Category Archives: Politics

“Politics and the English Language” Response

The Founding Fathers created a new kind of democracy, one that has impacted regimes all around the world since the US Constitution became law. But since then the very word “democracy” has acquired both a positive connotation and multiple definitions. The standard definition is rule by the people, whether direct as in a town hall-style government or the representative republic the Founding Fathers espoused. But George Orwell makes provocative statements about the further meaning of that word in his essay “Politics and the English Language”:

In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning.

The dictionary at answers.com has some surprising definitions, in addition to “rule by the people”:

• The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
• Majority rule.
• The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

These meanings go a bit beyond “rule by the people” and explore what that rule theoretically leads to: social equality, respect, majority rule…hence the word’s positive connotation. But perhaps Orwell’s most provocative statement is that the defenders of all regimes take advantage of democracy’s meaning.
The question now is: when is a regime truly a democracy? Or in the case of the United States, how much of the actions of elected representatives are truly representative of the majority’s interest? Is South Carolina a democratic state if its governor uses taxpayer money to go to Argentina? Certainly that was more in his personal interest than in that of South Carolina’s majority.

Ben

Darfur Advocacy Groups Prepare For Summit

Good to see that some are aware of what’s happening in the Sudan, and are getting a message out.

Isaac Leju-Loding was 18 when he emigrated from Kajo Keji, in southern Sudan, to Florida in 1989.

It was hot in Florida. It was too much like home, he said. The snow he saw on television fascinated him, so he eventually moved to Pittsburgh to experience winter.

Now president of the Sudanese Community in Pittsburgh, Leju-Loding works to fight the violence occurring in his home country. There, his people protest the destabilization and genocide that’s occuring — for religious and economic reasons — in southern Sudan and Darfur.

He and about 100 others — including members from Pitt’s chapter of Students Taking Action Now: Darfur — held a “Solemn Walk” Downtown yesterday to rally international attention to the genocide in Darfur. It was part of their preparation for the G-20 Summit, which will be held in Pittsburgh Sept. 24-25.

Criticism Of Obama Based On Race?

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote on Sunday, September 13 that Wednesday’s (September 9) outburst by South Carolina Republican Congressman Joe Wilson during President Obama’s address to a joint session of Congress was racially motivated. As we told you earlier, Wilson shouted, “you lie,” when the president said his health care plan would not cover illegal immigrants.

Dowd writes: “What I heard was an unspoken word in the air — you lie, boy!… Wilson clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president presiding over the majestic chamber.”

Liberal columnists are not alone in suggesting that any opposition to the president is race-driven. Texas Democratic Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson tells the Politico: “As far as African-Americans are concerned, we think most of it is.”

And California Democratic Congressman Mike Honda adds: “There’s a very angry, small group of folks that just didn’t like the fact that Barack Obama won the presidency. With some, I think it is (about race.)”

But White House press secretary Robert Gibbs says to CNN: “I don’t think the president believes that people are upset because of the color of his skin.”

It’s fair to say that *some* criticism is racially motivated. But there are plenty of other reasons why this is happening. It’s more partisan tension than racial.

The more conservative factions in this country don’t care that we’re the only nation without a universal health care system, because “socialism” is still a dirty word in this nation. The GOP has taken advantage of gullible citizens and convinced them that if Obama‘s plan gets passed, he’ll kill all the grandparents.  And even before that the Republicans convinced America that Obama has turned this country into a socialist country…even though it was Bush who gave the O.K. to bail out Wall Street a year ago.  In these respects and more, it’s fair to say that criticism of our president is more based on his politics than on the color of his skin.

What Does Politics Mean to Me?

This was for my American Politics class lol

What Does Politics Mean to Me?

So, what does politics mean to me? That’s a surprisingly difficult question for me to answer, but by the end of this paper, I’m sure I will have the perfect response. For most kids my age, politics means nothing to them, at least it appears that way. For some strange reason my brain is completely engulfed in politics. Well sort of…. When I say politics, I don’t mean typical CNN headlines or vapid Congressional hearings. When I think of fascinating politics I conjure up an image of Abbie Hoffman decked out in his inverted American Flag tee shirt holding a demonstration or Howard Zinn giving a lecture to an audience of intrigued students. I often hear the term, “political junkie.” I suppose I’m more of a “subversive junkie.”
Every day the aforementioned subversive politics enters my psyche one way or another. While other teens chat about fantasy baseball teams, my comrades and I propose our fantasy political systems. One of my amigos desires a classic free market, laissez-faire, libertarian society. Another friend terrifyingly insists fascism is the path of sound politics. I personally find anarchism to be the most appealing (and most misunderstood) political philosophy. Although, I initially favored socialism. Anyway, I also co-run a blog that often features strong social/political commentary of the radical persuasion. I read dozens of dissident books, essays, and articles over the year. Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent and Jerry Rubin’s Do iT! can be found on my bookshelf, just to name a few. My friends and family make every effort to eschew engaging in debates with me because they know how much I love political bull sessions. Like most folks, I love You Tubing ridiculously funny videos, but most of the time I use this enormous resource to discover alternative forms of media, which are anonymous in the mainstream, to inform myself on how the system truly works. I do however maintain an open mind and always question anything and everything I hear, conventional or unconventional.
Being of the leftist political affiliation, I have just a tad bit of cynicism for our system. I see America as two entities: the people and the government. In an ideal society these two are one and therefore no one has to obey orders from illegitimate authority. As denizens of this great country it is our duty today to push for this kind of government for tomorrow. Since, few politicians share this view of our nation, I don’t trust 99% of them. I believe they are merely corporate stooges in the Evil Empire. With that being said, there are a select few here and there that I like and/or endorse. These include Ralph Nader (above all), Cynthia McKinney, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, and Ron Paul, whom actually has a completely different ideology than myself, but I greatly admire for maintaining integrity in an arena where such a word is foreign. I side with him on ending the Military Industrial Complex, prohibition (the War on Drugs), the Patriot Act/FISA legislation, and the Federal Reserve.
So, to answer the title question: what does politics mean to me? I suppose it means a system in which some people win and some people lose. A system where the people in power are only concerned with their own interests and maintaining that power. But, based on my influences, there is a solid dose of resistance against this system that can never be curtailed.

Chris

South of the Border


A trailer for the new Oliver Stone documentary on the Venezuelan leader, Hugo Chavez. I plan on seeing his earlier documentary, Looking For Fidel first though. This goes hand in hand with Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story for left-wing, biased movies that I generally agree with and enjoy but criticize the tactics.

Chris

US Funds Colombian Deaths Over Drugs

In her new book, Blood & Capital: The Paramilitarization of Colombia, author Jasmin Hristov writes: “For roughly forty years, the Colombian state has been playing a double game: prohibiting the formation of paramilitary groups with one law and facilitating their existence with another; condemning their barbarities and at the same time assisting their operations; promising to bring perpetrators of crime to justice, while opening the door to perpetual immunity; convicting them of narco-trafficking, yet profiting from their drug deals; announcing to the world the government’s persecution of paramilitary organizations, even though in reality these ‘illegal armed groups’ have been carrying out the dirty work unseemly for a state that claims to be democratic and worthy of billions of dollars in US military aid.”

As the largest recipient of US military aid in the hemisphere, Colombia has long been the US’ most important ally in Latin America. Simultaneously, Colombia has also become the hemisphere’s worst human rights violator, with Colombia’s numerous paramilitary organizations recently taking center stage, as they’ve gradually become directly responsible for more human rights atrocities than the formal military and police. In the name of fighting “narco-terrorism,” poor people and dissidents are massacred, assassinated, tortured, and disappeared, among other atrocities—done to eliminate particular individuals and to “set an example” by intimidating others in the community. 97 percent of human rights abuses remain unpunished.

In recent years, a variety of human rights organizations, as well as mainstream academics and journalists have found it impossible to ignore the astronomical human rights violations. However, even though these groups have accurately reported on the actual atrocities, Jasmin Hristov argues that in their reports, the atrocities are largely de-contextualized from the powerful forces in Colombia and the US that directly benefit from this repression. According to Hristov, this mainstream presentation serves to mask the fact that US and Colombian elites directly support (via funding, training, supervising, and providing legal immunity for) state repression carried out by the police and military, as well as illegal paramilitary groups that are unofficially sanctioned by the government. Whether it is murdering labor organizers or displacing an indigenous community because a US corporation wants to drill for oil on their land, Hristov passionately asserts that death squad violence is purposefully directed towards sectors of society that stand in the way of the ruling class’ efforts to maintain economic dominance and acquire more resources to make even more profit.

In her book, Hristov does make a convincing argument that Colombia’s notorious death squads are inherently linked to maintenance of the country’s extreme economic inequality. Particularly since the neoliberal reforms of the 1990s that have increased poverty, Colombia’s poor continue to resist their oppression in many different ways. In response, state repression on a variety of levels is needed to terrorize unarmed social movements and other community groups and activists.

Throughout Blood & Capital, Hristov seeks to expose the rational motivations behind state violence for capitalism’s economic elites in the US and Colombia. In meticulous detail, Hristov shows how the super-rich benefit from state repression and how the violators of human rights have essentially become immune from any consequences for their actions. If death squads are truly to be abolished in Colombia, we must look honestly at how and why they exist today. Hristov’s new book is a powerful tool for exposing who truly calls the shots.

Neoliberalism or neopoverty?

Hristov asserts that “it is not a mere coincidence that during the era of accelerated neoliberal restructuring, the deterioration in the living conditions of the working majority has been accompanied by an increase in the capabilities and activities of military, police, and paramilitary groups, as well as the portrayal of social movements as forces that must be monitored, silenced, and eventually dismantled.”

I don’t know if it’s fair to blame this atrocity on neoliberal ideology. But surely this helps make the case against prohibiting drugs. You’re only creating crime instead of discouraging it.

Report: Xe Services Seen In Pakistan

(WMR) — The mercenary private security contractor once known as Blackwater and now called Xe Services LLC is being reported in the Pakistani press as being seen with “other suspicious foreigners” in Peshawar and other parts of Pakistan.

A little history: “private security contractor” is a euphemism for “Team America.” Blackwater is a private militant force that helped the US government fight its war in Iraq. They’re not government-owned but they still work alongside US troops and other allies. As for this latest development, so much for that “respecting Pakistan’s status as a sovereign nation” bull. Let’s get Osama and then get the Hell out of the Middle East!