I read and article about Scotland's wish for more independence. It can be found here.
The article essentially said that U.K. politicians want Scotland to vote against independence but in return will grant Scotland more power.
This could either be a move on Scotland's part towards true independence or towards the institution of a more federal system in the U.K. If Scotland were to become independent, I'm curious how the U.K. and Scotland will handle the surely difficult adjustment.
Thursday, March 20, 2014
Gay Cows
I read an article about Ugandan First Lady Janet Museveni's recent statement in support of their new anti-homosexual legislation. She said, "If cows do not practice homosexuality, how could we the human beings start arguing over homosexuality?"
This made me giggle. First off, homosexuality has been observed in many different species of animals. Here's a link.
Second off, even if no animals were homosexual that does not mean that therefore homosexuality is evil or bad. This is a non sequitur.
This made me giggle. First off, homosexuality has been observed in many different species of animals. Here's a link.
Second off, even if no animals were homosexual that does not mean that therefore homosexuality is evil or bad. This is a non sequitur.
America's Solipsistic Foreign Policy
I read an article, found here, detailing Putin's defense for the Crimea situation. Also, Putin takes this chance to attack the west and more specifically the U.S. for themselves not obeying international law.
I will use this post to perhaps clarify my position, as I have posted on alot of blogs on this topic.
First off, for me, things are right or wrong, just or unjust, only if you consciously decide by what norms you are going to judge them by. For justice to exist at all, it may only exist ad hoc for a particular norm which one has installed, which one has synthesized. Essentially, there is no justice incarnate, to quote Michel Foucault, "in a classless society, there would be no just or unjust."
On to the actual topic.
Russia declares that Russia is perfectly right in its acquisition of Crimea. Furthermore, it says that this was done so democratically and peacefully. For the most part, so far, this is true. "Democrat" means domination of the people and so the vote that took place in Crimea, in which an overwhelming majority voted to join Russia (even if a large portion of the vote was faked, as it likely was, most Crimeans still want to join Russia), was indeed democratic. As for peaceful, only one soldier died in the take-over, so it was relatively peaceful as far as take-overs go.
Russia also accuses the U.S. of disregarding, or perhaps not even being aware of international law. Russia uses a couple of examples, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Serbia, to make its point.
There is much more truth to this.
The Age of Imperialism supposedly ended after World War II ended, with the last European colonies gaining independence in the 70's. However, now has dawned a new age of Imperialism; it is now the time of uncontested American Imperialism. While we make no permanent land gains, as the value that once made that profitable is now obsolete, nevertheless the U.S. continues to flex its imperial muscles throughout the globe.
Iraq was fought for the oil that the country possesses. We invaded a sovereign country (albeit, it was lead by a tyrant) for our own benefit. This sounds quite a bit like an Empire.
In Iran, when the Prime minister attempted to nationalize the oil industry in the fifties and thus he endangered American business interests, we supported a coup and installed a corrupt, overly-opulent Shah in his place. Thus, the people in Iran were incredibly angry and overthrew him a decade-and-a-half later. Though this particular time backfired, we acted only in our own self-interest.
In Afghanistan in the 1980's, in an attempt to halt the Soviet advance, we armed what would eventually become the Taliban with everything from rifles to Stinger missiles.
The only major reason the west got involved in Libya was because of oil.
In the 1980's, the U.S. supported the regime in Cambodia that eventually killed a third of its own people. The sole reason for our support was because Cambodia was not friendly with China and Russia.
The U.S. is the country which most often vetoes resolutions on the UN Security Council.
It seems the U.S. is by-far the most solipsistic, spurious, and specious country on the international stage. It is only we who declare to be a staunch defender of human rights everywhere and then support a ruthless dictator; only we fiercely defend the idea of sovereignty, yet have almost continuously been involved in the destruction another nation's sovereignty; only we have the balls to be the same nation that piously propagated the Monroe Doctrine of anti-Imperialism that also remains the last and strongest imperial power to date.
Hence, Russia sees the supposed leader of the free and democratic world behave in a manner as such and thinks it wants to behave as such as well. It is only behaving by the norms that we ourselves have set, synthesized, and forced upon the world. The U.S. can invade other countries at-a-whim, so why can Russia not?
I will use this post to perhaps clarify my position, as I have posted on alot of blogs on this topic.
First off, for me, things are right or wrong, just or unjust, only if you consciously decide by what norms you are going to judge them by. For justice to exist at all, it may only exist ad hoc for a particular norm which one has installed, which one has synthesized. Essentially, there is no justice incarnate, to quote Michel Foucault, "in a classless society, there would be no just or unjust."
On to the actual topic.
Russia declares that Russia is perfectly right in its acquisition of Crimea. Furthermore, it says that this was done so democratically and peacefully. For the most part, so far, this is true. "Democrat" means domination of the people and so the vote that took place in Crimea, in which an overwhelming majority voted to join Russia (even if a large portion of the vote was faked, as it likely was, most Crimeans still want to join Russia), was indeed democratic. As for peaceful, only one soldier died in the take-over, so it was relatively peaceful as far as take-overs go.
Russia also accuses the U.S. of disregarding, or perhaps not even being aware of international law. Russia uses a couple of examples, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Serbia, to make its point.
There is much more truth to this.
The Age of Imperialism supposedly ended after World War II ended, with the last European colonies gaining independence in the 70's. However, now has dawned a new age of Imperialism; it is now the time of uncontested American Imperialism. While we make no permanent land gains, as the value that once made that profitable is now obsolete, nevertheless the U.S. continues to flex its imperial muscles throughout the globe.
Iraq was fought for the oil that the country possesses. We invaded a sovereign country (albeit, it was lead by a tyrant) for our own benefit. This sounds quite a bit like an Empire.
In Iran, when the Prime minister attempted to nationalize the oil industry in the fifties and thus he endangered American business interests, we supported a coup and installed a corrupt, overly-opulent Shah in his place. Thus, the people in Iran were incredibly angry and overthrew him a decade-and-a-half later. Though this particular time backfired, we acted only in our own self-interest.
In Afghanistan in the 1980's, in an attempt to halt the Soviet advance, we armed what would eventually become the Taliban with everything from rifles to Stinger missiles.
The only major reason the west got involved in Libya was because of oil.
In the 1980's, the U.S. supported the regime in Cambodia that eventually killed a third of its own people. The sole reason for our support was because Cambodia was not friendly with China and Russia.
The U.S. is the country which most often vetoes resolutions on the UN Security Council.
It seems the U.S. is by-far the most solipsistic, spurious, and specious country on the international stage. It is only we who declare to be a staunch defender of human rights everywhere and then support a ruthless dictator; only we fiercely defend the idea of sovereignty, yet have almost continuously been involved in the destruction another nation's sovereignty; only we have the balls to be the same nation that piously propagated the Monroe Doctrine of anti-Imperialism that also remains the last and strongest imperial power to date.
Hence, Russia sees the supposed leader of the free and democratic world behave in a manner as such and thinks it wants to behave as such as well. It is only behaving by the norms that we ourselves have set, synthesized, and forced upon the world. The U.S. can invade other countries at-a-whim, so why can Russia not?
Saturday, March 1, 2014
The Bias of the Western Media: A Polemic
I read a slew of articles from multiple sources detailing the current civil unrest that is occurring in Venezuela. The first one, from "The Guardian," details how opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez is currently detained and awaiting trial for the crimes of criminal incitement and arson. President Maduro also apparently (and quite appropriately) called him a fascist. This one, written by an apologist in the "Huffington Post," juxtaposes the mainstream American media's interpretation of the unrest with the actuality of the situation. This one details the bias of the actual opposition by their use of faked photos. This one, details the political and economic sorrow in Venezuela from a balanced perspective. And finally, this one is a summary of Wikileaks documents detailing the rise of opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez and the U.S. government's desire to form a united opposition.
(1)History
First off, one should probably read up on the various Venezuelan politicians, most notable of which is definitely Hugo Chavez. I am just going to cover the basics with a focus on the U.S.'s involvement in Venezuela.
Chavez was elected in early 1999. He was elected legitimately and on a platform of centre-left social democracy. He began instituting social democratic policies and was incredibly popular especially among the poor. Throughout his presidency, Chavez become increasingly left. By the end of his presidency, Chavez had become quite the Marxist, though not in the 20th century, Leninist fashion; but rather an adapted version of modern times. Chavez liked to call it "Socialism in the 21st century."
In April of 2002, there was an attempted coup to oust Chavez in favor of a right-wing strongman. The coup was backed mostly by the elites and some members of the military complex, but most disturbingly, the coup was also backed by the United States, both our government and media. The day after the supposedly successful coup the "New York Times" even went as far to commend this undemocratic, Machiavellian, totalitarian power-grab. The U.S. government had prior knowledge to the coup and likely supported it when it was in its infancy. Three days after the start of the coup, the soldiers who were supposed to detain (and possibly kill) Chavez could not bear to kill their leader and refused to act. The coup thus failed due to Chavez' immense popularity with the soldiers and people.
Chavez' response was relatively moderate - there were no hangings like some in our media may lead you to believe. He readjusted some of his policies in order to satisfy some of the opposition including reappointing the former members of the board of directors at the state oil company which was a primary reason for the coup. He even appointed some of the coup plotters back to their former position.
When attempting to further nationalize the nation's oil reserves later that same year, Chavez faced what the Venezuelan media called a "general strike" by the nation's oil workers. However, it was primarily the managers, business leaders, and technical workers involved in the strike, essentially meaning that this so-called "general strike" was really an "elitist strike" dissatisfied with their diminished political power. The Chavez administration fired some of the strikers and filled their role with members of the military and unemployed. The strike then ended.
Hugo Chavez died in 2013 from Cancer. He was succeeded by Nicolas Maduro who was then Vice-President. Though not as popular as Chavez, Maduro narrowly won the election that occurred shortly after he assumed the presidency. The election was ranked fair by most (if not all) world-wide democracy and election ranking institutes. Maduro's main program thus far in his presidency has been the attempt to curve Venezuela's high crime rates. So-far, they have been moderately successful.
(2)Analysis
It should be noted that it is facetious and extremely misleading to call President Maduro the "bus driver". While true he did in fact drive a bus in his younger and more vulnerable years, he has been in politics since the early 80s and helped start the party that got Chavez elected in the first place. He was also the Foreign Minister from 2006-2013 and the Vice President 2012-2013. Calling Maduro the "bus driver" or "Chavez' bus driver" would be like calling any of our past three presidents the "pot-smoker" simply because they smoked pot in their youth. Plus, why is it even a bad thing for the president of a country to be a former bus driver? Does that not embody the "American Dream" better than we ourselves embody it? Instead of addressing the intelligence of the actor and the effectiveness of his policies, calling him the "bus driver" simply caricatures him and-in-so-doing disregards the complexity of the situation. It fails to even address the situation.
Within Venezuelan media there is a prevalent trend to consistently attack Chavez' reforms regardless of the actual substance of the specific reform. The amount of vitriol in the Venezuelan media towards anything Chavez only does the country a deep disservice. Instead of reporting on the news, the news actively conspires against the government, and they use their affluence to fund and promote opposition leaders and organization. After all, the opposition controls most of the wealth in Venezuela. The bias can be shown by what the opposition called the select strike in 2002: a "general strike." The media in Venezuela fails to do the job that is assigned to it: provide adequate news to the Venezuelan people. Hence, the actual government - that is, not the government as the opposition would have believe them to be - is at a severe disadvantage. Much of the success of the socialist-inspired programs is dependent upon proper knowledge of that program by the Venezuelan people.
Despite the popular misconception concerning the Venezuelan government's involvement and censorship of the media, 95% of the Venezuelan media is privately owned, and a good chunk of them - easily a majority - are anti-Chavez/Maduro. By-enlarge, the Venezuelan media is owned or significantly influenced by business elites, wealthy landowners, and foreign corporate dogs, all of whom are tactically against Chavez' reforms for reasons characteristic of corrupt bourgeois slave-masters. It would be as-if 95% of the U.S. media were owned by Rupert Murdoch and geared toward producing the pre-packaged, reactionary, laissez-faire rhetoric that Fox News has become famous for.
The bias of the the Venezuelan media is mirrored in the west. A couple of weeks ago, NPR gave a glowing report on the potential for a violent regime change in Venezuela. This only encourages people in the west to be unnecessarily critical of the Venezuelan regime. Which in turn, causes the western governments to become even more anti-Venezuela. Which then causes the Venezuelan government to reciprocate that distrust and hate, only leading to a vicious cycle of self-reinforcing misinformation and vitriol.
The Venezuelan media has become somewhat more moderate (it is still extremely vitriolic towards Maduro though) since the first coup in 2002. Most stations no longer actively promote violence like they did before the 2002 coup. However, due to the calming-down of the most of the Venezuelan media towards a more acceptable form of opposition, there has recently been a split within the opposition regarding the most appropriate way to fight Maduro. The less-extreme wing still opposes Maduro but wishes to see more unity and less polarization in Venezuelan politics. They are headed by Capriles. The more-extreme wing of the opposition is headed by Leopoldo Lopez and promotes the use of violence against the Maduro government.
Normally some civil disobedience does not bother me, regardless of where it is coming from. However, the kind of violence that Lopez and his supporters promote is abhorrent. It is categorically different than the kind of disobedience and violence I would normally support. Lopez' supporters not only attack government officials and police and military officers (which is fine), but they also attack workers in public transportation, physicians imported from Cuba to assist in the healthcare system in poor neighborhoods, university students who attend because of a Chavez' program, and other works, programs, and officials who are there to benefit the poor. The assault on the poor, those who ought to be assaulted the least, is what causes me to value the violent opposition as the pernicious monster that it is.
The usually middle to upper class protesters are only protesting to support themselves financially. They have no wish for a more equal Venezuela, because if they did, they would support Maduro or perhaps the less-extreme opposition. Thus, what we now have in Venezuela is not, like the western media would lead you to believe, a mass protest from people of all walks of life against the oppressive and violent Maduro regime; but rather a select class of bourgeois conservative reactionaries intent on violently converting the socialism of Maduro to the liberal policies akin to the Gilded Age in America. The conversion would cause the economic inequality of Venezuela, which has significantly declined in recent years, to reverse. It would stratify the already stratified classes even further.
.
(1)History
First off, one should probably read up on the various Venezuelan politicians, most notable of which is definitely Hugo Chavez. I am just going to cover the basics with a focus on the U.S.'s involvement in Venezuela.
Chavez was elected in early 1999. He was elected legitimately and on a platform of centre-left social democracy. He began instituting social democratic policies and was incredibly popular especially among the poor. Throughout his presidency, Chavez become increasingly left. By the end of his presidency, Chavez had become quite the Marxist, though not in the 20th century, Leninist fashion; but rather an adapted version of modern times. Chavez liked to call it "Socialism in the 21st century."
In April of 2002, there was an attempted coup to oust Chavez in favor of a right-wing strongman. The coup was backed mostly by the elites and some members of the military complex, but most disturbingly, the coup was also backed by the United States, both our government and media. The day after the supposedly successful coup the "New York Times" even went as far to commend this undemocratic, Machiavellian, totalitarian power-grab. The U.S. government had prior knowledge to the coup and likely supported it when it was in its infancy. Three days after the start of the coup, the soldiers who were supposed to detain (and possibly kill) Chavez could not bear to kill their leader and refused to act. The coup thus failed due to Chavez' immense popularity with the soldiers and people.
Chavez' response was relatively moderate - there were no hangings like some in our media may lead you to believe. He readjusted some of his policies in order to satisfy some of the opposition including reappointing the former members of the board of directors at the state oil company which was a primary reason for the coup. He even appointed some of the coup plotters back to their former position.
When attempting to further nationalize the nation's oil reserves later that same year, Chavez faced what the Venezuelan media called a "general strike" by the nation's oil workers. However, it was primarily the managers, business leaders, and technical workers involved in the strike, essentially meaning that this so-called "general strike" was really an "elitist strike" dissatisfied with their diminished political power. The Chavez administration fired some of the strikers and filled their role with members of the military and unemployed. The strike then ended.
Hugo Chavez died in 2013 from Cancer. He was succeeded by Nicolas Maduro who was then Vice-President. Though not as popular as Chavez, Maduro narrowly won the election that occurred shortly after he assumed the presidency. The election was ranked fair by most (if not all) world-wide democracy and election ranking institutes. Maduro's main program thus far in his presidency has been the attempt to curve Venezuela's high crime rates. So-far, they have been moderately successful.
(2)Analysis
It should be noted that it is facetious and extremely misleading to call President Maduro the "bus driver". While true he did in fact drive a bus in his younger and more vulnerable years, he has been in politics since the early 80s and helped start the party that got Chavez elected in the first place. He was also the Foreign Minister from 2006-2013 and the Vice President 2012-2013. Calling Maduro the "bus driver" or "Chavez' bus driver" would be like calling any of our past three presidents the "pot-smoker" simply because they smoked pot in their youth. Plus, why is it even a bad thing for the president of a country to be a former bus driver? Does that not embody the "American Dream" better than we ourselves embody it? Instead of addressing the intelligence of the actor and the effectiveness of his policies, calling him the "bus driver" simply caricatures him and-in-so-doing disregards the complexity of the situation. It fails to even address the situation.
Within Venezuelan media there is a prevalent trend to consistently attack Chavez' reforms regardless of the actual substance of the specific reform. The amount of vitriol in the Venezuelan media towards anything Chavez only does the country a deep disservice. Instead of reporting on the news, the news actively conspires against the government, and they use their affluence to fund and promote opposition leaders and organization. After all, the opposition controls most of the wealth in Venezuela. The bias can be shown by what the opposition called the select strike in 2002: a "general strike." The media in Venezuela fails to do the job that is assigned to it: provide adequate news to the Venezuelan people. Hence, the actual government - that is, not the government as the opposition would have believe them to be - is at a severe disadvantage. Much of the success of the socialist-inspired programs is dependent upon proper knowledge of that program by the Venezuelan people.
Despite the popular misconception concerning the Venezuelan government's involvement and censorship of the media, 95% of the Venezuelan media is privately owned, and a good chunk of them - easily a majority - are anti-Chavez/Maduro. By-enlarge, the Venezuelan media is owned or significantly influenced by business elites, wealthy landowners, and foreign corporate dogs, all of whom are tactically against Chavez' reforms for reasons characteristic of corrupt bourgeois slave-masters. It would be as-if 95% of the U.S. media were owned by Rupert Murdoch and geared toward producing the pre-packaged, reactionary, laissez-faire rhetoric that Fox News has become famous for.
The bias of the the Venezuelan media is mirrored in the west. A couple of weeks ago, NPR gave a glowing report on the potential for a violent regime change in Venezuela. This only encourages people in the west to be unnecessarily critical of the Venezuelan regime. Which in turn, causes the western governments to become even more anti-Venezuela. Which then causes the Venezuelan government to reciprocate that distrust and hate, only leading to a vicious cycle of self-reinforcing misinformation and vitriol.
The Venezuelan media has become somewhat more moderate (it is still extremely vitriolic towards Maduro though) since the first coup in 2002. Most stations no longer actively promote violence like they did before the 2002 coup. However, due to the calming-down of the most of the Venezuelan media towards a more acceptable form of opposition, there has recently been a split within the opposition regarding the most appropriate way to fight Maduro. The less-extreme wing still opposes Maduro but wishes to see more unity and less polarization in Venezuelan politics. They are headed by Capriles. The more-extreme wing of the opposition is headed by Leopoldo Lopez and promotes the use of violence against the Maduro government.
Normally some civil disobedience does not bother me, regardless of where it is coming from. However, the kind of violence that Lopez and his supporters promote is abhorrent. It is categorically different than the kind of disobedience and violence I would normally support. Lopez' supporters not only attack government officials and police and military officers (which is fine), but they also attack workers in public transportation, physicians imported from Cuba to assist in the healthcare system in poor neighborhoods, university students who attend because of a Chavez' program, and other works, programs, and officials who are there to benefit the poor. The assault on the poor, those who ought to be assaulted the least, is what causes me to value the violent opposition as the pernicious monster that it is.
The usually middle to upper class protesters are only protesting to support themselves financially. They have no wish for a more equal Venezuela, because if they did, they would support Maduro or perhaps the less-extreme opposition. Thus, what we now have in Venezuela is not, like the western media would lead you to believe, a mass protest from people of all walks of life against the oppressive and violent Maduro regime; but rather a select class of bourgeois conservative reactionaries intent on violently converting the socialism of Maduro to the liberal policies akin to the Gilded Age in America. The conversion would cause the economic inequality of Venezuela, which has significantly declined in recent years, to reverse. It would stratify the already stratified classes even further.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)