21st Century America, or 1970’s Argentina?

Which fascist Banana Republic will torture and disappear anyone, even children as young as 7?

Is it Honduras? is it East Timor? Is it Cambodia, maybe? Or Nicaragua? What about Colombia then, ’cause that’s a bit nasty? Is it El bloody Salvador and the death squads again?

Answer; none of the above – for once – though that’s where the current practitioners got their very thorough training. Can you spell Negroponte?

But no, as you well knew, it’s the good old US of A, aided by it’s good buddies in the British government and the new EU accession countries.

Los Desaparecidos De Septiembre 11….

Rights Groups List 39 Disappeared In War On Terror

Six human rights groups urged the U.S. government on Thursday to name and explain the whereabouts of 39 people.

[…]

The United States has acknowledged detaining three of the 39. The groups said, however, that there was strong evidence, including witness testimony, of secret detention in 18 more cases and some evidence of secret detention in the remaining 18 cases.

Joanne Mariner of Human Rights Watch said it was unknown if the suspects were now in U.S. or foreign custody, or even alive or dead.

“We have families who have not seen their loved ones for years. They’ve literally disappeared,” Mariner told Reuters.

Among the cases detailed in the report is the detention in September 2002 of two children, then aged seven and nine, of confessed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was later detained and is now held at Guantanamo.

Read more

Like a puddle in the sun my residual sympathy for the mass of Americans who just sit by while their government is imprisoning, disappearing and torturing childreni, yet who gorge on paedophile-exposing reality tv shows like candy, is drying up.

The liberals are just as bad, thinking that a democratic candidate’s winning of the next election will solve everything, the white knight is on his way, the cavalry is coming, hurrah!, so they can sit back and wait for the Democratic groundswell to clear away all the murderous trash in DC.

What a copout.

I suspect their are millions worldwide, formerly well-disposed, who feel just like me. Not terrorists, not reflexively anti-american, just seriously pissed off and out of patience with the US government’s brutality and arrogance and it’s citizens’ apathy.

There’s another 2 years of this adminstration to come yet. If they’ll disappear and torture children, like the 60 in Guantanamo and the children abusd in Abu Ghraib that we do lnow about and then there’s the unknown and unnumbered ones that we don’t know about.

The Republicans will do anything, anything at all to grab and maintain power. If they’d imprison, torture and/or rape a child, what would they not do?

To stand idly by while they do this is to be complicit. All that it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing, and so it’s proved.

I’d like to say you deserve what you get, but as it’s necessary to say again and again and again to Americans – it’s not all about you.

Unlike you the rest of us don’t even get the figleaf of a nominally democratic vote in the presidential election. We just have to deal with the fallout of your stupidity.

But hey, there’s plenty more diposable brown children. The stars and stripes forever, eh?

Was That A Paradigm Shift, Or Is My Underwear Just Bunched Up?

Sometimes I loathe blogging and I hate blogs. At the moment I can’t stand all this waiting, it’s driving me absolutely, nailbitingly nuts. My refresh button is wearing out.

Although nemesis is approaching both the Blair and Bush governments in the form of prosecutions for corruption and for perjury respectively, it’s taking it’s own sweet bloody time about it.

I want poodle and chimp blood and I want it now!.

Maybe I’m projecting my own feelings about the endless grey tedium of January but the UK and US news media and punditerati seem to have gone oddly quiet of late. I don’t mean there’s no news, that’s patently absurd what with wars and massacres and plagues all over the place – but there’s a faint whiff of tense anxiety emanating from the political reporters and commentariat. I wonder why?

They do have cause to be tense: both the accelerating Cash for Honours and Plame investigations and subsequent prosecutions will result in large part from the persistence of bloggers on both sides of the Atlantic. Unpaid citizens have been doing the job that the pampered, self-perpetuating mediocracy should’ve been doing. The media’s passive collusion in propping up illegal government and facilitating the obstruction of justice is about to be exposed and it won’t be pretty; no wonder they’re nervous. (Or maybe they’re just desperately trying to catch up on the story. That’s why they’re quiet – they’re reading blogs.)

That doesn’t mean there are no bright, persistent reporters on the big papers, it means they are exceedingly rare pearls of rare price amongst the cosy insiderdom and casual venality that are the modern Cranfords of Westminster and Washington, those murky little worlds of interlocked party-politics, thinktanks, op-ed columns and off-the-record-socialising, where political reporters and pundits work, go to the same schools, live in the same neighbourhoods, go to the same dinner-parties and social events and help each others children do the same in their turn.

That this state of affairs exists is due both to the way patronage, largesse and plain access has been managed by political parties on both sides of the Atlantic in modern times, most recently and blatantly by Blair and Bush. But it also testifies to the media’s willingness to be patronised and managed by politicians, providing there is sufficient personal advantage.

It’s been a long comfortable ride for the pundits so far, but the papers they write for are losing circulation and profits as fewer people turn, not to the papers or tv for news and political analysis, but to the internet and bloggers.

The trouble is that the small world of political blogging is, though supeficially wide-open, actually self-regulated and just as parochial, narrow-minded and self-interested as any other self-selected grouping.

Liberal blogging is already producing its own insider elites even though it’s that which brought us to this pass in the first place. Although they’re much less well-paid (if paid at all) than the right bloggers, the money is coming. With the ascendancy of the Democrats in Congress and a record-funded presidential race on the way, bloggers are no doubt already anticipating a tasty slice of the ad-spending and political-consultancy pie. The Hillary blogads are all over the place already.

I suppose they might argue that that’s the way the system works and what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander., t’was ever thus, blah blah blah, don’t blame us, a blogger’s got to live and so on. Fine, make your living from politics if that’s what you want to do. I’ve no problem with that, it’s your choice.

But remember that the moment you start to make your living from politics you are part of the political establishment, not the counter-establishment, on the inside not the outside, and expect to be treated accordingly. (I think finding yourself on a Murdoch paper like the Times’ list of 10 bloggers most likely to sink Hillary Clinton signifies that you are indeed, Established.)

Athough superficially separate, the walls between the big liberal blogs. Democratic party politics and paid opinion, already paper-thin, are crumbling. What does this mean for smaller, less exalted left political blogs?

It means that their role as political samizdat is even more important than ever.

US Democratic bloggers argued recently in criticism of the US antiwar march on Saturday that the left is dead, ineffectual and out of date and that party politics, not protest is where the actions’s at. Other big blogs have bought into this too. Observer journalist Nick Cohen has argued the same thing, though from a different perspective ( that of someone who supported the invasion of Iraq and now must spend the rest of his life justifying it by attacking the war’s opponents).

It is not novel to say that socialism is dead. My argument is that its failure has brought a dark liberation to people who consider themselves to be on the liberal left. It has freed them to go along with any movement however far to the right it may be, as long as it is against the status quo in general and, specifically, America. I hate to repeat the overused quote that ‘when a man stops believing in God he doesn’t then believe in nothing, he believes anything’, but there is no escaping it. Because it is very hard to imagine a radical leftwing alternative, or even mildly radical alternative, intellectuals in particular are ready to excuse the movements of the far right as long as they are anti-Western.

Of course the ‘left ‘, at least as Cohen defines it – in terms of the Labour and Democratic parties – is dead: modern party politics is now merely a televised battle of who can raise most to spend on advertising, and electoral platforms are informed by market research, not political principle. Left? What left?

Those allegedly lleftist parties that liberal media and the big blogs argue and raise money for are all in thrall to to the free market. It’s the baseline from which all their political argument springs and it may not be gainsaid. Only in that sense is Cohen’s point valid; the Labour party left, that wanted to change the world is dead and gone, as are the New Deal Democrats. What remains is a bunch of middle-class policy wonks who beleive they can both simultaneously enjoy the fruits of the free market and assuage their liberal guilt by tinkering around the edges so things are a just a little nicer for the poor folk overseas and the blacks and the gays at home and they don’t have to feel so bad that they live so well.

But there is a another left – that’s iinternational and internationalist, that doesn’t trust any existing party, that’s comprised of people who would not necessarily call themselves leftists but who loathe injustice and lies (local or global) who abhor hypocrisy, cruelty, corruption and greed, who see that the free market as a panacea for all social ills doesn’t work and who are not afraid to say so, loudly and often, through any means they can find. They’re not seduced by power because they know they are powerless.

Blogs have given them a voice.

They might forget it now but that’s how the big blogs started too; Kos is only as big as he is now because of all the diarists. That made him and his site dangerous. That he’s now lauded in the media as a Democratic power-broker is the political establishment using the old ‘inside the tent pissing out’ strategy. By neutralising Kos they neutralise the his readers and diarists too, goes the thinking.

Power is very seductive, so I’m not at all surprised by the continuing co-option of the big blogs into the political establishment. It’s the way elites always work: co-opt, absorb and neutralise. Just so long as those bloggers co-opted remember that that they are no longer outside the system but within it and we’ll all get along fine.

But back to my original point, the current nervousness of the media. I may be entirely wrong about the reason why they’re so subdued. Maybe this is all an excuse for self-absorbed metablognoodling and they’re all just waiting for Bush to drop the Big One on Iran.

Now that really would be a paradigm shift
.

An attack on Iranian nuclear infrastructure would signal the start of a protracted military confrontation that would probably grow to involve Iraq, Israel and Lebanon, as well as the USA and Iran. The report concludes that a military response to the current crisis in relations with Iran is a particularly dangerous option and should not be considered further. Alternative approaches must be sought, however difficult these may be.

Yes, that might certainly make the subject of the co-option of liberal blogs somewhat irrelevant.

Too Posh to Protest? Then Pay A Servant To Do It For You.

Why didn’t I think of this?

Damn, I could’ve made a bundle from full-diaried woolly liberals ( “Sorry, darling, my facial’s been booked for simply weeks“) during the antiwar protests:

German website offers rent-a-protester service
Can’t be arsed waving a banner? Click here
By Lester Haines
Published Wednesday 24th January 2007 11:46 GMT

You know how it is: you feel very strongly that the government really ought to address the issue of rampant unemployment among immigrant Romanian single mothers in the Frankfurt sausage-making industry, but can’t actually be bothered to get up off the sofa and hit the streets in protest. Fear not, for help is at hand in the shape of Erento.com, where agitators are renting out their services to worthy causes.

For example, as the BBC explains, “next to a black and white posed picture, Melanie lists her details from her jeans size to her shoe size and tells potential protest organisers that she is willing to be deployed up to 100km around Berlin”. Six hours of Melanie giving forth will set you back €145.

An Erento.com spokesman was “unable to say how many demonstrators had been booked since the service was launched earlier this month, but that there had certainly been demand”.

Indeed, German media has reported that a Munich march “hired protesters because its own adherents were too old to stand for hours waving banners”.

More….

Presumably that 145 euro includes a portion for the legal and medical costs incurred when the protester gets their head kicked in by baton-wielding riot police?

NYT: Who’s The Internettiest? Obama, Edwards or Clinton?

Eugene Robinson writing in the NYT gives it to Edwards by a blog-length:

[…]

So what do the Web sites HillaryClinton.com, BarackObama.com and JohnEdwards.com tell us about their namesakes? At first glance, they seem to confirm what we think we already know. Clinton’s site evokes a super-competent juggernaut, with every base covered and every hair in place. Obama’s is very much a work in progress. And Edwards’s Web site suggests the patience, attention to detail and willingness to take risks that you would expect from a trial lawyer who rose from nothing to become a self-made millionaire.

Clinton and Obama are first-name candidates on their sites — “Hillary” says this, “Barack” says that. Edwards is more formal — he’s “John Edwards” or “Senator Edwards,” if you please. Perhaps that’s a necessary reminder, since he’s not, technically speaking, a senator anymore.

As for overall tone and scope, it’s hard to evaluate Obama’s campaign cyber-HQ because it’s so clearly a provisional, placeholding site with not much but a couple of videos (the announcement; a biography) and a big button you can click to become a contributor. There’s a link to his Senate reelection Web site— he would have to run in 2010 — and if you find the link and click through, you get a fuller picture of the man.

The Clinton and Edwards sites, as one might expect, are largely about the business of getting elected. Clinton’s home page tells you how to “Join Team Hillary” or become a “HillRaiser” of campaign funds. Edwards likewise prominently advises how to join his team, but his home page also focuses on some issues — he’s against global warming, we learn, and opposes an escalation of the war in Iraq.

The real difference is depth and ambition. Both Clinton and Obama (he on his Senate campaign Web site) say they want to have a dialogue with the American people about how best to solve the nation’s problems. But Edwards has already started his conversation with the nation. His Web site is an exercise in social networking that includes not only a blog, where surfers can post their thoughts, but also cyber-diaries written by Edwards’s family members.

“The soft rain of last night has left the field behind the house dewy with a low fog. Maybe the gossamer meadow is the reason I feel contemplative this morning,” begins a recent entry by Elizabeth Edwards. Her diary posts generally draw more comments than her husband’s.

Somehow, it’s hard to imagine Hillary Clinton waxing about any gossamer meadow.

Edwards’s Web site is less YouTube than MySpace. It tries to take advantage of the Internet’s great paradox — that a technology so devoid of human contact can nevertheless create a sense of intimacy and connection.

So, Mama’s playing it safe, Obama’s not quite ready and Edwards is up to something interesting. In the “Second Life” sense, at least. We’ll see about the real world.

I’m hoping (though it’s a hope based on not much actual foundation) that Obama and Clinton are being encouraged to stand as stalking horses for Clark/Edwards, on the principle that they’ll keep the likes of Fox and the Right’s other swiftboating squads busy while the real candidates do an end run round the opposition. Let’s face it , Clinton or Obama won’t get through the primaries, because the voters just don’t trust them.

This is the most deliberately, wilfully and blindly incompetent administration ever: they’re almost proud of it, incompetence is a strategy for them – remember Grover Norquist‘s famous axiom about ‘drowning the government in a bathtub’? The Republicans refined that concept slightly and now they’ve almost but not quite waterboarded the government to death. The American public seems desperate for some saviour to rush in, free the captive and arrest the torturers, someone who knows the difference between right and wrong and knows what do do about it . Even more imporatant, that someone has to be someone the public trusts.

I can’t see how the DLC can hope Hillary will be the candidate even though her adverts are all over the blogs like a rash: no-one trusts her, everybody hates her, even her own side. If she’s depending on the loyalty of the sisterhood and female votes to carry her through, well she’s shit out of luck. Republican women hate her (and paradoxically enough, the whole ‘stand by your man’ schtick post-Lewinsky made them hate her all the more) and Democratic women don’t seem to be much moire enamoured, what with her support for the war and carefully triangulated non-positions on choice and reproductive freedoms.

As for Obama – other than oodles of charisma and photegeneity, what has he got? If elected he’d be another Tony Blair : a one term politician with little experience in national or international politics and with bugger-all managerial experience. And we all know how that turned out. Obama talks a good fight, he looks good, but can you see him running the country yet? 2 elections down the road when he has some solid experience under his belt, yes. Now, no – and I’ve yet to mention the regrettably ever-present possibility of a far-right assassin, something that goes for Hillary too.

Damn it. I hate it that the most viable ‘liberal’ candidates (and I use the scare quotes deliberately, because neither Edwards nor Clark fit my definition of liberal) candidates will be, yet again, white, wealthy middle class men.

But unless some deus ex machina in the shape of the perfect Dem candidate comes along, that’s what’ll happen.

Where Are All The Kids At?

The kids are all right

Today’s Comment of The Day is at Hullabaloo and is a somewhat testy response to a post by Poputanian and subsequent commenters’ wondering what it will take to get today’s youth to rebel:

what kind of youth movement would satisfy you sanctimonious boomers? how would you like us to express our outrage? we live with a terrible future hanging over our heads, where we will be paying for YOUR social security, YOUR healthcare, and THIS FUCKING WAR! adults have spent nearly three decades consolidating their own wealth and now kids are supposed to feel guilty for not being able to stop an illegal war that the entire world couldn’t stand in the way of???

in 2004, voters below 30 were the ONLY age group in the nation that voted for Kerry. i firmly believe that before you can start telling us about political activism, you should straighten out your own fucking generation.
Utica | 01.20.07 – 12:18 am | #

Go Utica! God, how I loathe boomers and I’m not even a kid.

I was born in 1959 which makes me an in-betweenie; neither Boomer nor Gen X. We’re not hippies: we’re the generation of disco and punk, the generation that were left no crumbs to scrabble for once the entitled generation their greedy mitts on the money and the levers of power. Once elected, for the boomers it was ‘get all you can and after that pull up the ladder’.

They had free schools and universities, the NHS, riches through property and the welfare state: we got unemployment, a housing shortage, double-digit inflation, insane rightwing government, death squads, drugs and the threat of nuclear war. And now Iraq, Tony Blair and George Bush. And for our own children it looks to be even worse.

Cheers, boomers.

The Watergate and Vietnam scandals that they harp on about so much happened when we were in our early teens; mostly, to us it was all so much background noise – and it’s not as though they got the rightwing out, anyhow. The movement was a failure.

No, the defining political events of our times were Iran-Contra, mutually assured destruction and the death squads and the cynicism of those times has informed our politics for ever. As a result, we’ve never trusted anyone in politics and we’ve taught our kids to do the same – so is it any wonder they don’t want to be politically involved in the formal channels provided, when it’s plain for anyone to see that the existing political institutions are so irredeemably corrupt?

There is an assumption made (t’s common wisdom now, it’s been repeated so often) – that leftists are dirty hippies. No, no and again no.

Our rebellion started in the eighties, against Thatcher, Reagan and Pinochet, to whose rightist legacy Bush et al are the heirs. We created our own political space by being early adopers of technology – we were posting to listservs, bulletin boards and usenet and chatting via IRC before the web was even a glint in anyone’s eye.

I feel so sorry for my children’s generation – not only are they expected to be well-rounded individuals, successful in their careers and in their personal lives, but they’re expected to also somehow sort out the mess their grandparents have made of the world – to clean up Washington, solve global warming, rescue the environment – as though there’s some sort of generational magic wand that would wipe the slate clean, if only those damned kids would take their attention away from MySpace and show some gumption for once.

For one thing, why the hell should they? They didn’t break it, why should they be expected to fix it? They’ve got enough to do just surviving.No, fuck that, let the boomers clean up their own messes.

Secondly, it’s all very well for bloggers of a certain age to pontificate to the young for their inaction – but who is it on the barricades at G8 protests, blocking the gates at Faslane nuclear base, pie-ing politicians or putting their lives on the line by lying in front of bulldozers in Palestine? Who is it that’s the mainstay of the antiwar movement? It’s not middle-aged bloggers continually harking back to the sixties.

My sons’ generation, those in their teens and twenties now, are taking the use of technology for political purposes much further than we could ever have concieved of. Just because young people don’t choose the political channels the boomers choose and the boomers can’t see them doing it, doesn’t mean they’re not political, or active.

Perhaps those complaining about political inactivity and apathy on the part of the young should stop reading the likes of ageing fake-liberal HuffPo and Salon and take a look at the Social Forum movement or Globalise Resistance or Schnews, or Indymedia. That’s where the kids are: they want to change the system, not just become more vote-fodder for the existing parties.

Get over yourselves, boomers. You are not the sine qua non of political activism to whom all later activists must genuflect – those days are long gone and so have those outdated modes of protest.

What the younger generation is looking for from you is active leadership and support, not envious blog-criticism.