You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Politics’ tag.
The situation in the Ukraine has me puzzled. The violence and protests leading up to the deposing of the Ukrainian president were not given much coverage in the media that I follow/ or I just plain missed it. Whatever the case may be, I’m getting a couple of nearly diametrically opposed narratives of what is going on in the Ukraine and for my edification and yours we’ll go through them together.
For clarity, and the fact I like using coloured text, the article for Al Jazeera will be in green, and the articles from Counterpunch in the usual brown. Starting with Al Jazeera and the article by Mykola Riabchuk penned as “Ukraine: Russian Propaganda and Three Disaster Scenarios.
Riabchuk’s article has a surface pro-Ukraine slant but I think we can safely say that the slant is also of a pro-Western nature. (I intend to bold parts that are extra interesting/to be used in cross analysis)
“As the Ukrainian presidential election scheduled on May 25 gets closer, Kremlin’s window of opportunity for invading the country and derailing its European course is gradually narrowing. The rhetoric of Russian President Vladimir Putin justifying the Anschluss of Crimea and unscrupulous meddling in Ukraine’s internal affairs has been based on the premises that there is no legitimate government in Kiev, that it is being run by a gang of Nazis and anti-Semites who took power by coup d’etat and terrorised Russians and Russophones all over the country.”
So his this is his view of the pro-Russian narrative. On the other side we have Andre Vltchek with two article featured in Counterpunch: Ukraine, a Fascist Coup (UFC) and Ukraine: Lies and Realities (ULR).
[UFC] “Ukraine is burning, it is going to the dogs; it has been taken over by an illegitimate government engorged with fascists, neo-Nazis and simple pro-Western opportunists, as well as countless EU and US-sponsored members of various NGO’s.
The West has destabilized an entire nation, supporting right-wingers and fascists. Then it began spreading anti-Russian propaganda, even before Crimea had voted to join its historic homeland.
Everything was well planned, with Machiavellian precision. The EU was hoping to get its hands on the abundant natural resources, heavy industry and a well-educated and cheap labor force. In exchange, it was willing to give… nothing. No sane government would be willing to accept such a deal. Therefore, the only way to push through its agenda, the West began supporting violence and terror, as well as the fascist, neo-Nazi groups. A similar approach is being used by the US and EU in Venezuela, Syria and even Thailand.”
We can see here that the two narratives are aware of each others existence and are actively engaged in a contest to be the leading source of truth about what is happening in Ukraine. Riabchuk bluntly asserts with this next paragraph, citing three sources that the Vltchek’s position is false. I’m skeptical of the evidence offered as opinion polls, a newspaper article and a blurb from Transitions Online hardly seems like damning evidence.
“Such a claim, however calumnious and fully disproved on the ground by independent observers, opinion polls and the minorities themselves, can be sold nonetheless to some audiences, at least Russian, willing for various reasons to be fooled.”
Onward to Riabchuk’s Three Scenarios:
“Currently there are three possible scenarios that endanger Ukraine’s sovereignty. First, attempts to appease the separatist may result in a complete collapse of the Ukrainian authority over the eastern regions and the emergence of a puppet pro-Russian state similar to Moldovan Transnistria. It will likewise exist in legal limbo without international recognition.
Second, the eastern region may decide to proclaim itself the “true Ukraine” and, with Russian backing, launch an offensive against the central government in Kiev to re-establish Viktor Yanukovych’s “legitimate” presidency. The scenario is barely new since it was fully employed in 1918 when the Bolsheviks created a puppet “Ukrainian” government in Kharkiv to overthrow the democratic government of the Ukrainian National Republic (1918-1920) in Kiev. The main advantage of the scenario is to disguise a Russian-Ukrainian war as a Ukrainian-Ukrainian war.
The third option the Ukrainian government faces today is to submit to Russian pressure and bullying and accept a broad range of Kremlin-designed constitutional and administrative changes. These would transform Ukraine into a loose confederation of weak states highly vulnerable to Russian subversion, manipulation and sabotage.”
We lose the neat 1 to 1 congruence as the articles diverge in scope, but we can still compare and contrast the outcomes predicted:
[ULR]”Ironically, there is no ‘self-grown dispute’ between two nations. The seeds of mistrust, and possible tragedy, are sown by the outsiders, and nurtured by their malignant propaganda.
As Sergei Kirichuk, leader of progressive movement ‘Borotba’, explained:
“We have extensive invasion of western imperialism here. Imperialists were acting through huge network of NGOs and through the western-oriented politicians integrated into western establishment. Western diplomats declared that they invested more that 5 billions of dollars to ‘development of democracy in Ukraine’. What kind of investment is it? How was this amount spent? We don’t really know, but we can see the wide net of the US agents operating inside many key organizations and movements.
We can see that those ‘western democracies’ had not been concerned at all about growing of the far-right, Nazi movements. They had been ready to use the Nazis as a real armed force in overthrowing of Yanucovich.
President Yanucovich was actually totally pro-western politician, to start with. And his ‘guilt’ consisted only of his attempt to minimize the devastating aftermath that would come after implementation of the free trade zone with EU, on which the West was insisting.”
Western powers using whatever means necessary to promote ‘stability’ in the region. Shades of Iran, Nicuraugwa and Chile anyone? This shouldn’t be news to anyone. Of course this view is not shared by Riabchuk, as he sees the Russian narrative in terms of massive state propaganda leading to this.
“The Russian elite, infected by its own propaganda, becomes increasingly paranoid and determined to fight the invented “fascists” in neighbouring countries as if they are real. This means that whatever Ukraine does or says in this regard, it matters little. The real choice is either to share the fate of the 1956 Hungary and 1968 Czechoslovakia invasions by the Red army or to follow the example of the 1920 Poland and 1940 Finland (when the Russians were contained).
Ukrainians should learn to live for years, perhaps for decades, not only under persistent political and economic pressure but also under blatant propagandistic war, prone at any moment to turn into quite a real military invasion. If it does not happen by May 25, it may well happen eventually, albeit under some different pretexts and slightly modified rhetorical wrapping. No government in Kiev will be recognised by Kremlin as legitimate until and unless it is the Kremlin’s government.”
Contrast with the outcome from Vltcheck’s first article:
[UFC]”There is also one photo of Arseniy Yatsenyuk – the current acting PM of Ukraine – who recently met with President Obama in Washington, and negotiated the possibility of obtaining loans while agreeing to implement brutal anti-social, neoliberal reforms that will affect millions of Ukrainian citizens. This was the very price of the victory of the rightwing and neoliberal politicians that organized and controlled the Euro-Maidan movement.”
And from the second article:
[ULR]”Old women, Communist leaders, and my friend Sergei Kirichuk, as well as people from international solidarity organizations, made fiery speeches. Apparently, the government in Kiev had already begun to cut the few social benefits that were left, including free medical assistance. Several hospitals were poised to close down, soon.
People were ready to fight; to defend themselves against those hated neo-liberal policies, for which (or against which) none of them had been allowed to vote for.
“In Crimea, people voted, overwhelmingly, to return to Russia”, explained a young man, a student, Alexei. “But the West calls it unconstitutional and undemocratic. In Ukraine itself, the democratically elected government has been overthrown and policies that nobody really wants are being pushed down our throats. And… this is called democracy!”
*****
Still with me intrepid readers? I certainly hope so because the dynamics of the Ukraine situation are most intriguing. Are we witnessing a Russian coup, or an American one? Is this a triumph for self-determination or a end run to escape the grip of toxic neo-liberal policies. My readership is wide and diverse and I entreat you to share your knowledge and opinion about this muddled situation with me so we can all better understand exactly what the heck is going on over there.
Ohhh, bonus content! Watch Bill Maher not talk about anything important for 6 minutes. Fascinating(!) where his and his panel’s assumptions lay.
This from the article entitled How Organized Minorities Defeat Disorganized Majorities – by Seth Masket
“So how exactly does an organized minority go about defeating a disorganized majority?
1. By Learning the Lesson of the Boys Club
In 1942, political scientist E. E. Schattschneider laid out the logic behind political parties, offering lessons that still elude many political observers today. A key metaphor Schattschneider offers early in his book is that of a boys club, consisting of, say, a dozen boys who are trying to elect a leader from among their ranks. Typically, every boy will vote for himself, leaving no leader after the election. All it takes to break this stalemate is a conspiracy of two boys: one who votes for the other, and in return is promised some special favors by the future leader. Thus are two boys, properly organized, able to control the fates of the disorganized other 10. This is the essence of all political organization.
—E. E. Schattschneider, Party Government, Praeger, 1942″
I’m going to have to find and read more of what Schattschneider has to say, as he seems to be right on the money.
People want to help people – being a social worker is a testament to providing care for others – But what if, due to structural constraints it is impossible. Apparently, the answer is, you do paperwork. Tiffany Taylor tackles this in her report : Paperwork First, not Work First: How Caseworkers Use Paperwork to Feel Effective.
Her conclusions paint a sad picture. The case studies she looked at describing, essentially, social workers do paperwork because they cannot help the people they have been tasked to help.
“My findings illustrate that caseworkers used paperwork in three main ways: paperwork was a way to feel effective or successful in their jobs; paperwork was a way to show you followed rules and “covered your ass;” and paperwork was, according to caseworkers, a way to ensure the fair treatment of clients.” -p.23
Fascinating. But it makes sense as we as human beings like to be reinforced for doing the “right” thing.
“First, completing paperwork was a way for caseworkers to achieve standard measures of effectiveness and to feel successful in their jobs. A great deal of literature has questionedthe effectiveness of current welfare-to-work programs in the United States (e.g., see the 2008 special issue of the Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare about the “success” of welfare; Corcoran et al., 2000; Hennessy, 2005; Lichter & Jayakody, 2002; O’Connor, 2000). There are no clear mechanisms currently in place in the Smithgrove County Work First program that would allow caseworkers to effectively help participants. Even if there were mechanisms, the lack of participant education and skills and the poor local labor market are barriers potentially too large to overcome. Given this, caseworkers turn to the concrete tasks on which supervisors evaluate them: finishing their paperwork on time. While paperwork is frustrating, it is something they can do effectively.”
“Additionally, caseworkers and managers argued the paperwork was important to show you were doing your job correctly (cover yourself) and it is important because it holds case workers accountable to treating program participants fairly. Lipsky (1980), and later Watkins-Hayes (2009), both describe the conflicting roles of street-level bureaucrats. On the one hand, these workers are expected to help clients, but on the other, they are expected to police the behavior of those they serve. Being somewhat wedged between serving their bureaucracies and clients creates a dilemma, one that is often solved by focusing on rule-mindedness. In many ways, caseworkers avoid this dilemma through focusing the majority of their time on completing paperwork. Again, given the lack of mechanisms for helping program participants, caseworkers focus on completing paperwork, arguing that it helps them be fair. No one, however, suggested the paperwork helps program participants find work or helps them move from welfare to work.
******The argument that paper work ensured fairness also seemed a response to arguments of bias or discrimination by caseworkers (see Gordon’s 1990 historical work on caseworker bias), something future work should consider more. While recent work has examined case closure and race (Monnat, 2010; Monnat & Bunyan, 2008; Schram, 2005), it is possible some caseworkers believe they are resisting bias, which may or may not be the case. In short, the caseworkers in Smithgrove County wanted to treat people fairly and to them, treating everyone the same, in terms of paperwork, meant being fair.” -p.24
When looking at research like this it reminds me of the idea of the self-fulfilling prophecy. The reactionary forces in the United States have been waging a war on the social safety net since the late 1970’s. The idea of a society that helps all of its members is regarded as some sort of toxic left-wing fantasy. Count how long it takes to the conservative self-righteous to decry big government, welfare and the “takers” in society. Under this banner they have systematically rendered much of the social safety net ineffective in the US, thus gradually making the unreality of their arguments begin to ring true.
Now… Now our zealots can point to the ineffectiveness of Big Government! To that I reply: “Where you expecting a different result when you’ve been hollowing out the system for last 40 or so years?”.
The insidiousness of self fulfilling prophecies indeed.
I would recommend adding this to your reading lists, I’m only a third of the way though, but it has been a detailed and interesting account of genesis and growth of the large mean streak of anti-intellectualism that is currently dominating the zeitgeist of American society. Jacoby was interviewed by Bill Moyers and thus, allow me to wet your whistle with an excerpt from the transcript.
SUSAN JACOBY: Now, this was not always the case in our country. In the 19th century Robert Ingersoll, whom we’ve talked, who is known as the great agnostic, had audiences full of people who didn’t agree with him. But they wanted to hear what he had to say. And they wanted to see whether the devil really has horns. And now what we have is a situation in which people go to hear people they already agree with. What’s going on is not so much education as reinforcement of the opinions you already have.
BILL MOYERS: Yeah, why is it we’re so unwilling to give, as you say, a hearing to contradictory viewpoints? Or to imagine that we might learn something from someone who disagrees with us?
SUSAN JACOBY: Well, I think part of it is part of a larger thing that is making our culture dumber. We have, really, over the past 40 years, gotten shorter and shorter and shorter attention spans. One of the most important studies I’ve found, and I’ve put in this chapter, they call it Infantainment– on this book. It’s by the Kaiser Family Foundation. And they’ve found that children under six spend two hours a day watching television and video on average. But only 39 minutes a day being read to by their parents.
Well, you don’t need a scientific study to know that if you’re not read to by your parents, if most of your entertainment when you’re in those very formative years is looking at a screen, you value what you do. And I don’t see how people can learn to concentrate and read if they watch television when they’re very young as opposed to having their parents read to them. The fact is when you’re watching television, whether it’s an infant or you or I, or staring glazedly at a video screen, you’re not doing something else.
BILL MOYERS: What does it say to you, Susan, that half of American adults believe in ghosts? Now I take these from your book. One-third believe in astrology. Three quarters believe in angels. And four-fifths believe in miracles.
SUSAN JACOBY: I think even more important than the fact that large numbers of Americans believe in ghosts or angels, that is part of some religious beliefs. Is the flip side is of this is that over half of Americans don’t believe in evolution. And these things go together. Because what they do is they place science on a par almost with folk beliefs.
And I think– if I may inveigh against myself, ourselves, I think the American media in particular has a lot to do with it. Because one of the things that really has gotten dumber about our culture the media constantly talks about truth as if it– if it were always equidistant from two points. In other words, sometimes the truth is one-sided.
I mentioned this in THE AGE OF AMERICAN UNREASON that after the 9/11 terrorist attacks there was a huge cover story in TIME Magazine in 2002 about the rapture and end of the world scenarios. There wasn’t a singular secular person quoted in it. They discussed the rapture scenario from the book of Revelation as though it was a perfectly reasonable thing for people to believe. On the one hand, these people don’t believe it. On the other it’s exactly like saying– you know, “Two plus– two plus two, so-and-so says, ‘two plus two equals five.’ But, of course, mathematicians say that it really equals four.” The mathematicians are right. The people who say that two plus two equals five are wrong. The media blurs that constantly.
BILL MOYERS: You call that a kind of dumb objectivity.
SUSAN JACOBY: Yes. Dumb objectivity. Exactly.
As an educator I find Jacoby’s work illuminating and depressing at the same time. We have such a large hill to climb in the struggle to reclaim children’s minds from the media.
Tariq Ali is one of the new left’s better thinkers. His writing is clear and often wittily incisive and thus has forced me to purchase several of his works. This is a interview snippet from Counterpunch on the legacy of Margaret Thatcher.
Q: What is Mrs Thatcher’s legacy?
TA: Her legacy is clearly visible in the state of Britain today. It is essentially a story of decay and ruin: A small, post-imperial vassal state dependent on nostalgia and, more importantly, the United States to keep itself afloat. On the economy the Thatcherite model (astonishingly, still being praised by blind politicians in denial) was effectively the deindustrialization of the country, the purchase of working-class votes by squandering the monies that accrued from North sea oil and laying the foundations for a financialised economic model that exploded with the Wall Street crash of 2008. We live in a world where it is convenient to personalize politics. Thatcher obviously pushed through the measures required by capitalism with a raw and ruthless energy that was her very own. She was a great believer in appealing to the lowest common denominator, to the animal instincts that remain present in the psychological make-up of individuals regardless of their social origins. Another politician could have done exactly the same things as she did using a less charged rhetoric. A number of old Conservatives were not shy in stating that their party had been taken over by English ‘poujadistes.’ She almost came a cropper. Had the Falklands war gone differently which it might have done if Pinochet’s dictatorship (pushed by Washington) had not backed Britain.
She outmaneuvered the once powerful Mineworker’s Union, forcing it to call a strike on her terms and then destroyed the union and in the process broke the back of a once powerful British labor movement. She had referred to the striking miners as the ‘enemy within’. Even as she neutered the unions, she effectively destroyed the old Labour Party. Thatcher’s favorite Chancellor of the Exchequer and cabinet colleague, Nigel Lawson, while reviewing a book in the Financial Times noted admiringly that the tragedy for the Tories was that Thatcher’s real heir was Leader of the Opposition. Blair’s policies were little more than a continuation of her policies with better PR and an aggressive control of the media. Blair was less lucky with his wars. Iraq finished him off. He was exposed as a simple and straightforward liar. The Scottish writer, Tom Nairn, was accurate in his assessment: “Like other flotsam on the ‘no-alternative’ wave of the nineties, they think that the essence of ‘modernization’ is adjusting society to fit economic and technological advances. Which means serving such changes, via a machinery of collusion between government public relations, a compliant legal system and a servile press.
Her service to the power elites made her noteworthy, being on the cutting edge of the neo-liberal push back does have its advantages.
The Right in Canada was bloodily united a couple of years ago under the banner the old, yet new again, banner of the Conservative Party. The two precursor parties were the Progressive Conservative Party and the (Wack-a-loon) Reform (Alliance/fascist/reactionary/etc) Party of Western Canada. Sadly, as I hail from Western Canada, I cannot but feel partially responsible for bringing the supernovae grade stupidity and fail into power. In my defense, I’ve done what I can helping elect, Federally, the only New Democratic Party candidate (woo!, Linda Duncan!) in this political backwater called the lovely province of Alberta.
Patience gentle readers, as I am setting up some background to better frame the insipid gurglings we are hearing from the backbenches of the Conservatives party as of late. Steven Harper, our beloved leader, essentially won his majority because our right-centre Liberal party, for the last seven years, has had a gargantuan case of cranial vapour lock and simply cannot get its shite together. Thus, traditional centerist voters rather than voting for the “scary” New Democratic Party (because social democratic values are Satan), voted for the the seemingly calm, stable monolith known as the Conservative Party of Canada.
Harper, whose child-eating smile still makes me cringe, is a backroom authoritarian who is more than happy to sell Canada’s people down the river to corporate and business interests. Harper though, the High King of the reform party, brought to the table all the false populist beliefs that makes the red-necks here in Western Canada bray with crazy-eyed delight. Tough on the poor, women and foreigners, family values and all that hoopla. It is the usual traditional nonsense that sounds fucking AMAZING to the poor feckless (read false populist) sobs that greedly eat that shite up come election day.
Fortunately, the regressive bullcookery of Western Canada doesn’t play well in Eastern Canada where most of the votes are, so all those gob-smacked, turd-streaked policies that Harper trumpeted in the West quickly got tucked away under his big ole cowboy hat. Then surprisingly(?) enough, he almost exclusively talked about a reasonably sane economic platform (admittedly ‘reasonable’ is a stretch) to the rest of Canada, winning him the election over the fractured parties of the Left.
Harper won the election by controlling and essentially muzzling the pack of socially conservative dipshites that were elected in Western Canada. The “S2 Directive” (sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up) has been an iron rule in the Conservative Caucus. The bug-frakking-nutz ideology is starting to bubble over Harper’s carefully crafted message. Now we are starting to see the rampantly bat-shite, wilde-eyed social conservatives come out of the rotten woodwork of the governing party and demand the regressive social platform that got them elected in (*sigh*) Western Canada.
Let me show you the abortion law in Canada:
“____________________________________________________________________________________________________”
There isn’t one. That decision is left up to the woman. End of story. No legal restrictions and thus, none of the twelve different flavours of socially regressive bullshit that is happening down in the US at the moment. Hence, in Canada, Women’s autonomy and rights are (for the most part) being respected and this gentle reader, is officially a GOOD thing. Cue the clown-car entry of concerned male-white-dude Mark Warawa MP from Langley BC and his ‘thin edge of the wedge’ selective sex abortion tirade against women and their rights.
Mr.Warawa’s noble attempts to get women closer to broodmare status have been smacked down repeatedly in the Canadian parliament. Much to Harper’s chagrin Warawa is not sitting down nor is he shutting up, he’s calling the ‘waaaaambulance’ and faffing on about being repressed and going on histrionically about how democracy died on this day. The loopy-gnats representatives of the failosphere have clawed a hole in Harper’s big ole centrist-economics hat and are spilling out all over table spilling their garbanzo-bean crazy as far as the eye can see.
From the CBC, in this article Warawa has already been shut down once, but insane doesn’t know the meaning of the word stop (or deleterious to the party), so he warbles onward:
“Conservative MP Mark Warawa has lost his appeal to bring a motion condemning sex-selective abortion to the House of Commons for debate.
The procedure and House affairs committee upheld a decision by its subcommittee that Warawa’s motion, M-408, isn’t eligible to be debated by MPs, despite the advice of a non-partisan Library of Parliament analyst that the motion was in order.”
Like the fetid ramblings of Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth Warawa has had his shit-shutdown. I’m guessing that this is only the tip of the iceberg of stupid that is the socially regressive base of the Conservative party. Undaunted by opposition from within his party and common sense, Warawa plows on.
“Warawa has five sitting days to appeal to the House of Commons, but with MPs returning to their ridings for two weeks, that brings his appeal deadline to April 19. He says he’ll announce his decision when the House returns on April 15.
The MP for Langley, B.C., said Monday he has the backing he needs to bring the appeal, with the support of five MPs from two recognized parties. That appeal will lead to a secret ballot over whether the motion can be brought for debate.
Warawa said he’s “very disappointed” but was going to take a few days before deciding whether to appeal. He can also introduce another private member’s bill or motion instead of appealing the decision.”
It looks like Conservative back bench has cranked the stupid-o-tron to 11(!1!!11!!!), broken the dial off, and flushed it down the crapper.
“My conscience is my guide, but I also am proud to be a member of the Conservative caucus,” Warawa said.
You sir, are an arrogant, misogynistic, snivelling, cock-sweater of a human being. Take your conscience and ram it sideways into the brain-trust known as your arsehole. Women and women alone are best arbitrators of their reproductive systems(aka their bodies). Despite the abortion issue being settled, Harper’s backbench are threatening to go all Lord of the Flies on his ass, and are taking umbrage at their right to free-speech being trampled on. Funny my backbenchy friends, how you were comfortable with Harper’s hobnailed boots on your necks, while he was winning you the election. Just sayin’.
“New Brunswick MP John Williamson, who in 2009 worked for Harper as his director of communications, said blocking any MP from delivering a statement is “is a violation of privilege or right” and that the speaker recognizes MPs directly, not via their parties.”
“I believe there are limits that have been crossed that involve removing speaking rights and that suddenly now involve veto rights over who is able to be recognized as a member of Parliament,” Williamson said.
“This also involves our democratic principles. If we, that is to say, you, Mr. Speaker, reinforce the authority of members of Parliament by reaffirming their right to speak, [and] then your right to recognize them, we will together strengthen democracy in this chamber.”
I’m all for the wigged out cracker-jacks of the conservative back bench getting their regressive views into the limelight; then people can see the balefully retrograde, and decidedly icky ideas they have voted for. The next logical step for the electorate, like a satisfying peristaltic contraction, is to expel the pants-on-head-retarded, ass-clownage (see Conservative Party of Canada), from power.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…