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 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…
This article by Martin Schram, published in the Cincinnati Post from my ultra-conservative hometown, explains exactly why I’m so suspicious of Kerry. From the article:
But there is one place where you really haven’t heard those tough truths spoken — and that’s any place Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry is speaking. That is too bad and quite sad. Because now more than ever in modern history the American people need and deserve to be told the tough but undeniable truths about the choice we face and the decision we must make on Election Day.
After I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 last night, there was a guy campaigning for Kerry outside the theater. I got really really angry at Kerry, and I wasn’t quite sure why at the time. Now I know. It’s the same reason why I don’t trust Kerry. Here’s my logic:
This article is right on the money. John Kerry is in an unprecedented position to do a tremendous amount of good, and effect some seriously positive change in the world. To do so will require quite a bit of courage. The sad part is, I have seen not one iota of courage from him in this area. Every time I listen to him, I hear him saying the same kind of crap that American politicians have been spewing for decades.
I want to believe in Kerry. I think he’s got to be the favorite to win the election this year, assuming of course that there will actually be a real election. But for to believe in him, I need for him to open up to his heart, and do what he knows is right, not what will be most likely to win him votes. It’s a situation of safety, vs. honor. It’s a tough lesson, but these days I’d try to choose honor every time.
I just saw that my article has been published in vol. 9 of The Commoner. From the introduction to the issue:
The first contribution by James W. Lindenshmidt is a detailed analysis of the dynamic of revolution and counter-revolution of cyberspace. Borrowing from the theoretical frameworks of Midnight Notes and of this journal, he explains the nitty-gritty of the creation of virtual commons and the open and subtle strategies promoted by capital to enclose and commodify this space. In this way, it is possible to identify how capital creates scarcity in a post-scarcity virtual space. These enclosures of the virtual commons are not enforced by shotguns or by depleted-uranium missiles. The virtual enclosures are perfectly enforceable, because the rules of enforcement are being architected into the code of the Internet itself. Cyberspace is malleable, and it is increasingly being cast into a space with an infrastructure of built-in, centralized control.
This publication has been brewing for a while. I’m glad to see it’s seeing the light of day. I’m looking forward to reading the rest of the articles.
Believe it or not, it’s true. Even they can see the wisdom of abandoning Internet Explorer.
I know several people that are switching to Mozilla Firefox. It’s easy to do, switch and most likely you won’t regret it.
My life has been insanely busy as of late. Among this busy-ness has been a tremendous amount of creative output, just beginning, for my music and the album recording. Somewhat paradoxically, a big part of this output has entailed a lot of input, namely technical manuals learning how to use the recording gear.
As a result, apart from some light blogging on this site, my writing has come to a standstill. I haven’t had time or energy or inspiration to write lately. But today, for the first time in a long time, I felt the call to begin writing again.
I may not act upon this call, at least not right away. I have no idea what I’d write about. Perhaps it’s time for a larger writing project again. I’m not sure I have the stomach for more political rants and analysis on the dangers of the current intellectual property culture. Perhaps something more metaphysical would be to my taste. But every time I conceive of such a project (a good friend and I have sort of danced around the idea of collaborating on such a project for a long time now), it occurs to me that I can’t see why anyone would want to read what I have to say on such subjects. Pretty ironic, that I can go effortlessly into rant mode when it comes to Intellectual Property, or Linux, or the Bushites. As if anyone really wants to hear about this…
Another part of me knows that writing, though I enjoy it (to an extent) and I feel I have some skill, requires enough time and attention that it presently can be no more than a hobby for me. My attention is commanded by other things, things that I am not willing to sacrifice for writing. I’ve waited too long to record my own music. Now that the process is finally, after so many years, underway, it needs as much attention as I can give it.
Regardless, though, I heard the call of the scribe today. Perhaps I need to listen closer, and decipher the whisperings floating through the mists, and distinguish them from the rhythmic white noise lapping at the shore all around me. The whispering, the articulate sighs that pass over lips like a spent lover drifting off to sleep, what do they say?
This is just amazing. I can imagine the recall letters:
Hi, we’ve decided to cut your pay and your benefits as a veteran. But now we’re recalling you back into active service to go and put your ass on the line for our selfish interests in Afghanistan and Iraq. Furthermore, you’ll be protecting all the oil industry contractors from Halliburton, who are all making more than 10 times what you’ll be making. Have a nice day, and may God continue to bless the United Empire of America.
Unbelievable. The fact that we have the largest military in the world, and that we’re shorthanded, speaks volumes.
