Month: July 2004

Several people have asked me about the term “neoliberalism.” I’ve tried to provide good defnitions of this term, but I recently came across a very good one, written by, of all people, Noam Chomsky. This definition decomes from his book, Profits Over People, a title that is in itself a fairly apt description of neoliberalism. But Chomsky’s definition is this:

The Washington Consensus

The neoliberal Washington consensus is an array of market oriented principles designed by the government of the United States and the international financial institutions that it largely dominates, and implemented by them in various ways-for the more vulnerable societies, often as stringent structural adjustment programs. The basic rules, in brief, are liberalize trade and finance, let markets set price (“get prices right”), end inflation (“macroeconomic stability”), privatize. The government should “get out of the way”-hence the population too, insofar as the government is democratic, though the conclusion remains implicit. The decisions of those who impose the “consensus” naturally have a major impact on global order. Some analysts take a much stronger position. The international business press has referred to these institutions as the core of a “de facto world government” of a “new imperial age.”

Whether accurate or not, this description serves to remind us that the governing institutions are not independent agents but reflect the distribution of power in the larger society. That has been a truism at least since Adam Smith, who pointed out that the “principal architects” of policy in England were “merchants and manufacturers,” who used state power to serve their own interests, however “grievous” the effect on others, including the people of England. Smith’s concern was “the wealth of nations,” but he understood that the “national interest” is largely a delusion within the “nation” there are sharply conflicting interests, and to understand policy and its effects we have to ask where power lies and how it is exercised, what later came to be called class analysis.

The “principal architects” of the neoliberal “Washington consensus” are the masters of the private economy, mainly huge corporations that control much of the international economy and have the means to dominate policy formation as well as the structuring of thought and opinion. The United States has a special role in the system for obvious reasons. To borrow the words of diplomatic historian Gerald Haines, who is also senior historian of the CIA, “Following World War II the United States assumed, out of self-interest, responsibility for the welfare of the world capitalist system.”

You can see that this definition comes dangerously close to the pseudo-Heideggerian or conspiracy theorist’s “They,” as in “They” are pulling the strings of world government. And indeed, these “They” are somewhat phantomish. But the description is apt. All of us, at least all of us in America or in the west, participate in the neoliberal system to some extent. But many people profit greatly from the system, and seek to protect it. Thus the close ties between American policy and global economics. This is the essence of neoliberalism; it is important to realize that the economic policy goes hand in hand with the state power and associated military might to protect it. Hence perpetual war, most recently in Iraq.

Yeah, I know. Yawn. I’ve been saying “switch to Linux” for probably 2 years now. But now, with all the security issues surrounding Microsoft products lately, eWeek is asking whether Isn’t Now the Time to Try a Linux Desktop?.

Well, yeah. Duhhhh….

Anyone who reads this website(or my old one) knows that I have been a free software activist for several years. The points I have been making for a long time are just starting to reach public awareness. It’s to the point where I just can’t abide working on Windows, like I have to do when I’m at work.

The author of the article does make some good points in regard to how IE bugs and Mozilla bugs are fixed. First, he looks at Microsoft’s policy:

Let’s look at the latest security news about Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox. Microsoft’s fix for one of the latest Internet Explorer holes was to deactivate the broken part, ADODB.Stream. Some fix.

The folks in Redmond still don’t have solutions to IE’s other problems, and they can’t even give users a straight answer on when you can expect a fix.

Yes, it appears that XP SP2 will take care of this set of problems, but what about people using other versions of Windows? Will there be a similar broad-ranging patch for them? They sure won’t be getting an updated version of Internet Explorer, since Microsoft has made it clear that there will no future standalone versions of IE because IE is now part of the operating system.

Now, he compares this to Mozilla’s response to similar bugs in their browser:

Now, let’s look at the latest Mozilla bug. This bug affects the Mozilla suite, the Firefox browser and the Thunderbird e-mail client. Just like the IE ones, it enabled crackers to run remote programs on Windows computers—no others—and it had been described in theory long before anyone demonstrated an exploit for it.

In early July, a way was shown on how to exploit the problem. By July 7, it was fixed. IE bugs? Still unfixed.

You know there might be something to this whole notion that open source speeds up security development.

Gee. Maybe. He. Has. A. Point.

Sorry, I can’t help but be self-righteous and indignant on this issue. :-)

I just found a new online magazine, The World War 3 Report. According to the site, the WW3 report

monitors the global War on Terrorism and its implications for human rights, democracy and ecology. We scan the world media and Internet with a critical eye for distortions and propaganda. Our only loyalty is to the truth.

Every week, we cover the top stories in the War on Terrorism, as well as important stories overlooked by the mass media. Everything we report is sourced, and we endeavor to fact-check and probe deeper when something smells funny–whether it comes from the New York Times or a fringe web site. We annotate with historical, cultural and political context when it is relevant and overlooked by our source.

Sounds good to me. I’ve started reading around, and so far the articles look good. Yet another source of info…

There are more critiques of Fahrenheit 9/11 that I’m reading, and they are interesting. In “Why Does ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ Pursue Conspiracy Theory?” Yoshie Furuhashi writes:

In order to analyze the problem of decades of collaboration between Washington and Riyadh as well as other unsavory allies, fighting against the Communists, nationalists, and other official enemies of Washington during and after the Cold War, he [Michael Moore] would have to go beyond the crimes of the George W. Bush administration, but doing so would implicate Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton (as well as all presidents of the United States, especially the ones who came into power after the US decidedly replaced Britain and France as the hegemonic imperial power) in the violent project of repression inside and outside Saudi Arabia.

This is a more detailed articulation of what I’ve been saying; the policies of the BuShites are not new in themselves; the only novelty is that they seem to be operating more openly and recklessly than in the past. There is no reason to believe that Kerry won’t continue this decades-long tradition of American imperialism.

In another article, “Manufacturing Dissent: Michael Moore’s Noose for the Left”, Shlomo Svesnik makes some very pertinent points, pointing out many cognitive dissonances in the film. Among them:

For starters, the film can’t make up its mind if it is taking an anti-war, pro-tolerance position or faulting the White House for being too lax in pursuing the War on Terrorism. That the film gets away with this equivocation seems indicative of prevalent sloppy thinking on the American left–which will come back to bite us on the ass in due time.

This article may be one of the angrier critiques of Fahrenheit 9/11 that I’ve seen. But there is a lot at stake; though ousting Bush is currently the largest preoccupation of The Left(tm), there are larger issues at stake. Painting the problem of the BuShites with such a large, oversimplistic brush can be very damaging to The Left. This article concludes:

Michael Moore, whatever his much-hyped working class origins, has become a part of the otherwise hated “media elite” no less than the networks and newspapers that manufacture consent for the endless war. If we let our cheering drown out any misgivings about the subtly dangerous (if garbled) ideas he is purveying, we are still being empty receptacles for propaganda–just propaganda that we like this time.

Beware Mooremania–this is manufactured, mass-produced dissent. And it is no substitute for the real thing.

I like this concept of “dissent lite.” It feels good, and it gives people a place to put their rage toward the BuShites. But the hollowness of Moore’s arguments in the film demonstrate that The Left is overripe for rejuvenation.

It comes down to the fact that the American Two-Party system has managed to consolidate power too narrowly. People still think in terms of political dualism, with each pole represented by “Democrat” and “Republican,” or more generically “Liberal” and “Conservative.”

It will be interesting to see what this overripeness on The Left will result; can another party gain enough strength to seriously challenge the Democrats? Or is the current state of the Democratic party the response of Empire? Right now, many on The Left are so worried about the BuShites that they are railing against others on the Left — Ralph Nader, for example.

The “anyone but Bush” meme, therefore, can be taken as a defense tactic by Empire to preserve its power. And it appears to be working quite effectively.

No, I’m not talking about the website for weather. I’m talking about the Weather Underground Organization, also known as the Weathermen. Apparently, there was a documentary film made recently about them. I saw an interview with the filmmakers, it looks very interesting.

I don’t know much about them, but I do want to check out the film; there is a BitTorrent link for those intrepid sea robbers out there.

I’ve been thinking more about Kerry, Michael Moore, and the political dialogue in America. I think that one effect of Fahrenheit 9/11 is that it will definitely shift the political dialogue to highlight the wrongdoings of the BuShites. This is, in part, a good thing; public awareness of the blatant, reckless, and overagressive actions of the BuShites should be higher in public awareness.

The problem is that I fear this shift in dialogue will reinforce the “anyone but Bush” meme. Moore’s polemic against the BuShites creates the illusion that everything was hunky-dory until they stole power. This is simply not the case.

As an example of what I mean, look at the recent speeches by Kerry, according to CNN:

He accused Bush of misleading America over Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction and al Qaeda connections, and said the president had broken his promises to build “a true international coalition,” honor the U.N. weapons inspection process and go to war only as a last resort.

But while Kerry says this, he and Edwards also defended their decision to vote for the war in Iraq:

“Based on the information we had the time that we had it, it was the right vote,” Kerry said. “The problem is the president did not honor what he said he would do in the exercise of the authority that he was given.”

Edwards, eating a lunch of salad and pasta beside Kerry at a conference table in the Boeing 757’s front cabin, added: “Not only that, he abused the authority.”

So again, they’re correct about the actions of the BuShites. But they seriously gloss over their own part of the responsibility for the Iraq invasion. When the BuShites were making their claims about Iraq, Saddam, and WMDs, nearly everyone knew or suspected that they were lying. Kerry and Edwards themselves claimed, above, that the BuShites should have respected the UN inspections process. Yet they still voted for the invasion.

Why? There is cognitive dissonance here.

It is interesting to look at some of Bill Clinton’s comments about Iraq. Remember, sanctions continued under the Clinton administration, sanctions that had grave and devastating consequences for the Iraqi people. In an interview on CNN, Clinton defends his decision to continue the sanctions:

I basically believe that the policy that I inherited, which was basically to keep Saddam Hussein in a box and under sanctions, unless and until he fully complied with the U.N. resolutions, was the right policy. It wasn’t so great for the Iraqis, but he didn’t present a substantial threat to anyone else.

This policy is questionable, even for someone like me who isn’t privy to all the details of the Iraqi situation. The sanctions obviously had little effect on Saddam, but devasted the Iraqi people, a reality that Clinton himself admits.

It is policies like this one that lead to such international hatred of America, and ultimatley to things like 9/11. Everyone who dies as a result of American foreign policy reinforces this hatred.

I’m just not convinced that Kerry and Edwards will reverse this trend, though I do concede that they probably would not operate as recklessly or as openly as the BuShites.

I just re-read the Is Truth Enough? article by George Caffentzis. It struck me in two ways. First, in relation to the transfer of power to Iraq, George wrote the following:

the situation is going to change on July 1, 2004 [note: the transfer actually happened two days early, on June 28th]. Using a classic “prestidigital” trick, the Bush Administration on that day will swiftly transform an occupying army into an “invited police force” asked to keep order by a “transitional” government concerned about terrorism in its borders. At that very moment, guerrilla resistance fighters will officially become terrorists, and hence open to the kind of treatment accorded to fighters in Afghanistan (including shipment to Guantanamo). Our movement will then have to face the consequences of this categorical slight-of-hand, since we will find ourselves attacked by the Bush Administration as supporters of terrorism.

George’s prediction, apparently, is coming true, as today the new “Iraqi” government adopted an “emergency powers law” — a description that sounds all-too-familiar to the USA-PATRIOT act — which “gives the interim government the power to declare martial law, set curfews and detain suspected insurgents.” Sounds familiar. I hope they are making more space at Guantanamo Bay.

The second thing that struck me about George’s article is in relation to the main themes of my thinking lately, specifically about John Kerry and the criticism of Fahrenheit 9/11. George writes:

The antiwar movement’s lack of interest in the Bush Administration is one reason why we fail to grasp the underlying imperatives propelling its actions. We look at the ungrammatical President, the secretive Vice-President, the Dr. Strangelovian Secretary of Defense and the Lady Macbeth-like National Security Advisor and conclude that they are “just” lackies of a right-wing conspiracy fueled by the “majors” in oil industry. Such reductionism is not completely accurate, for they are responding to a major crisis throughout the machinery of capitalism that goes beyond (but definitely includes) the profits of the oil companies and the “control of Mideast oil.” The Bush Administration has offered a “solution” to this crisis: a war on terrorism, and all that it means. Their political replacements (perhaps the Democrats) might offer a more multilateral, more union-friendly varient of “the war on terrorism” or a completely “new” solution, but either option must deal with the world-wide crisis of neoliberalism, because that is their business as residents of the White House.

This crisis of neoliberalism is the one unifying, underlying factor that explains US foreign policy in the last three decades. It explains why 9/11 happened in the first place, and it explains why the US government has responded in seemingly illogical ways with its war on terror. There is no solution to the crisis of neoliberalism that does not entail dramatic reorganization of the global economy. And if such reorganization does not happen willfully, carefully, and intellgently, then it will collapse on itself.

We are facing a choice between fundamental change directed intelligently, or collapse, chaos, violence, and greed as desperate people fight viciously for the scraps of flesh left from the dead thousand-scaled dragon of neoliberalism.

I saw Michael Moore’s movie the other day in the theater. While it was well put together, I did have some problems with it. I hadn’t taken the time to work out exactly what the problems were, but then I read this critique of the film over at Common Dreams, written by Robert Jensen. In it, he claims that Fahrenheit 9/11 is a conservative film. How can this be so, when so many “right-wingers” are raging against it, and “left-wingers” are bowing down to it in record numbers?

The critique raises many excellent points (all boldface in all the following quotes were added by me):

Is the administration of George W. Bush full of ideological fanatics? Yes. Have its actions since 9/11 been reckless and put the world at risk? Yes. In the course of pursuing those policies, has it enriched fat-cat friends? Yes.

But it is a serious mistake to believe that these wars can be explained by focusing so exclusively on the Bush administration and ignoring clear trends in U.S. foreign and military policy. In short, these wars are not a sharp departure from the past but instead should be seen as an intensification of longstanding policies, affected by the confluence of this particular administration’s ideology and the opportunities created by the events of 9/11.

This is a very important point, and it is closely connected to what I have been thinking about lately regarding John Kerry. It seems to me that the vast majority of his support comes from the “anyone but Bush” crowd. But this argument of “anyone but Bush” is fatally flawed. Jensen continues:

I agree that Bush should be kicked out of the White House, and if I lived in a swing state I would consider voting Democratic. But I don’t believe that will be meaningful unless there emerges in the United States a significant anti-empire movement. In other words, if we beat Bush and go back to “normal,” we’re all in trouble. Normal is empire building. Normal is U.S. domination, economic and military, and the suffering that vulnerable people around the world experience as a result. This doesn’t mean voters can’t judge one particular empire-building politician more dangerous than another. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t sometimes make strategic choices to vote for one over the other. It simply means we should make such choices with eyes open and no illusions. This seems particularly important when the likely Democratic presidential candidate tries to out-hawk Bush on support for Israel, pledges to continue the occupation of Iraq, and says nothing about reversing the basic trends in foreign policy.

So what is the danger of Moore’s film? How can it possibly be labelled “conservative”? Here is Jensen’s conclusion:

It is obvious that “Fahrenheit 9/11” taps into many Americans’ fear and/or hatred of Bush and his gang of thugs. Such feelings are understandable, and I share them. But feelings are not analysis, and the film’s analysis, unfortunately, doesn’t go much beyond the feeling: It’s all Bush’s fault. That may be appealing to people, but it’s wrong. And it is hard to imagine how a successful anti-empire movement can be built on this film’s analysis unless it is challenged.

The statement I highlighted above says it all. As evil as the Bushites are, the problems in America were around long before they established a chokehold on power.

You have to be careful with blanket statements like “anyone but Bush.” This is magic 101: be careful what you ask for. There is no reason for me to believe that John Kerry will make a noticeable difference. The sooner mainstream America realizes this, the sooner we can begin to undo the damage of our nation’s long and potent history of empire-building.

So John Kerry has chosen John Edwards to be his running mate. I didn’t see video of the announcement, but the photos I saw struck me in a singular way: as he stood on the pulpit, there were signs saying “A Stronger America.” What does this mean?

As I wrote a few days ago, I have seen nothing resembling strength, integrity, authenticity, courage, or inspirational leadership from Kerry, or indeed any of the major Democratic candidates (excepting Dennis Kucinich, and to a lesser extent Howard Dean).

Surely Kerry’s firsthand memory of war in Southeast Asia, provided those memories aren’t buried too deeply underneath the crushing weight of 30 years in the corporate/political machine in Washington, would preclude him from believing that A Stronger America can be achieved through military action. The United States already has the strongest military in the world, yet it is shorthanded for the activities it is engaging in. This tells me that the US military is trying to be too strong.

I’ve heard nothing from Kerry apart from playing-it-safe in his speeches, so as to offend as few people as possible. He’s saying the same things politicians in America have been saying for decades. I want to believe, but all I hear are hollow platitudes driven by polls, by how people will react, by a desperate fear of controversy of any sort.

Is this strength?

I think not. Strength comes from a place of authenticity, which I do not see in Kerry. I have no idea what Kerry believes, all I hear are the poll-driven, calculated statements of his speech writers.

Strength would be speaking his truth from his heart, not reading the prefabricated words of others.

Strength would be taking the Bushites to task for their warmongering, and taking himself to task for voting to allow it in the first place.

Strength would be listening to the increasingly populous Progressive movement, embodied in the Democratic party by Dennis Kucinich.

And finally, strength would be getting a different haircut than Bill Clinton. This also goes for John Edwards’ haircut being different from Al Gore’s. It’s like a time machine; if you don’t wear your glasses and look at Kerry/Edwards, it looks remarkably like Clinton/Gore from a decade ago. Get a new hairstylist, guys…

You, too, can order one of these:

Get ’em while they’re hot…