2009-06-13T23:10:55Z User 350 http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v350/ OrgSpace NewsLog

Here's an excerpt from one of my novels, In the Land of the Dacks, for you to chaw on, if so inclined. It deals with basic economics and hopefully is thought provoking....... The scene takes place in a penal colony in Dackland where our hero, a young American, skeptically questions his Dack host.....

I was already certain this would be something basically theoretical and unworkable. Fundamentally preposterous, in short, and had already begun to condescend to this system which I had never heard of. After all, it seemed limited only to this tiny country of the Dacks, and hadn't made any worldwide inroads.

"Very well," Fisch seriously smiled, shifting his physical position. "I will explain it to you. Perhaps I may even convert you? Ha ha. Do you think I can?" His eyes were quite gleeful as he asked this, as if he had read my mind.

"Maybe," I politely answered, not believing of course he could. Wondering if my face had given me away?

"Professor Noah Strongtree, my mentor at the university, offered the world a route out of the modern economic dilemma and it deserves attention and respect. It is an alternative to the competing systems which dominate the world."

"I'm listening." Well into my second rum I could have listened to anything now, even another cockamamie assault on my world. "Go ahead, I'm game," I said. "Please tell me what this economic system is all about."

"Look. In your modern America, in your own Capitalist wonderland, your giant corporations constantly portray themselves as great benefactors, as leaders of human progress sensitive to the public good. They promise great wealth and power to anyone who can join them, to those who 'can win the game,' as you put it. Let us go back, then, to the basic roots of your Capitalist superpower. Let us examine the modest origins from which it inexorably expanded and grew. The little stalls and stands in primitive marketplaces where simple tradespersons sold their wares and goods, hoping, some of them, to become rich. This simple desire to engage in trade to benefit oneself is a very fundamental desire, a basic human activity. And an aggressive, enterprising Capitalist can always discover innovative means to better himself. For Capitalism permits the free and unbounded expression of this great acquisitive energy. Do you follow?"

"I see what you're saying, sure," I said, sipping from my chilled glass of powerful rum. Yes, there greedy people out there. But not everyone is greedy, I thought. The few don't necessarily ruin it for the many. Could Fisch see this basic logic?

"Capitalism, therefore, is the economic system of the lowest common denominator. That is why it has been so successful. Any idiot can be a Capitalist and many Capitalists are idiots. All over the world millions upon millions of eager and ambitious entrepreneurs daily take their chances hoping for success, to eventually become wealthy and powerful. Some claw their way to the top, others fall by the wayside crushed by many overwhelming heartless realities. But there are always new aspirants prepared to take their places. Capitalism has always been open to anyone willing to take a chance, play the game. Capitalism invites innovation and rewards hard work and ruthless competition. It rewards the most cunning, the best players, the most ruthless. Would you not agree?"

"Well, I suppose so," I warily said. "With some of what you say at least." I was forced by Fisch's overall direction to be reminded, once again, of the American robber barons, those shady turn-of-the-century figures in their black silk top hats, frock coats and thick brown cigars who rapaciously acquired enormous fortunes. The Goulds, the Fricks, the Harrimans, and so on. Though Fisch's tone and attitude, I thought, was also rather demeaning: insulting all those ordinary hardworking decent people in business attempting to provide some comfort and stability for their families. And I thought there was a somewhat primitive edge to Fisch's words, reflective too, I felt, of his envious thirdworld background.

"Yes, Capitalism is the economic system of the lowest common denominator," Fisch thoughtfully continued. "There is no system lower, perhaps, except scavenging, or those basic agricultural and hunting societies where trade doesn't even exist. And the world owes much to the growth of the merchant class. I admit it! For I seek the truth and am only interested in truth. I must allow the chips to fall where they may. And those earliest seminal merchants who stood up against the power of the aristocracy, the king and the church brought many benefits to the world. Including our ideas of modern democracy which elevate the individual and proclaim his basic dignity and worth. Much good came from the nascent middleclass besides the seeds of the current world crisis. The cancer which is spreading everywhere across the Earth. Do you not agree?"

I shrugged and noncommittally nodded. A cancer spreading across the Earth? There has always been a malaise, I thought, lurking just beneath the overall surface of things. That, I thought, should be apparent, as well as the inspiration for many religious and philosophical debates. But, frankly, I didn't know one way or another which way the world was actually heading. Or what our future would be. All I knew now is that I had been entirely cut off from nearly all of it.

Fisch continued on his line of thought: "All other advanced economic systems have been utopian. They rely on human goodwill and intelligence, a formula guaranteed to fail. That is why Capitalism, as the economic system of the lowest common denominator, has been so successful. There are no natural constraints upon it. It encourages and rewards aggressiveness and fierce competition, what you in America define as rugged individualism, and freedom, true freedom, the freedom, finally, to become rich and powerful. The basis for your white bread Capitalism."

Fisch paused, inquisitively eyeing me. Did he wonder if I understood, agreed? If I would interrupt or object? But I remained quiet, listening. Drinking my rum. I was almost accustomed by now to his slights.

"On the other hand, Communism requires the state to control all the means of production. This inevitably leads to stagnation, inefficiency, deep corruption. Workers are offered a safe sinecure and fail to produce. Since the benefits of greed are denied they lapse into a cynical indifference. They have no incentive, no future, no true creative horizons. The only way up is through the bureaucracy and this inevitably leads to more incompetence and corruption. For bureaucracies reward naked ambition at the expense of integrity, true ability, and creativity. In fact, creativity is seen as a threat by the incompetents on the way up. Would you not agree?"

"I know nothing about civil service."

"Yes, Marxism was a brilliant nineteenth century analysis of the predatory and ruthlessly manipulative nature of Capitalism. Its followers, though, corrupted it, and destroyed millions of lives in order to obtain their ideal. But no system which requires millions of lives is worth the expenditure."

"Yes," I murmured. You would get no argument out of me over that one, I thought. "Sure, Communism is pretty evil."

"So we have had two fundamental economic systems in our modern era, both, in their own ways, based upon exploitation. Democratic Socialism is a humane way out of the dilemma, the two competing systems. It offers freedom and dignity to the individual while providing for the overall needs of society. But a constant tension between man's natural acquisitiveness and society's broader needs thwarts this logical system. Socialism is fragile, for man's selfish greed and desire for power are constantly undermining it. It is another system requiring goodwill and intelligence. That is why the welfare states of Europe, and of the rest of the world, too, may finally loose out to Capitalism, the system of the lowest common denominator, openly accommodating, as it does, a far greater mass of humanity, promoting and unleashing greed. And as we know men are willing to die over that."

Fisch paused an instant, staring at me as if to see if I still followed, how I was reacting. If I would begin to argue with him. Go ahead, I thought, I'm listening, I'm listening, and sipped again from my rum.

"I see Communal Capitalism, as Professor Noah Strongtree so beautifully, eloquently, described it so long ago within our late lamented academic lecture hall, as a way out of these fundamental dilemmas. It is a system which doesn't impede businessmen and merchants from becoming rich. It encourages trade! And even supports and promotes the entrepreneurial spirit, for free trade is an expression of democracy too. And no one should deny a merchant his innate dignity and worth, his freedom, if you will. No one should attempt to thwart his humanity and basic nature. In our modern era intellectuals and artists have always looked down upon the merchant class, the bourgeoisie. And Socialism, as an economic and social system, also reflects that aristocratic contempt. It rebukes and scorns the vulgar materialism of the middle and upper classes. It rebukes greed and selfishness as if its own moral and intellectual superiority were a self-evident, conclusive argument. As if greed and selfishness alone were proofs why Socialism is superior. But any philosophy which runs contrary to human nature cannot succeed. Man's basic nature must be taken into account and utopian schemes are always bound to fail, no matter how noble and shining their aspirations. And though their utopian nobility may attract numerous dreamers, a majority of the intellectuals and artists, they are sustained only by beautiful ideas, mere ideals, which humanity, in its mass, may even pay lip service to, but will daily ignore in its own strivings to better itself."

I nodded my head, silently agreeing. What he said made sense, I thought. What's more, the rum was also swiftly rising now to my head.

"But beautiful ideas may eventually come into their own too," Fisch continued. "Listen to me carefully. Yes, there is such a thing as human progress. The earliest democracy, as expounded in Ancient Greece, was thoroughly utopian and idealistic in nature and inevitably failed. But that primitive system's noble sentiments still live on today and actually contained, back then, the seeds for our own advanced forms of democracy, a worldly democracy which recognizes human frailty with its numerous checks and balances. Communal Capitalism, John, is another step on the road of that journey. It merely expands your own Bill of Rights, attempting to finish the job your Founding Fathers, the radicals and revolutionaries of their age who hoped for a fairer and just world, began. By unleashing the truth it first recognizes human nature and then codifies the strict and fair standards of society."

"How does this thing stick together," I interrupted. "How is it different from other idealistic systems. I mean, I don't quite see what you're getting at. What would prevent the greediest and most powerful from eventually just taking over?"

"A good question. Yes, it too is vulnerable to an even lower common denominator than the acquisitive spirit. To violence and militarism and war. There are always threats to any system. For no one can check humanity in its lowest widespread folly. If Communal Capitalism contains an artificial element which doesn't surrender to the acquisitive spirit it is in demanding that the basic needs of society must be met. These are all brought to the surface. That the law must be obeyed. And that no one may trample on the rights of others. Express your entrepreneurial spirit, we say. Employ all your energies to better yourself! Fine! That is the way you are! We do not want to stand in your way. But you may not enrich yourself at the expense of others. For what Communal Capitalism does is put all the facts on the table, openly speaks truth about the realities, recognizing them, and establishes a system of laws, checks and balances, if you will, which safeguard the overall rights of society. The golden rule of the Communal Capitalist is that an individual may not enrich himself at the expense of the community."

But I thought I saw a hole in his argument. "If man is greedy, and always seeking power, then how would your system contain greed and power. How would you prevent this just society from being subverted by aggressive selfish Capitalists?"

"With the truth," Fisch said, his face beaming.

He appeared now as if he were sharing a great transcendent revelation with me. As if openly airing this philosophy of his made him enormously happy. "With the truth. The power of truth. That is the beauty of the Communal Capitalist system. For it calls a spade a spade. It openly brings out the realities. Euphemisms, regarding social conduct, double-speak, as your great English poet George Orwell so brilliantly put it, would cease to exist. For society would demand its basic rights through the truth. And within that glorious context all social conduct would be judged. Our constitution, building upon your American constitution, the Bill of Rights, would install a system which recognizes predatory and unfair behavior. It would cut through the fog bank of obfuscation and double-speak to pure truth and reality. And upon this sound moral basis would judge any entrepreneur's greed as 'Overreach.' Overreach would become the great crime, the cardinal sin against society. Those judged of Overreach would be severely penalized. For it would be imperative in a Communal Capitalist society to protect everyone's, absolutely everyone's, fundamental rights."

"You think truth has that much power?"

"Yes. I do. In any modern Capitalist society, any rigid, top down system, or authoritarian state, the truth is always the first casualty, the great enemy of the Overreacher. For truth truly is a cleansing and clarifying fire. Tear down the walls of obfuscation and those numerous self-serving lies which prop up an Overreacher dissolve. For no Overreacher can justify himself unless evil finally becomes a positive moral cause. Yes, Communal Capitalism makes a fundamental correction to that modern liberal elitism which has so disdained the materialism of the bourgeoisie. Rather than fight that materialism it embraces it, accepts it as a natural expression of human nature. But no one may ever Overreach. This most fundamental of ideals still remains. For if a system can not at least depend upon a very minimum of human decency then there is no hope for us."

"No hope for us?"

"No hope for us."
]]> http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v350/__show_article/_a000350-000039.htm 2009-06-13T23:10:55Z 2009-06-13T23:18:09Z

"When I was young it [writing novels] was the most exciting thing you could do... It was more exciting to be a major novelist than to be a movie star. That was then. Today you could line up 10 major novelists and three teenagers would run them down in order to shake a movie star's hand, male or fe...

One Writer's Odyssey



Publishing acts as a form of validation. A seal of authenticity. It reveals that someone in the publishing world believes your work is good enough to distinguish it from the mountain of dreck which daily arrives on his desk. That at least it has passed through the scrutiny of an unbiased professional judge who believes enough in your work to put up his own money to present it to the world. Hoping people will buy and read it.


For, certainly, the vast majority of unpublished works tend to be bad. They can often be quite bad: presumptuous, vulgar, untalented, wildly eccentric or, simply put, an amateurish and ungripping read. And even if they constitute a form of "good medicine," something which ought to be read, they can, perhaps worst of all, be dull. (Though many ugly human traits often emerge in the work of some highly popular authors, such as Mickey Spillane. The irony being that much of what is published is dreck too.)


That is the company the unpublished author keeps. Nor, until he is finally published, can he even legitimately call himself an author. Or even a writer. For the inevitable question which follows an introduction to a well disposed stranger often enough is: "Oh, you write, do you? And what have you published?" And the empty blank the unpublished author responds with can surely awaken that tiny ironic amused smile we are all so familiar with. For everyone knows anyone can write, but to be a genuine author, a true writer, one must publish. That is the true seal of authenticity.


So upon being introduced and asked what he does the unpublished may lamely only offer his day job as an answer: the mundane means by which he earns his daily bread. For not existing yet as an author he cannot admit with any pride that he writes. Never mind that he rises up early every morning to work two or three hours a day. That his entire inner and spiritual life is tied to this deep aesthetic quest, attempting to bring something meaningful and new to life. For, indeed, we the unpublished are in a sense much like the undead. Our work denied, unrecognized, non-existent in the eyes of the world. And whoever comes across it naturally enough will balk at ever reading it. For, after all, it is unpublished. It has not received a stamp of authenticity. It has not passed the basic test. And considering the overwhelming odds in all probability it merely truly is more dreck. A painful and difficult experience to read. And if that reader also happens to be a friend of the writer isn't he, that poor friend, placed into the terribly embarrassing situation of becoming forced to say something nice? To compliment his writer friend's work? Though, in truth, he thinks it is actually bad?


So we, the unpublished, are much like the undead. And for many years now I have kept a deep cover. And only rarely have discussed my creative work with anyone. For not only lacking the "authenticity" and bona fides to openly speak out about my own work as an author I also do not care to discuss what I am currently doing. For writing is an extremely private matter and bringing in any outsider, no matter how sensitive or sympathetic, can be ruinous, a terrible distraction. Writing must be performed in private: in a state of near secrecy. And talking about a work in progress can often be a sure way of ruining it.


What's more, at one time I suffered from a writer's block which, to me, seemed like one of the most persistent on record. A Guinness sized block which lasted more than two decades. For I have only truly desired to do one thing in my life: to write. And this block endured from my late teens into my late thirties. During that time I simply could not continue or finish anything I started: for on the following day I would simply stare at what I had done the previous day with an unyielding, unmoving blank.


Why was I so cramped in this manner? There were many reasons, the desire just to "live" being one. I was often more drawn to the beckoning sunshine outofdoors than to the solitary quiet and shadows of my writing desk. (How poorly I understood Proust's need for a corklined room then!) I drank a great deal too and hangovers, like the common flu, can be a great impediment to writing. But most foolish of all, revealing my worst misconception regarding creativity, I relied upon inspiration to write.


This great misconception and reliance on my part derived from my earliest experiences at writing. For in my late teens I often felt an exultant rush of inspiration whenever I wrote a page or two, experiencing what I believed to be a transcendent leap. And desiring to be a literary artist - most certainly not a mere commercial "hack" - I always hoped to be motivated by that transcendent rush each time I sat down to write: believing the only truly good creative writing resulted from this spark.


You may be thinking this was foolish on my part? And you are certainly right. For inspiration comes to those who work. What I should have done, starting in my late teens, was persevere: set apart a certain fixed time of day, during the morning or at night, to faithfully work - every day - during that dedicated time. And perhaps I should not have been quite so self-critical, loosening the cramp of my block by focusing more on my theme, by concentrating on it every day. For, as I said, inspiration comes to those who work.


Tomorrow for an artist can be a great friend. For tomorrow is always another day. Tomorrow an artist can review what he did today and try to correct it or do it over again. But the point is that an artist has to work without idling, or waiting to begin. For there no excuses for not doing so. He will accomplish nothing if he does not work. That simple maxim may be quite obvious but it needs repeating: an artist will accomplish nothing if he waits to be hit by a lightening bolt out of the blue. Unless he happens to be very, very lucky.


But when I reached my thirty seventh year (1977) a miracle occurred. At that age I saw that forty was quick approaching. That if I continued in this empty manner by the time I reached my fortieth year I would have written nothing. That my lifelong ambition would become no more than a sterile dream, accomplishing nothing. So in a somewhat urgent state of surrender I sat down at my desk one day, yet again, and tried to write. I wrote without hope. I wrote thinking that in all probability I would never finish what I started. I wrote without taking any of my words too seriously, without seeking transcendence. I wrote because it was now or never, this was it. And a miracle occurred. For on the following day I was able to continue what I had started the day before. And on the day following that I was still able to continue. And each day I developed my story a little further. The miracle had happened! I was actually writing something! I was able to continue it! And what's more inspiration, I discovered, soon followed the beginning of each day's writing stint.


The story becomes a little complicated now, what with graduate school, entering a profession, one thing and another. But this first novel of mine, The Adventures of Jamie Budlow, eventually extended to more than fifteen hundred typewritten pages. It is still raw, perhaps amateurish. Unfinished. For I have not been able to re-read it. What's more, I wrote it before the word processor became a common writer's tool. And to work on it once again would require putting all those fifteen hundred pages onto a computer. A Herculean task, I'm sure you would agree.


Then in nineteen eighty eight (ten years after my father died) my mother died. I had recently been toying with the idea of writing a biography of my father, writing brief sketches here and there. Wondering how I would put the biography of such a fascinating life together. And having recently finished my first novel I also felt I had the liberty now to tell my father's story: the story of an artist-soldier which in many ways was quite heroic and passionate.


I finished my first draft of Waiting at the Shore sometime in the early nineteen nineties. And then my experiences with the publishing world began. I met literary agents, publishers and several writers. Many expressed great enthusiasm and I am quite proud of the long distance phonecall I received one afternoon from that New York publishing "legend," Alan Williams, who enthusiastically praised my book and invited me to his home in New Jersey for dinner. (That being, I later learned, a traditional means of welcoming a new writer to the writing world.) I also received several recommendations from famous authors and, after many years, during which time I revised and polished my book, improving it, a university press finally took a serious interest in publishing it. The editor - a woman - was kind and sensitive and we could have perhaps worked well together. But in the world of university publishing a "peer" review is required. And an anonymous distinguished scholar volunteered to review my book: a man who professed to admire my father. To this day I have no idea who this scholar was for in the world of academic publishing a "peer" reviewer often remains anonymous. There are understandable reasons for this but on the other hand an author's curiosity is naturally aroused. An author would like to know just who it is who has expressed these opinions which have such a significant influence on the future of his book.


Though he confessed he couldn't put Waiting at the Shore down my peer reviewer really didn't like the book very much. And since I had taken several large swaths from my father's memoirs (at the time unpublished) to incorporate into my text the reviewer suggested I "convert" what I had done into an "autobiography." But this would have been an entirely different book. And since I had already cut the length of my manuscript in half to adjust to the publisher's "price point" I turned down the university's offer of a contract for the book the reviewer envisioned: which would have been a scholarly version (it was being published by a university press after all) of a story which was not at all scholarly in spirit.


Bad luck, huh? Since several distinguished authors and scholars have also read the self-published version of Waiting at the Shore and have complimented me highly for it. Following this experience with the university I sent out a few more queries and began to receive only standard rejection slips. From the great enthusiasm and interest at the start of this journey, several years earlier, to finally the blank anonymity of an unsigned conventional rejection slip. We, the unpublished, all know what they look like. It was as if the whole enterprise had simply finally petered out and the publishing world displayed its vast indifference by no longer even acknowledging my basic efforts.


This process, the process of attempting to find a publisher for Waiting at the Shore, lasted over several years. By now I had become a librarian in the San Francisco Public Library. And one of the advantages of working there was a fairly flexible schedule. I could come in late in the morning and write at home for two or three hours before leaving for work. Also, being at work in the library was a good way of forgetting what I had written that morning, so that it would appear newly fresh when I looked at it again the following morning. So while I was attempting to find a publisher for Waiting at the Shore I continued to write. And, no, I didn't tell any of the contacts I made in the publishing world about what I was doing. Following that first novel (1500 typewritten pages long) I wrote seven more. These are the books I am offering here.


I spent five or six years searching for a publisher for Waiting at the Shore. (A friend once sympathetically explained the reason why I finally couldn't find a publisher was because my father wasn't famous. And he may have been right.) But during that search I obtained a glimpse of the mentality of several professionals in the publishing business. And haven't attempted to find a publisher (with the exception of one) for any of these novels because I am convinced of the utter futility of doing so. Why put myself through that ordeal all over again, waiting anxiously for replies? For I know that even if any one of these novels artistically succeeds it will never be published. The barriers are simply too high.


Speaking once to a literary agent I earnestly informed him that the only thing that mattered to me about Waiting at the Shore was if it succeeded "artistically and intellectually." I can still vividly recall the suppressed amusement that agent revealed at the presumptuousness of this bold assertion. And he came close to openly laughing at me. To believe, as an author, that my work may have some importance or genuine worth may indeed be presumptuous, but to desire it to be an artistic success should not be. For why else write? Samuel Johnson famously asserted "no man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money." But there are far quicker and safer means of becoming rich than writing. And such expressions of sophisticated cynicism don't belie the fact that most genuine writers write because they are compelled to. For if an aspiring unpublished author focusses upon the accomplishments of Faulkner and Hemingway instead of Ludlum and Clancy it's not because he necessarily compares himself to Faulkner or Hemingway. It's because he doesn't care about Ludlum and Clancy. For why else become an artist if not to also enter the great game, attempting to succeed both intellectually and artistically? To do something truly valuable? Which is always a risk, a step into the unknown.


When I sought a literary agent many years ago only a few took an interest in my work. (None finally represented me.) And I soon discovered that agents can be rather touchy people. They are proud people and would like to believe that they foster talent, discovering new talented authors. That mere crass commercialism doesn't fully motivate them but that they have an eye out for genuine quality: for good and new and talented authors. But scratch the surface of an agent's lofty literary posture and you will soon discover that "quality" is indeed defined as that which actually sells. And that a "platform" is often required by new authors. For, after all, publishing is a business, not a charitable enterprise. And the world of publishing has certain high standards.


The largest enemy of all art is, perhaps, fashion, whether it be conservative or avant garde. In the world of corporate publishing, under the pressure of the ever higher profit margins the parent companies place, there are numerous formulas for success. And that which is truly original is not included among them. For not having been tried the original may not be profitable. And fostering the arts, experimental or otherwise, is not the publisher's mission unless a guarantee of high earnings accompany it. Which is why most new authors require a "platform." In other words, guarantees which have nothing to do with the innate value of a manuscript, unless it catches the eye of a publisher or agent as a sure winner. Fitting, in all probability, a known formula. Though true enough, an instinct for satisfying an agreeable public can be highly helpful.


I can not speak for my own work. It may, in truth, be quite bad. A literary failure. And it may not deserve to be published or read. But there is no societal mirror available to me which can offer a worthy criticism of my work. And I would like to know the truth about the actual literary value of these novels too. Nor will I find that by stepping out once again into the publishing world. Not even, if I had the stomach for it, by searching among the small non-profit publishers. And the only feedback available to me can come from you, the reader.


What's more, the novel no longer possesses the exalted standing it once had. The mass electronic corporate media has taken over that cultural position as the widespread modernday mirror of American life. The pressure of popular culture on the arts has always been large. But art, high art, always had its place. Today it has become an even smaller artifact of the larger culture. The great novel as an artistic mirror of society is becoming, as Norman Mailer pointed out, a museum piece. And we speak of great artists and writers as if they were all notables out of our historic past. Though some of us are old enough today to remember when many great names were still alive and working among us. Hemingway, Faulkner, Steinbeck. No more. And this is true not only of literature but of all the arts. The corporation has become monolithic and reaches today into all aspects of modern American life. But the human spirit can not die even in an artificial culture, where its human roots may be smothered. Creativity never vanishes. How will it find its expression in the future? In the new technologies perhaps? In those mediums undominated by corporate power?


There is indeed no such thing as a dull work of art. So I hope that these novels of mine are not at all dull as well as artistic and intellectual successes. Are they any good? I am, of course, aware of what I tried to accomplish. And sense some pride and excitement about what I did. But the artist, or writer, can never be the final judge of his own success. That is up to you. Though you, too, may not be of one opinion: so the question may only remain unanswered, pro or con. That's the way it sometimes is with art, at least for a long time. For only time is the surest critic of art.

]]> http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v350/__show_article/_a000350-000038.htm 2009-03-06T17:33:08Z 2009-03-06T17:34:55Z

The piece below mentions Jenin. I was in Europe at the time of Jenin and CNN carried nonstop coverage. I can still remember seeing the blasted out site on the set at night, the leveled rubble. And then there was that man in a wheelchair who was crushed by a tank.

The israelis have much to answer for. I frankly think the human mind is too complicated and mysterious to ever be neatly categorized by psychologists. Frankly, the old masters, Shakespeare and the like, probably knew as much as anyone else. And your intuition is as likely to be right or wrong as mine or anyone else’s. But there are so many similarities between the ways some Jews treat Arabs and the way the Nazis treated the Jews that it is eerie. And one has to wonder if there isn’t perhaps some deep obsessive root in the Jewish Holocaust experience regarding this similarity? For many rightwing Jews, since 1948, have treated Arabs as simply subhuman. Or could this in truth be an expression of the basic similarity all people share: even as to subjugating another people? Germans, Jews, and, yes, Arabs, we are all fundamentally alike.

And here in the United States we have much to answer for too. For our blind unwavering lockstep support of Israel no matter what it does. No matter how biased or cruel or destructive their behavior and activities are. For there is scant excuse for putting on the blinders AIPAC and like organizations constantly demand we wear.

Does a critic need to repeat he basically supports the Jewish state each time he criticizes Israel? Apparently he is expected to and doctrinaire Zionists will even set the guidelines. One can only criticize so far before becoming an “anti Semite.” Unfortunately, some of us tremble at being thus tarred. I have too, in the past. But under this blinding and suffocating cloak AIPAC has been so adept at over the years a great deal of inhumanity is allowed to pass. And crimes are committed without ever being called to account. Here in the United States they are simply ignored. While critics in Europe inspire opinion pieces here at home on the “rise of the new anti-Semitism.”

Recently another member of NCN sent me an essay by Daniel Pipes regarding all this which I admit I didn’t read. The Neocons live in a truly dark world: imagine one of Goya’s witches with bats flying in the air, the engraving’s black and murky ink. Goya had war and the Inquisition to live with. Today it’s war and the Neocons with their dark nighttime world. So I thought I would ignore this opinion piece by Pipes for surely debating it would go nowhere. Then my email contained the following piece by Gideon Levy, writing for Haaretz. You know Gideon Levy, don’t you? If not, here is a good introduction. This is a Palestine we don’t often see on CNN or here in the United States.


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1000976.html

Gideon Levy: 'Worse than apartheid'
July 10, 2008

I thought they would feel right at home in the alleys of Balata refugee camp, the Casbah and the Hawara checkpoint. But they said there is no comparison: for them the Israeli occupation regime is worse than anything they knew under apartheid. This week, 21 human rights activists from South Africa visited Israel. Among them were members of Nelson Mandela's African National Congress; at least one of them took part in the armed struggle and at least two were jailed. There were two South African Supreme Court judges, a former deputy minister, members of Parliament, attorneys, writers and journalists. Blacks and whites, about half of them Jews who today are in conflict with attitudes of the conservative Jewish community in their country. Some of them have been here before; for others it was their first visit.

For five days they paid an unconventional visit to Israel - without Sderot, the IDF and the Foreign Ministry (but with Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Memorial and a meeting with Supreme Court President Justice Dorit Beinisch. They spent most of their time in the occupied areas, where hardly any official guests go - places that are also shunned by most Israelis.

On Monday they visited Nablus, the most imprisoned city in the West Bank. From Hawara to the Casbah, from the Casbah to Balata, from Joseph's Tomb to the monastery of Jacob's Well. They traveled from Jerusalem to Nablus via Highway 60, observing the imprisoned villages that have no access to the main road, and seeing the "roads for the natives," which pass under the main road. They saw and said nothing. There were no separate roads under apartheid. They went through the Hawara checkpoint mutely: they never had such barriers.

Jody Kollapen, who was head of Lawyers for Human Rights in the apartheid regime, watches silently. He sees the "carousel" into which masses of people are jammed on their way to work, visit family or go to the hospital. Israeli peace activist Neta Golan, who lived for several years in the besieged city, explains that only 1 percent of the inhabitants are allowed to leave the city by car, and they are suspected of being collaborators with Israel. Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge, a former deputy minister of defense and of health and a current member of Parliament, a revered figure in her country, notices a sick person being taken through on a stretcher and is shocked. "To deprive people of humane medical care? You know, people die because of that," she says in a muted voice.

The tour guides - Palestinian activists - explain that Nablus is closed off by six checkpoints. Until 2005, one of them was open. "The checkpoints are supposedly for security purposes, but anyone who wants to perpetrate an attack can pay NIS 10 for a taxi and travel by bypass roads, or walk through the hills.

The real purpose is to make life hard for the inhabitants. The civilian population suffers," says Said Abu Hijla, a lecturer at Al-Najah University in the city.

In the bus I get acquainted with my two neighbors: Andrew Feinstein, a son of Holocaust survivors who is married to a Muslim woman from Bangladesh and served six years as an MP for the ANC; and Nathan Gefen, who has a male Muslim partner and was a member of the right-wing Betar movement in his youth. Gefen is active on the Committee against AIDS in his AIDS-ravaged country.

"Look left and right," the guide says through a loudspeaker, "on the top of every hill, on Gerizim and Ebal, is an Israeli army outpost that is watching us." Here are bullet holes in the wall of a school, there is Joseph's Tomb, guarded by a group of armed Palestinian policemen. Here there was a checkpoint, and this is where a woman passerby was shot to death two years ago. The government building that used to be here was bombed and destroyed by F-16 warplanes. A thousand residents of Nablus were killed in the second intifada, 90 of them in Operation Defensive Shield - more than in Jenin. Two weeks ago, on the day the Gaza Strip truce came into effect, Israel carried out its last two assassinations here for the time being. Last night the soldiers entered again and arrested people.

It has been a long time since tourists visited here. There is something new: the numberless memorial posters that were pasted to the walls to commemorate the fallen have been replaced by marble monuments and metal plaques in every corner of the Casbah.

"Don't throw paper into the toilet bowl, because we have a water shortage," the guests are told in the offices of the Casbah Popular Committee, located high in a spectacular old stone building. The former deputy minister takes a seat at the head of the table. Behind her are portraits of Yasser Arafat, Abu Jihad and Marwan Barghouti - the jailed Tanzim leader. Representatives of the Casbah residents describe the ordeals they face. Ninety percent of the children in the ancient neighborhood suffer from anemia and malnutrition, the economic situation is dire, the nightly incursions are continuing, and some of the inhabitants are not allowed to leave the city at all. We go out for a tour on the trail of devastation wrought by the IDF over the years.

Edwin Cameron, a judge on the Supreme Court of Appeal, tells his hosts: "We came here lacking in knowledge and are thirsty to know. We are shocked by what we have seen until now. It is very clear to us that the situation here is intolerable." A poster pasted on an outside wall has a photograph of a man who spent 34 years in an Israeli prison. Mandela was incarcerated seven years less than that. One of the Jewish members of the delegation is prepared to say, though not for attribution, that the comparison with apartheid is very relevant and that the Israelis are even more efficient in implementing the separation-of-races regime than the South Africans were. If he were to say this publicly, he would be attacked by the members of the Jewish community, he says.

Under a fig tree in the center of the Casbah one of the Palestinian activists explains: "The Israeli soldiers are cowards. That is why they created routes of movement with bulldozers. In doing so they killed three generations of one family, the Shubi family, with the bulldozers." Here is the stone monument to the family - grandfather, two aunts, mother and two children. The words "We will never forget, we will never forgive" are engraved on the stone.

No less beautiful than the famed Paris cemetery of Pere-Lachaise, the central cemetery of Nablus rests in the shadow of a large grove of pine trees. Among the hundreds of headstones, those of the intifada victims stand out. Here is the fresh grave of a boy who was killed a few weeks ago at the Hawara checkpoint. The South Africans walk quietly between the graves, pausing at the grave of the mother of our guide, Abu Hijla. She was shot 15 times. "We promise you we will not surrender," her children wrote on the headstone of the woman who was known as "mother of the poor."

Lunch is in a hotel in the city, and Madlala-Routledge speaks. "It is hard for me to describe what I am feeling. What I see here is worse than what we experienced. But I am encouraged to find that there are courageous people here. We want to support you in your struggle, by every possible means. There are quite a few Jews in our delegation, and we are very proud that they are the ones who brought us here. They are demonstrating their commitment to support you. In our country we were able to unite all the forces behind one struggle, and there were courageous whites, including Jews, who joined the struggle. I hope we will see more Israeli Jews joining your struggle."

She was deputy defense minister from 1999 to 2004; in 1987 she served time in prison. Later, I asked her in what ways the situation here is worse than apartheid. "The absolute control of people's lives, the lack of freedom of movement, the army presence everywhere, the total separation and the extensive destruction we saw."

Madlala-Routledge thinks that the struggle against the occupation is not succeeding here because of U.S. support for Israel - not the case with apartheid, which international sanctions helped destroy. Here, the racist ideology is also reinforced by religion, which was not the case in South Africa. "Talk about the 'promised land' and the 'chosen people' adds a religious dimension to racism which we did not have."

Equally harsh are the remarks of the editor-in-chief of the Sunday Times of South Africa, Mondli Makhanya, 38. "When you observe from afar you know that things are bad, but you do not know how bad. Nothing can prepare you for the evil we have seen here. In a certain sense, it is worse, worse, worse than everything we endured. The level of the apartheid, the racism and the brutality are worse than the worst period of apartheid.

"The apartheid regime viewed the blacks as inferior; I do not think the Israelis see the Palestinians as human beings at all. How can a human brain engineer this total separation, the separate roads, the checkpoints? What we went through was terrible, terrible, terrible - and yet there is no comparison. Here it is more terrible. We also knew that it would end one day; here there is no end in sight. The end of the tunnel is blacker than black.

"Under apartheid, whites and blacks met in certain places. The Israelis and the Palestinians do not meet any longer at all. The separation is total. It seems to me that the Israelis would like the Palestinians to disappear. There was never anything like that in our case. The whites did not want the blacks to disappear. I saw the settlers in Silwan [in East Jerusalem] - people who want to expel other people from their place."

Afterward we walk silently through the alleys of Balata, the largest refugee camp in the West Bank, a place that was designated 60 years ago to be a temporary haven for 5,000 refugees and is now inhabited by 26,000. In the dark alleys, which are about the width of a thin person, an oppressive silence prevailed. Everyone was immersed in his thoughts, and only the voice of the muezzin broke the stillness. ]]> http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v350/__show_article/_a000350-000037.htm 2008-07-15T23:06:27Z 2008-07-15T23:07:27Z

For Hillary Clinton to step aside? To “suspend” her candidacy? A political analyst parsing the race the other night on TV claimed Hillary would have to acquire at least 64% of all the remaining delegate vote to top Obama. That numerically she can not win the primary race without a miracle.

But instead of Hillary calling it quits the race continues and the two sides rip each other to shreds only bolstering a possible McCain victory in November.

The only thing which can happen between now and August (when the Demos have their convention in Denver) which can change the numerical outcome without tearing the party apart is if Obama is caught selling sex slaves (most of them about thirteen years old) out of the basement of his house. Only then can the Super Delegates vote overwhelmingly for Hillary without tearing the party apart.

Shouldn’t Hillary step aside, suspend her campaign and get behind Obama as the Democratic Party’s obvious choice? Hasn’t her continuing candidacy only evolved into a form of wishful thinking and a stubborn denial of reality? If not just a gross ego trip?

True enough, many Hillary backers would be shattered, but if she puts her party first in order to elect a Democrat instead of a Republican in November then she should begin to seriously work for that victory. For her persistent campaign clearly undermines that chance at success.

If Hillary “suspends” her candidacy and that “miracle” (“miracle” for Hillary) occurs then she can step in and take Obama’s place. Under those circumstances the Super Delegates would have no choice but vote for Hillary and most of Obama’s backers would forgive them. Other than that, if the Super Delegates ignore the will of the primary’s voters and give the nomination to Hillary, the black vote will in all probability be gone and many others who would have voted Democratic in November will probably stay home too. Or vote third party. Or vote even for McCain.]]> http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v350/__show_article/_a000350-000036.htm 2008-03-24T20:50:44Z 2008-03-24T20:50:44Z

Way back in 1938, when Spain was the central front against fascism, the League of American Writers sent out a questionnaire to several hundred American writers. The question they asked was simple: “Are you for, or are you against Franco and fascism? Are you for, or are you against the legal gove...

This was 1938, seventy years ago. In some respects the same old battle is being fought today. And setting the historic aspects of the struggle in Spain aside, I thought it might be interesting to see what some of these writers had to say about fascism. For reading their remarks should also reveal some familiar parallels to today.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

“I hate fascism because, as I see it in Germany and Italy, it involves these three things: the suppression of civil liberties, the assertion that the state has absolute rights over the individual, and the acceptance of a ‘leader’ - a superior man who knows what’s what and who pushes the rest of us around....” Herbert Agar

“Three years’ residence in Italy was more than enough to convince me that fascism is an unmixed evil. It is dull and stupid and cruel in itself and it leads invariably to increasing dullness, stupidity, and cruelty. Fascism kills art and science just as it kills individuals." Leonard Bacon

“It is impossible for me to understand how any sensitive, sensible or civilized person could be a supporter of the fascist theory of government. It is a contradiction of all that mankind has been fighting its way toward for the past five thousand years, even in its more possible manifestations a return to the Dark Ages.” Louis Bromfield

“No age can escape its destiny. It is the destiny of our age to confront the most modern incarnation of the ancient savagery that lurks in every man, a savagery bred of fear and organized into large-scale social violence by ruthless power groups within our competitive society. It is the destiny of our generation to crush fascism or perish... “ Haakon M. Chevalier

“I am against Franco and fascism generally. My reasons are that I believe that fascism means a lack of intellectual freedom, a strongly militaristic and repressive social control joined seemingly with the continuance and strengthening of false religious, racial and economic ideologies, and generally speaking, the antithesis of any hope for equitable treatment which other forms of government at least pretend to offer the individual.” Theodore Dreiser

“I most sincerely wish to go on record as being unalterably opposed to Franco and fascism, to all violations of the legal government and outrages against the people of Republican Spain.” William Faulkner (I included this one since Faulkner is not known for making any political comments unrelated to southern race relations.)

“I am glad to say, in black and white, that I am not only opposed to Franco and his fascism, but to Hitler and Mussolini and their brands of this horrible social disease. Allow these men and their machines to crawl onward and the entire world will become a place of ceaseless war, poverty and famine with whip-driven masses bitterly obeying the rule of a few ruthless madmen.” Reed Harris

“Of course, I am against fascism with its spread of color prejudice and race hatred and working class oppression. How could any sensible Negro be otherwise?” Langston Hughes

“I am against smallpox, murder, race prejudice, war, injustice, diluted milk, fascism, stealing pennies off dead men’s eyes and shell-shocked Chinese babies.” Fannie Hurst

“In defense of those values to which men of imagination and charity have always been dedicated, no writer can refrain from testifying that whatever he stands for, humanly and culturally, denies and is denied by fascist economics, fascist imperialism, the fascist terror, and the fascist dream.” Stanley Kunitz

“Fascism not only sets up a form of government objectionable to us, and threatens the peace of the world, but it is a move to set the clock back by whole centuries. It is the flight into the refuge of force and prejudice of limited and perverted men who cannot face the effort and the sacrifice required by true democracy or the mental courage demanded by modern science.” Oliver La Farge

“Regardless of Franco who to me is just a manifestation of an almost world-wide disease, I am unalterably opposed to fascism as I am to any other form of government which aims to place the power and the glory of the state above the satisfaction and happiness of its individual members. I believe that the only function of any government is to make possible a free, joyous and independent life for as great a majority of its citizens as possible. Any political ideal that strives to impose the will of the few on the lives of many must as I see it inevitably be false and ultimately be discarded.” Hannah Lees

“I am and have been since I became conscious of political and economic questions, now more than twenty years, unalterably opposed to the whole principle and practice of dictatorship in any form, by any class and for whatever reason. I am opposed to any nation attempting to impose its own form of government, no matter what it may be, upon any other nation, either by propaganda or by acts of war.” Katherine Anne Porter

“Any writer who chooses the side of fascism confesses that the property he has, or hopes to have has corrupted him, that it is more to him than his art, more to him than civilization. Any writer who professes unconcern abnegates his function as a writer. The mental territory he would withdraw into does not exist in life. if he attempts to reflect it in his writing it is condemned to be a reflection of nothing; or it will be a reflection of death that the Fascists will find a use for.” Isidor Schneider

“Just returned from a little tour in the agricultural fields of California. We have our own fascist groups here. They haven’t bombed open towns yet but in Salinas last year tear gas was thrown in a Union Hall and through the windows of workingmen’s houses. That’s rather close, isn’t it?

“Your question as to whether I am for Franco is rather insulting. Have you seen anyone not actuated by greed who was for Franco? No, I’m not for Franco and his Moors and Italians and Germans. But some Americans are. Some Americans were for the Hessians England sent against our own revolutionary army. They were for the Hessians because they were selling things to them. The descendants of some of these Americans are still very rich and still touchy concerning the American Way, and our ‘ancient liberties.’ I am treasonable enough not to believe in the liberty of a man or a group to exploit, torment, or slaughter other men or groups. I believe in the despotism of human life and happiness against the liberty of money and possessions.” John Steinbeck

“Only the writer who draws his sustenance from the caved-in teat of a decayed past can be a Fascist. Fascism is capitalism seeking by brutality to evade the logic that moves mankind inexorably toward the common-sense solution of the paradox that puts want amid plenty, idle men beside idle factories, underfed children in a land of rotting crops. Fascism, by its very nature, must be antirational and antihumane.

“Criminal disunity among liberals and the left helped fascism to victory in Italy and Germany. The Popular Front has made it possible for the people of Spain to fight the greatest battle against fascism the world has yet seen. it is not strange that the allies of Spanish fascism are to be found in brown shirt and in black shirt, in the most backward section of the Catholic Church, among ignorant Moors and in those refined upper circles of the British aristocracy so delicately bred that they prefer the murder of children in Barcelona to the loss of a penny on their profits from Rio Tinto.

“If the Spanish people win, the forces of fascism will be set back the world over. Should the Loyalists lose, we may expect a tidal wave of reaction, obscurantism, race hatred and thuggery, menacing our own lives and our own homes. We must never forget that the barricades in Madrid are barricades everywhere - in defense of freedom, of culture, and of humanity? I. F. Stone

“If Italian history could look down on Mussolini today it would vomit! Think of the century-long struggles for freedom waged by Florence, by Milan, by Venice against what odds and with what world-shaking effect and then think of the decay of freedom rotting its way into Spain today and you have a picture not equaled save in some lepers’ colony on some outlawed island in the Pacific. Without Mussolini there could not be Franco, it is the same rot eating in. I am for the legal government and the people of Republican Spain. They are the threatened inheritors of all that Italy has lost.” William Carlos Williams

“I feel we have come to a fork in the road nations have trodden; it is very rare in history that the paths are so clearly marked, that the future can be so clearly foretold. We can follow the road of the fascist nations and go back to intolerance, tyranny, material misery for the great mass of the people, the suppression of all individuality and its expression in the arts, in science, in life. We can undo what progress has achieved. Or we can go the other road which marks the continuation of the best in the past and a new flowering of the human mind under conditions of freedom and experimentation.... “ Ella Winter]]> http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v350/__show_article/_a000350-000035.htm 2008-03-04T21:24:10Z 2008-03-04T21:30:53Z

Has anyone seen John McCain on TV recently? He becomes violently passionate when he discusses "Islamo fascism," claiming the US under his presidency will never accept "defeat." He even beat his chest in one performance. As the piece below describes he still even thinks we should have 'won" the Vie...

Who? Al Qaeda? Which according to most sources is no more than three or four thousand strong? For McCain still conflates our enemies in Iraq with al Qaeda. Though most sources claim they only represent two or three percent of those we have been fighting. He must mean the Muslim world then. All two or three billion of them. Swarming over our northern and southern borders, raping our women, slaughtering our livestock, setting our farms and towns on fire. Oh, that's not it? Perhaps he's referring to the suitcase bomber? The cell transporting the little container which can blow the guts out of midtown Manhattan. That must be it. But will those terrorist cells be fought with Abrams tanks on the sands of Iraq, with tens of thousands of American troops? By bombing them? Or would that only anger more Arabs, creating more enemies? People who hate us and want to join those cells?

Don't be fooled by the myth of John McCain

JOHANN HARI

A lazy, hazy myth has arisen out of the mists of New Hampshire and South Carolina. Across the pan-Atlantic press, the grizzled 71-year-old Vietnam vet, John McCain, is being billed as the Republican liberals can live with.

He is "a bipartisan progressive," "a principled hard liberal," "a decent man" -- in the words of liberal newspapers. His fragile new frontrunner status as we go into Super Tuesday is being seen as something to cautiously welcome, a kick to the rotten Republican establishment.

But the truth is that McCain is the candidate we should most fear. Not only is he to the right of Bush on a whole range of subjects, he is also the Republican candidate most likely to dispense with Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

McCain is third-generation Navy royalty, raised from a young age to be a senior figure in the armed forces, like his father and grandfather before him. He was sent to one of the most elite boarding schools in America, then to a naval academy where he ranked 894th of 899 students in ability. He used nepotism to get ahead: When he was rejected by the National War College, he used his father's contacts with the Secretary of the Navy to make them reconsider. He later married the heiress to a multi-million dollar fortune.

Right up to his twenties, he remained a strikingly violent man, "ready to fight at the drop of a hat," according to his biographer Robert Timberg.

This rage seems to be at the core of his personality: describing his own childhood, McCain has written: "At the smallest provocation I would go off into a mad frenzy, and then suddenly crash to the floor unconscious. When I got angry I held my breath until I blacked out."

But he claims he was transformed by his experiences in Vietnam -- a war he still defends as "noble" and "winnable," if only it had been fought harder.

(More than three million Vietnamese died; how much harder could it be?) His plane was shot down on a bombing raid over Hanoi, and he was captured and tortured for five years. To this day, he cannot lift his arms high enough to comb his own hair.

On his release, he used second his wife's fortune to run to as a Republican senator. He was a standard-issue Reaganite corporate Republican n until the Keating Five corruption scandal consumed him. In 1987, it was revealed that McCain, along with four other senators, had taken huge campaign donations from a fraudster called Charles Keating. In return they pressured government regulators not to look too hard into Keating's affairs, allowing him to commit even more fraud. McCain later admitted: "I did it for no other reason than I valued [Keating's] support."

McCain took the only course that could possibly preserve his reputation: He turned the scandal into a debate about the political system, rather than his own personal corruption. He said it showed how "we need to drive the special interests out of Washington," and became a high-profile campaigner for campaign finance reform. But privately, his behavior hasn't changed much. For example, in 2000 he lobbied federal regulators hard on behalf of a major campaign contributor, Paxson Communications, in an act the regulators spluttered was "highly unusual." He has never won an election without outspending his opponent.

But McCain has distinguished himself most as an über-hawk on foreign policy.

To give a brief smorgasbord of his views: at a recent rally, he sang "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," to the tune of the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann." He says North Korea should be threatened with "extinction."

McCain has mostly opposed using U.S. power for humanitarian goals, jeering at proposals to intervene in Rwanda or Bosnia -- but he is very keen to use it for great power imperialism. He learned this philosophy from his father and his granddad Slew, who fought in the Philippine wars at the turn of the 20th century, where he was part of a mission to crush the local resistance to the U.S. invasion. They did it by forcing the entire population from their homes at gunpoint into "protection zones," and gunning down anybody over the age of 10 who was found outside them. Today, McCain dreamily describes this as "an exotic adventure" which his grandfather "generally enjoyed."

Then McCain's father, John, led the U.S. invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1965, at a time when there was a conflict on the Caribbean island. On one side, there were forces loyal to Juan Bosch, the democratically elected left-wing president who was committed to land redistribution and helping the poor. On the other side, there were forces who had overthrown the elected government and looked nostalgically to the playboy tyranny of Rafael Trujillo. John McCain Sr. intervened to ensure the supporters of the democratic government were crushed, bragging that it taught the natives "how to behave themselves." He saw this as part of a wider mission, where the U.S. would take over Britain's role as a "world empire."

These beliefs drive McCain today. He brags he would be happy for U.S. troops to remain in Iraq for 100 years, and declares: "I'm not at all embarrassed of my friendship with Henry Kissinger; I'm proud of it." His most thorough biographer -- and recent supporter -- Matt Welch concludes: "McCain's program for fighting foreign wars would be the most openly militaristic and interventionist platform in the White House since Teddy Roosevelt...[it] is considerably more hawkish than anything George Bush has ever practiced." With him as president, we could expect much more aggressive destabilization of Venezuela and Bolivia -- and more.

So why do so many nice liberals have a weak spot for McCain? Well, to his credit, he doesn't hate immigrants: He proposed a program to legalize the 12 million undocumented workers in the U.S. He sincerely opposes torture, as a survivor of it himself. He has apologized for denying global warming and now advocates a cap on greenhouse gas emissions but only if China and India can also be locked into the system. He is somewhat uncomfortable with the religious right (while supporting a ban on abortion and gay marriage).

It is a sign of how far to the right the Republican Party has drifted that these are considered signs of liberalism, rather than basic humanity.

Yet these sprinklings of sanity -- onto a very extreme program -- are enough for a superficial, glib press to present McCain as "bipartisan" and "centrist." Will this be enough to put white hair into the White House? At the moment, he has considerably higher positive ratings than Clinton, and beats her in some match-up polls. If we don't start warning that the Real McCain is not the Real McCoy, we might sleepwalk into four more years of Republicanism.

Johann Hari writes for The Independent in Britain.]]> http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v350/__show_article/_a000350-000034.htm 2008-02-04T19:45:27Z 2008-02-04T19:54:25Z

If the Devil is at play here, and he is setting us up for the one two punch, then Barack is his main man. The perfect front. For after eight years of George Bush, of nightly seeing a President of the United States on television smirk, lie, mangle the language, and smile confidently and broadl...

And a horrible mockery, in this moment of our history, if he is not the “real thing.”

If Obama is a fake then he is truly the King of Mountebanks. And there has never been anyone quite like him.

He comes at a time when this country lays prone on the mat, not knocked out, but certainly down. He comes at a time when he appears as the perfect man to stretch out his hand and help the country back up. The man who knows what to say, what will make us feel good, how to begin the healing.

But is he more than that?

When Bill Clinton came onto the scene sixteen years ago he offered pretty much the same promise. And he was - if you happen to be progressive - a bust. He caved constantly to the right, gave us NAFTA, free trade, sacked the poor, and “triangulated” whenever he faced a fight. Now he is teaching us a new meaning for his crown “Slick Willy.” A title we can thank the Republican right for which those of us who once were Clinton apologists can fully understand and see. Though Kenneth Starr and his pack of rabid wolves were far worse.

What are the problems facing us? I won’t go through the lengthy list, yet again. What are Obama’s remedies? They don't actually appear that much different from Hillary’s. Where Obama truly shines is in the hope department, in uplifting the American spirit. His critics say much more than that is needed. And that millions of Americans have merely been mesmerized, irrationally projecting all their hopes and desires on this one man no one really knows.

They may be right.

But can those qualities Obama brings us be truly faked? Those of us who watch the passing scene see many fakes and phonies parade by. Romney is an excellent example over on the Republican side. Often they are too vulgar to be taken seriously. If Obama is a fake he is a fake with an enormous amount of class. He has perfected the appearance of a heightened nobility, and most mountebanks rarely succeed in those qualities. They in fact appeal frequently to the baser emotions, which is why if Obama is a fake he is the King of Mountebanks. And truly the Devil’s tool. For he has discovered how to employ a heightened noble air to fool the public. Let’s not forget, the candidate of choice is often the guy the voter would like to “have a beer” with. Like George Bush who convinced many voters he was a just a “regular guy” who really cared about them.

An early reviewer of Malcolm Lowry’s novel, Under the Volcano, criticized Lowry, an unknown novelist at the time, of having written a book which only simulated a great novel. Future critics and scholars have had some fun at the expense of this early critic’s assessment. For, of course, Under the Volcano was eventually accepted into the cannon. And has since then been recognized as a great novel.

It appeared like a great novel because it was.

I think it is normal and natural to balk, to wonder if we are being offered the real thing. Especially in politics (and in art) where fakes often abound. But if Obama’s not the real thing then he is indeed the King of Mountebanks. So I’m going to take a chance. Hillary is no alternative. And if we are heading toward the edge of a cliff anyway I’m curious to see what Obama will do.]]> http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v350/__show_article/_a000350-000033.htm 2008-01-31T19:53:26Z 2008-02-01T20:06:05Z

Is he for real? John Kerry seems to think so, closely echoing his message when he endorsed him the other day in South Carolina. Is he, Barack Obama, a new Lincoln or FDR or is he merely another Huey Long? He is, undoubtedly, one of the best political orators who has come along in a long, long t...

The first time I saw him (on TV) was at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He was fine, I thought, turning out an energetic and spirited speech. But didn’t actually say much. Chris Matthews, who oversaw the proceedings for his cable network, went wild predicting a new major political superstar had arrived. As usual, Matthews’ enthusiasms seemed overblown. The kind of stuff reflective of San Francisco’s lively saloon scene, when the local writers and newspapermen gather. A lot of fun, but mostly gas. Those who love language sometimes like it colorful, and Matthews always seeks to turn its levels up. He often markets himself on that.

So I pretty much forgot Obama, remembering only that the “pundocracy” had anointed him. Predicting he was a new star on the scene. Someone they would watch.

Then 2007 came along. And there were still murmurs out there that Obama was quite impressive on stage. Still I paid little attention. We know how overblown all this media stuff can be. And that they have an undue exagerated influence which is unattached to reality.

Then I finally saw him offer a full campaign speech. He was serious, he was hugely dignified, he treated his theme with the eloquent sobriety it deserved. I was impressed. This was no “smirking chimp” speech with our orator delivering it giggling and moronically winking reassuringly in a false manner. Obviously lying through his teeth.

Okay, chalk one up for Obama. He’s a serious man. What was lacking from the speech, though, was any real substance. It sounded good but he didn’t actually say much. Though he delivered it in quite an impressive manner. One which was troubling, because the suspicion lingered there may not have actually been anything there. That its sentiments may have merely come straight off the shelf.

But what if he meant it?

Then there was New Hampshire. January 8, 2008. And Obama came on stage after his narrow defeat to Hillary Clinton smiling as if in victory and gave a speech which can only be fairly described as transcendent. And it may have had this powerful impact on me because it was almost totally unexpected.

It was unlike anything I ever heard before. And I have been thinking about it deeply ever since, wondering what to make of it.

The speech started out inauspiciously enough, with Obama displaying the grace of both a victor and a loser, calmly congratulating Hillary for her close primary victory. Responding frequently to the love of the audience, an audience, we should perhaps recall, which was mostly white. And then he went into his delivery, offering the same speech, perhaps, he had prepared to give if he had won. No matter. Not one word need have been changed: in victory or close defeat. He would be moving on. And nothing came to an end in New Hampshire. The speech was about the future, fully appropriate to that moment.

It lasted about twelve minutes. And as he approached the end he went into his “yes we can” theme. Repeating it. But repeating that simple phrase with a passion which resounded throughout that packed hall of supporters. Inflecting his voice as if it were an instrument directly expressing his soul, bringing forth a deep beauty.

His delivery had an aspect of the black preacher about it (Obama’s background is not actually like most black Americans’): and listening closely the rhythms were slightly evocative of Dr. Martin Luther King. His delivery was polished, refined, possessing great class in all the good senses of the word. This was a poet speaking. An oracle. A man whose passionate vision touched everyone there with an uplifting eloquence.

Once again he said little that was specific, offering his concepts in a broad, general sweep. But his message was, “yes we can.” His message was inspirational. He made hope real, alive, possible. And when we look out at our country today, following seven years of presidential giddiness and lies leading on toward greater fear and uncertainty, what better message can there be?

For isn’t hope - “yes we can” - the most significant spiritual prescription our nation needs today? Isn’t a sense of collective hope the logical beginning? A candidate who establishes decent goals and expectations and a possible future to work for? A beginning and roadmap out of the current morass?

If so, we may have a great man in Obama seeking the presidency. If not, if Obama turns out to be a fake, another “vain, empty, and bullying body of our time,” as Norman Mailer decades ago described so many candidates seeking the presidency, then we are truly damned. Our country is truly cursed.

During these quadrennial nominating seasons I’m often deeply touched by the aspirations and hopes so many American voters put into their choices of candidates. How willing the candidates are to say anything to gain that hope and faith. The Hillarys and Mitt Romneys who will be whatever you want them to be in order to obtain your vote. Who soon forget all that faith and hope and human need which was put into their candidacies once they are elected.

Who can not be touched by that? Especially today, with so many enormous problems facing us? Some of them truly existential?

Let’s hope Obama is the real thing. For now I am deeply curious to see what kind of journey he will take this country on. Not long before he died, Norman Mailer once again rebuked our current president for routinely debasing the language. Mailer, among all our great writers, was deeply conscious of how a president’s use of language could influence our country, its national outlook and spirit. I wish Mailer were alive to hear Obama. I don’t think he would be disappointed.

"Yes We Can"
]]> http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v350/__show_article/_a000350-000032.htm 2008-01-14T19:59:30Z 2008-01-14T20:51:30Z

Recent estimates of how much this war in Iraq will cost us surpass one trillion dollars. One trillion dollars.

What a waste. What a waste. If we had gone to Saddam early in 2003 and had offered him (“We’re going to make you an offer you can’t refuse.”) one trillion for the entire country of Iraq - or, at least, his oil producing regions - do you think, staring the gun in the face, he would have declined?

One cool easy trillion dollars. He could have bought, perhaps, a chunk of southern France for that. He could have had the biggest and most luxurious beach resort in the world. He could have lived at ease and comfort, envied by millions, the most successful gangster ever, evolving into a figure of romance and legend in the history books.

But, no. Instead we decided to waste our money. To let our children die needlessly in Iraq. To murder and slaughter hundreds of thousands of Arabs making ourselves unpopular throughout the world. Hated, stuck in an unending violent quagmire, suffering an enormous loss of face.

And the cost of the war, according to experts, will go way beyond a trillion dollars. We could have saved billions!

With a billion bucks we could have bought off George Bush too. He could have bought the biggest ranch in Texas and may have left the rest of the world alone. For a lousy billion it would certainly have been worth it. At least, George wouldn’t have been obliged to be successful at anything. He could have lived at leisure, not a care in the sky. And had we known then what we know now we would have considered ourselves lucky.

Why, we just don’t seem to have our priorities straight in this country.
]]> http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v350/__show_article/_a000350-000031.htm 2007-11-21T23:59:23Z 2007-11-22T00:11:17Z

Now that the Democrats control the Congress the possibility of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine has been raised. By Democrats, of course. And by liberals and those who feel mute and unheard today over the nation’s airwaves on the left. Certainly not by the rightwing. When Ronald Reagan w...

The rightwing’s reaction to the proposal to bring the Fairness Doctrine back was predictable. Indeed inevitable, for they have much to lose.

Those corporate and rightwing interests who currently control the nation’s radio airwaves have let out a mighty howl of indignant protest. And they have all leapt upon the easy and quite accessible argument that reinstating the Fairness Doctrine would be an all out assault on free speech. That it would be an attempt to muzzle their Constitutional right to speak freely, unimpaired, unmolested by government, over the public airwaves.

But an honest glance beneath the surface of these arguments should reveal these complaints are actually fundamentally hypocritical and self-serving. For if the far right, which controls nearly all the nation’s radio airwaves, were truly interested in the principal of “free speech” they would welcome a diversity of opinions. Which is, after all, what the Fairness Doctrine requires. Diversity. The idea being that a well informed citizenry should be exposed to many different points of view, facts and ideas. Not just to those opinions which promote one particular faction, that currently being today, on nearly all the nation’s radio stations, predominantly the far right.

Yes, there may be some disagreement among rightwing talk jocks: but this is usually one faction on the right merely disagreeing with another, without any other viewpoint from the broad spectrum genuinely included. What’s more, opposing progressive points of view are routinely defined by the right so that those opinions are not only excluded but presented to the listening public within a rightwing framework. This hardly constitutes diversity. Nor is it at all fair if the left is denied equal time to reply and truly present its own “unshaped” arguments. Which rarely, very rarely, happens on rightwing talk radio.

What’s more, those opposing the Doctrine’s reinstatement confuse free speech with corporate controlled speech. There is a difference, and an important one. For those who defend the corporate monopoly of the airwaves, as it today exists, equate the “free marketplace” with “free speech.”

For that speech which is currently offered over most of America’s airwaves is merely profit driven and motivated. Nor is it shaped by any basic philosophical principals regarding “the free exchange of ideas.”

Let’s at least be honest about that. For it is primarily the far right and powerful corporate interests which oppose the return of the Fairness Doctrine. In itself, free speech is not their primary concern. It is holding onto their corporate control, profits, and power. That is what they fear losing. And that is what they are fighting for: not free speech.

Some would say that corporate ownership is actually reflective of true freedom of speech. That corporate owners and a monopolistic rightwing have a right to dominate and control the airwaves simply because they own them. That the equipment, the stations, the property the stations sit on belong to them. And that therefore they have a right to do whatever they please with their own private property: allowing whoever they want through the door, keeping everyone else out.

But the simple truth is that corporate profit and intellectual debate are two very different things. And that in a free, well-informed society the former interest should not guide and determine the latter, more important interest. The airwaves belong to us, the American people, and the current emphasis on private sovereignty of the airwaves should be reversed and changed. For free speech in a monopolistic corporate environment can not exist.

When Enlightenment philosophers argued for the “free exchange of ideas” they weren’t arguing for corporate ownership, or dominance, or a strict monopoly on any one side. That being the one with the most money and merely profit driven. And the Fairness Doctrine has always reflected the Founder’s original democratic point of view. I would hope that if matters were reversed, and the left enjoyed a stranglehold on the nation’s airwaves, they would allow equal access to the rightwing and other divergent points of view. For under such conditions the Fairness Doctrine would be equally applicable and valid. It sponsors free speech and debate. That is what matters.

Yes, if the Doctrine is brought back in all likelihood there will be a great change in what’s heard on the air. And many of the current rightwing talk stations will switch formats, reverting, perhaps, to music, rather than allowing a balanced diversity of opinions to take up time - “market time” - on the air. Some rightwing talk jocks will lose their jobs and their corporate employers will fear a substantial loss of profits. That is why their struggle against the Fairness Doctrine has been so fierce. And will continue to be fierce.

Here in Providence, Rhode Island, where I live, there is not one radio station, not one program on the local airwaves (this within the hub of “liberal” New England) which can even be regarded as a voice for the Democratic Party, not to mention progressives, liberals, Greens or leftists of one kind or another. And nearly all the voices which enter my house over various radio stations are not merely Republican, but the far right. “Conservative,” as they like to call themselves. And these voices, which would like to be perceived as representing the American “mainstream,” include the likes of Rush Limbough, Melanie Morgan, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, Matthew Drudge, Quinn and Rose, to name only a few of the better known. True, occasionally a “progressive” voice can be heard, but this is within a very vast sea of rightwing talk. And it continues unabated twenty four hours a day.

Would it bring the world to an end if there were at least one dissenting peep in all this daily, nightly, roundtheclock chorus of the far right? They enjoy a near complete monopoly now. Maintaining it by savaging the Fairness Doctrine is all they truly desire. And that they claim to believe in “free speech” is just one more added deception they jointly offer their vast listening audience, enjoying their monopoly of the nation’s airwaves.
]]> http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v350/__show_article/_a000350-000030.htm 2007-10-06T20:17:06Z 2007-10-06T20:32:10Z