Positive Freedom

I was at a loss what to say for today's post. There are many stories which should be given attention, and also so many people giving them the attention they deserve. I keep hoping (and this is probably hubris) that I can say something just a little bit different or at least point readers in a direction of a novel way of looking at a news story or a nuance that isn't being talked about loudly enough. Then, at the very last gasp, I found it.

Julian Baggini has an excellent opinion column today in the UK's Guardian newspaper on why the British political left has gained a certain amount of an American accent, and an accent of the American right at that.

Baggini's central thesis is that the British left have allowed themselves to become infected with a notion of the American right: namely that the only freedom is freedom from interference to run one's own affairs. Baggini calls this "negative freedom".

On the personal level, this means a lack of coercion or intrusion from government in the lives of citizens. At the national level, it means a lack of intervention from outsiders in the life of the country. In both cases, the key idea is that the individual and the nation are both entities which alone have the absolute right to determine their own destinies for themselves.

However, there is another kind of freedom, which Baggini describes as "positive freedom".

Negative freedom is vitally important. But the left has always recognised another from of liberty: positive freedom. This is the practical ability to actually make choices and live your life in the way you want. The problem is that negative freedom alone doesn't guarantee this. If you have no opportunities in life, the fact that the government isn't interfering with your business is small consolation...Freedom only becomes real if people are empowered to make choices for themselves, and they may need the help of others to do so.

Historically, the political left in Western Europe has recognised the importance of both types of freedom. Thus they have pretty much rejected central state socialism while still seeing the virtues of social security and the welfare state, unionisation, free universal health care and other such socialist programmes. I grew up in a leftwing heartland, a son and grandson of coal miners. I may well be the first member of my family to gain a University degree in seven generations. I am utterly certain that without these benefits of "positive freedom" I and my parent would have been too busy struggling with life to ever conceive of such a happenstance as my staying in further education. To me, these virtues are self-evident.

In the U.S. however, and never more so than in this recent election, "positive freedom" is automatically "more government and more taxes" and this knee-jerk reaction is even made by those at the bottom of the heap who without the benefits of "positive freedom" will always be poor simply because the fight to live any kind of life takes all their energy and resources. They have bought the right's vision of "negative freedom" and swallowed it whole, along with the notion that the Democrats are snobbish elitists who will take away that freedom.

Thomas Frank touches much of the same ground in his interview What's the Matter with Democrats? for AlterNet today. He identifies the Republican theme:

Instead of it being blue collar against white collar, or workers against the Fortune 500, it is average Americans – or "authentic" Americans – versus an affected liberal elite. They use this language of class all the time and it is there in every single one of these issues. It’s just below the surface – usually not even below the surface. It’s right there.

This [class issue] was not a problem for Democrats fifty years ago. Calling Democrats an elite group back then would have been laughable. The idea of liberals being elite was ridiculous because liberals were autoworkers in Detroit, sharecroppers in Alabama. And that’s who they still are, to some degree. But they have to rediscover that identity.

Frank also says (in so many words)that the Democrats should rediscover their passion for "positive freedom" as an answer to the accusation that they don't know what they stand for.

I think with everybody agrees that this is one of the Democrats’ central problems. This has always struck me as very odd because I know exactly what they’re about: number one, equality; number two, security.

I don’t mean national security but economic security: security from booms and busts, security from the business cycle, security in old age, looking out for the weak.

As for equality, if you look back to the founding of this party and Andrew Jackson, this is what it’s all about: equal rights for all, special privileges for none. That is fundamentally who the Democrats are.

In Britain, after 13 years of Thatcher, the left became electable again when it excised the old abuses of power it was prone to but retained it's reliance on "positive freedom". Now, if it loses that, it may be in trouble with the populace. The left in America finds itself in the same wilderness now, facing Thatchers ideological offspring. If the left is to become electable in the U.S., it will have to launch an Operation Positive Freedom.

Neocons Want Rumsfield Sacked

The Sunday Times reports that a growing chorus of neo-conservative commentators want Rumsfield sacked and replaced with someone with wider appeal. The loudest voice to date has been William Kristol, the neoconservative editor of The Weekly Standard magazine and Chairman of the influential Project for the New American Century. The latter body, the PNAC, has been accused of being a true conspiracy behind the policies of the Bush administration.

“What remains to be done is to announce new leadership for the department of defence,” Kristol wrote in his Thanksgiving message for the Weekly Standard. “This, surely, would be an important opportunity for a strong, Bush-doctrine-supporting outsider, someone who of course would be a team player, but someone who could also work with the military and broaden support for the president’s policy.”

The Sunday Times reports retired military man and neocon media figure Ralph Peters as saying:

"“I am allergic to Rumsfeld...We did a great thing in Iraq, but we did it very badly. He is an extremely talented man but he has the tragic flaw of hubris. His arrogance is unbearable. My friends in uniform just hate him.”

and explains why the long knives are out for Rummie:

"The calls for Rumsfeld to be dismissed have intensified since the departure was announced of his cabinet rival, Colin Powell, the secretary of state. With the liberal-leaning Powell being the first to go, conservatives no longer see the need to hold back their opinions.

The defence secretary’s job security has not been enhanced by allegations that he lobbied to scupper the intelligence bill in Congress last week against President George W Bush’s wishes. Rumsfeld made little secret of his opposition to the bill’s plan for the national intelligence director to be given sweeping powers over the $40 billion intelligence budget, 80% of which is currently controlled by the Pentagon."

The Sunday Times says that the favoured replacement amongst neo-con pundits is Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, another founder member of PNAC. Wolfowitz is reputed to be behind the Office of Special Plans, an intelligence committee set up at the Pentagon which reportedly was behind much of the overly hawkish intelligence which was used to justify the war in Iraq.

Yet Rumsfield is one of the original signatories to the Statement of Principles that founded the PNAC, along with the likes of Kristal, Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney and Jeb Bush. Is this simply a falling out amongst the neo-con hawks who believe in the U.S. as a new Roman Empire and in a Pax Americana at gunpoint? The cynic in me says wait and see. Maybe Rumsfield is being groomed for something else and they feel the need to get him out of the firing line over the war and the economic debacle that the Bush second term is shaping up to be.

Most Americans Don't Believe in Evolution.

According to a CBS poll, anyway. Seems 55% of those surveyed think God created humans in their present form without any evolution and another 27% think that humans did evolve, but God guided the process to arrive at the obvious pinnacle of His creation. Only 13% think God had nothing to do with it at all. An incredible 45% of Bush voters would replace teaching of evolution in schools with creationism outright! A mind-boggling 24% of Kerry voters agree with them. That figure jumps to 60% if only evangelists are asked.

"Support for evolution is more heavily concentrated among those with more education..."

Now that I have reported the bare facts of this poll, what can I say without tossing my fondly held preferences for reasoned words and logical debate out of the window?

Perhaps I could point out to those who insist that evolution is "only a theory" that all science is made up of theories which run a spectrum from the Theory of Gravity (We can't see the forces that actually make it work, but we can see the effecets at all stages, can do maths that predict the effects and the notions about what makes it work connect well with the rest of science) through to the Theory of Alien Life (we can't see it or it's effects but the math says it's likely so it's a good working supposition until more evidence comes along) and that evolution is closer to the former than the latter. Or that just because its a "theory" in science doesn't mean it isn't true - it's just that scientists admit there is always a chance of being wrong, however microscopic that chance is.

Perhaps I could talk about Occam's Razor (the likeliest explanation is probably the true one)and how Creationism requires it's advocates to resolve conflicts with radio-carbon dating, geology, fossil finds, observed evolution in other animals,and a whole host of other good science.

I could even point out that the existence of God is itself, strictly speaking, only a theory. One backed up by very little repeatable evidence, mathematics, direct observation by impartial, trained observers or even any good connections to the rest of human knowledge. By this standard, Creationism is a much poorer theory than evolution.

None of this will make any difference to those who believe but I assure you of one thing: I don't know whether to laugh or cry and I am not alone in this.

Newshog 28-11-2004

For four years now, American neo-conservatives have been congratulating themselves on running the world's only superpower. Given their record, is it any wonder the rest of the world has quietly been trying to level the balance? Here is today's Newshog News Briefs. If you have an opinion - post a comment!

• Why are letter writers across America outraged that the act of mass killing makes smoking look cool?
  
• Less than 1 in 5 American evangelists would give to AIDS orphans.
  
• Pentagon exposes Bush' lie: "Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies," new report says. More here too.
  
• Take a look at the flip side of Iraq war reporting. Ask yourself, is this any less or more biased than Fox News? Any idea which is more accurate?(Thanks, Shadows)
  
• There simply is no evidence that the Republicans illegally stole the election. Sorry. Now suck up and drive.
  
• Marines admit they always have ex-members of Saddam's special forces with them on raids. Aren't these the guys we were meant to be defending the Iraqis from?
  
• The British Army says that the IRA is unlikely to return to terorrism because 9/11 eroded their American support.
  
• The election in the Ukraine has more at stake than simply democracy for that country, as the U.S. Russia and European Union all mull the geopolitical effects.
  
• Bush agrees to changing the unfair law that lead to recent WTO sanctions against the U.S.
  
• After Putin's alliance-forging trip to Brazil - next stop India, where the two countries are expected to sign accords on defence cooperation and other areas to take strategic relations to a much higher level.
  
• In case you missed it, there's a huge scandal brewing - "Tankergate" - which has already cost top people their jobs and cost the taxpayer billions.
  
• The Bush administration's privatisation of Social Security will be financed by more borrowing, increasing the budget deficit, says White House.
  
• In Britain, a new poll suggests the Conservative Party will still be unelectable for at least ten more years. Thanks Mrs Thatcher.
  
• Opposition mounts, much of it from within his own party, to Tony Blair's homegrown Patriot Acts.
  
• And lastly, have some fun making stickers for schoolbooks. (Only the first one is a genuine sticker already used by some American school boards.)
  

Quote of the Day:



Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.


Voltaire

George W. Bush is a Retread of Maggie Thatcher

There is a slightly greasy, scary feeling to America nowadays which perhaps only a British ex-patriot of a certain age could recognise. In urban belts of decay around downtown bright lights, anarchy symbols and anguished cries like "Justice Now" hastily sprayed across derelict buildings have multiplied in the last couple of years from an occasional feature to a prevalent motif. The sense of alienation from the corridors of power among the poorest-and-getting-poorer, the feeling that apathy is just about to become anger, is almost tangible. To anyone who was there for the second and third terms of the Thatcher administration the sense of deja-vu is overwhelming. And it's not all that surprising.

President Bush and his supporters, echoed by a media which rarely encourages the public to look for it's lessons beyond their own shores, have long trumpeted their connection to the Reagan years. However, a far better parallel would be the other ultra-conservative leader of the 80's, Margaret Thatcher, for this is where Bush's true heritage lies. I am not the only one to notice either. Paul Johnson, radical right-wing journalist and advisor to Thatcher, agrees. The science fiction author, Charles Stross, known for his exceptionally perceptive visions of possible future societies, explored the metaphor in his diary blog as long ago as last summer.

"The leader and their coterie form a tightly-knit community, bound together by a shared ideological outlook and suspicion of outsiders. They don't trust fellow members of their own party who don't fully subscribe to the clique's world-view. They have a set of policies determined by their ideological outlook, and they appear to be pursuing these policies without any interest in the public response to them. They know they're right and they're not interested in protests: proceeding by consensus is seen as weak.
The in-group have strong links to key industrial sectors and their policies promote the well-being of those sectors at the expense of others. They're willing to employ legislation to make an end-run around regulations that hamper the industrial sectors they favour. There is a revolving door between senior members of this group and the boardrooms of the largest companies in the industrial sectors they favour. The major private media organisations (notably Rupert Murdoch's News International) loves them. And say to repeatedly, through all their radio, TV and newspaper channels. They're willing to use strategic tax cuts, even if they're unsustainable, to buy popularity just before an election.
They're socially conservative with a protestant christian religious background, opposed to minority rights, non-traditional gender relationships, gay rights, sex education, quotas, affirmative action, and so on. They take a dualistic black/white view of foreign affairs -- either you're on their side, or you're sleeping with the enemy. As a corollary, they behave publicly as if they believe their domestic political opposition are disloyal -- traitors or stooges of the enemy, or just plaint corrupt and evil -- rather than acting out of principle on the basis of beliefs they don't share with the administration. (They do not believe in the democratic myth of the "loyal opposition".) "

However, along with Stross and I, millions of Britons who didn't happen to share or simply could not afford Thatcher's share-owning ultra-conservative agenda know how this ends. In what follows, imagine America substituted for the United Kingdom. Margaret Thatcher went from being one of the most popular British leaders ever to undoubtably the most hated over the course of her reign. Race riots, poverty riots and protest demonstrations spread like wildfire, put down by a police force she seemed to regard as her own personal brownshirts. Depression, both economic and emotional, hung over the land like a pall.

Ten years later, the country was still struggling to recover from the effects of the Thatcher Years. One of the effects of Thatcherism's splitting of the country into bitter factions was that in her early years the opposition, the Labour Party, only held on to any electoral viability in it's heartlands like Scotland and Wales. As payment for their loyalty, the Scots and Welsh demanded and got devolved government, which many feel will lead inevitably to independence and the breakup of the United Kingdom as these states become States indeed. A nightmare scenario for the American replay could include California repeating history.

There was good news, though. The excesses of the Thatcher government, as they finally fell apart under the caretaker John Major (the only man ever to run away from the circus to become an accountant) made the Conservative Party unelectable in the UK for at least a generation. Twenty five years after her first election win, her Party may well slip into third place. Meanwhile, the left-wing Labour Party has moved more towards the centre, found new and energetic leadership like Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, adopted some of the more sensible conservative policies (like tighter controls on public spending), advocated fiscal responsibility and now have one of the more successful economies in a resurgent Europe. Unfortunately, Mr. Blair seems to have become infected by the same meglomania as Thatcher and Bush, and it remains to be seen if a quiet coup will replace him with, say, Brown.

As America seems to be well on course to repeat the dismal experiments of Thatcher in ultra-conservativism, Americans would do well to remember that history also happens beyond their own shores, and that "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Looks Like "Military Intelligence" is Still Oxymoronic

What is going on with the U.S. intelligence community right now? Jane's Intelligence Digest is reporting today that the CIA is facing a major purge as Goss supervises the neo-con gutting of the Agencies upper echelons. Jane's reports:

"Landmark bipartisan legislation providing a blueprint for far-reaching reforms in the US intelligence establishment - which embraces at least 15 separate agencies - foundered in Congress on 20 November, in large part because the Department of Defence under Secretary Donald Rumsfeld opposes it. The bill would have forced the Pentagon, a long-time rival of the CIA that controls 80 per cent of the US$40 billion intelligence budget, to yield much of its authority."

It very much looks like an attempt to save the Pentagon's massive intelligence budget for Bush-loyalist Rumsfield as well as give control of the CIA's paramilitaries over to the Defence Department.

"The White House is making moves to transfer the CIA paramilitary operations to the US Army's Special Forces, as recommended by the 9/11 Commission. Some erosion of the CIA's sphere of influence is already under way. Recent legislation gives the US Army's Special Operations Command up to $25 million a year to spend on buying support from foreign warlords or military forces in the war on terrorism. That activity has traditionally been part of the CIA's preserve."

Meanwhile, two of the CIA's top undercover agents have quit, citing differences with management. The BBC reports:
"The departures are the latest in a string of resignations following a shake-up in the agency's operations.The chief of the clandestine unit, Stephen Kappes, and his deputy, Michael Sulick, stepped down last week...two officials could not be named, as they were working undercover, but..a former intelligence official [described] them as two "very senior guys". "

The two were heads of clandestine operations of Europe and the Far East, respectively, and thier loss at a time when both the Ukraine and North Korea are "items of interest" cannot be a trivial matter.

Maybe Bush and Co. are a little premature putting their intelligence trust in the Pentagon, after revelations earlier this week that a senior analyst is a paedophile. The local police in Texas where he was arrested attempting to meet a 14-year-old for sex (who turned out to be a detective working a sting)had to inform the FBI due to his very high security clearance. Before an intelligence organisation gives someone a high clearance, isn't this the kind of thing they are supposed to know? After all, received wisdom is that such perversions make agents very easy to recruit for a foreign power by blackmail. If they can't keep tabs on their own people, what chance of keeping tabs on Al-Quaida?

The Media on Lost and Found in Fallujah

One of the hot stories today is the alleged finding of a chemical/biological weapons lab in Fallujah by Iraqui National Guard soldiers, besides the vast store of more conventional weapons. Another is the finding of 20 torture houses in the same city. Most versions of this second story attribute the finding to U.S. troops, but a more accurate version in many cases is that they are led to them. The first such house in Fallujah was found by the Iraqui National Guard, the latest by U.S. soldiers led there by an Iraqui claiming to be an escaped prisoner from the torture house.

It is just so much easier to assume that heroic Western soldiers are uncovering these atrocities and write the story in this shorthand fashion. After all, it is what the public wants to hear. Never mind the fact that to do so is intellectual laziness, or that a newspaper simply ripping the latest newswire story straight to the press without thinking about how it presents the fact is editorial incompetence. Professional journalists should, surely, be just a wee bit cynical. I do not doubt for a minute that torture houses existed in Fallujah - but 20 of them, one with empty bottles of whisky broken outside with the obvious implied insult to supposedly devout muslim insurgents' religious devotion? Am I the only one who finds it strange that there are 10,000 American troops in Fallujah and only 2,000 Iraqui National Guard, but the latter keep finding all the truly horrifically interesting stuff? Am I the only one to question the honesty of an Iraqui administration that can blythly announce there are "no civilian casualties in Fallujah" and think maybe some of those horrors might have been set up just in time to lead the Marines to them? I don't know this for sure, of course. What I do know is that a goodly proportion of the mainstream press don't seem to be interested in thinking like investigative journalists any more.

Newshog 24-11-2004

On balance, I have decided to try for two Newshog Briefs entries a week, most likely on Wednesdays and Sundays. I will include stories that I feel are under-reported elsewhere or that have important information bearing on other current stories you may read in the mainstream news. I hope you find them interesting and post comments. If you have a story you think I should include, email me the link and I will credit you for finding it. Regards, C.

• Fallujah aside, all you have to know is that the road to Baghdad Airport isn't safe.
  
• European Union ministers have approved a military rapid reaction force, but it is not to be the basis for a standing army...honest, it isnt. D'accord?
  
• Is it time to bring back the House Committee on Un-American Activities? Yes, says one conservative commentator.
  
• Morgan Stanley chief economist says U.S. has only a 10% chance of avoiding economic armageddon.
  
• Another Republican rebellion as the bunker-buster nuke program gets the axe.
  
• Republican Rumbles part two - Are the realists jumping ship and leaving the idealogues in charge? Look, there goes another one - the Director of the Economic Council quits and more look sure to follow.
  
• A must read! A bemused British journalist interviews G Gordon Liddy, the rabid shock jock who gives voice to America's extreme right.
  
• Heres a fun question - is the euro set to replace the dollar as the hard currency of choice? The Russians may help the rest of the world to decide.
  
• Celebrity anti-war campaigners including Harold Pinter and Iain Banks join 23 MPs in Westminster to call for Tony Blair’s impeachment over "war lies".
  
• The United States, Russia and Sudan have been accused of being the biggest violators of housing rights in 2004.
  
• Republican Rumbles part three- The turf war in the intelligence community is all about budget share, surely, and a new order for an internal review is likely to just fuel the fires.
  
• The Russian President is in Brazil to sell space and nuclear technology, fighter planes. I am guessing he sees an opportunity to duplicate Russias success in making India an ally.
  
• A British newspaper interviews eye-witnesses who say that US forces in Iraq killed unarmed civilians. American authorities have accused militant sympathisers of spreading disinformation.
  

Quote of the Day:



The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.


Bertrand Russell

Destroy the Village or Save It?

It would be a mistake to regard all U.S. conservatives as blindly following the Bush lead on the conduct of the conflict in Iraq. William S. Lind is a prominent conservative, Director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress Foundation. He is also written for the military on "Fourth Generation Warfare" which specifically includes terrorism and counter-terrorism operations. Mr Lind has nothing but contempt for the neo-cons, calling them "fools, lightweights who can dismiss history and culture because they know nothing of history or culture." In his most recent post to his "Commentary" Lind states bluntly:

"U.S. forces have taken Falluja. Were we fighting a war in the Spanish Netherlands in the 17th century, and were Falluja the fortress city of Breda, the victory might mean something. Caught up as we actually are in a Fourth Generation war in Iraq, the event is almost meaningless. Most of the guerillas fled before we attacked, as guerillas are supposed to do (“When the enemy attacks, we retreat.”) U.S. forces are finding few dead resistance fighters; the 1,200 to 1,600 “body count” the American command is claiming will prove as phony as those in Vietnam. Meanwhile, the resistance is hitting us elsewhere. When U.S. forces leave Falluja, they will return there too. And the U.S. military has again destroyed the village in order to save it, giving its enemies a victory at the moral level. Will we ever learn?"

He then goes on to castigate the military and political leadership for their short-sightedness in using inappropriate tactics, instead advocating that the leadership read a book by a Marine tactician, "Tactics of the Crescent Moon" which advocates:

"Through better tactics, U.S. forces could take fewer casualties at close range without alienating the local population and without sacrificing their long-range capabilities. More powerful than firepower in this new kind of war will be the preservation of infrastructure. For it is the lack of social services that gives the foe his recruiting base. In the 21st century – as it was at the end of World War II – food, water, clinics and jobs will do infinitely more to secure the ultimate victory than bombs. Better small-unit technique costs nothing. It requires only a slower operational pace and the authority to experiment at the company or school level."

Thought provoking stuff, no matter where on the political spectrum you stand.

Posting Comments

If you aren't a member of BlogSpot (with your own blog) then the only way to post a comment is to go to the option on the "post Comment" screen below the username sign in, where it says "post anonymously". Click there, post, and sign it with your usual screename. I'm sure I will figure out who it was :-)

Regards, C

Pentagon Admits to 15,000 Extra Wounded Troops

How many injured and ill soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines ...are left off the Pentagon’s casualty count?

Would you believe 15,000? 60 Minutes asked the Department of Defense to grant us an interview. They declined. Instead, they sent a letter, which contains a figure not included in published casualty reports: "More than 15,000 troops with so-called 'non-battle' injuries and diseases have been evacuated from Iraq."

Meanwhile, some analysts say that if the Pentagon could keep quiet about those 15,000 for so long, then maybe there are more wounded they are still keeping quiet about. Could the true figure be as high as 30,000 extra wounded not on the official lists? '60 minutes' on CBS has done what few of the cowed mainstream media have had the guts to do and asked some tough questions. Read more here.
For a look at why the mainstream (offline) media are largely failing in their charge and why it's not the journalists at fault but editors and owners, try the latest Tomgram: Michael Massing on Iraq coverage and the election at TomDispatch.

Age of Empires

This is a reprint of a blog entry from my blog at the Daily Grail. The mirror image may not work totally, but I only hope it is thought provoking. If you act negatively, then ask yourself why. The first part is unproblemmatic as it is simply a matter of history. Would the second part be as contoversial if it took as it's subject the British Empire or the old U.S.S.R.?

What was it like to be a citizen of the Roman Empire at the close of the 3rd Century? Whether rich or poor, enmired in one of the unstable and violent slums or enthroned in a marble palace, each and every Roman believed that their Empire would last forever and was blessed by the Gods with the destiny of ruling the whole World. This was surely plain and obvious to all, as although wars had sometimes slowed progress, the Empire had continued to expand and would always do so. The Roman Empire was self-evidently the only home of civilisation, even if that civilisation had largely been stolen in the first place from Greece or Egypt or had been brought by immigrants from the client Kingdoms and conquered domains of the Empire. Romans knew that the nation was first in science, arts, literature, military might and culture. Romans believed that their Empire had the right to be the greatest consumer of natural resources because of this “manifest destiny” and jealously guarded their privileges from the “barbarians” – by whom they meant everyone not Roman. They were insular to the extreme, while still being imperialistic and expansionist, and nowhere was this more true than in the slums where the common citizenry were kept occupied by resource-gobbling circuses and subsidised foodstuffs.

Behind the facade of common belief though, the Roman state was headed for destruction due simply to these beliefs. The vast military meant that continual conquests had to be made to provide resources for it’s upkeep (gold) while the bread-and-circuses which kept the common populace in check drained even further the resources of the nation. So much so in fact, that periodically another internal minority would be described as enemies of the state and stripped of their wealth by persecution. The plurality of religion espoused by Rome was never sacrosanct and was often set aside so some fringe religion could become the latest to be persecuted. The arrogance and insularity of Rome along with its heedless gobbling of other nations wealth eventually lead to its downfall as it became stricken by internal dissent and outside aggression. The Roman Empire forgot also that every Empire must eventually fall.

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

What was it like to be a citizen of the American Empire at the close of the 20th Century? Whether rich or poor, enmired in one of the unstable and violent slums or enthroned in a marble palace, each and every American believed that their Empire would last forever and was blessed by God with the destiny of ruling the whole World. This was surely plain and obvious to all, as although wars had sometimes slowed progress, the Empire had continued to expand and would always do so. The American Empire was self-evidently the only home of civilisation, even if that civilisation had largely been stolen in the first place from Europe or Africa or had been brought by immigrants from the client nations and conquered domains of the Empire. Americans knew that the nation was first in science, arts, literature, military might and culture. Americans believed that their Empire had the right to be the greatest consumer of natural resources because of this “manifest destiny” and jealously guarded their privileges from the “barbarians” – by whom they meant everyone not American. They were insular to the extreme, while still being imperialistic and expansionist, and nowhere was this more true than in the slums where the common citizenry were kept occupied by resource-gobbling entertainment programming and subsidised gas and SUVs.

Behind the facade of common belief though, the American state was headed for destruction due simply to these beliefs. The vast military meant that continual conquests had to be made to provide resources for it’s upkeep (oil) while the realityTV-and-SUVs which kept the common populace in check drained even further the resources of the nation. So much so in fact, that periodically another internal minority would be described as enemies of the state and stripped of their wealth by persecution. The plurality of religion espoused by America was never sacrosanct and was often set aside so some fringe religion could become the latest to be persecuted. The arrogance and insularity of America along with its heedless gobbling of other nations wealth eventually lead to its downfall as it became stricken by internal dissent and outside aggression. The American Empire forgot also that every Empire must eventually fall.

Newshog 21-11-2004

Here is my first of at least a weekly roundup of news and opinion that caught my interest. Hopefully this section will get longer by the next time I post it.I have kept the Daily Grail format because I like it! Thanks Greg.

• The Founder of Betterhumans feels that America is experiencing a creative decline - and that the economy will follow.
  
• The US plans to spray Afghanistans opium harvest from the air - and it appears nobody else is happy about it.
  
• The soldiers' story: the war the video cameras do not see. The story manages to convey the humanity of many Marines and contrasts senior officers well with their UK counterparts.
  
• However, the carnage in Fallujah may not be excuseable no matter how human the perpetrators. Is it a case of ruling by fear or just a Carthiginian solution?
  
• Faith based parks? Creationists tackle the Grand Canyon.
  
• Defence Tech's Noah Schactman wonders why the US military are so secretive about I.E.D.s
  
• The British Government proposes it's own version of the Patriot Act. Is it just me or is Blair even beginning to look like Maggie Thatcher?
  
• The video of a Marine shooting an injured Iraqui leads a Texan Democrat to call for a ban on imbedded reporters.
  
• iS President Putin planning to glue together the world's most powerful coalition superpower?
  
• Conservative scientists and pressure groups tell the U.S. Senate that pornography is worse than crack.
  

Quote of the Day:



Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.


Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor.

Welcome

Hi there. This blog is by way of being an experiment. I've been posting news items for The Daily Grail website for a few months now, and thanks to Greg Taylor there for affording me the opportunity to exercise the little gray cells. However, there have been many many news stories that were not suitable for TDG that still got me worked up. Hopefully, I will be able to exorcise those stories here. The first story is a holdover from Daily Grail...



PICTURES OF FALLUJAH



Dear Friends,

I know we try to keep politics out of TDG, but in this case it is simply too important to ignore. Please have a look at these pictures. They are harrowing, they show injured soldiers, injured Iraquis, mutilated children - casualties caused by BOTH sides. I for one will not turn my head away. No matter each of our opinions on why the war began,we owe each and every one of these fellow human beings the honour of not looking away. If it were my brother wounded in uniform, or my child left without a limb after an artillery bombardment....either way, I cannot promise that I would still be unbiased. It is up to those of us who have not yet been through that polarising experience to counsel peace while we still may, before generations of hate rage unstemmed. For the sake of the children. Please.

Regards, C

To see the original comments on this item over at The Daily Grail click here.