CommonPrejudice

Losing Faith

Alterman:

I saw a Daily Show montage this morning in which every Republican candidate shouted some version of the argument that Democrats would "raise taxes" and "lose the war" in Iraq. Bush said the same thing yesterday. I get pretty depressed by the state of the world when I see this kind of thing because of how stupid these people assume voters must be...

Must be? Does Alterman believe this type of mindless propaganda doesn't work?

I know I'm getting increasing cynical as I get older. I would love to believe in an intelligent voter, but I just can't. Call me whatever you want.

A Fallen Hero

I haven't followed the crisis in Oaxaca, Mexico all that closely beyond noting the all too typical struggle between the downtrodden, indigenous and working class versus the corrupt and violent status quo that has been going on for some time now. It is the type of thing that has characterized Latin American politics for far too long but almost no one in their comfortable middle class lifestyle in Canada or the United States pays much attention to. I am guilty as well. I should have, minimally, written about it a long time ago.

There are some, however, who pay a great deal of attention to what goes on in struggles such as one in Oaxaca. They dedicate their lives and careers to promoting positive social change, covering the atrocities of those in power and ending the injustices of these tyrannical regimes.

One of them was killed on Friday.

His name was Brad Will.

Here is a (lengthy) excerpt from a first hand account.

As we all clustered in the intersection, the two of us looked around and estimated that there were at least 500 people ready to defend their neighborhood. We were both amazed by what we were seeing. Neither of us had ever witnessed such an incredible display of collective self-defense. We both nearly cried at the inspiring sight of people successfully working together to ward off aggression without centralized leadership. The barricade reclaimed, sandbags replaced, and the Príistas pushed back, the battle appeared for a few moments, to be over.

We're unsure as to the exact reason for the second advance, but we believe that Príistas were again spotted at the next intersection where they had scattered minutes before. As we cautiously advanced, walking in cover when possible, shots were heard from the intersection and everyone ducked or ran for cover. Many corporate news outlets, most notably those relying on AP "reporter" Rebeca Romero (widely believed to be on Ulises Ruiz's payroll), have claimed it was "unclear" as to who shot first. It was the Príistas. From the ground, on the receiving end of the gunfire, there is no doubt as to who shot first. There is nothing "unclear" about it. It was the Príistas, shown by El Universal photos and local television to be armed to the teeth, who shot first.

After the shooting stopped, the group moved quickly to the other side of the road and to the corner where the shots had originated from. The attacking Príistas had retreated back away from the highway and deeper into the neighborhood. Fifty to 100 people slowly advanced north a block into the neighborhood while 200 people gradually moved up, either by going north, or approaching it from the west by way of the barricade. Again the group moved north, taking cover by vehicles parked along the street. In addition to shooters at the far end of the street, more Príistas were taking cover inside a building along the street. The building was targeted with Molotovs, rocks, bricks, and cohetes. Someone kicked the door in before Príistas down the street started shooting again and we had to retreat back to the end of the block. This gave the Príistas time to close and blockade the door. A few attempts with similar results gave way to milling about, as we waited for reinforcements. One block west towards the barricade, about 100 people had gathered to take cover from additional Príistas on that street. Soon we heard a truck roar to life and a few minutes later, compañeros in a dump truck came to provide shielding for another advance. In the first such advance, the truck went too far down the road, shooting started again, at which point we fell back to the end of the block. Most waited there while the truck maneuvered itself horizontally across the street in front of the gate of the targeted building. Once the truck was ready, another advance began and the truck smashed open the gate. Another round of shooting began, and again everyone took cover and began to withdraw.

At this point, Brad Will, an Indymedia reporter from New York, was shot in the abdomen as he was filming. Many people ran to carry him around the block and down the street. As we waited for a car to arrive to take him to the hospital, efforts were made to keep him conscious and breathing, including CPR. As Brad showed signs of consciousness and movement, the crowd surrounding him cheered. He was carried into a car and driven to the hospital. Moments later, as people were still taking in what happened, it started to rain. People gathered up the Molotovs and cohetes and got them out of the rain. About a half hour later, people started to gradually head back to the barricade.

When we arrived at the barricade, we learned from a teary-eyed compañero that Brad had died on his way to the hospital...

Heroes like Will have more journalistic integrity, more dedication and more courage than all of the Ceci Connellys, Judith Millers, Chris Mathews and Thomas Friedmans combined.

A slain Brad Will (Photo:Francisco Olvera, La Jornada)

Mr Will in Oaxaca

The goons and thugs who killed him (via NarcoNews along with the caption):

"Brad Will’s Assassins, identified by El Universal: Juan Carlos Soriano Velasco (red tshirt), a police officer known as “the Grasshopper”; Manuel Aguilar (dark jacket), city personnel director; and public safety chief Avel Santiago Zárate (red shirt) Photo: D.R. 2006 El Universal"

Rest in peace, Mr. Will

(Fox has now sent in the Federal authorities to Oaxaca to pacify the situation. That certainly won't be easy. It has been my experience that when a government heavily invested in the status quo undertakes something like this little change is the result (despite the different political parties, make no mistake at all, the PAN is very much representitive of the status quo). The result usually isn't much more than  "a bottle cap" plugging the explosive social situation for the time being, with no change in government. And the stuggle will continue and the people will some day rise up again to confront their oppressors, with more senseless death the inevitable result. I hope this isn't the case this time, but I fear it is.

To see some accounts of what is going on between the people of Oaxaca and the corrupt and criminal PRI governor Ulises Ruiz and his gangs you can click here, here or here to get started. To read more of Brad Will you can go here, here, here, here, or here. To see Brad Will's last video you can go here [In Spanish])

The New 'White Trash'

As the United States heads into its important congressional elections it is widely recognized that triviality and superficiality are playing an ever increasing role in determining the victors come election time.

Many, myself included, have spent a fair amount of time criticizing the lack of substance, the distractions away from issues of paramount importance, the excessive consumerism and the corrupt democratic practices. However, we probably don't spend enough time looking for causes, beyond the stereotypical anti-American bias. Der Spiegel editor Gabor Steingart's new book is excerpted in the online Spiegel site, offering a class perspective on the causes and realities of this detachment and superficiality, specifically relating to globalization and the burgeoning "white trash" class in Germany and throughout western Europe:

The destitute laborer of old had something that today's poor no longer have: He knew who the enemy was; he had a class identity; he often even had a well-developed culture. He sang songs, fought his political fights, founded associations and idolized social theoreticians, even if he didn't fully understand them....

We know, for example, that today's proletariat is richer than the worker of generations past. Indeed, with a little skill, he can tap into the coffers of the state's social safety net, which provides him with access to an income comparable to those of police officers, warehouse workers and taxi drivers. Thus, it is not material poverty that separates him from others.

Rather, what stand out are the symptoms of intellectual neglect. The poor of today watch television for half the day. These days, television producers even refer to what they call "Underclass TV." The new proletariat eats a lot of fatty foods and he enjoys smoking and drinking -- a lot. About 8 percent of Germans consume 40 percent of all the alcohol sold in the country. While he may be a family man, his families are often broken. And on Election Day, he casts a protest vote for the extreme left or right wing party, sometimes switching quickly from one to the other. [Of course there is no significant extreme left party in the U.S.]

But the main thing that sets the modern poor apart from the industrial age pauper is a sheer lack of interest in education. Today's proletariat has little education and no interest in obtaining more. Back in the early days of industrialization, the poor joined worker associations that often doubled as educational associations. The modern member of the underclass, by contrast, has completely shunned personal betterment.

He likewise makes little effort to open the door to the future for his own children. Their language skills are as bad as their ability to concentrate. The rising rate of illiteracy is matched by the shrinking opportunities to integrate the underclass. The Americans, not ones to mince words, call them "white trash." ...

It really seems that more than anything this age of previously unknown riches and crass consumerism has led to an astounding anti-intellectualism to the point where there is a palpable hostility to rationality and common sense. And,as Steingart says, there seems to be no desire to remedy the situation through education or a concern for the world their children will inherit.

When the leader of a nation with the capacity to unleash wars of tremendous peril and destruction can be determined by 'who you would rather have a beer with' it can only mean that there are serious societal problems that go infinitely beyond party politics. Now the state of the world as it is today - with global warming presenting monumental challenges and the war in Iraq killing hundreds of thousands of people -it is certainly understandable why every effort must be made to dethrone the criminal clan currently occupying the White House. However those partisan Democrats who believe that a change in the government is anything more than a short term solution to the current chaos are clearly missing the forest for the trees.

Unless societies as a whole can begin to deal with the profound lack of interest in simply educating oneself and striving to create a more just, sustainable and peaceful world in the rapidly changing social and political environment globalization brings, it becomes almost impossible to view the future of this planet in any sort of optimistic fashion.

On that note, how bout' those 'skins. Man they suck this year.

Powerful Episode

I just finished watching a rerun of Law and Order: Criminal Intent (originally aired December 4th, 2005) called 'Scared Crazy':

It was quite the strong indictment of the pro-torture US government and their actions in Guantanamo. And now this type of conduct is officially sanctioned.

From the show:

Dr. Pynchon: We are fighting terrorists.
Robert Goren: With terror. 'What does that make me?' Is that the question you asked yourself?

------

Alex Eames: Everyone said he wouldn't hurt a fly. Torture changed him.
Robert Goren: Evil changes everybody

The United States can be a pretty screwed up society, but there are some in it that really know how to do things right, such as the writers of this show. And Robert Goren (Vincent D'Onofrio) is easily one of the best characters on television.

A very good episode and a damn powerful statement. Watch it if you get the chance.

I'm Not Paranoid. It's Just All Elections Are Fixed.

Not to beat the conspiracy drum or anything, but I believe special attention should be paid to the run-off election in Ecuador and the upcoming first round in Nicaragua.

Latest polls show that in Nicaragua old Sandinista Daniel Ortega is up anywhere from 8 to 15 points with only a couple of weeks left in the campaign. (For my money Ortega is a corrupt has-been and I would like to see a break off party, the Sandinista Renewal Movement under Edmundo Jarquin, doing better. Currently they are in 4th place with only 10% of the vote)

But look at the warning coming from the US State Department:

The United States warned its citizens on Tuesday to be vigilant in Nicaragua in case there are violent protests around the hotly contested November 5 presidential election...

Given the U.S. criminal role in the country's past and the almost certain fraud in the recent Mexican election, I am inclined to be a tad suspicious when I hear the U.S. government talking about 'violent protests' in an election where an anti-U.S. candidate seems to be comfortably ahead with only a couple of weeks left.

Well, I'm sure it's nothing to worry about. It's just a paranoid age we're living in, right......right?

A Crackdown on Corruption in Cuba

Cuba confronts the corruption endemic in its socialist system.

In the wake of an unusual investigation by Cuban state journalists into public employees who regularly cheat customers, Havana has announced an even more surprising response: a study of what’s wrong with the entire system.

But the study won’t be all. New rules aimed at cracking down on widespread fraud at state businesses will take effect Jan. 2, the Communist Party newspaper Granma reported Wednesday...

On the surface, leftists and rightists alike (authentic ones anyway) would agree that corruption is something that must be dealt with. But I believe in Cuba's case it is precisely the corruption that has made life at all livable in the closed, hierarchal system it exists under. I think change will result from this focus on corruption just not in the manner some see it.

‘’I think we are probably at the verge of a new policy shift,’’ said St. Thomas University economics professor Maria Dolores Espinosa. ``Maybe they are looking at mixing some amount of market and moral incentives. Right now the only reason to work in Cuba is to steal. Otherwise, people would not be working.’

I disagree. I don't believe they are striving for a mixture of market and moral incentives. Nothing in the political leadership to date would seem to indicate that in the near future they are considering a market/social mix in the economy. The article quotes from the Granma:

’There must be a scientific method to organize society economically and politically so it may function better,’’ the paper quoted Ernesto Molina, consulting professor of the Department of Economic Disciplines and Management Techniques at the Superior Institute of International Relations, as saying. ``What we must not do is to allow the market to transform the economic structure of this country all by itself.’’

I think rather they believe that a reduction of the corruption and a crackdown on the black market will free up enough resources to enable the economy to function well enough to meet everyone's needs and continue to allow the state 100% control over most market mechanisms.

But it is essentially a chicken/egg scenario. If the system met everyone's needs then there wouldn't be the massive corruption. Removing the corruption won't lead to a healthier economy and a better disbursement of goods and services. It will make things worse because there will be fewer options to pursue outside the failed economic system. It reminds me quite a bit of the argument I read a few months ago in John Gray's False Dawn.

...The Soviet system which Gorbachev sought to renew was not reformable. It lacked political legitimacy in Russia and in the 'near abroad of Soviet nationalities.' Outside its enormous military sector, the Soviet economy worked only insofar as it sheltered black and grey markets. The Brezhnev 'era of stagnation' was, for some people in some regions of the Soviet Union, an era of boom, since it institutionalized corruption and so enabled market exchange to flourish.

Gorbachev's reform programme began as an anti-corruption campaign. Its main aim was an 'acceleration' (uskoriniye) of the economy. Among its first results was an economic slowdown, followed by collapse. The Soviet system of central planning could not function without the markets it condemned as criminal....

Sounds very much like what is going on now in Cuba. I can say from personal experience that the black market in Cuba is absolutely essential for the system as a whole. Without this outlet and without the corruption there is little doubt that the entire system would have collapsed years ago.

The good news is that this attempt to limit corruption will probably hasten changes in the Cuban economic and political structure because the frustration will become even more felt, leading to greater discontent and this time, with a political situation that is already in flux, action. This in turn may allow the fruition of these changes leading to a genuine mixture of market and social incentives in the economy - as long as the neo-liberals in Washington keep their paws off the country (by no means a certainty). In the short run, though, I would not be optimistic about improving economic conditions in Cuba through the reduction of corruption.

And just to be clear to some may have wandered onto this site - a progressive or leftist isn't necessarily one who argues against the use of markets but rather against unregulated markets, trading deals based on unbalanced political and economic ties that don't offer protection from the pitfalls of the market even under a good situation or, simply put, economic imperialism.

A Little Sensitive to Name Calling Are We

So Bush goes to visit speaks to the leader of India, a member of the nuclear club in Asia. What do you think Bush would choose to talk about?

Chavez of course.

On Monday, October 16, President Bush spoke to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The Indian side was expecting reassurances about the fate of the nuclear deal, still stuck in the mire of the American legislative system. But, apart from a perfunctory reassurance on the matter, President Bush chose to concentrate on another issue -- the United Nations Security Council.

No, it was not about India's presence or absence at the high table, but the identity of the next representative from Latin America...

Seem a little schoolyard to you? (Syria was a member of the previous Security Council you may recall)

The World's Greatest Democracy

(From Barron's via Alterman)

"Look at House races back to 1972 and you'll find the candidate with the most money has won about 93% of the time. And that's closer to 98% in more recent years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. ... Our method isn't quite as accurate in Senate races: The cash advantage has spelled victory about 89% of the time since 1996...."

Because as George Will loves to argue, spending your money on a political candidate is simply a question of free speech. And being rich in America only means you have more to say. No wonder their notions of democracy are so well-received throughout the world.

"A cretinous bag of rotting pig meat"

Otherwise known as Rush Limbaugh.

Those were Digby's words and were addressing the blowhard's claim that Micheal J. Fox's recent commercials were done with Fox off his medication or that he was acting. This is par for the course for the embarrassment to humanity, as in this post it is demonstrated how ridiculous Limbaugh's claims are.

At the bottom of the post Digby links to this Washington Post article on Fox's foray into the congressional elections and his subsequent commercial regarding the senate race in Maryland between Democrat Benjamin Cardin and Republican Michael Steele. I want to highlight two points which are typical of the vacuousness of mainstream media.

First, about halfway down the article states:

"To me, this is a shame that they're exploiting someone like Michael J. Fox for something that the scientists say is not going to do anything," said Douglas Stiegler, executive director of Maryland's Family Protection Lobby.

Of course there is nothing wrong with seeking out the opinion of someone like Stiegler. However, if the statement is verifiably false then a competent journalist would follow it with a reality check.The writer of the story, Mathew Mosk, though, doesn't. It isn't until later he writes:

Cardin aides said Fox contacted the campaign after seeing news accounts of Steele's position on the research.

Now this doesn't necessarily prove that Fox made the first contact, but it would be very easy to confirm. If so, how can Fox be the one being exploited? However Mosk makes no attempt to link the two comments or confront the apparent misrepresentation done by Steigler.

Secondly, Mosk says this about Steele:

But he has maintained his position that research on embryos is not needed, especially, he has said, because there is promising research being done on adult stem cells. Heye said yesterday that Steele opposes only stem cell research that destroys the embryo.

It is my understanding that this is simply not true; that adult stem cells are limited in what they can serve for, while embryonic stem cells are limitless. The point, however, is that a reporter for the Washington Post, with a 5 minute phone call or 10 minutes on Google is certainly capable of addressing this question. It is not about an opinion, it is about a scientific fact.

I will continue to repeat this. A reporter's job is not to be a stenographer. Verify, confirm, investigate. Do your goddamn job.

Protest Against CAFTA in Costa Rica

In the last country not to ratify CAFTA, the opposition to the Central American trade deal took to the streets yesterday:

Around 10,000 Costa Ricans protested on Monday against a free trade deal with the United States, calling on the legislature to reject the agreement.

The demonstrators marched through the streets of San Jose and other towns to protest against the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) that will remove trade barriers between Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, the United States, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua.

A General Strike continues today. One survey had 70% of the Costa Rican people believing that the trade deal would benefit the U.S. more than Costa Rica - which makes sense because it almost certainly would.

A couple of months ago I started a post on Costa Rica and the trade deal but didn't complete it. I'll mention a couple of things now that I had planned to then. First, Costa Rica is pretty well split between supporters and opponents of the deal. Last spring's election saw current president Oscar Arias beat challenger Otton Solis by only 18,167 votes out of 1.4 million cast. (The final result took weeks to sort out and Solis's claims of irregularities were rejected by election officials. Sounds familiar doesn't it. Amazing how the pro-US candidates squeak by and election authorities reject any claim of irregularities. I guess you just have to chalk it up to pure good fortune)

Now look at what Arias said a couple of months ago after being sworn in:

Sovereignty is not defended with prejudices or slogans but with work and with concrete plans to bring prosperity to Costa Rica. Isolating Costa Rica from great movements in the modern world is a reactionary cause and a betrayal of the country's youth,...

He is learning well from his Washington mentors. Rejection of a free trade deal with the United States is by no means - obviously - a path to isolationism and certainly not a betrayal of the country's youth. It is simply absurd to claim it is. The so-called free trade deals with the US have often resulted in an almost perverted from of development with laborers and agricultural workers paying the stiffest price while the rich become much more so. One only needs to look at what effect NAFTA has had on Mexico to see this. (See here, here and here for example). And Arias has made an even more ridiculous claim:

Nobody would invest a penny in this country if we're not part of the free trade deal with the United States.''

Of course this is nonsense. Europe is certainly interested in expanded trade relations with Latin America and the Costa Rica has many trade options within the Western hemisphere itself without having to resort to an abandonment of its economic sovereignty under a trade deal with an infinitely larger and more powerful nation that cares little beyond what it can gain for itself.This is even more the case under the Bush clan. A couple of months ago, in preparation for the congressional elections now just two weeks away, Bush made commitments to House members from textile producing states to make changes to CAFTA to ensure passage of CAFTA. This included a deals to preserve pocketing and lining business in the U.S and to protect U.S. cotton and man-made trouser business in Nicaragua. Do you think they will play fair? From an AP story last April:

Despite skepticism among U.S. labor groups and Congress, those agreements have been an unqualified success for American exporters. For example, U.S. exports to Chile have almost doubled, to $5.2 billion (€4.19 billion) last year, in the two years since the two countries signed a deal, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative said.

But among Latin Americans, the dollar diplomacy has left a bitter taste.

"Nobody who sat across the negotiating table from the United States came out of the talks feeling they got a fair deal," said Peter Hakim, president of the nonpartisan Inter-American Dialogue think tank in Washington. "And many feel they’ve been outright cheated."

Part of the failure to impress is attributable to a surge of leftist leaders in Latin America, who’ve deftly capitalized on the region’s traditional protectionism and mistrust of Washington.

But even economists concede that free trade has barely helped the region reduce widespread poverty, which has remained stagnant for decades.

Moreover, the pacts may end up hurting farmers and rural peasants who make up almost half of Latin America’s 500 million people. By permanently locking in trade preferences, countries entering trade deals are effectively turning a blind eye to the $17 billion (€13.68 billion) that U.S. farmers receive annually in government subsidies, making it extremely tough to compete.

Of course this doesn't stop such Tommy Friedman wannabes like Andres Oppenheimer from depicting opponents as greedy or looking out for themselves while at the same time the other side simply has Costa Rica's best interest in mind.

...Not surprisingly, powerful business people and union leaders who could lose their protected fiefdoms if forced to face greater international competition argue that the country's economic opening has widened the income gap. Free trade supporters counter that a growing economy benefits everybody, and that the failure to lift more people from poverty stems among other things from ridiculously low tax collection levels.

There is an abundance of evidence that the path to economic and social development in Latin America is far more complex than simply throwing open the doors to foreign investment. Even Oppenheimer notes what has happened in Costa Rica as the Wasington Consensus model began in the country.

...Part of the problem is that, as newly released census figures show, Costa Rica's economic expansion in recent years has greatly benefited the rich, but has failed to do much for the poor. While the top 20 percent of the population increased its per capita income by 96 percent between 1988 and 2004, the bottom 20 percent of the population saw its income rise by only 7 percent, the figures show...

Arias however does not appear to favour dialogue this time (he won the Nobel Peace Prize for helping end the wars in Central American in the 1980s by doing just that). Rodrigo, his brother and cabinet spokesperson said Monday:

Demonstrators are asking the government to withdraw the free trade agreement from the legislature: a demand we cannot accept. This government is acting coherently, as it announced in its campaign for office. This agreement is needed by the country.

With a nation so divided on this issue it would seem to be more prudent to undertake a more conciliatory position, open up a dialogue and perhaps best of all, hold a referendum on the free trade deal, especially given the extremely narrow margin of victory in the election last spring. But whereas dialogue can be used to stop war, this is about money and apparently there can be no compromise here.