Manifesto: explained
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
As quoted in an exhibition of Artists Against The War.
Senior US officials implicated in nuclear black market
An interesting post at Lenin's Tomb asks why more isn't being made of Sibel Edmonds's claims about corruption in the US government.
State Secrets laws don't permit her to talk to a judge about it, much less a television reporter, and much of the media has avoided looking too intensely at the matter. Apparently, she knows that several high-placed American officials put US nuclear materials on the black market, some of which were going to Pakistani secret police individuals with connections to 'Al Qaeda'.
By the way, lots of work on at the moment... I'm still working on a few longer posts though.
More trouble in Pakistan
I've just heard that Benazir Bhutto has been assassinated at a rally in Pakistan. This is obviously sad news for a country that stands on the brink of either democracy or disaster. While it's unlikely to be revealed one way or another, I've heard that President Musharaff and the military intelligence service of Pakistan are often accused of being behind terrorist attacks and assassinations. Is it really possible that the state would do something like this? I hope not, for everyone's sake.
11-M Verdicts Due Today
By lunchtime today, we should all know the verdicts decided by the court deliberating the case of the Al Qaeda operatives charged with attacking Madrid in 2004. South of Watford has an interesting post about the possible outcomes, and how they might affect the forthcoming general elections.
Another thing he points out is a poll in Público which reveals that 1/3 of PP voters still believe that ETA was involved in the bombings. Astounding. This is almost certainly as much because of the seeds of doubt sown by the PP in the months and years since the bombings, as it is thanks to the wild conspiracy theories spread by El Mundo, El COPE, Libertad Digital, Red Liberal, Telemadrid etc.
Like the Fox News channel, the first three on that list often rail against what they call 'the mainstream media' (they love the abbreviation 'MSM') which refers to other media source but themselves. While El País may have the edge on newspaper readership (Christ it's a dull read, though), El Mundo is one of the most popular websites in Spain, ranking considerably higher than ElPaís.com. This says to me that however skewed and unbelievable their news coverage might be, El Mundo is the mainstream media (just like Fox News is, just as El COPE is).
I first came across these bizarre conspiracy theories while reading Libertad Digital. For those of you who haven't read it, it sums up the false-centrism of the hard right in Spanish politics. A lot of waffle about economics (that's where the 'Libertad' seems to come from), accompanied by vitriolic 'news' 'reports' all targeted against the Socialists, the Basques, the Catalans, history, free speech, democracy and modernity. Give it a whirl, it'd actually be hilarious if it weren't the 20th most popular Spanish website.
"So where's the medical care?"
A shameless copy-paste from Armando Ianucci's typically amusing Observer column:
Talking of doubt, last week I had a conversation with a genuine neo-con who didn't have any. He was one of George Bush's former speechwriters and I asked him how he responded to the never-answered complaint from most of us that invading Iraq was senseless, because all the terrorists were in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. His only response was: 'That was then. The question is, what do we do now?' I kept telling him that where we were now was a result of what he did then, but he kept saying: 'No, but what's important is what we do now.' Which is a bit like saying: 'I know I set fire to your house, but can we draw a line under that? What's important now is that I've got a charred hand, so where's the medical care?'
Drawing a line, redefining the issue, re-evaluating the situation in the light of a fresh context; these are all highly sophisticated reverbalisations of: 'I don't know; can we start again?' George W Bush declares progress, even though his definition of progress is to get unbearable violence back to the level it was a year-and-a-half ago. If he goes on redefining phrases to mean around 96 per cent of their opposite, it won't be long before he manages to persuade Americans to think that a 'debacle' is a good thing. Especially if it's an improvement on an outright disaster. Expect soon to have American families celebrate Debacle Day, host Fiasco Barbecues and organise Shambles Carnivals.
Click here to read the original article.
The Conservatives' disastrous London campaign
In what was meant to be a plea to fans of democracy and a rallying call to London's Tories, a Conservative member of the London Assembly has brought into sharp focus her party's links with known terrorists who threaten the violent overthrow of Hugo Chavez's legitimate government. Writing in The Guardian, Angie Bray related meeting with 'Venezuelan dissidents' whom the Mayor, Ken Livingstone, had barred from entry to the GLA building. Comments on her article, most notably from Calvin Tucker of 21st Century Socialism, drew attention to the fact that the so-called 'dissidents' were none other than Aleksander Boyd of the website VCrisis.
On a number of occasions, Boyd has publicly called for the violent overthrow of Venezuela's government (which has won 8 democratic votes, all scrutinised by international authorities). He has also written that he wished he was Genghis Khan so that he could conquer Venezuela and pour molten silver into the eyes of his enemies. Don't we all?
Angie Bray's column was in response to the GLA's decision to buy oil for London Transport from Venezuela in exchange for below-market prices and some knowledge transfer from London to Caracas. Her aim was to paint Livinstone as recklessly doing business with Chavez (a figure hated among right-wing political groups the world over), just in order to offer Londoners 'an election bribe' prior to forthcoming mayoral elections. As some commenters on the Guardian website pointed out: this woman is trying to convince Londoners to vote Conservative by telling a sob story about a violent, self-obsessed terrorist who has also, interestingly enough, referred to writer Tariq Ali as 'that Paki journalist'.
But that's not all! As part of her article, Bray makes claims about ballot papers and the electoral roll in Venezuela which are simply untrue:
Have you ever seen the Venezuelan electoral register? It looks innocent enough at first, with columns for your name, address and polling number. But then it suddenly turns slightly menacing: a long line of columns records every ballot you have ever cast.
This is a fantasy. One can only assume it was fed to her by that ass Boyd as an attempt to get her to see him as the one true Genghis.
In one short blog post, Angie Bray has done more to help Labour's mayoral campaign than Hugo Chavez. Naturally, she should resign for consorting with (and taking mendacious stories from) known terrorists and racists. Also, David Cameron must be asked about his knowledge of Angie Bray's contact with Aleksander Boyd, and whether he agrees that Chavez should be violently overthrown.
Also, just what is considered to be 'an electoral bribe' these days? A proposed Tory tax cut which would hurt the poor by cutting services but benefit the wealthy is somehow passed off as economics whereas a deal with Caracas to source cheap fuel for Transport for London, to the benefit of the poorest, is smeared as a cheap 'electoral bribe'.
Summer holidays
Blogging has been erratic of late. My real job is going well. There have been a lot of recent events (London & Glasgow attacks, Yemen attacks etc) which I have strong feelings about but on which I've not had time to talk.
==
There is a column at The Guardian which is causing some controversy. The writer argues that to ignore British foreign policy while trying to understand Islamist fanaticism is a mistake. I sort of half agree with him. The way I see it is that our foreign policy has had an effect on a lot of the young men who have joined Islamist groups. But that doesn't mean that Islamism wouldn't exist without Western influence in the Middle East. Sayyid Qutb developed his warped ideas about us in the 1950s.
And still, understanding that Islamism exists without Western military action, it's stunning to think that people believe that our foreign policy has nothing to do with terrorism.
A world without Saddam Hussein is a better world. And yet, the way in which the war was prosecuted seems to have given both a breeding ground and fodder to the Islamists. This is, it must be admitted, a huge strategic failure. Iraq, like it or not, has become both recruiting ground and recruiting poster.
Islamism is clearly the enemy of socialism and democracy. But that doesn't qualify any and all action by Western governments as acceptable. It is right that we criticise our governments when we feel that they have made mistakes or overstepped the mark. Those commentators who try to smother criticism are missing the point. Debate is what makes us strong.
==
thebadrash.com will be on intermittent holiday between now and the beginning of September.
Is that it?
Busy times here at thebadrash tower. We bought a new gas grill (like a barbecue, but for cheats) and have been experimenting with it with varying degrees of success. Hint for those just starting out on the barbecue road: when chicken looks like it's cooked, cook it some more. And then some more. Alternatively, puke up a couple of times the next morning.
The big topic for bloggers here has been the unsurprising end to ETA's ceasefire. The usual suspects were quick to voice their traditional mixture of "String 'em up! / Hanging's too good for 'em!". In a way, they're right. If we killed everybody in the entire world, none of these things would happen.
Personally, I don't think the ETA story is that important.
What I find most interesting is whether the Spanish government pursued the Political Parties Law with too much vigour. This policy ended up by denying potential ETA supporters the vote as each party which looked like it might represent their views got proscribed. Stupid move. It makes no sense to ban political parties, even if you consider their supporters to be arseholes, terrorists or whatever. Investigate sources of funding, personal and corporate conduct of the party's members, beef up council database security to stop the thugs getting targets' personal data (though they could probably do this without a database, anyway)... but allow the party to exist. Give it the chance to enjoy limited democratic power as it's elected to town councils and help to lead it away from terrorism.
Comparisons with Northern Ireland are, on the whole, idle and unhelpful. Batasuna needs to publicly denounce violence at some point... and they will, but only if they're operating as a political force. Denying them a democratic voice prolongs the violence.
Ostensibly, the main winners in the current situation are the PP and ETA. Not really that surprising: the two need each other. ETA thrives on the sort of nonsense spouted by halfwits like Aznar and Rajoy, while those halfwits gain their folk devil with which they can terrorise the electorate. Sure, you could present this as a case of the PSOE failing to heed the PP's warnings about ETA all this time. Or you could remember that the PP has been the first opposition party in Spanish democracy to commit itself to wrecking any chance at negotiations, while simultaneously accusing the left of being 'soft on terror'. This led to the absurd wave of banning party lists.
But what about the airport bomb? It was disgraceful, of course. There will probably be more bombs and they'll all make me sad, frightened and angry. But they'll never have the effect on me that I've seen on several blogs: that they can somehow be solved by abolishing democratic rights for a small proportion of the population. This is not a solution, it's a causal factor. Sometimes, one wonders whether those in favour of such a policy secretly know that it'll only cause more trouble... perhaps that's what they want.
AVT demo in Madrid: pure class, again
The BBC deigned to report on the AVT's demonstration in Madrid at which between 7,000 and 110,000 activists marched against the early release of José Ignacio de Juana Chaos, after he wrote threatening articles which named some judges. What's interesting about the way the protesters and the BBC presented this demo was that it was somehow to do with de Juana Chaos's previous offence, the murder of 25 people during his career in ETA. Ostensibly, however, that was not the aim of the march at all. After all, de Juana Chaos has served 18 years of his sentence for that crime and, were he any other prisoner would be out early. So yet again, a demonstration called against one thing ends up being really about another thing completely. Or a multiplicity of things, as there were the usual banners around alluding to some kind of Zapatero involvement in 11M.
The AVT has no credibility as a politically independent pressure group.
It was nice to see the 7,000 enjoying the sunshine in Madrid's streets. Nice to see them waving their flags (some of them replete with fascist emblems). Nice to see their Nazi salutes while they sang the anthem of the armed forces. There's no doubt about it: the AVT rent-a-mob are a classy bunch.
--
One more thing: does anyone have any recent opinion poll stats on this topic? I haven't been able to find anyone but was reliably informed by the BBC's north American Spain correspondent that 'the vast majority of Spaniards are against de Juana Chaos's release'. That's fine if it's backed up with statistics... I just can't find them. Much obliged to anyone who can enlighten me.
The 11-M trial begins
So, after nearly three years, the trial of 29 people alleged to have plotted to blow up trains in Madrid begins today. Let's hope that the political parties and activist groups stay out of it and allow the court to do its job. It certainly will be interesting to see if any of the suspects break down under cross-examination and accuse Jesús de Polanco of planting the bombs.
South of Watford will probably be the place to check for updates.
24 creator is mental nutcase
This blog post at Digby's Blog analyses a New Yorker interview with the creator of popular TV series, 24. In it, Joel Surnow makes some fairly staggering assertions about what he considers to be a desire held by "every American".
Every American wishes we had someone out there quietly taking care of business. It’s a deep, dark ugly world out there. Maybe this is what Ollie North was trying to do. It would be nice to have a secret government that can get the answers and take care of business—even kill people. Jack Bauer fulfills that fantasy.
The post analyses the entire interview and adds some pretty interesting background information about this guy. I hate people who use that 'everyone hopes that...' or 'most people agree that...' line. 'Mental nutcase' is fine, though.
Scratching a bad rash
I'm getting a bit sick of the design and layout arond here. Thinking about a change. Also, the content: more righteous indignation, less paranoid speculation. Or was it the other way around?
Actually, I've been reading Nick Cohen's interesting criticism of the left in today's Observer. He makes a number of salient points in his dissection of everything that is wrong today with liberal-left politics and its general failure to adapt to the 21st century. I don't agree with him on everything. But he does remind me why I decided some time ago never to align myself with any political group or party because there are simply none who seem to have the right approach to things. Spain is a classic example: I'm not a Catalan nationalist but I'm sympathetic with those who would like more autonomy for Catalonia. At the same time, I couldn't support any of the parties who push for greater autonomy here because their memberships and leaders seem to be conniving, divisive pricks to a man. Besides, if greater autonomy means more laws banning me from drinking calimotxo or Xibeca and smoking weed at the beach with my mates, then perhaps it's not such a hot tip?
The Iraq debacle is another good example (and this is what Nick Cohen is focused on): I'm naturally a Labour man but how can I vote for that party when Tony Blair still insists that it was the right thing to do. It wasn't. Saddam was an awful, murderous bastard but the hell which has been unleashed on ordinary Iraqis does not justify his removal. Nick Cohen's main argument seems to be that the left has lost its way because in its opposition to illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, curtailed human rights at home, rendition and Guantanamo, it has failed to condemn the evil which so called 'neo-conservatives' are determined to defeat. There's a lot of ammunition for this argument and those employing it get a very real thrill from expounding the claim that the left wing is stuck in a bygone age when it could rely on being morally superior and nothing more. And it is true that numerous anti-American and anti-Semite worms have crawled out of the woodwork just in time to make us all look bad.
But the problem with Cohen's position is that all he's doing is claiming the moral high ground for the neocons. Basically, he seems happy to tell the left that they don't recognise that the world has changed and things aren't as clear cut as they once were, while at the same time he's stating quite firmly that this is a simple case of moral imperative: we had to remove Saddam at any cost. Clearly, he wants to have his cake and eat it.
He continues by drawing attention to the millions of left wingers who demonstrated against 'the overthrow of a fascist government'. To emphasise his point, he makes trite references to Rome, Madrid and Berlin - as if the residents of cities which had once lived under the shadow of a dictator should somehow 'know better'. The problem is that opposing the war was never the same as appeasing Saddam. Who cares if he was happy about the protests? The point of the demos was to let our governments know that we weren't going to be hoodwinked into an illegal war which would end up killing tens of thousands of civilians. And we were absolutley right.
The problem for those who were (and, carazily, still are) in favour of the war is that they really did think they were going to get things over and done with pretty quickly. They didn't realise that they were going to visit on Iraq a state of murderous destruction not seen since the dark days of Saddam's purges. Or if they did, they didn't care.
The point of all this is, I suppose, to say that in the case of Iraq, there is no moral high ground. We on the left had nothing to suggest in the way of alternatives to getting rid of Saddam. We need the oil, the Iraqis need democracy and the world is a better place without that awful man. At the same time, supporters of the war must accept that they have made a colossal mistake in Iraq, causing the deaths of many tens of thousands of civilians, enraging an already volatile muslim community, establishing the dangerous precedent of pre-emptive attack and handing vast strategic power to a much more dangerous country: Iran.
In the end, Nick Cohen's article is more or less spot on, insofar as it discusses the facts of the dispersal of the left-wing in Britain... (I only wish he'd write another about modern conservatism). While there are aspects of his argument which I find I can't agree with, he's correct about two important things: the left wing has lost its way horribly and we have failed to display any reasonable degree of solidarity with the Iraqis: the true victims of all this mess. Think on.
