Evict Bush!

Saturday, January 11, 2003  

Latest on Venezuela:

Opposition leaders offer $100 million for the head of Hugo Chavez, with lesser sums for his chief supporters including the vice president. I wish that was figurative.

Chavez' opponents accuse him of 'giving' oil to Cuba, though in reality it's a trade agreement that has Cuba purchasing the oil through partial Venezuelan financing. Cuba insists they have made all their payments in a timely fashion.

Algeria sends assistance to PDVSA, says action has nothing to do with the strike.

The Oil & Gas Journal is happily spreading opposition propaganda, playing up environmental problems now that Chavez is trying to bring the refineries back online. They fail to note that PDVSA, the state owned oil company in question, has a long history of environmental lapses which no one has been interested in talking about until now.

The international finance war commences as Standard & Poor cuts PDVSA's credit rating, and the World Bank freezes loans to the oil sector.

Voters throughout Latin America are looking past their status-quo neoliberal political parties and electing populist leftist governments after decades of utter policy failure by the 'Washington consensus' crowd.

Venezuela Archives

While hesitant to ascribe it to a particular cause, Switzerland is watching its glaciers shrink rapidly. Like many other countries around the world, significant ice pack loss will mean drought and a reduction in hydropower.

In the Asia Times:

Are our enemies being pushed into each other's arms? Islamic militants across the mid-east and asia feel that the huge US presence in the region signifies broader designs than ousting Hussein from Iraq.

Clash between US and Pakistani fighters an indication of growing tension in an uneasy alliance. Indications are that the incident was due in large part to score-settling among tribal factions along the porous border area near Afghanistan.

Review of Christopher Hitchens' documentation of the crimes of Henry Kissinger. South America, Asia, and Europe have all felt the effects of Kissinger's assassination campaigns, wars, and support of fascism.

If you ever sit around and think, 'Hey, what the heck is up with Libya,' read this article. Libya was the first country to issue a warrant for the arrest of Osama bin Laden, months before the african embassy bombings. But now that his ongoing efforts to restore normal relations with the west have been again rebuffed by Washington, Gaddaffi has been publicly wondering whether or not it's worth it to bother.

One of my favorite Asia Times columnists, Henry Liu comments on the global failure of neoliberalism and supply side economics. In part:

...[Bush] recycled supply-side economics arguments that tax cuts would actually increase government receipts, based on Says' Law that supply creates its own demand, which only holds true under conditions of full employment, which conservatives conveniently ignore. Without full employment, tax cuts in favor of supply side-investment merely adds to overcapacity, a current curse that has stalled the global economy. ...

The day's IT post appears to be Long story; short pier's take on poverty in America. A country where 40% of people think that they either are, or could be, in the top 1%. Go read it all, but here's a teaser:

...We think we’re richer than we are. We think we all have more of a shot at striking it rich than we do. We don’t want to think about how much of our lives is dependent on contingency and luck; we don’t want to think about the one bad day that could be between us and the street. We willfully do not want to see how many people live in poverty, and we don’t want to think about how crushing that poverty really is. We don’t want to admit it could ever happen to us, and even if it has, we want to plan to secure what will happen to us, someday. When all our deserving hard work finally pays off. Any day now. ...

Mark Kleiman points to an article about exactly what happens in a corporate paradise sans worker safety, unions, and pesky trial lawyers. Many third world employees already face these conditions, but apparently, Texas isn't so great either.

What do we expect when corporate welfare is the pinnacle of virtue, but human welfare is considered almost tacky?

Atrios has some good stuff up today, including a graphic representation of tax savings by income bracket under both the White House and Democratic plans, and the best reason I've ever seen not to vote for Sen. Lieberman.

Mark Morford's 2003 resolutions. A stream of consciousness screed that I almost wish I'd written. His main resolution: Don't give up, in, or out.

George Will is comfortable comparing Iraq to Weimar Germany. Dr. Werther says it isn't so. In part:

...The reader also draws the inference that those who favor inspections over pre-emptive war are not merely fatuous optimists, but almost criminally negligent appeasers in the manner of Neville Chamberlain. This conclusion is reinforced by the melodramatic manner in which Mr. Will ends his piece: the final two words are "Adolf Hitler," ending very much like a child's "just so" story, or, if you will, the urban legend which the teller dares the listener to doubt. What is wrong with this historical analogy? One hardly knows where to begin. Mr. Will evidently means to suggest Iraq and Weimar Germany are equivalent threats by stating that the two countries are roughly the same size. By this measure, Chad or Outer Mongolia must have frightening military potential. Concrete comparison, rather than emotional suggestibility, yields the following data

Weimar Germany, despite the Versailles sanctions, comprised the second-largest industrial base on earth. In certain critical fields, such as chemistry, physics, and metallurgy, it led the world. By the early-twentieth century standards of industrial development--the production of coal, steel, or industrial chemicals--Germany was either first in the world or second behind the United States. No other country had as many Nobel Prize-winning scientists as Germany.

A summary indication of Iraq's military/industrial potential may be gleaned from the following passage: ". . . Iraq's real gross domestic product (GDP)-that is, its GDP adjusted for inflation-fell by 75 percent from 1991 to 1999. In the late 1990s the country's real GDP was estimated at about what it was in the 1940s, [emphasis added] prior to the oil boom and the modernization of the country. ...

By contrast, today the United States alone comprises close to 50 percent of world military spending. Its putative rival Iraq spends about a tenth on the military compared to what it did a decade ago. Its remaining weapons are largely obsolete 1970s vintage Soviet bloc hardware (without spare parts or contractor support), and its delivery means of purported weapons of mass destruction are roughly a dozen SCUDs, themselves a derivative of 60-year old V-2 technology. ...

If North Korea is what you want to know about, The Agonist has been keeping track of that unnecessary crisis admirably.

World to Bush: When next your speechwriters suggest trash talking desperate little fiefdoms that you've barely even heard of, it's time to find new speechwriters. International incidents not necessary for dramatic emphasis, a good writer should have had plenty of material to work with after 9-11. We're full up on enemies around here, thanks for playing.

Didn't get past the first two paragraphs of this Washington Post story about Venezuela before finding distortions and obfuscations. Let the fisking begin:

Increasingly concerned about an oil shortage as a possible war with Iraq approaches, the Bush administration has overcome its reluctance to become involved in Venezuela's escalating political conflict and is preparing a major initiative it hopes will lead to a breakthrough in deadlocked talks between the government and opposition there, according to U.S. and foreign diplomatic sources.

The U.S. initiative is centered on the formation of a group of "Friends of Venezuela," trusted by one or both sides to the conflict, that would develop and guarantee a compromise proposal, based on early Venezuelan elections presented through an existing mediation effort by the Organization of American States. ...

The administration has 'overcome its reluctance' only if, by reluctance, they mean an unwillingness to stick their feet in their mouths in public while funding the opposition in private (see today's earlier post on Venezuela).

The title "Friends of Venezuela" was specifically put forward by Chavez, in an initiative described and savaged at the end of the article, but not named. They fail to mention that by a compromise proposal through the OAS' existing mediation effort, they mean a proposal approved of by the US and the Colombian human rights violator chairing the negotiations. Thirty of thirty-two member states voted against any action that would unseat Venezuela's elected government.

Moving on, let's look at these three statements from different parts of the article side by side, the last is from the article's closer:

...The administration also hopes to head off a budding Venezuela initiative by Brazil's new left-leaning government that it and many others in the region believe would be counterproductive, sources said. ...

...It was at Lula's inauguration last month that Chavez announced he favored an international diplomatic effort to resolve the Venezuelan conflict, to include countries in Latin America, Europe and the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC, which Venezuela helped found more than four decades ago.

Lula appeared to agree. But much of Latin America and Gaviria consider it an attempt by Chavez to stack the deck with sympathizers and undercut the OAS. The United States immediately rejected the idea. ...

...Brazil and Mexico, Latin America's two largest countries, are competitors for regional leadership. Cuba, one of the countries closest to Chavez, receives highly preferentially priced oil from his government, as do many smaller island governments in the Caribbean. All fear a solution that results in Chavez's removal might threaten those deals; together, they make up a major OAS voting bloc.

This 'international diplomatic effort' they speak of is in fact Chavez' proposed "Friends of Venezuela" initiative. Lula and "many others in the region" favor it. And as they say at the very end, "a major OAS voting bloc" also wants Chavez to stay in power. By which it can be inferred, if it hadn't already been clear, that a large number of OAS members and many regional supporters favor keeping Chavez in power. And some of those selfish countries want him around for... god, can you believe it... favorable oil exports.

Yet, "much of Latin America and Gaviria" are opposed to a multinational and favorably disposed panel. Which means that the US, Mexico, and ex-tyrant Cesar Gaviria are opposed. Plus, maybe anyone whose IMF interest payments are coming due, which also describes Mexico.

And here we return to the mushy middle, where the US' genuine national interest in the situation is revealed:

...We were getting 1.5 million barrels of oil each day, and we're not getting it now," the senior State Department official said. Concerns have multiplied over the past week as Chavez moved to fire senior oil executives and restructure the state-owned oil enterprise, the official said. ...

But it has been the success of the oil strike, and the recent firings and structural changes, that have changed U.S. direction, said a foreign diplomat involved in the situation. As far as the Americans are concerned, the diplomat said, the situation moved "from a problem in an important country in Latin America to a very critical matter. . . . With the war in Iraq, it became a really strategic matter." ...

I can't imagine why Chavez would fire people at a state-owned business who had staged a national lockout and favor a coup? And, oh yeah, we're very concerned about the supply of oil from Venezuela. With the tap still off as we move towards war with Iraq, this is a critical, nay, a strategic issue of utmost importance. Mentioned in the details, with the oil interests of lesser states displayed as the tackiest sort of self-interest in the article's punchline.

It can only be wondered why people still question the primacy of oil in our foreign policy. When the spotlight isn't on (I mean, who's paying attention to Venezuela, right?) they will come right out and admit it in the newspaper. Right there, see! And if you were wondering how serious things are about the Iraq timeframe, the Marine Corps has announced that it will not allow any discharges for the next 12 months, as we prepare a devastating war buildup. The last time such an order was issued to Marines, it was in the buildup to the Gulf War I.

And I'm left wondering, do newspapers bother to hire journalists anymore, or just a bunch of editors that polish up whatever nonsense they're handed by the latest Mouth of Sauron?

Venezuela Archives

Daily Kos bringing the glad tidings that Bush's re-elect numbers have plummeted, with 56% saying that they won't vote for him no matter who he opposes, and only 35% saying that they will.

Update: Apparently, the poll wasn't as rosy as all that. But his numbers still don't indicate invincibility.

Body and Soul points out the conditions in Africa that make it an ideal source for future terrorist havens. She also directs us to this good PLA piece about the Freedom Riders of the civil rights movement.

Picking up again our ongoing interest in covering the train wreck in slow motion that is the attempt to dislodge Venezuela's democratically elected leadership, we bring you these stories:

Out of evident desperation, Chavez' opponents are claiming he has links to Al-Qaida, but these charges are as unsubstantiated now as the day they were first noticed.

In a 'hell freezes over' moment, the Venezuelan army has declared political neutrality. If only all the regions' armed forces were so well behaved. In previously linked articles, opposition groups have expressed their disappointment that the military will not participate in a coup to oust the 'authoritarian' Chavez.

Chavez in his own words. As he acknowledges in this interview, the Venezuelan military has a gruesome and bloody past. It's something of a miracle that the country now has them working as a civil support structure. (Update: Having read the second part of this interview, where Chavez talks about the April coup, it deserves additional mention. Don't skip it.)

Banks join the walkout. The opposition, who are striking, admit here that the strike is doing grave damage to the country's economy. Yet they continue to say that all the blame for the economic woes lies with Chavez, who has failed to end the strike by resigning from his elected office.

And another reminder of who's paying for anti-Chavez infomercials. We are, and I'm not talking about the royal we. An organization funded with US tax dollars is footing the bill for some of the more choice propaganda screeds.

Venezuela Archives

Mikhaela has an interesting commentary on the patriotism of our chickenhawks.

Bush announces budget proposal from flag manufacturing company. His speech writers once again focus on an idealized 'family of four,' though it's been noted that most of the small benefits that go towards working class Americans only apply to married individuals with children. That might be an ideal spot to cut taxes, but it doesn't make the massive dividend 'relief' proposal any more palatable, and it doesn't even target the majority of working class taxpayers.

This, btw, is the reward that the Bush and Cheney families personally stand to gain from their tax proposal.

...Based on income reported in his tax returns for 2001, Bush would have saved $16,511 on dividend payments of $43,805 if his new proposal had been in effect for the year.

Cheney, who had dividends of $278,103 in 2001, would have saved $104,823. ...

....Bush and Cheney also benefited handsomely from the $1.35 trillion tax cut passed by Congress in 2001. Cheney saved an estimated $43,000 on a tax bill of $1.72 million that year, and Bush saved an estimated $7,205.

Link to our chief executive's tax savings courtesy of Maru at WTF.

In the ongoing Democratic search for spine, some have announced their intentions to filibuster the nomination of Charles Pickering to a federal judgeship. Lets hope they save a little for Priscilla Owens and Miguel Estrada.

Update: Courtesy of Eschaton's backgrounder on the judge-in-waiting, we get a link to this Joe Conason article about Pickering's racist past and what it's like to be a black Republican.

Thanks to Eschaton, we find that Beyond the Wasteland chronicles the time frame for North Korea's plutonium production. Turns out, it was all in the Reagan-Bush I years. Eschaton also points out that in a act of reckless disinterest towards his job security, Colin Powell praised the Clinton policy on North Korea.

Paul Krugman's latest offering, An Irrelevant Proposal, is good reading on the Bush 'stimulus' plan. In part:

...Boosting a stumbling economy ("It's Clinton's fault!" shouted the claque) isn't rocket science. All a sensible plan must do is focus on the present, not the distant future; on those who are suffering, not on those doing well; and on those who are most likely to spend additional money.

...Yesterday House Democrats released a plan right out of the textbook: aid to states and the jobless, rebates to everyone. But the centerpiece of the administration's proposal is, of all things, the permanent elimination of taxes on dividends. ...

Krugman takes on the ridiculous argument that dividends are 'taxed twice,' as well as the administration's consistent use of any problem whatever to follow a pre-determined agenda. See the Forest also has some good stuff on this.

Rupert Murdoch, GE, Disney, Viacom, and Time Warner control the horizontal and the vertical. They 0wnz your box. Not that one. The television set.

As a follow up to our previous post* on forcibly drugged Air Force pilots, Wildhorse discovers that it goes even farther than Dexedrine in flight.

Pilots are routinely given sleeping pills to put them to bed when convenient, and start the whole thing up again as soon as possible. Of the two drugs mentioned in the article as being used, Ambien (Zolpidem) stays in the body for no more than 6-8 hours, and both tolerance and withdrawal sleeplessness can occur.

Restoril (Temazepam), on the other hand, is a little more problematic. Dependence can develop, the medication may carry over slightly into the next day, and in some individuals, it may result in irritability or other behavioral changes. Restoril is a benzodiazepine, the same class of drug as Valium, though shorter acting. They're known to be potential drugs of abuse, and can exacerbate depression.

Pills to sleep, pills to wake up... wouldn't want to be standing next to these poor guys when they detox. Maybe they have pills for that, too.

* As mentioned in the previous post, I called the offices of four aviation medical examiners in the area. The fourth one got back to me this week to answer my question, so the tally stands thus: 3 no-gos, 1 probably not, except with dispensation. The question was if Dexedrine use was a disqualification for piloting in the US, where both private and commercial pilots must have regular medical exams with a certified aviation medical examiner to ensure their fitness for flight. The maybe vote came from a retired Air Force medical examiner.

Like brother, like brother? Little brother Jeb reveals his true feelings for the government, maybe it runs in the family.

Atrios points out how you, too, can let Bush know what you think of the proposed war. Tell your friends today, make a phone call tomorrow.

Ampersand has a great post and cartoon up about the motherhood penalty, and why it's still about sexism. As reflected in the popular office ideal that parenting 'doesn't count' as useful experience for anything. Ha.

I don't have kids, but I'm not blinkered to the fact that my more level-headed co-workers have disproportionately been those with children, with bonus points for the ones that spend a lot of time with them. I'd work with someone with a kid who might miss the odd day over a flaky up-and-attem' or absentee parent in a flat minute. And I say that as someone who spent plenty of time as a flake.

He also brings up the point, one that I think isn't taken into account in anti-feminist arguments, that men are shortchanged by the current system in terms of family time. The current work structure simply isn't designed to take participatory parenthood into account. And you'd think that in a society where a huge complaint is that children don't get enough attention, that you'd want to encourage more of it. Family leave for everyone, less punitive attendance policies, shorter work weeks, living wages. These are positions championed by feminists, to be sure, but I think they'd make society more pleasant for both genders and family members of all ages.

Who's Afraid of the Big, Bad Fear?

Ridcule

To avoid being ridiculed, human beings will do some pretty ridiculous things. Things like, for instance, pretending that they don't see things that are right in front of their noses.

When you're a kid, there really isn't much you can do to avoid the periodic stigma of being an accused cootie carrier (or whatever the popular insult is), except to suck up to the accuser, or become one yourself. While no immunity can be granted from the vagaries of schoolyard cruelty, one does learn the self protection skill.

Taking our cootie example a little farther, we also learn about guilt by association. If you're friends with the afflicted, you will suffer their fate. You can resign yourself to being persecuted, withdraw to neutral ground, or as mentioned, join the tormentors. But you must forswear the taint of the 'guilty' party's company to get off the hook. (For more on schoolyard hierarchies as they follow us through adulthood, read this.)

When we grow up and become mature, we must have more important sounding things to accuse each other of than being cootie carriers. Especially if we want to reinforce our own status while separating them from the herd. While traitor, or simply moron, is popular for the loyal opposition, the people who break the self-reflecting binary discourse between the moment's appointees for 'the right' and 'the left' need a special term.

A label that will punish the offender severely for not playing on one of the agreed sides in the game. Preferably you need a term implying that they're simply crazy right off the bat, and people can just stop listening to them, thank you. Something like... conspiracy theorist. (There are others, but this one is just more fun.)

Conspiracy Theorist

This now popular insult came into full force at the time of the Kennedy assassination. I will not here dissect that situation, it's been done frequently, and done better.

To any normal person looking at what was made known, something... fishy happened. Something so downright bothersome that the only explanation that made it all seem 'tidy' was, in a word, fantastic. Too fantastic to have made even a single appearance in over three decades of movie making as a plot device in a big budget action picture.

(As a rule, if Hollywood can't make something seem plausible for five minutes with a special effects budget outstripping the GDP of a small country, there's no way it could happen in real life. They didn't even have 'magic bullets' in the Matrix, for love of god.)

But people learned to swallow the collective unease, because if you didn't, you might get called a conspiracy theorist. Which of course means that you're a nut, and maybe even unpatriotic. Because things like that don't happen here, in America.

People were so afraid of being called conspiracy theorists, that when RFK and MLK were conveniently assassinated, no one who valued a public perception of their sanity would speak up. The people who spoke up anyway were simply dismissed.

This fear persists in the national consciousness. The label is still attached to nearly anyone who points out that verifiable facts about the doings of the powerful can leave a person thinking that certain factions may indeed be up to no good.

Conspiracy

"Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action." - Anonymous

In common use, anyone who gets labeled a conspiracy theorist believes that a vast army of all powerful plotters controls everything. It doesn't matter what the person actually believes, what proof they have, or even if they ever uttered the word conspiracy.

If you (a dissenter from the status quo) say anything that a known conspiracy theorist (by definition, a nut) has ever said, implied, or even insinuated, then you must be a conspiracy theorist (and by definition, a nut.) This is a pretty broad brush, considering that the most ardent such people (the ones who probably are nuts(1)) have commented on just about every topic and organization known to man, and a few they may have invented.

But to call a conspiracy by another name, say, an affinity group(2), it doesn't sound so crazy. We live in a world where people want things that other people don't want to give them. If they persist in wanting them anyway, then they must come up with some way to convince or force those people to go along, or sneak it by under the radar. If some of them work together for this aim, they're more likely to succeed, but this still depends on hiding their motives.

All you need for a conspiracy is a lot of people who want similar things, contrary to the desires of other people. High school and freshman college students across the country are at this moment conspiring with each other to get alcohol, for example, and parents and police are conspiring together to prevent them. This is viewed as insidious by no one, though we recognize the natural affinity of those working towards common aims.

Yet it becomes 'crazy talk' to imply that the wealthy and powerful have desires that conflict with the majority of citizens. Crazy to imply that someone with the power to hire and fire thousands, issue press bulletins that will be paid attention to, and get personal audiences with politicians might wield undue influence. And you must be especially crazy if you imply that oodles of cash might influence the behavior of public figures.

If you suggest that someone with this kind of influence and like-minded and situated acquaintances might quietly push motives that the public would disagree with, you may be referred for psychiatric care.

The Point

Ridicule becomes more, not less powerful with age. As the subtlety and consequences of the accusations grow, direct influence is no longer even required.

You don't need to have a raving fanatic yelling in your face that you're a nut. Just to know that if too many people think you're 'crazy,' demand for your presence and services may plummet to new lows.

Disclaimer: This commentary should in no way be construed as support for the validity of any particular conspiracy theory. I renounce all conspiracy theorists, anyone who has ever been called a conspiracy theorist, and anyone who has ever said anything that could be interpreted as a belief that conspiracies exist. I am not now, and never have been, a member of the communist party. I also renounce the Devil and all his works.

(1) Thanks to Full Bleed

(2) Thank you, R. A. Wilson.

Anyone concerned with the David Byron incident and his subsequent banning from this site go here. The comments associated with the posting are reproduced there.

In an announcement that deserves a post all its own, Genoa police admit that they made up charges and planted evidence against demonstrators at the 2001 G8 summit. They also beat a lot of people bloody, confiscated private property, and arrested people without good reason.

Look, ma, everybody's doing it! The unhealthy behavior known as extreme dieting is becoming an equal opportunity plague among teens. More boys than ever before now feel such dissatisfaction with their bodies that they may engage in fasting, vomiting, or taking diet pills. This behavior in young people of either gender increases the risk that the teen will participate in other unwholesome activities.

Everyone said the feminists were just whining when they complained that unrealistic body images hurt society in general and young women in particular. Nobody listened, and it's become increasingly popular to show boys 'role models' that the majority don't measure up to. I hope we never get to the point where anorexia and bulimia in young men isn't even news anymore. We should instead recognize right now that unrealistic body images are damaging to anyone who is consistently exposed to them.

For many young people, it will continue to be true that they're more likely to be an astronaut, scientist, business executive, doctor, lawyer, or even politician, than that they will ever look like the 'IT' girl or boy of the moment. You can't do much about the body you ended up with, but you have a lot more say about what that body ends up doing.

The administration's official [edited] obfuscator, sorry, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer had this to say today about the new growth plan:

Q Ari, how important is it for you all that this package appear to target middle income and working class and not the rich? Is that -- obviously, your strategy stresses the benefits of the folks down the scale. But the bulk of this money is going to end up in upper income hands, is it not?

MR. FLEISCHER: The package aids the country because it stimulates the economy, and we're all in this together. And people who are at the lower end of an income scale who pay no income taxes want a growing economy, so they can have a job. So the President views this as the best way to create growth that creates jobs to help one and all.

And he views us as one country. He believes that everybody wants to make it in America. And simply because you make it in America is no reason to get punished. And he will work with Democrats and Republicans alike to help everyone in our society, and not divide and punish people because they're successful.

'Lucky Duckies' again. For anyone who was still unsure about whether or not the WSJ editorial board is a floating ground for conservative policies, now we know.

We're all 'in this together,' so long as by 'this' you mean a nationwide scam to siphon as much money as possible to the people who already have plenty. Giving money to the rich is togetherness, giving it to the poor is class warfare. We don't want to punish success, just the failure of the miserable, whining masses that pull down less than four hundred thousand dollars a year.

Fleischer noted elsewhere in the briefing that the elderly, who tend to hold more dividend bearing stocks would stand to benefit from this. But if that was their real goal, why not raise the floor for tax exemption for the over 65 crowd? If you're over 65 you pay no tax whatsoever on, say, the first $50k no matter where it comes from. There, I've helped the elderly without rewarding the same grafters who brought our economy crashing down in a heap of scandal.

Q What do you say to states that were really hoping they would get a lot more? They were counting on getting billions of dollars in grants or aid, something -- what do you say to those states?

MR. FLEISCHER: Again, the goal of the package was to stimulate the economy, not transfer money from one taxpayer funded source in the government to another taxpayer funded source in a different government.

Is it just me, or does this quote remind you of Mr. Bush's accusation that Al Gore was trying to talk about Social Security "like it was some kind of government program"?

My botany teacher, who I approve of already, counts 10% of our grade on whether or not we do 15 hrs of community service vaguely related to our class. Food bank work, elementary school science fairs, community gardens, and habitat rehabilitation all count. He said it didn't sit well with him when the program was criticized by students (just a few), explaining that 75% of our tuition is paid for by the taxpayers of Washington state. If someone really wants to 'stand on their own two feet,' he said, they owe the school a lot more money. Too bad the Bush administration and the conservative movement have yet to grasp the wide variety of things that are encompassed by government services.

Ampersand collects the links to some good posts on Bush's class warfare strategy. You know, the real class warfare where the rich pay less and less with every new stimulus package. (So complete has this administration's assault on the english language been that stimulus package is now a virtually meaningless term.) As opposed to the phony 'class warfare' where those of us making less than $400,000/yr try to get services in exchange for the the increasingly large part of the national bill we're asked to foot.

Finally got around to watching last Sunday's Face the Nation, wherein John McCain engages in 'class warfare' and then calls for the nuclear arming of Japan. Also Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean came on and said a few things.

Patriotism and Country

Patriotism means whatever people want it to mean, with a nod toward 'love of country.' It's supposed to be very virtuous, and all that.

But patriot means nothing without the concept of a traitor, or someone who hates their country. Traitor and patriot are polar opposites with no middle ground. A patriot is good, a traitor bad. Everyone wants to be a patriot, because no one wants to be a traitor.

There is, alas, no term describing the state of disinterest towards country that characterizes most people, most of the time. When less than half the public bothers to vote, for instance, it wouldn’t be accurate to call all non-voters traitors. But it would be equally inaccurate to call them all patriots, which implies an active concern for public affairs. It doesn’t get more basic than filling in the little boxes on your ballot once every couple years.

Of course, other countries' patriots may be our enemies, despite the fact that they demonstrate the supposedly universal virtue of love of country. If patriotism is always good, then all patriotism should be good. But this is clearly not what most people believe.

To clarify the discussion, we should explore what ‘country’ means. Governments may assume that it refers primarily to them, and secondarily to the people and land they represent. People not in the government may define country differently: the government, the plot of land inside the national borders, the people residing therein, a particular subgroup of those people, companies and/or institutions native to the country, and often many of these at once. When people say 'country,' they aren't all thinking of the same thing.

Disagreements

People who disagree with the government see a distinction between ‘government’ and ‘country’" that people who support the government sometimes miss. But it should be obvious to anyone that a government and the people it represents can have opposite aims. People disagree about what is 'good' for the 'country.' Hence, it shouldn't be surprising that many people call themselves patriots and paint their opposition as traitors.

If love of country means 'protecting our national financial interests' to you, then you might well come to believe in a particular case that what's good for Company X is good for the country. If love of country means 'protecting public health’ to you, it would be reasonable to come to the conclusion that what's good for individual well-being is good for the country.

Good cases could be made for both viewpoints. They might even be held at various times by the same person. But they may come into conflict. And they imply different visions of country -- one leaning toward industry, the other toward people. They also imply different (though not necessarily conflicting) duties for someone concerned with the public good.

Government

Do you have to support the government to be patriotic? Can critics be patriots?

Some governments see all opposition as traitorous. They correctly identify real traitors, but may also mistake people who oppose their policies for traitors.

Is aiding an attack on your country – which results in the deaths of your fellow citizens - traitorous? While Americans would rightly call it that when done to our country, we don't always so label it so when done to another country. When looking abroad, we're able to see that there are governments whose aims are so different from their people's that a love of country might well demand their ouster.

But it still bears considering whether that understanding is served by the interference of a third party with no stake in the future well-being of the nation in question. Replacing one careless authority with another can't be said to be much improvement. And it doesn't much matter what labels different regimes are described by if the net result is masses of landless, hungry poor.

In democratic countries where there is a peaceful option for changing the government, it should be regarded as proper to correct the policies of the ruling party through what is essentially a sanctioned, periodic coup. That is to say, instead of having some flavor of one party state with a leadership that lasts until death or violent revolt, the opportunity for peaceful overthrow is offered at scheduled intervals and called an election.

The system of democracy recognizes the inevitability of those in power growing out of touch with the people, while respecting the physical integrity of the citizenry and national borders. It could be considered to enshrine the idea that 'the citizenry' comprises the primary definition of country, and that supporting a government is patriotic to the extent that the government serves that citizenry.

People

While governments come and go, the people remain. It is not, as someone once noted, possible to appoint a new citizenry. (Not to say that it isn't tried.) Individuals’ wealth becomes the wealth of the country - whether directly through taxes, or indirectly through shared prosperity. But the individual poverty is also the country's poverty - whether directly through a lack of income, or indirectly through shared desperation.

A legitimate government represents the goals and wishes of its citizens. The first charge leveled against potential enemies is that they don't represent their people, and therefore deserve removal.

A government can be described as 'without love of country' if they disrespect their citizens. Governments may be unpatriotic. We recognize that in other countries, but not in our own, at least as long as our party is in power.

But it's possible, as mentioned, to be very selective about which people you're referring to when you say 'the people.' Sometimes a speaker may only refer to people of a particular ethnicity or social class. They may refer to race, gender, age, etc., and speak of the selected individuals as ‘the people.’

Also, the conception of 'people' can be used differently, even if you agree that it includes every member of a particular society. It can be a reference to education or skill levels, to individuals as economic units, to individuals as political participants, to people as objects having needs, or to individuals as, well, individuals.

With all these definitions of ‘people’ possible, it shouldn't be surprising that it's hard to figure out what's good for them. So it could be hard to figure out what a patriot, whose primary duty lies with the citizens, should do.

Duties

Virtue necessitates action that's in line with belief, otherwise it’s either an empty platitude or hypocrisy. Depending on your level of charity, of course.

If patriotism is a virtue that should have a demonstrable benefit to society, what is that benefit? What are the specific goods that should come about as a result of the duties implied by supporting the common good? This question is exactly where people begin to say that one or another type of patriotism is 'cheap.'

Frankly, I have a lot of ideas about this, but that isn't the point.

The Point

Next time someone goes on about how patriotic they are, and what a band of traitors the opposition is, it's worth spending the time to figure out what they might mean by that. Don't assume that it's the same thing the law means. Or the same thing you mean, even if you both share a political party.

Wasn't going to post tonight, but Democracy Now was on, and they made the following points about the two demonstrators killed in Venezuela. So, what the heck:

• Both demonstrators were pro-Chavez marchers.
  
• They were shot by uniformed members of Caracas' Metropolitan Police, who injured 20 other pro-Chavez marchers in the incident.
  
• The same uniformed officers shot tear gas at the funeral march, which was attended by vice president Rangel.
  
• The local police are under the control of Caracas' mayor, who is an ardent opponent of president Chavez.
  
• Chavez wants to organize a group of countries in Latin America, Europe, and Asia, to help Venezuela resolve their conflict peacefully. The Bush administration opposes this.
  
• General Gomez, who led the April coup is organizing a armed resistance group. They're operating out of Florida.
  
• In the United States, working to overthrow the government is a crime punishable by death.
  

Also, check out this picture from the April coup. This October article gives a little more background on the man shown enthusiastically hugging the despot-for-a-day who tried to replace Chavez.

Venezuela Archives

Two examples of why it's good to read the comments section on Daily Kos. In today's open thread, we find that members of the Green Party have been put on terrorist watch and No-Fly lists because the Justice Department thinks that Greens are as bad as Al-Qaida, and also that Pat Robertson has links to a brutal dictator who supported Al-Qaida.

I've added three new blogs to the blogroll today. Late Night Thoughts, Ruminate This, and The Sideshow. Good stuff.

Comments are acting strangely, and the archives have been disappearing a lot. I didn't do it, I swear.

In the meantime, you can redirect any frustration this may cause you by taking it out on Clear Channel Entertainment. Ruminate This explains why a top-rated liberal talk show host can't get her show syndicated, even though she has better ratings than Rush Limbaugh. When you're done reading that, write two emails. One to your local college station, one to your local NPR affiliate, and ask them to air Randi Rhodes. If you know of any other likely candidates, email them, too. It's probably pointless to complain to Clear Channel, but if you feel like it, Ruminate This includes a link to their site.

As Digby pointed out the other day, you can no longer even get liberal talk radio in Los Angeles. Los Angeles!?

Definitions

Words are symbolic references. They mean nothing in themselves, and the common meaning for some words can change rapidly and completely. Though many words lend themselves for use in ways that contradict their standard meaning, others are always used to mean the same thing.

If I ask someone to "peel an orange and a banana and put them in the blender," this statement means just about the same thing to everyone. Even if the person I'm making this request of has never been in my kitchen. Orange, banana, and blender are symbols that refer to very specific classes of objects. The verb peel refers to an action which can be done in several ways, so the definition is looser, but the word still describes a well defined activity and has an agreed set of outcomes.

But if I say "god hates homosexuality," we are now outside the realm of symbols that refer to definite objects and actions. Statements like this can provoke controversy and argument specifically because they could mean so many things that they may mean nothing. Or, at most, they mean whatever it is that the listener thinks they mean. (A person could think, for example, that it meant the speaker had a screw loose.)

In the first example, it would be reasonable to reply "Where's the blender?" Or you could start a discussion about whose job it is to perform the task. It would be very rare for a typical adult to respond saying, "I don't know what you mean by that." In the second example, two people with a different set of definitions for god, hate, or homosexuality, could potentially argue until death without ever getting past "is so" and "is not."

As Alfred Korzybski and general semantics describe, there are several levels of symbolic reasoning people use. Without going into a detailed hierarchy, it's easy to say that at one end of the spectrum you have symbols that refer to concrete objects, followed by operations or actions on those objects, all the way to the other end where we have abstract concepts about other abstractions.

The problem is not in the symbolic reasoning itself, or even in the fact that we use concepts that refer to other symbols instead of real objects. A tremendous amount of value can be derived from abstraction, and not all types of experience are easily categorized. The problem is that no distinction is made between the two in much ordinary speech and thought.

Distinctions

A way to illustrate this is with words that may be used both as relatively concrete symbols and as complete abstractions. If we can't separate between the two uses, the mind defaults to assuming that the symbol has a stable and specific meaning, and that the meaning is known. In other words, indefinite philosophical speech may be treated as though it were as definite in meaning as a recipe for a fruit smoothie.

Take the words 'right' and 'wrong.' They refer at a basic level to whether or not an action has been performed in the specified way. To go back to our first example, if the fruit is put in the blender without being peeled, the action has been performed wrongly. If the instructions were followed, the action has been performed rightly.

But with the suggestion that god hates homosexuality, what action does that imply to the listener? A person is being asked to agree or disagree, and on agreement, duplicate the sentiment. First, we should assume that the listener in question shares a definition of god with the speaker, and agrees that the speaker knows for sure that god thinks this way. (That a whole other topic.)

For someone disposed to agree with the statement, god is a righteous being, and proper to imitate. Hatred implies wrath, derision, horror, etc., and so these emotions are right to have towards the subject. And, depending on the person's internal description of homosexuality, it might apply to such diverse populations as godless commies, people who like gourmet food, professional women with short hair, and male persons who dress nicely or demonstrate emotion. If it is wrong (noncompliant) not to hate these people or their actions, what is the right action for one who hates them?

Right and wrong just don't apply to the two example statements in similarly concrete ways. That is to say, in ways that mean the same thing to all adult speakers of the language, and will produce similar results. But again, this distinction is often ignored, or changed at will. And it is this very failure that causes so much confusion and misunderstanding, which becomes profitable to those who can exploit it.

The Point

Words are the last useful magic. By means of words alone, a person can incite rage, stir longing, create sadness, or cause actions by distant people.

Words that have shifting meanings can be strung together in such ways that they produce a very specific reaction in the hearer. Familiar words can even be invested with a new meaning, such that they produce a similar new reaction in the minds of other insiders who've been let in on the new definition. Strong stuff, indeed.

Whenever you allow someone to create your definitions without your participation, you're allowing them to think on your behalf. If they didn't come up with those definitions themselves, then you're allowing a third party unknown to you to think on your behalf. Some measure of this is unavoidable, but the more true it is, the less your thoughts and actions are under your control.

The most powerful phrase in the english language may well be "What do you mean by that?"

Yaaaay! I get to go back to school today (if you'd told me I'd ever say that when I was 10 years old...) and we're kicking off essay week for the watch. But before getting right to it, thanks and acknowledgements are in order.

Many of the ideas that will be discussed would never have entered my mind if I hadn't been lucky enough to read more Robert Anton Wilson books than could possibly be healthy. Also Alfred Korzybski, who wrote some great books, started general semantics, and came up with interesting ideas about how the language we use messes with our heads. So there it is.

"'Tis an ill wind that blows no minds" - Malaclypse the Younger, Principia Discordia

It's good to be able to read Digby on his very own blog in between Sunday chores.

The Seattle Times publishes one of the more balanced articles on Venezuela's political crisis that I've seen in the mainstream, but still omits a good deal of background information necessary for an informed opinion. Take this passage:

...Chávez was ousted in a coup in April and then returned to power two days later with the support of his followers and loyal military units. Nineteen people were killed during an opposition march leading to the coup. ...

They neglect to mention that the people who led the coup are the same ones that are leading the walkout right now. They mention that 'nineteen people were killed' leading to the coup, as though it mysteriously happened for no reason. But of course, they don't say that the sniper was a Portuguese man who was released from jail during the two day coup. You would think that those facts were relevant, but apparently not.

Venezuela Archives

Gale Norton killing fish in California. Naturally, the administration wants to have 'more study' on the issue, but as a local Indian leader says, "It's not rocket science: Fish need water."

Thanks to Joseph Arrieta for the link.

Alas, A Blog discusses the real reason insurance premiums go up, with links that make a case that it has nothing to do with jury awards.

The post immediately below is on proposed cuts to dental care for the poor in Oregon. It doesn't sound like a big deal to everyone, but as it turns out, it's a pretty big deal. A dentist weighs in: "When was the last time you went to Safeway and the person who was boxing your goddamn groceries had no teeth? Never. You can't get a job without your teeth. ..."

An review of two books on the topic examines veiling in Islamic societies.

This website is... interesting. A grab bag of ideas, I'm not sure what to say about them, but I'd rank their tweak* value at 8 out of 10. Courtesy of Easter Lemming.

* Tweak: When the little whirring cogs seize up in fits and starts as dialogue that's not easy to categorize enters the machine.