Comment of The Day

Is by heliograph at Digby, on the sheer viciousness being shown by the Right against the idea of healthcare for poor children:

What we are seeing play out here are the politics of resenting the poor, sick, and injured, which have their roots deep in the principles of Social Darwinism and the ensuing Eugenics movement. People who think of themselves as naturally superior (in this case, right-wing Republicans) resent having to pay for, think about, or otherwise deal with the inferior (people who get sick, have genetically-based conditions, or get into accidents — by definition, such people are inferior losers, plus, they tend to vote for Democrats, which is further evidence of their inferiority).

Areader above has tapped into the core philosphy of this Social Darwinism, via Charles Dickens’ quote about “decreasing the surplus population.” In the mid- to late 19th century, turning one’s back on the ill and poor was couched in terms of letting nature run its course — any intervention by society was seen as un-natural and leading to a proliferation of inferior genes.

Today, denying financial assistance to the needy, ill, or injured is couched by the right wing in terms of free market principles and a philosophy of limited government. But it’s still social Darwinism, and it still has at is base the idea that the superior members of society (the well off, and those who fancy themselves someday as being well off — think Republicans) are doing nature and society a favor by denying help to the needy.

Of course this kind of Social Darwinism in the 19th century led to the Eugenics Movement, which culminated in the unspeakable atrocities of the German National Socialist regime ca. 1933 to 1945. The right wing bloggers and their mainstream beneficiaries and enablers know that today they can’t come out and say what’s really on their minds — i.e., that the poor and injured and sick probably don’t deserve to live at all — so they phrase their thoughts in terms of saying that the poor and injured and sick don’t deserve to be helped by taxpayers and they don’t deserve to live a comfortable life. It would be a little too rash to advocate cutting off health care to “decrease the surplus population.” So instead they advocate making the surplus population suffer by proposing that they sell their houses and businesses, eat cheaper food, give up private schools, forego certain kinds of furniture, autombiles, counter-tops, whatever. But the 21st century hateful outbursts of Malkin et al. basically reflect the same core philosophy as mid-19th century Social Darwinism: Society will be better off if we don’t help these chiseling, undeserving bastards who manage to get poor, sick, or injured.

Check out this poster from the Nazi-era Eugenics movement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Ima…ePropaganda.jpg

[See above]

It shows a disabled, elderly man and, in advocating for euthansia of the elderly, has this caption:

“60000 RM [Reichsmarks] —

This is what this person suffering from hereditary defects costs the Community of Germans during his lifetime.

Fellow German, that is your money, too”

Someone explain to me please the difference between the sentiments expressed in this poster, and what we’ve seen posted by Malkin et al. over the past several days as they’ve set out to destroy a 12 year-old boy whose only crime was to get injured, accept help, and then advocate that the fortunate should help the unfortunate.
heliograph | 10.12.07 – 2:49 am | #

Differences? There are no differences except those of time and place. Maybe Malkin should keep in mind that alleged Pastor Neimoller quote (I paraphrase wildly)

“First they came for the sick children parasites, then they came for the moonbats, then they came for the anchor babies…”

Comment of The Day

Is this nicely tart communicatiion from this morning’s Guardian letters page:

Is it just me, or is there a certain irony in the Communication Workers Union taking out an advertisement (October 9) urging readers to write to their local MPs and the Royal Mail’s management in support of the postal strike?

Dr Stuart Dunn (via email)
Reading, Berkshire

I’m at the dialysis unit all day today doing my bit for science by participating in a study, so no more posting till later on and only then if I feel up to it. There are many many fine blogs on the blogroll and my del-icio.us links are all up to date, so you needn’t miss me one little bit, not that you would’ve anyhow.

Myself, I shan’t miss a world in which a 12 year old sick boy is stalked and attacked by a mindless, baying mob of supposedly civilised adults led by a woman with no sense of morals or shame but with a bottomless well of viciousness and bile.

Michelle Malkin has finally gone over the edge – I doubt that even if her own children were attacked in the same way (and there are those who seem intent on doing this – they are as bad as she is) that it would stop her – her rage-fuelled insanity has gone accelerating away over the horizon, cheered on by the likes of cheap radio demagogues like Lmbaugh and O’Reilly . She is a danger to the public and everyone around her, if not physically by inciting violence, then morally; Malkin has lowered, (no, dragged down) the bar of political dicourse almost as low as it can go, if you can even dignify what she does as discourse, More a howling of jackals in an endless wiilderness of hate, greed and fear.

A blogosphere in which a Michelle Malkin exists and is celebrated is a world I’m glad to escape from, if only for a day. I’d rather have the needles.

Tories Are Racist – It’s Hardly News. What’s the Dutch Excuse?

What junior Tory heaven looks like - a Dutch Sinterklaas

Bear the following article (h/t Feministe) in mind as you listen to this afternoon’s David Cameron setpiece conference speech on tonight’s news, extolling the electoral virtues of the all new, firm-jawed, righteous, green, antiracist, compassionate Tories .

Tory aide suspended over racist photos on Facebook

Haroon Siddique and agencies
Monday October 1, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

A Tory aide was suspended today for allegedly posting images on the internet of a fellow researcher with her face blacked up accompanied by a racist insult.

The damaging revelations came as the Conservatives try to use their annual conference in Blackpool to close the gap on Labour in the opinion polls, ahead of a possible snap election.

Emma Claire Pentreath, a constituency officer for the Hammersmith and Fulham MP, Greg Hands, was shown having her face painted black with a burned cork, on the social networking site Facebook, the London Evening Standard reported.

Philip Clarke, a parliamentary aide to the former attorney general Lord Lyell, was responsible for posting the photographs, according to the website, and the 24-year-old has now been suspended by the Conservatives.

The Standard reported that the photographs, which have since been removed, were accompanied by a caption which read: “Emma’s career in politics lies in tatters after she follows Ann Winterton’s lead and dresses as a ‘Nigger Minstrel’.”

Congleton MP Mrs Winterton was sacked as shadow cabinet spokeswoman for agriculture after making a racist joke at a rugby club dinner in 2002.

Another picture reportedly showed a grimacing Ms Pentreath with a caption reading: “The piece de resistance! Teeth shining, nostrils flared and eyes glowing. Truly terrifying.”

‘New Conservatives’ my ass: they’re the same old racists they always were. And could
their excuse for such antedeluvian, bigoted and nasty behaviour get any lamer?

Mr Clarke, 24 said the postings were “not intended to be racist”, but added: “I behaved very stupidly and I bitterly regret it.”

A Tory spokesman said; “Racism is completely unacceptable and has no place in the Conservative party.”

In March, photographs emerged of Barnet Conservative councillor Brian Gordon, blacked up at a fancy dress party to look like Nelson Mandela.

Opposition parties accused him of racism but a spokesman for Mr Mandela said that there was no “ill intent”.

Labour’s Dawn Butler, a black MP, said the caption accompanying the latest photos showed that the Conservatives “had not changed one bit”.

“It appears that Tory staffers think it is funny to call one another ‘Nigger Minstrels’,” she said.

“The message needs to get through to this Tory party that this is unacceptable and that the excuse of absent-minded racism is no excuse at all.”

“Blacking up” is often viewed as racist because of its connections to the minstrel shows of the 19th and 20th centuries, which promoted the mocking stereotype of a grinning, happy-go-lucky, infantilised black rascal.

That last is a message that the Dutch nation also needs to take on board. Already the blacked up, minstrelesque Zwarte Pieten are appearing in Amsterdam, though it’s weeks yet to Sinterklaas.

Any foreigner who claims that this tradition might be a tad insensitive get jumped on – “But its’ cultural!” The Dutch cry resenrfully. “You’re just trying to interfere with our traditions and anyway we don’t mean to be racist!”

Sure they don’t. Funny how both they and the Tories manage it anyway.

“There will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.”

San Diego’s Republican mayor speaks surprisingly, and movingly, in support of gay marriage:

If that’s not a turnabout eniough, the Moustache of Understanding himself, millionaire economic columnist and pundit Tom Friedman, has finally spoken out against Guantanamo and the US’ implementation of the War on Terror. I get the impression he’s seen or heard or been told something that made the blinkers fall off.

9/11 has made us stupid. I honor, and weep for, all those murdered on that day. But our reaction to 9/11 — mine included — has knocked America completely out of balance, and it is time to get things right again.

It is not that I thought we had new enemies that day and now I don’t. Yes, in the wake of 9/11, we need new precautions, new barriers. But we also need our old habits and sense of openness. For me, the candidate of 9/12 is the one who will not only understand who our enemies are, but who we are.

Before 9/11, the world thought America’s slogan was: “Where anything is possible for anybody.” But that is not our global brand anymore. Our government has been exporting fear, not hope: “Give me your tired, your poor and your fingerprints.”

You may think Guantánamo Bay is a prison camp in Cuba for Al Qaeda terrorists. A lot of the world thinks it’s a place we send visitors who don’t give the right answers at immigration. I will not vote for any candidate who is not committed to dismantling Guantánamo Bay and replacing it with a free field hospital for poor Cubans. Guantánamo Bay is the anti-Statue of Liberty.

I wonder what it was that affected him so much?

The Future Dragon Queen of World Media or Much Maligned Mother of Two?

I think it can safely be asserted that who owns the media is equally if not more important than who the politiciians are: indeed it can be argued that it’s the media that chooses the politicians.

In all, 16 of the top 30 media owners are from the US. The other countries with media owners in the top 30 are Japan (with four representatives), France and the UK (with three each), Germany (two) and Italy and Mexico (one each). Non-American companies on the top 30 list include Axel Springer, Bertelsmann, BSkyB, ITV plc., Fuji TV and Televisa.

The top 30 media owners in the report generated a total of $215bn in media revenue. Two online companies, Google and Yahoo made it into the top 30, ranked number 13 and 15 with revenues of $6bn and $5.2bn respectively

Mass media ownership transcends international borders and the polioy decisions and editorial influence of owners now has worldwide scope. Take Rupert Murdoch for example, whose overwhelming grip on American public discourse just tightened with his purchase of the hawkish, rightwing Wall Street Journal.

But is it even really Murdoch’s grip any more? Is he, to use a vulgar American phrase, pussy- whipped by a nubile young wife? Many western journalists would like us to think so.

Murdoch is in his seventies and has a much younger Chinese born wife, Wendi Deng, who’s causing much media paranoia over whether China, in addition to being one of the world’s largest creditor nations and buying up western banks, is planning to take a massive slice of worldwide media control with Deng as some sort of proxy.

Or it could be anti-Chinese racism and mysogyny, an occidental fear of the Yellow Peril, focused onto one woman, Deng. There’s plenty of evidence for that.

Private Eye has had fun for years with Wendy Deng, casting her in typical neocolonial style as a Dragon Lady who uses her sexy oriental (Did they say she’s oriental, by the way? And sexy?) ways and remorseless physical demands to shag her ageing husband to death and grab his billions for the seething communist hordes of China.

Here’s typical public schoolboy racism from Private Eye in 2003:

“Never Too Old”
by Dame Silvie Krin

The story so far: Multibillionaire media mogul Rupert Murdoch has married a fragrant young oriental beautyfrom the land odf birds-nestsoup.

Now read on…

“I got great news for you Lupert.” purred the lovely Wendy Deng as she entered the gymnnasium of their 48th storey Manhattan penthouse apartment.

“You mean you’re going to switch off this lousy rowing machine and give me an ice-cold tinnie?” puffed the sweating septuagenarian tycoon, as he tried to keep up with the machine’s remorseless demands,

“First guess wrong,” hissed his peach-skinned paramaour, as she turned up the machine to Olympic Standard (Bronze) Level.

You get the drift, and besides, I’m not copying the whole thing out.

As much as I enjoy and admire Private Eye (I’ve been a regular reader for over 20 years), let’s face it, in its attitudes to women and minorities it ican often be paternalistic, colonial and crass, the cuteness and likeability of Ian Hislop on HIGNFY notwithstanding. So if I didn’t absolutely dismiss the rumour (because leaving ethnicity aside she is young and he is old and it’s been known) I suspected the motivation behind it.

But then I started to google and to read stories about how recent Murdoch decisions have favoured Chinese state interests and how his media interests in China itself collude with state censorship; and how a meticulously researched and sourced profile of Deng was suppressed by the publisher that commissioned it when Murdoch sold his stake; and how a series of publications in their turn declined to publish, for no other apparent reason than they feared to offend Rupert.

Oddly enough the only place the profile is available in full online is China’s New Century Weekly – in Chionese – it’s come to something when China will publish something western journalists are too scared to.

Murdoch has attacked anyone who seeks to write about his wife on the grounds that Deng is a private person; which is a bit flimsy considering Deng is now Chief of Strategy at MySpace China, an arm of Murdoch’s empire, and they have two daughters who will potentially inherit a substantial slice of media control in their own right, aside from anything Deng herself inherits when her husband predeceases her, as he’s almost bound to do barring medical miracles. Even the Murdoch billions can’t cheat death.

Deng, with that amount of potential clout, is no private person. She makes decisions that affect millions:

Myspace China to Move Servers to China
Mon, Jul 23, 2007 Myspace | web 2.0

In a recent interview with local media, Luo Chuan, the CEO of Myspace China, which is part of News Corp, (Public, NYSE:NWS), said the company will move its servers to China. According to Luo, the server move will be enhance the site’s appeal to local audience while keeping the China site connected to Myspace’s global database. However, the process will be technically and financially challenging and there is no set schedule for the server move. Source: 163.com

This decision of course will give the Chinese government ultimate physical control of the servers should they so choose and a hell of a lot of leverage over MySpace in terms of censorship.

Deng would like more decision making power and the question of who will control News International on Murdoch’s death is a typically toxic dynastic stew of ex-wives, alimony, alowances, inheritances, jealousy, sibling rivalry and a gliimpse of parent/child conflict.

A simmering debate over the trust that owns the family’s 28.5 percent voting stake in the News Corporation surfaced with the resignation last week of Lachlan, Mr. Murdoch and Mrs. Mann’s elder son, from his job at the News Corporation, where he was seen as a potential successor to his father.

The precipitating reason for Lachlan’s departure, he has told several people, was his father’s undermining of his position within the company over a long period.

[…]

People close to both father and son have also acknowledged, however, that tensions over the trust were a factor, and those tensions stem from the conflicting maternal ambitions of Ms. Deng and Mrs. Mann.

Last year, Mr. Murdoch told his children that he wanted to change the trust to give his two daughters by Ms. Deng, Grace, 3, and Chloe, 2, a greater role in the trust, which currently has an interest in the News Corporation worth $6.1 billion.

But Mr. Murdoch’s four adult children – three with Mrs. Mann and one with his first wife – have a say in the trust and are its primary beneficiaries, and they must approve this change.

[..]

Mr. Murdoch raised the issue of including his youngest daughters in the trust last year at a family meeting in New York, where one person close to the family said the debate was lively.

Oh, I bet it was lively.

It certainly sounds as though Deng may be trying to gain control of News International for herself and her children by Murdoch. It’d all be great fun, like a bastard sitcom mashup of Dallas and Dynasty with Drop The Dead Donkey, if it weren’t future control of worldwide tv, radio, newspapers and the internet we were talking about.

But let’s come back to Rupert’s latest purchase of the Wall St. Journal and what motivated it. Was he really pushed into by Deng as proxy for Chinese interests or was the motivation much more human – embarassment and retaliation at Deng’s past being revealed?

1. Until the details were published in the Wall Street Journal, Murdoch apparently did not know much about Deng’s past, including the affair and marriage with Jake Cherry, which secured her a US visa. One WSJ journo describes Murdoch as “ashen-faced” at their next meeting. As Ellis writes, Murdoch got a rude taste of his own tabloid journalism medicine. I can’t help wondering if that has anything to do with his current bid for the Journal?

A past Deng apparently has, according to commenters at the Wendi Deng Watchers Club:

At the tender age of 18, she freely walked into Guangzhou hotel rooms to sleep with a 50-year old married American (Jake Cherry) who spoke a language she didn’t understand (English) and was introduced to her by his then-wife (Joyce Cherry). On top of that, she suckered Jake Cherry into persuading his then-wife (Joyce Cherry) into sponsoring her into the U.S., where she lived rent-free in their home with their children, ate their food (with them), went places with them, took everything the Cherrys gave her (and also things meant for their daughter), ALL THE WHILE CONTINUING ON WITH HER AFFAIR WITH JAKE CHERRY IN FRONT OF THEIR FACES!

Whatever the truth of thiose allegations Deng certainly has Murdoch wrapped around her finger; her influence in News International is profound and will only increase if she gets her way. But in this she is no different from the many other women worldwide (cough, Huffington, cough) who marry for power, whatever their nationality. It wouldn’t be the first time a young woman with a bit of a past snares a rich old man at an opportune moment, but I do think an enormous amount of the hoohah about Deng the Dragon Lady as a Chinese double agent in the heart of the western free-market system is exaggerated and inspired by a mixture of envy, stereotypical male ideas about Chinese and Asian women and a fear of China itself.

There is truth there in that Deng has given Murdoch access to Chinese markets but the non-Murdoch media depiction of her as an evil oriental genius I think is a projection of journalists’ own misogyny, ingrained racism and worries about the potential power she is likely to wield on the demise of her husband.

Given the shrewdness and alleged lack od scruples with with she’s operated to her own advantage so far, Deng should certainly not escape scrutiny – and the claim by her husband that she is a private person and not up for discussion or beyond criticism, when he has made her a public person, is completely risible.

Yes, scrutinise Deng with a big magnifying glass, but scrutinise what she does, not what she is.