American politics

American politics&Corporate&Human rights&Race08 Sep 2005 07:43 pm

I didn’t write this. I found it on this Indymedia post and thought it said all the things I’d been wanting to write in response to recent discussions, only more succinctly. And more aggressively than I would’ve said it, to be honest, but it still saves me a job. (Lazy, moi?) So here it is.

Priorities of Empire

The American ruling class couldn’t give a shit about the largely poor and black population of New Orleans. To these corporate oligarchs the poor are just so much expendable trash, to be confined in prisons or sent to die in colonial wars.

The truth is revealed: America is neither a nation nor a community – it’s a rich man’s racket, a con imposed on the majority of the population. As a political entity it has ceased to exist for the majority of the population who are left out of the social contract. The sadistic oratory of the governer says it all: if you are starving we will shoot you, we will shoot to kill… The czar of Russia couldn’t have put it more crudely. We are your rulers, you are scum, one item of our property is worth more than your life, and the life of your family. Challenge one iota of our wealth and power and we will destroy you like an insect.

America wake up…refuse to fight, refuse to kill, take your country back from the slime that claim to rule in your name.

‘Dr Strangelove’

American politics&Pop culture08 Sep 2005 12:35 pm

Someone terminate this idiot’s political career. Preferably with the big fat sex scandal which has been brewing for some time.

Soundtrack to this post: Gett Off – Prince

American politics06 Sep 2005 08:40 pm

Sorry, this is about New Orleans again.

Not remotely original, but I thought I’d serve these treats up to you anyway, even if they are lukewarm and stolen from other people’s plates:

  1. Police looting in WalMart (video clip).
  2. A quote from Barbara Bush (aka W’s ‘mom’) talking about the New Orleans evacuees at Houston Astrodome: “And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this — this (she chuckles slightly) is working very well for them.”

    Hear her say this here, in full awareness that she’s talking out loud and into a microphone, and marvel at what sort of thing she must say behind closed doors.

Soundtrack to this post: Dry – PJ Harvey

American politics04 Sep 2005 05:19 pm

I am very unlikely to write extensively about New Orleans on here. I think enough is being said elsewhere. Just so you know.

That said, I can’t help finding it rather surprising that other countries need to offer disaster aid to the world’s sole superpower.

Not that charity and practical help shouldn’t be offered; of course they should. I’m just a little surprised that the richest country in the world, not to mention the biggest military spender by far, needs to accept them. It makes me wonder if the American bank balance is a little less healthy than we have always been led to believe.

If there can ever be a silver lining to horrific events like the damage done by Hurricane Katrina, perhaps this one will be that in future the US may think twice before making enormous financial and military commitments overseas, commitments which leave it with inadequate provision for home emergencies.

The sight of exiled Americans suffering in such an unacceptable way – suffering like displaced Fallujans, in fact – may just have tipped American public feeling against further bully-boy adventures. Distaste for vast, pointless expenditure is as good a reason as any. If the objection will not be a moral one, it can be a practical one.

Either way, there’s a good chance Bush’s jackboot-heavy foreign policy may be heading for an early bath, thanks to his embarrassingly inept handling of the Katrina aftermath. It can only be in America’s interests if this happens. (Not corporate America; I mean real American people. Two different sets of interests.)

NB: If anyone thinks this is an insensitive “anti-American” sentiment, or simply “too soon”, then they are welcome to click the little X in the top right hand corner, or surf on by. My blog, my rules. I would have thought this caveat was unnecessary and self-evident, had I not read Ka’s blog a few moments ago.

Soundtrack to this post: The tip-tap of Ka returning to writing, with any luck.

American politics&British politics&Middle East31 Aug 2005 08:30 pm

Around 1,000 Shias have died in a stampede in Iraq.

“Hundreds, maybe thousands” have died in the New Orleans flood.

The Queen is really upset about the dead Americans.

She has yet to register any flicker of interest in the dead Iraqis.

Soundtrack to this post: No Surprises – Radiohead

American politics&British politics&Pop culture&Self&The art of blog21 May 2005 12:16 pm

Hello ladies and gents. Apologies for the lack of service lately, but these things happen on this blog occasionally I’m afraid. It’s all part of my plan to lose all my loyal readers and end up blogging into the ether with nobody watching. No, not really.

Hope you’ve all had a staggeringly good two weeks, or thereabouts.

I’ve changed my mind slightly since the election. Although I still dislike Galloway as a person, I’m very much enjoying his one-man anti-war tirades. He’s an arrogant fellow, to be sure, but great value as an orator. Watched his Senate performance from beginning to end, and I’m sure it was a lot more entertaining than the latest Star Warszzz.

Obviously, none of you Brits are reading this now, because you’re all at the supermarket buying 400 cans of lager (in preparation for the FA Cup this afternoon) and a selection of continental delicacies (for your ultracamp Eurovision party tonight). Right? No?

American politics&British politics&Europe&Strangeness&The art of blog21 Apr 2005 01:48 am

The Pope post comments below appear to have spontaneously combusted. Perhaps it is a sign?

*auctions divinely mutilated web page on eBay*

EDIT: No, they’re back again. They were just moving in mysterious ways for a while.

Speaking of Condoleezza Rice, as we recently were, it appears she’s still obsessed with states of the former Soviet Union. This time it’s Belarus, one sixth of the “axis of evil”. Perhaps it would be less work for her if she just let us know which countries America doesn’t plan to remodel?

In other news, it appears the unpleasantly arrogant George Galloway (Respect party) has a good chance of ousting the sycophantic careerist Oona King (Labour party) from her Bethnal Green seat. Whoopee. Yawn.

Lastly, here’s what George Monbiot has to say about why reluctant tactical voting is unnecessary. You can make up your own mind about whether he’s right or not.

Right, that’s the politics out of the way. Now we can talk about religion again. Wait, where are you all going?

American politics&Self&The art of blog19 Apr 2005 12:11 am

I haven’t got much time today, but I just wanted to extend a very warm welcome to the US State Department, who have visited my blog twice this week already. Hi Condi! If you were looking for a book recommendation, you only had to ask.

American politics&British politics&Europe&Gender&Global politics12 Apr 2005 05:55 pm

Andrea Dworkin, probably one of the most controversial social theorists in recent history, has died aged 58.

I always thought I disagreed with the majority of her theories. I thought she was an extremist, a woman whose attitude to men was an equal, opposite counterpart to the misogyny she deplored.

I’ve just spent much of the afternoon browsing her major work online, to find proof of this unworkable extremism. And I’ve discovered to my surprise that I can finally understand what she was saying. Not just that, but her views were not really what I (or a lot of people) initially thought. We mistook her uncompromising attitude for vengeful militance. Or, at least, I did. Now I still might not agree 100%, but I at least see what she was getting at.

In memoriam, then, here’s an excerpt of one of her feminist texts:

“I renounce masculinist art. It is not art which illuminates the human condition–it illuminates only, and to men’s final and everlasting shame, the masculinist world–and as we look around us, that world is not one to be proud of. Masculinist art, the art of centuries of men, is not universal, or the final explication of what being in the world is. It is, in the end, descriptive only of a world in which women are subjugated, submissive, enslaved, robbed of full becoming, distinguished only by carnality, demeaned. I say, my life is not trivial; my sensibility is not trivial; my struggle is not trivial. Nor was my mother’s, or her mother’s before her. I renounce those who hate women, who have contempt for women, who ridicule and demean women, and when I do, I renounce most of the art, masculinist art, ever made.

As feminists, we inhabit the world in a new way. We see the world in a new way. We threaten to turn it upside down and inside out. We intend to change it so totally that someday the texts of masculinist writers will be anthropological curiosities. What was that Mailer talking about, our descendants will ask, should they come upon his work in some obscure archive. And they will wonder–bewildered, sad–at the masculinist glorification of war; the masculinist mystifications around killing, maiming, violence, and pain; the tortured masks of phallic heroism; the vain arrogance of phallic supremacy; the impoverished renderings of mothers and daughters, and so of life itself. They will ask, did those people really believe in those gods?”

Andrea Dworkin, Our Blood: Prophesies and Discourses on Sexual Politics (1974)

American politics11 Apr 2005 04:17 pm

“Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.”

– Michael Ledeen, former Reagan administration intelligence officer and current resident scholar in the Freedom Chair (seriously) at the American Enterprise Institute.

“This is a man who has helped shape American foreign policy at its highest levels.”

– Conclusion of Wall Street Journal profile of Michael Ledeen, for whom he also writes (see last paragraph).

This is what the lovely fellow looks like:

Here’s where he writes the majority of his published articles:
National Review

And here’s all about him:

Right wing version
Left wing version
Right wing publication comparing his views to fascism

One to watch, I suspect.

« Previous PageNext Page »

| Design by WPThemes.Info | Powered By WordPress