Wrestling pigs

There’s supposedly a new wingnut meme doing the rounds of rightwing blogs, that the Church Committee, the 1975 senate comittee set up after Watergate revealed some of the dirty tricks the CIA had engaged in both at home and abroad. The idea being that this oversight committee destroyed the CIA and left it helpless to stop 9/11 yada yada. Over at Edge of the West, guest poster Kathy Solmsted quickly demolishes these lies, setting the fact straights. There’s only problem with this.

The facts are irrelevant.

These memes are not fact based, but do rely for some considerable extent on gaining wider circulation by being taken seriously enough by liberals or leftists to offer refutations. Instead of something to be ridiculed, the idea that the CIA was destroyed by teh lieberuls becomes a serious proposition worthy of debate — gaining a false legitimacy. And once an idea is treated seriously, there are always non-partisan bystanders who’ll fall the lies or, because that’s what they’ve been taught all their lives, think that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Another disadvantage of attempting to refute lies is that it’s so much more difficult than telling the lie was. It takes time and energy away from stating your own case, puts you on the defense and as we’re again taught by the newsmedia — not to mention countless courtroom dramas — makes you look bad.

Countering these crackpot ideas is difficult therefore, as you have to take them seriously to refute them and if you take them seriously you allow the crackpots to frame the debate. Which is why I prefer the Alicublog method of treating these memes with the seriousness they deserve, by pointing and laughing.

Apart from that, there may also be something of a difference between liberals and leftists playing a role in this particular case. Liberals historically have never had any real problems with the existence of the CIA, just with the abuses of its power revealed by the Curch committee and similar investigations. It was under Truman, a Democratic president that the CIA was founded and under the ur-liberal president Kennedy that it played some of its dirtiest tricks, the difference being that these tricks were directed at foreign socalled enemies and not Americans as much and so perfectly fine. For those liberals therefore who still think the CIA is a valid institution, defending the Church committee in particular and the idea of congressional oversight over it in general is much harder than it is for leftists like me who’d rather see it disappear sooner than later. Once you admit the CIA is a necesary evil by its very nature it becomes harder to argue for strict oversight.

Personally therefore I’d argue that the Church committee didn’t go far enough, was pivotal into bringing to light certain clasess of abuses, largely those against US citizens, but largely ignoring the raison d’etre of the organisation, which is to make the world safe for American business, the first line of defence against any unwelcome development that would harm their interests.

Bitter Angels

As James says, this looks like a novel worth looking out for: C.L. Anderson’s Bitter Angels:

So I had a real problem when I decided I wanted to write a story around the idea of a peaceful future. First of all, I wanted a peace that felt achievable by human beings. Furthermore, I wanted to set that peace up in such a way that wouldn’t make people go “oh, BLEEP! If that’s peace gimme my war back.”

[…]

In short, a real, genuine, long-term peace would be a complex, dynamic situation that would have to be constantly maintained. Real peace would require law enforcement, diplomacy, and intelligence services. Real peace might get mistaken for weakness by people who look at places like say, Switzerland and see the cuckoo clocks and the chocolate and don’t see the universal required militia service, and it would have to have plans and training in place to deal with people who might make the mistake of trying to muscle in on its territory.

And that’s just for starters. Then you get to how could you maintain a genuine peace without killing people, without repressing anybody or disappearing people or ideas? Now, that would be tough. That would be dangerous. That would tear an average person apart from the compromises and bleak ideas they’d have to live with and the contact with vile people that you’d just really want to murder but you can’t. Because if you start killing them, their friends and relations might start retaliatory killings and then you’d have to kill more of them, and they’d kill more of you and before you know it you’re right back where you started from.

There’s more at the link, but avoid the comments, many of which consists of internet hard men trying to convince each other how much more clear eyed and level headed they are. What this description reminds me of is the Iain M. Banks Culture stories, only set in a more achievable future. The Culture’s big appeal is that it’s a fantasy at heart, an image of a world that we could never achieve and is therefore safe to dream about. What I hope Bitter Angels will be is a science fiction novel that has this background and uses it for more than just an adventure story.

Because there aren’t that many serious science fiction novels taking place in a near(ish) future that’s recognisable ours with the world in a better shape than it is now. Science fiction tends to prefer darker futures, to go for either utopia or fantasy when writing of futures that are obvious improvements on our own time. You can of course argue that any future that shows humanity spread over the Solar System counts, but all too often you then just get the same old politics and war, just on a larger canvas. If anybody does know of any examples of happy futures, let me know.

Wilders chickens out of local elections?

So next year there will be local council elections in the Netherlands. These are usually a good guidance to how well a party will do in general elections, how well the current government is doing as well as which of the opposition parties will profit from any weaknesses. In 2002 for example we had local elections just before the general elections (as the then governing coalition had splintered) and the huge surge his party had in cities like Rotterdam made apparant then that Pim Fortuyn would win big in the national contest as well. In the end of course other forces intervened and Fortuyn never got to witness those elections…

In this context, what to make than of Geert Wilders’ decision to stand for election in only two cities, Den Haag and Almere, but nowhere else, not even Rotterdam where Fortuyn’s succesors have been able to keep their seats on the council through all the upheavals which killed off the national party. Is this an admission of weakness, control freakery or something else?

As Wilders himself had admitted, one reason for limiting his ambitions in this election is the example of Fortuyn. After he was murdered, his party was taken over by chancers and egomaniacs, got into government but completely disintegrated in less than three months, taking the government with them. The LPF neither had the history nor the structure to keep going once Fortuyn himself was gone and even if he had not been murdered it’s doubtful whether it could’ve kept itself together; it was just slapped together too quickly to be stable.

Wilders has learned from this. He has structured his party — like Fortuyn also did — to keep himself in total control at all times by making it into an assocation without members, but with
contributors without voting rights. This in itself is not enough of course, but because Wilders has had the opportunity to let his party grow slower and hence could afford to be careful in chosing his candidates it has worked so far. There have been some mishaps with his MEPs, but nothing to embarassing and he has kept a short leash on his MPs in the Dutch parliament. If his party, the PVV (Party of Liberty), goes allout in the local elections they stand a good chance to win big in certain parts of the country, but at the expense of control. It’s just no possible to control an election campaign involving hundreds or thousands of candidates and volunteers in dozens of cities, unless you have a party structure that’s controlled by more than just one man’s will. (What’s more, you actually have to worry about local issues rather than the Moroccan Menace and that just won’t do…)

Insteads he plays it smart. He has chosen two typical Wilders cities to stand in. There’s
Den Haag with its old neglected inner city working class neighbourhoods with the same sort of muted ethnical and racial tensions you see in similar neighbourhoods in Burnley. Then there’s Almere, which you could see as a sort of “white flight” suburb of Amsterdam, where a lot of affluent and semi-affluent middleclass families move to out of Amsterdam once they get children. In the first city you have the, if you may, traditional Wilders and Fortuyn supporter: poor, working class or lumpen and xenophobic, especially against Moroccans and Muslims, long ignored by the traditional parties but not as much as they complain about. In the second city you have the “new” Wilders supporter: middleclass, not as openly xenophobic but worried about the influence “those people” have on the supposedly tolerant Dutch culture.

A big win for Wilders in either city, let alone both, will be a huge blow to all other parties, but especially the old, established triumvate of Christian Democrat (CDA), Liberal (VVD) and Social-Democrat (PvdA) parties. It will be seen as yet more evidence that these parties still cannot reach the socalled Fortuyn voters despite all their attempts in the last five years to appeal to them. If they win in Almere it will be even worse, as that will be proof that the party can now reach beyond their traditional base and appeal to the core voter, the nice middleclass people who do their civic duty in every election and who used to vote CDA or VVD or PvdA but who do see a lot of sense in what Wilders is saying.

So concentrating on those two cities makes a lot of sense for Wilders. It will be interesting to see how the other parties react. They need to resist the temptation to make this into a national referendum on Wilders and focus on the issues any normal local election revolves around, but they can’t make the mistake of ignoring him either. A lot depends on the candidates Wilders will select.

What do the following videos have in common?

Billy Ocean — When the Going Gets Tough.

Tina Turner — We Don’t Need Another Hero.

A-Ha — The Living Daylights

Glenn Frey — The Heat is On

And of course: Duran Duran — A View to A Kill

That’s right. If you watched the music video, there was no need to see the movie anymore…

The Grain Kings – Keith Roberts

Cover of The Grain Kings


The Grain Kings
Keith Roberts
208 pages
published in 1976

Nothing says seventies science fiction as much as a Fossian cover like this, slapped by Panther and Pan on every book they published regardless of contents. Big, blocky machinery, preferably some sort of spaceship, with brigh colours and no human figures: that’s science fiction and you don’t need anything more. For once, the cover is even justified, showing one of the huge grain combine harvesters from the title story of this collection. Course, you’ll still be disappointed if you get this expecting the sort of cool, clinical, techno-driven stories the cover suggests; Keith Roberts isn’t that kind of writer.

Keith Roberts debuted as a writer in 1964 in New Worlds, involved with, but not a part of, the New Wave. Partially this was due to his personality as he allegedly was quite a difficult character to work with, getting into fights with his editors and publishers. But it was also because he was less interested in the two main obsessions of the New Wave, death & entropy and sex & taboos. Nevertheless if you like Brian Aldiss or Christoper Priest changes are you’ll like Roberts as well. Roberts was more than just a writer; during the sixties he worked both as an editor for the British magazine Science Fantasy/SF Impulse, as well as its artistic director, designing most of the covers for it, as well as for several issues of New Worlds. A shame he didn’t get the chance to design the cover of this book, as the impressionist look he used in his own designs would’ve been much more suited for it. Keith Roberts has always been somewhat of a cult author, best known for his second novel Pavane, a classic alternative history story and one out of two of his books still in print today (the other one is The Furies).

Read more…