards ex-Gulf-War vets going postal. If this intrigues you, check out the Gulf War Vets site.
Ram also sent me something of interest to those who are suprised by the race of the suspect. Apparently, Donahue kept his horses in the stable that assumed this was an angry white male-- some angry white males might expect an apology.
Thursday, October 24, 2002
IF YOU WANT TO "TALK ABOUT THE CHILDREN"....
Whenever a politician or leader wants to rally the guilt-troops, he makes a plea to "doing it for the children". Needless to say, war doesn't do much for the children-- not much worth taking credit for, anyway. The fact that most ethical and moral rules are suspended during times of war impacts children, who are not yet capable of self-sustenance, negatively. A note from a 17-year-old member of BEOSUPPORT, located at
Severin Jolovic 19, Vuk Palavestra 13 in Belgrade.
In 1999 we suffered the biggest air campaign in history. Our country was punished because we had a dictator who made a huge harm to many innocents around us but first turned our lifes in disaster and misery. Our country is full of graves and handicapped, poor and isolated. As a solution, 19 countries for 78 days sent up to 900 planes daily upon us, targeting the evil, striking the innocents. Bombs did not remove it, we did. Now, how does it look in reality, being bombed? The awful sound of the warning signal, then darkness no one can imagine, then long frightening silence. The most awful were the nights. At one moment, the silence would be broken by the unanimous barking of many many thousands of terrified dogs, who heard something we could not. But we knew the planes were approaching. In some minutes, the explosions, huge and terrifying would start, the walls would tremble, and we were shaking in darkness awaiting whether we would stay alive, or would die as collateral damage. After the ending signal, we would first check by phone whether our relatives in other parts of the city are alive, and then we would look at the fire enlighting the sky. The city was burning. At the end, coffins and tombs, tears and ruins, no bridges for us. During all that time, the evil who victimised us and others was safe. Dictators and families and friends have bunkers at home, villas abroad, and risk nothing. Now they are well and rich. Being in prison on fair trial is great, compared to death and wheel chair !!! [Editor's note: This is a reference to former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, who is being tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity.]
While we suffer diseases, our country is contaminated. The peacekeepers, young as us, are risking their health in Kosovo same as we do. Now we face the threat of the same fate for Iraq and we want to tell you and all that no child and no person at all should be unhappy twice, victimised by having an unacceptable government, and also by global solutions to move away that government. We are aware of the horrors of terrorism, we moan all the victims of 11th September, we, more than many, understand the Americans. We share the experience of fear and death and ruins, and we want the terrorism stopped. We also want a life free of threat of poisoning and bombing planes. But air strikes on countries are not a solution. THEY STRIKE INNOCENTS. We trust democracy, we want a better world but we urge democracy to find solutions others than one we were subjected to. We support all the Americans who don't want innocents to be victimised as a solution and join them as victims. We support all the people who feels same. We entrust you this message, our plea for a wise solution, democracy must find one. And we are confident you will manage to convey this voice of bombed children in favour of unknown Iraqi friends in jeopardy to any place where it is appropriate. We are here, very proud for the opportunity to join efforts for a better world.
BEOSUPPORT is a registered Yugoslavian NGO, with a mission to help children and youth at risk of exploitation, especially sexual exploitation. Since war often leads to this exploitation, BEOSUPPORT is also very concerned with issues of war and peace. The BS Team is a task force of teenagers who are working to create a National Plan to address the commercial sexual exploitation of children in Yugoslavia.
The consequences of US policy towards the former Yugoslavia did not lead to happy children. Maybe it is time to ask ourselves what will happen to the children of Iraq when our military is done with them. (And maybe some of you pro-life, pro-war people out there should take the time to explain to confused "idealists" such as myself how killing an unborn baby is worse than killing thousands of born babies. Would my life be more worthy to you before my first breath?) Given past experience in Iraq, the prognosis for happy childhoods looks bleak.
Americans are fortunte enough to have the wise words of FEMA to guide us through the moral pitfalls of war. With a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder, moral shame and pangs of conscience can be medicated into oblivion. Temporary medicinal measures, however, do little to obviate the underlying problems of a resort to force as first-option.
Thursday, October 24, 2002
ROMANIA IS WITH BUSH
As a Romanian-American acquaintance pointed out yesterday, Romania has been in the news quite a bit during the past few weeks. There seems to be a media consensus that NATO accession is Romania's top foreign policy priority. Robert G. Kaiser from The Washington Post writes: "Though not yet officially invited to join the alliance, Romanian officials now know that an invitation will be issued at next month's NATO summit in Prague, and they are jubilant".
A source from the State Department confirmed this in a conversation last night. I look forward to the reception at the ambassador's home tonight, where the conversations will certainly shed some light on the friendlier relations between the US and the Romanian governments since September 11th.
One must wonder, however, if Romanians are still as enraptured by the US as they were during the 20th century? Certainly Romanian politicians place their bets on their rapprochement with the West; Prime Minister Adrian Nastase has said that he will resign or refuse to run again if Romania does not get invited to join NATO at the Prague round. Yet contrary impulses abound.
The recent passage of a law banning English in public has not been well-recieved by the expat community in Bucuresti.
Thursday, October 24, 2002
KENNETH STAR'S LEGAL FICTION, OR "THE BELLY-FLOP COMES BACK IN STYLE"
Ken Starr's book about the Rehnquist court shows how he spent too much time litigating and too little time absorbing the nuances and differences of legal theory. Much like Starr's judicial party tricks while in office, his legal writing ex post office is a bag of cheap explosives and worn scare tactics. Like a compromise between a two "pragmatic" solutions, his observations lack even enough pizazz to spark, nevertheless ignite, a fire of interest. You might learn more about torts law reading the side of an aspirin bottle that from Starr's book. Keep it cost-effective. Skip the Starr stuff.
Thursday, October 24, 2002
OTHER WISE
The following is an excerpt from an email I recieved today in an ongoing discussion about ideology:
"The fetishization of the "other" (any other, as long as its not like
you, but especially if it has some Third World or oppressed people
connotation) is another characteristic of ideology. Marry the solipsism
to the fetishization of the other and you have a weird confluence: "I'm
OK, they're OK, you suck!"
Reminiscient of Hannah Arendt's approach to the problem of ideology (though I'm not sure its author would agree), the stress is on the conceptual clout of an "other". Maybe we need a devil to be able to have a God. And maybe the more terrible we reveal this devil to be, the more attention will be given to the intellectual safety net proferred by its Other (in this case, god/s).
It might be worth considering the possibility that Arendt refused to call herself a "philsopher", preferring the term "political theorist" instead, because she dreaded the deadened dichotomy-dogmas plaguing the modern study of philosophy. When you present a theory, the onus is on the audience to ask questions that it might be difficult to deal with assuming that theory. In philosophy, however, your "philosophy" will not be considered under its own merit until you comfort the tried and tenured by showing how it falls into this category or that category.
For some, big labels feel like home. "What?! You're a anti-determinist who considers himself an empiricist leaning heavily to the left too?! Wow." Or maybe, "What you just said is empiricist. Then you followed it by assuming rationalist things. You're wrong". Which of us could ever comfortably admit to waiting for that special moment in conversation when good and evil, or wrong and right, become apparent? Usually, this moment follows our recognizance of our general default positions, and then assuming the appropriate animus towards the views related in the conversation. The ancient Stoics tried to "suspend judgement" when they knew their personal views would enter as bias. They could admit the difficulty of remaining objective. Nowadays, we spend too much time trying to convince friends of how objective we can be, thereby revealing our preference or bias towards the ideal of objectivity. That much I can understand. What I don't understand, however, is why another bothers with the same-old-same-old at this point?
Are we so insecure-- even with all the prowess of our material well-being-- that we cannot seek conversations with people who might not share our assumptions, people who might rock our worlds just a little bit? It disturbs me to find so many intelligent young undergraduate and graduate students whose primary goal in life is to find a comfortable niche in academia, or the country-club life, or even a particular department and discipline-- a place where others will reaffirm their own uncontemplated conceptions of right and wrong. It feels good, right? It feels good when one side wins and the other loses? Games, economics, war, politics, and social hierarchies of various shapes and sizes are all about winners and losers. Someone has to lose because we have to win!
Why can't we accept, as humans with the capacity to actually learn from history (as opposed to just reinterpreting it), that the truth is not written in black and white; that meaning is partly public and partly individual attribution; that the Us v. Them comparison teaches us nothing about reality (it only channels our understanding of reaity into certain stove-pipes); that Republicrats and Demicans aren't really alternate options if substance is the criteria by which they are judged; that the specific Americanism of the current administration is bad logic which collapses into a twisted circularity based on first principles that do not hold (USA fighting war against evil. Bush likes to look into the eyes of world leaders to see their souls. Bush can know what "evil" is when he sees it. We can fight a war against "evil" using the military).
In war, the winners and losers are not seperated by the waving of a victory flag-- they are only separated by location, in other words, whether they are alive or in the grave. No widow ever "won" when he husband died in a war. The parades provoke and deny the very tragedy of wartime deaths. Who wins a war? What does that kind of show of brute force grant you as a prize? What do you really believe that you "taught those fools"? Though we may exist physically since the day of conception (or nine months later, depending on your position in that dichotomy, we are in a constant state of revision and intellectually "becoming" from our early years to our last breath (I won't speak for the angels on an afterlife). Every night before you shut it all out again, stare up at the ceiling and whisper, "Is this who I am? Is this really who I want to be?" All that matters is the echo.
