Although confusionists do want to regularly delve into political debate due to the nature of confusionist ideas on government, oppression and what confusionism sees as the unique nature of democracy, every now and again something that highlights the confusion, contradiction that governmental systems create is so glaringly obvious that it cannot be left, and sometimes a story emanates that exposes the reality of a governmental system.

By all we are told a democracy is not meant to be a system that would lead to the practice of war crimes and a system whereby the elected politicians would conceal planning that would lead directly to war crimes while the military of the country would expose this. This is all directly opposite to the theoretical idea of a what a democracy is.

A democracy is we are a told a system where government is of the people by the people and for the people. It is not theoretically expected that democratically elected governments will defy the will of its people and just do what is in the interests of those in government, those they are allied with and those that really exert influence over the system. It is not expected that a leader will deny preparations for war are being made while actually making them. Democracies are not expected to invade countries for little valid or legal reason.

This story from the Uk’s Guardian exposes that such things do indeed happen in a democracy and not just any democracy but the worlds longest existing one. As confusionists point out it is important to try and understand the real nature of structures, institutions and systems and that democracy although giving people a stake in the system, including in their own oppression, doesnt mean the system will work in the name of the people or for the people. This story serves well to highlight certain aspects of governmental systems that arent confined to only more totalitarian ones but to all systems so far known.

BABRI MASJID

Babar was the founder of the Mughal dynasty in India. He built a mosque at Ayodhya, where Hindus claim, stood a temple of Ram.

In 1962, there was a movement, spearheaded by Hindu fanatics, to demolish the mosque and build the original temple there. On 6-12-1992, the structure, which was a historic monument, was destroyed, followed be terrorist attacks by Muslims in Bombay.

Now the enquiry commission has come to the conclusion that, it was a conspiracy by leaders of the Hindutwa movement, and not a spontaneous mass movement that resulted in the demolition of Babri Masjid.

Earlier, there used to be Hindu-Muslim riots, in parts of India, but terrorism was practically unknown. All this changed after 6-12-1992. Davood Ibrahim, living in Pakistan, conspired terror strikes against India. Hindu terrorists too became a reality. Black money and illegal arms trade played their own role in this game.

Now, things are out of control.

In today’s paper, details have come, of how the Government of Uttar Pradesh posted police officers, Magistrate etc. sympathetic to their cause, so that none tried to preserve the historic monument when some people climbed up on top of the roof and started pulling it down, in the presence of TV camera !

This is India, our precious democracy.

In his article Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography (2007) Goodchild details the recent establishment of citizen or public volunteered information which he calls “volunteered geographic information (VGI)” (212).

This movement has been typified by web-based applications such as Google Maps, Google Earth, and Open Street Map.  All of these sites/sights are examples of what is now called web 2.0, which is characterized by the participatory creation of databases of information by web users.  Where the first incarnation of the web was strictly a one way affair where users moved from page to page and could not interact with the information that was presented other than read it, now with web 2.0 users are active creators and authors of information.

In the realm of Google Maps/Earth, Open Street Map and Wikimapia, among others, this information is geographic in nature, while places and events, and many other forms of information, are now georeferenced.

In this new world of participatory mapping enabled by web 2.0 users are the sensors themselves, and the information is locally sensed rather than remote sensed.  It must be stated though, like with any mapping activity, user created mapping is not objective, but subjective to the user’s position within the physical world and material society.

Examples of “Participant Populations” (218) given by Goodchild interestingly enough includes soldiers, and farmers.  He states that these individuals are potential sources of firsthand information and “data that is in many cases much more detailed and current than that available from central…agencies” (218).

He also claims, however, that these “developments contribute to a growing reversal of the traditional top-down approach to the creation and dissemination of geographic information” (218).  This is a problematic assumption though on the part of Goodchild that information coming from soldiers and farmers represent a shift to a bottom up kind of information gathering.

Soldiers represent the violent, repressive, and coercive authority of the state, and therefore, any information they would gather and disseminate will be in the state’s own interest.  Furthermore, the geospatial tools, utilized in precision farming, are owned by the capitalist class.  These tools are used on large farms owned by agribusinesses who farm on land that was gained through the structural, or in many cases the actual, violence of colonialism.  Is that what bottom up means?

Nonetheless, the growing trend of VGI, in many instances has removed map making from the hands of the ‘experts’ and placed it into the hands of regular citizens.  This is an empowering and democratic act, however, only for those that are able to participate by owning the proper equipment, and being connected (literally).

Goodchild, M. F. (2007). Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography. Geojournal, (69), 211-221.

I have to say I was pleasantly surprised by Mathews conduct of this interview and it brings up an important trend: the proud and willful rejection of any reference to facts and rationality in preference for stridently reactionary emotionalism.

Chris Mathews actually came down pretty hard on Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence Rhode Island over his refusal to allow Rep Kennedy to take communion. Mathews asked him if abortion is murder, what should the penalties be and Tobin dodged the question.

Mathews said Tobin must either make specific recommendations or stay out of “law making,” which the Bishop has “transgressed” into. Pretty strong stuff about separation of church and state, saying the church needs to stick to moral suasion.

Mathews notes that, although he shares the Bishop’s views on abortion, Tobin is reluctant to advise “even a minute in jail” for women and girls who have abortions because Americans, Catholics and others, don’t view abortion as a crime.

The piece began with a clip of JFK, still a presidential candidate in Houston, seeking to allay fears that he would be beholden to the Pope as President:

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish. Where no public official, either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of churches or any other ecclesiastical source. Where no religious body seeks to impose its will, directly or indirectly, upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials.

Mathews repeated the quote, asking Tobin what he thinks of it. Tobin replies that JFK was talking about “establishing a national religion.” Incredulous, Mathews asked how he can assert such a transparently untrue assertion.

You think he meant something different from what he said?

The short answer is yes, he probably does. Although he could be cynically manipulating the faithful, it’s also entirely likely that the good bishop has deluded himself enough that he can purposely accept a ridiculous interpretation of Kennedy’s meaning.

It happens so often that it can become hard to notice. Here is just a short selection from today’s toobnetz:

• New Left Media (via HuffPo) has a great video showing the vacuousness of Palin autograph seekers:
  
• Via TPM, the RNC thinks they lost the last two elections because they were just too leftist, so they think it’s a good idea to implement a purity test.
• Via Think Progress, teabaggers think it’s just a hoot to jeer a woman whose uninsured pregnant daughter in law died.
  
• Via Crooks and Liars, Tucker Carlson, in all seriousness, asserts that Palin is “as smart as” Al Gore and “more experienced than” Obama.
• Via Plumline, Cheney slams Obama for bowing the the Japanese Emperor despite serving two presidents who did exactly the same thing.
• Via TPM, Crist spells it out:

  “It’s hard to be more conservative than I am on issues — though there are different ways stylistically to communicate that — I’m pro-life, I’m pro-gun, I’m pro-family, and I”m anti tax.” … “I don’t know what else you’re supposed to be, except maybe angry too.” [Emphasis added]

• And last, via Political Animal at The Washington Monthly, Steve Benin, addressing the issue, quotes Isaac Chotiner at TNR

  The first problem with this argument is that … Palin is unlikely to become a policy wonk because she is not very smart. What’s more, Douthat’s argument is tautological. Sure, it would be nice for the GOP if Palin and Huckabee were interested in policy. But if they were interested in policy, then they would not be so appealing to the GOP base.

  In other words, the problem is that a large part of the right has no interest in a policy wonk, and sneers at intellectuals and elites and the types of people Douthat would like to see running the party. A candidate who was interested in learning the ins and outs of the welfare state and health care policy is unlikely to ever achieve Palin/Huckabee levels of popularity with the grassroots.

These examples illustrate the views and psyches of a fairly large segment of our society. Recent polls estimate this group to comprise around 20 to 25 percent of the general populace.

That means, assuming you live in an average place, demographically speaking, and you’re in a room or on a bus with 19 other people, four or five of them believe things that are demonstrably untrue and act on those beliefs politically and socially.

In some areas the percentage of your 20 busmates or roomates will be lower; but in other areas, it will be higher — and in some of those areas, very, very much higher.

The web, along with older media like talk radio and Fox News, help fan the flames of such irrationality. But, like printing presses and cans of spray paint, this specific technology is still neutral. Barring further corporate intrusion, it is not in and of itself responsible for the ignorance spread through its reaches.

It just as readily carries counter arguments and refutations. But to do so, it must be peopled with those who are ready and willing to counter the ignorance. Thankfully, it is.

And after coming of age doing so much to fight the spread of misinformation during eight years of rightwing Republican misrule under Bush and Cheney et al, progressives and liberals on the web are well positioned to keep banging on the outside walls of the rightwing echo chamber.

[This post has been changed since original publication to correct the wording of the final paragraph and to acknowledge that emphasis was added to the Crist quote from TPM.]

The success of Dubai’s Metro should surprise nobody.

In the middle of last year’s crises, the chat in the Emirate’s watering holes was that that the Government would economize by canceling or delaying every project in the area except the Metro. Now we get news that a few months after completion, the Metro is a roaring success; almost 3 million people used the train in its first two months of operation, while the Transit authority has leased out nearly all the commercial space in the 10 open stations. The 37 other incomplete stations are nearly fully booked also. The government will of course trumpet the wild success that this positive contribution makes to the municipality. They will cite the volume of traffic as an example that the Emirate is recovering from the recent downturn. And why not?

Harry can think of a few reasons and is thus less ready to shower the government with points. Readers may have noticed a certain aversion to absolutist rulers, and a preference that government should serve all the people, not just the most economically prosperous. Dubai provides a robust defense for this view. Plentiful censorship, a near absence of domestically generated culture, and an oversupply of 5 star hotels and shopping malls conjures up a kind of Disney-Does-The-Desert, a bizarre cross between Orlando and Kuwait City. Vanity projects proliferate at the expense of more boring, but necessary investments as the Emirate pursues the mass affluent tourist. The loser here is Joe Commuter, who gets to waste his life away in Dubai’s endless traffic. Meanwhile, the Emirate’s glitz distracts the casual traveller from the Emirate’s real asset: it is relatively more free than its neighbors. Riyadh has plenty of shopping malls, but far fewer foreign visitors. A lengthly sojourn in Saudi will convince even the most hardened rejectionist that democracy in the region is just a touch too scarce. Harry thinks the recipe for recovery calls for more freedom and less glitz.

Harry has spent a number of days mired in Dubai traffic, most of it on the eight lane ‘Sheikh Z’, the Emirate’s central artery. Piloting around the city – which was one enormous engineering project for the last seven years – invariably begged the question: why didn’t they build this earlier? The Emirate’s planners knew that congestion would be an issue; any observer of the concrete canyons that line the Sheikh Z could see that the road network would continue to suffer compounded congestion after their completion. But the Government’s focus was on flagship projects which appeal to rich people, and rich people travel by car in the Middle East. Planners were therefore not focused on mass transit. Tourists come to Dubai for the shopping, the sunshine, and the skiing  (in the Dubai mall). They don’t come because it is easy to get around the city. Businesspeople, however, have different needs and rely on excellent infrastructure to communicate and compete. One of Harry’s friends in the Emirates posits that the reason the main international flights go out at 2 am is not to allow tourists one more round of shopping but instead to make sure that they actually make the flight, such are the snarls of traffic on the road network during the day.

New York made a brave decision in 1869 to plan and build an extensive metro system far beyond what it needed at the time. Dubai has done this with local flavor, extending lines to places like Jebel Ali. Harry cannot but wonder about priorities; if the city had made rail transit an earlier focus, how much of the population’s time would have been saved? What could have been done instead of sitting in the back of a Dubai taxi attempting to improve one’s Hindi?  And then there is the environmental cost of widespread traffic jams to be considered, itself the product of an exclusively private transport system. The contract to build the metro was only awarded in 2005, suggesting a late response to an economic boom; only the absence of spaces for tracks in the central areas hints that the planners didn’t move fast enough. The Burj Dubai complex’s 3.2 million square feet of space will house more people than a small London neighborhood; it has one metro station, so you know rush hour will be fun in a few years time. More lines are planned, and this time they are going in before the developers, which is encouraging, but mass transit needs to go places people want to visit – like the center of the city.

Neglecting mass transit is the sort of planning error than only an absolute monarchy can make. When decisions are made in palaces far from the traffic jams and chaos of regular life, rulers get priorities wrong. Dubai’s apologists will point out that the Emirate is the only Arab city to actually have a working Metro; Cairo is still trying to respond to endemic congestion, while Saudi rulers have attacked Riyadh’s traffic with ostrich theory. And that closes the circle: Dubai succeeds because it is relatively better than its neighbors. Governments more in tune with the population address the community’s needs quickly – like the need for civilized commute. Harry would like Dubai to become demonstrably better than its neighbors and thinks more freedom is the answer.

A common observation of our era is that is it the era of liberal democracy – we are part of the “Third Wave” of democratization which effectively represents the epochal victory of liberal democracy (at least as a formal political system) against all other authoritarian and totalitarian forms of government.

But, could we not make the observe claim: it is not that we live in the era of liberal democracy, but that we live in a period in which dictatorship is no longer a possible form of political rule. By dictatorship I mean the classical form of “tyrannical” modern government: the types of regimes signified by the names of Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini. That is, these are not simple despotisms (of the kind we still have in many parts of the world – pick your own “corrupt African dictator” as an example), but authoritarian rule which is heavily dependent upon the state’s ability to employ state-directed mass mobilization. Presently, you may find many a despotic regime, but the crucial element of mass mobilization is missing: North Korea and Venezuela (in contrasting ways, of course) may represent the last of the species – but even Venezuela, however much one may try to paint Chavez as a dictator, still lacks the total dictatorial power of a Stalin – recall that Chavez still deals with an active political opposition, has no option of condemning enemies to a Gulag, and must still legitimize his rule via a formal democratic process – all these are preposterous propositions to the classic dictatorial model.

So the question is not “why is liberal democracy today’s predominant form of government,” but “what has changed to make dictatorship impossible?” The questions are not necessarily related: what has made dictatorship impossible is not necessarily that which has made liberal democracy possible. Indeed, the death of dictatorship should signal an epochal shift in the organization of the modern world. The question is highly significant politically, as well: for example, it was interesting to see Thomas Friedman on Charlie Rose express his frustration at the blackmailing behavior of Afghan president Karzai: Friedman made the point that, in essence, the Obama administration has to bribe Karzai for his continued support of US military efforts in the country. It seems that this form of blackmail was not possible in the past: a weak state blackmails the stronger not by playing a game of power politics (a la the Cold War) and finding a new international patron, or building up domestic resources to challenge the hegemon, but by threatening the strong state with its failure. How is this possible?

The rhetorical question Friedman asked was significant: did Nehru have to paid to build modern India, did Nasser have to be bribed to modernize Egypt? What explains Karzai’s “irresponsible” behavior towards his own historical mission of constructing an Afghan nation? How ironical: US foreign policy should, it seems, reminisce of the glory days when the business of rule in proxy states was carried out by authoritarian dictators (like Pinochet) – such leaders are both politically and economically much more efficient than the “democratically” elected Karzai and the “democratic” regime of Pakistan (recall Musharraf’s inability to hold on to power and reinstitute a military dictatorship in that country).

Here I think lies part of the answer to the question of why dictatorship is no longer possible: it is not simply that there are today international norms and diplomatic pressures which prevent petty leaders from assuming dictatorial powers and require them to pursue democratic legitimation through elections (even if rigged, etc.). The answer perhaps lies elsewhere: it is that the institutional logic of liberalism as a global system has created such conditions that it is impossible for petty leaders to become dictators. It is not that leaders such as Karzai and others would not desire political power beyond the principle of electoral legitimacy, but that they lack the mass social movements to back the state in a mass political project of the kind typically intended by dictatorship (imperial grandeur and expansion under Napoleon, a classless society under Stalin, an organic national body under Nazism and facism). Indeed, petty dictators today do not defy, but operate within the very confines of the (normative and institutional) standards of liberal democracy. Did we not see this most recently in Iran? The model of “theocratic dictatorship” seems very far from the model of a despotic society, with millions of Iranians marching against electoral fraud. In addition, these standards pervade the institutional structures of so-called developing societies: the (sometimes forceful) institution of “market relations” between households and the economic system and the resulting view of the state as a mere “nightwatchman” of liberal society has deeply transformed social dynamics throughout the developing world. In other words, the rise of petty, corrupt authoritarianism against the radical social transformative goals of dictatorship is a direct consequence of the global hegemony of liberal democracy as the world’s dominant political system, and liberal capitalism as the necessary economic system of liberal democracy. That is, what some democratization theorists call “illiberal democracy” (for which Russia serves as a typical case) is not some aberration caused by local conditions but in fact the direct product of the hegemony of liberal democracy. The question is, is the possibility of mass, revolutionary dictatorship (of either the Left or the Right) irretrievably lost as a political choice?

The more fundamental normative question is, of course, should we even want dictatorship to exist as a political choice? Who would today want to live under a Stalinist regime, let along a society ruled by Hitler’s Nazis, permeated by his SS organization? The problem is not that simple, however. It is true that the era of the “Third Wave” (borrowing from Samuel Huntington’s designation which informs basic understandings of the process of democratization beginning in the late 1980s and 1990s) has introduced more liberal democracies on the planet. On face value, this may appear to be a good thing. What the “Third Wave” has introduced as well, however, is a new form of corrupt authoritarianism. True, the “Third Wave”, coupled no doubt with “structural adjustment” policies advocated by the IMF, has led to the shrinking of the state, particularly its control over the economy and in social spending (particularly true for states in the Third World and the former socialist bloc). It has also been accompanied, however, as many analysts point out, with the increasingly problems of legitimacy, state “failure,” the growth of criminality and transnational organized crime, increasing ethnic conflict within states, and the rise of nationalist and religious revivalisms and fundamentalisms. These should not be seen as unrelated to global political and institutional changes. Indeed, I would go further and suggest that what these portend is not simply a political crisis of the state, but a more fundamental crisis of the project of modernity. The suggestion that we should today, in line with the norms of liberal multiculturalism and the varying postmodern and postcolonial theories that are brandished about, be concerned not with modernity as a universal human condition (regardless of the different “paths” which lead to it) but with “multiple” and even irreconcilable and incommensurable modernities. By these standards, Bin Laden’s fundamentalism is also an alternative form of “modernity.” But all these point to the intricate relationship between modernity and dictatorship: perhaps then, we should revise our conventional view of dictatorship as constituting somehow a traditionalist reaction towards modernization (a view commonly invoked to explain fascism in Germany, Italy and elsewhere, as well as for Stalinism – i.e., that Stalin represented a kind of “return to Russian traditionalism” against the radical ultra-modernity of communism) and see dictatorship as a peculiarly modern phenomenon. Should we, then, rather than celebrate, see in the demise of dictatorship a much more troubling sign of the crisis of the universal project of modernity?

Unable to join the #Trafigura flashmob in person this Thursday? Still want to help? Well now you can…

From 1pm onwards on Thursday 26th November, please show your support for the campaign by Tweeting the following, and encouraging others to do the same:

Beat the gag! “toxic waste in the Ivory Coast leading to the deaths of a number of people” #Trafigura http://tr.im/FBZi

Click here for more information about the campaign.

I’ve been hearing a lot of Obama-bashing lately. I’ve also been seeing a lot of Sarah Palin in the news. I am a registered Independent (I), which means my loyalty lies not with the Democrats (see: Liberals), or the Republicans (see: Conservatives.) I am free to vote in any primary election I see fit, and I consider myself a political centrist. I am neither “left” nor “right.” I believe in fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. My political motto is simple: Less Taxes, Smaller Government, More Freedom. I believe the United States Constitution should be literally interpreted, and I believe that any changes to this document should come in the form of amendments, not executive or judicial interpretation (which, coincidentally, is how the “Founding Fathers” designed it.)

With all that being said, allow me to share with you what I feel to be the three (3) most important qualities in a President. I will also compare these qualities to those of Obama and Palin and see who would be more fit to run (or ruin) this nation.

I. Education.

Barack Obama: Attended Occidental College in Los Angeles, CA for two years before transferring to Columbia University and receiving a B.A. in Political Science and a minor in International Relations. He then graduated Magna Cum Laude (the top 1% of his class) with a J.D. (law degree) from Harvard. (Daaaaaaaaamn homie!)

Sarah Palin: Attended Hawaii Pacific University(?) for one semester. Then attended North Idaho University(?) for two semesters. However, she did win the “Miss Wasilla” (pop. 5,469) beauty pageant at this time. She then attended the University of Idaho for two semesters, transferred to Matanuska-Susitna College(?) in Wasilla, AK for one semester, before transferring back to the University of Idaho and earning a Bachelor’s degree in Communications with an emphasis in Journalism.

EDGE: Obama. While Palin was busy taking her “hard” courses (note: Are there any difficult courses in Communications? From what I understand there’s not) at various community colleges before transferring to the University of Idaho to earn her patchwork degree, Obama was nonchalantly becoming the first ever black man to become the President of the Harvard Law Review. Although I do contend it would be interesting to see what someone with a Community College education would do with the power of the Presidency, I feel a bit more at ease knowing that a man with a vast and extensive knowledge of American Law, the U.S. Constitution and a Harvard fucking education is running this nation.

II. Experience.

Obama: Member of the Illinois State Senate 13th District (Chicago), January 8, 1997 – November 4, 2004. United States Senator from Illinois, January 3, 2005 – November 16, 2008.

Palin: Member of the Wasilla City Council, 1992-1996. Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, 1996-2002. Chairperson of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2003-2004. Governor of Alaska, December 4, 2006 – July 26, 2009.

EDGE: Obama. Until abruptly resigning from the office of Governor of Alaska in July of 2009 without explanation, Sarah Palin had been involved in politics at some level for the better part of 17 years. Unfortunately, her experience was tantamount to that of Leslie Knope, the Deputy Director of the Pawnee City Department of Parks and Recreation on NBC’s hit comedy Parks and Recreation. Meanwhile, Obama was serving as community activist, state legislator and U.S. Senator in America’s third-largest city. Let’s compare:

Palin's Constituency

Obama's Constituency

Hmm.

Now don’t get me wrong, it’s an incredible feat to be elected Governor of a State (just ask my Governor – Arnold Swartzennager.) However, Alaska is home to just 686,293 citizens, whereas Chicago alone is home to 2,853,114 citizens. Plus Illinois is America’s fifth (5th) largest State with a population of 12,901,563.  So, while as Mayor of Wasilla, Mrs. Palin had the duty of taking care of the concerns of 5,000 people, Mr. Obama had his hands full in Chicago dealing with millions of citizens and the rampant corruption that comes along with Illinois and its government. I think I’ll go with the Senator from the big state. There’s just this uneasy feeling I get about trusting the Governor of an obscure quasi-Russian/Canadian territory that isn’t even a part of the continental United States.

III. Pragmatism, Prudence and Foresight:

Allow me to first define what I mean by “Pragmatism”:

1. A movement consisting of varying but associated theories, originally developed by Charles S. Peirce and William James and distinguished by the doctrine that the meaning of an idea or a proposition lies in its observable practical consequences.
2. A practical, matter-of-fact way of approaching or assessing situations or of solving problems.

And “Prudence”:

1. Wise in handling practical matters; exercising good judgment or common sense.
2. Careful in regard to one’s own interests; provident.
3. Careful about one’s conduct; circumspect.

And of course by “Foresight”, I simply mean I enjoy a President who doesn’t suffer from myopia. I’ll go ahead and define “Myopia” for you as well:

1. A visual defect in which distant objects appear blurred because their images are focused in front of the retina rather than on it; nearsightedness. Also called short sight. (For the purpose of this essay, definition 1 is intended to be used metaphorically.)
2. Lack of discernment or long-range perspective in thinking or planning.

Let me begin by explaining why I believe these three qualities are so important: When a President fails to learn from the mistakes of others (Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon – Vietnam), he is doomed to repeat these mistakes (George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld – Iraq.) Another fine example are our nation’s bankers who, apparently not very well versed in the history of the U.S. stock market, essentially substituted the inadequately-financed stocks of the 1920’s with the inadequately-financed real estate of the aughts. Same principles, same great wealth accumulation, same devastating crash.

Prudence is important in a President because, in order to run the world’s largest Capitalist economy, you had better know what the fuck you are doing. Without going too far in depth economically, I’ll just say that it’s important to lend aid to citizens who have a legitimate need for said aid (if the financial impact of this aid outweighs the converse impact of inaction), but the funding should come from a reasonable (and ideally perpetual) source. Blah… you can just ignore this paragraph.

Obligatory Photograph of Rome

Foresight is important for the same reasons. I live by the philosophy that every generation’s children should be better off than the generation that preceded it. Simple, right? Same goes for American citizens in general.

Oh yeah, these traits of intelligence are also very important to me, because they lay the delicate balance between what is considered progressive, or “liberal”, and what is the traditional status quo, or “conservative.” These two philosophies must work hand-in-hand in order for a society to prosper. (See: Rome, Ancient Greece, Modern Day Western Europe.) When traditional values are held onto for too long, you get the Middle-East (see: post-1979 Iran, Hussein’s Iraq and the Talibani Afghanistan.) Conversely, when a society attempts to accelerate progressive movements at a pace that is not in tow with the thoughts, ideals, resources or support of its citizens, you see great failure and revolt (See: the USSR, Nazi Germany, Modern-Day Cuba.)

Anyway, let’s continue:

Obama: Since he is the acting POTUS, it’s pretty easy to grade his performance thus far. I give him a “C” for effort. One thing people need to understand is that whoever won the 2008 Presidential election (be it Palin by way of McCain, or Barack Obama, they would likely serve but one term.) Why? Well, because the FUBAR they inherited from the Executive Branch Davidians (see: Dick Cheney, et al) was so severe that it would likely crush the soul, spirit and resolve of not only the person elected, but that of the entire county as well. Thanks, Dubya! So far, Obama’s stimulus has not been something I particularly admire (neither were any of Bush’s fiscal policies, either.) One thing I do enjoy is the closing of Guantanamo (say what you will about these prisoners, but a semantic game should not be played here. Either try them in the Hague as war criminals, or on U.S. soil as terrorists. Just stop violating the Geneva Convention [or rather, exploiting its loopholes], and fucking do something!) Also, his views on how to close the American chapter in Iraq is questionably in my estimation. Doing away with the PATRIOT Act was excellent, and as far as his Health Care proposal is concerned – it needs major work.

Obama: "At Least I'm Not Bush"

Palin: What do we know about Palin? Not much. She’s a small town girl with a small-town mind and a small-town education. She lacks the basic fundamental understanding of global politics and domestic social programs and their taxation to be an effective leader at anything higher than, well, the Alaskan level. Additionally, she has bizarre religious views (Pentacostal, anyone?), apparently opposes abortion even in cases of rape or incest (what does that tell you?) and famously has no fucking idea where one of America’s most volatile “allies” is on a map. Palin is very outspoken and this makes her popular with individuals suffering from Asperger’s Syndrome and Alcholism (the two most likely crowds outside of Tourettes to speak their mind.) Political entertainers such as Bill O’Reilly and Rush “Oxycontin” Limbaugh seem to support her fervently. Palin recently released a book that was heavily criticized for its inaccuracies, with the AP stating, “Ignoring substantial parts of her record if not the facts, she depicts herself as a frugal traveler on the taxpayer’s dime, a reformer without ties to powerful interests and a politician roguishly indifferent to high ambition.” Additionally, she has taken several insane stances she resigning from office, including supporting creationism in the classroom (she believes that dinosaurs and humans once interacted) as well as inventing the term “Death Panel”to criticize Obama’s proposed healthcare plan (a term that has been slammed as grossly erroneous and completely fictional and without merit.)

Sarah Palin: An Insane Reptillian Alien Disguised in the Body of a Beautiful Woman

EDGE: Draw.

That’s right. Despite the fact that Sarah Palin is a small-town hick from the meth capitol of Alaska with little-to-no education and an incredibly loose grasp on how American politics, society, taxation and the electoral system work, Obama has proven to be so incredibly liberal and reckless with the American taxpayer’s dime that I really cannot support anything he’s done. Now, does this mean I would prefer Sarah Palin as an alternative ? Absolutely fucking not. Under no circumstances whatsoever. I would move to Canada if she were ever elected (although I cannot see the American people doing something so unprecedented and appalling, though they did once elect Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter consecutively, so who knows.)

You may be wondering who I would tap as an alternative to these two. Well, Ron Paul of course.

Democracy FTW!

Alex Abboud is attending Reboot Alberta this weekend.  He has posted his thoughts on the future of Alberta.  Alex says Alberta does not need a reboot, it needs an upgrade.  His point is that a “reboot implies that problems exist, but the current system will suffice to handle them.” 

He disagrees.  Alex believes the system and paradigm that is the conventional Alberta to today must evolve.  Alex observes that “The world is changing, and what worked for us in the past is no guarantee for future success. ”  He then proceeds to discuss “…where we have come from and where we need to go.”

Alex has penned one of the most evocative blog posts on the need for a comprehensive practical and yes, nuanced, conversation on the future of Alberta.  He calls it Alberta 3.0.  Treat yourself and create some space and time to read this blog post.  You will be glad you did.

 Here is the Link:  http://alexabboud.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/alberta-3-0-thoughts-on-the-way-forward-reboot-alberta-and-the-next-ten-words/

Democracy is a revolutionary concept; the idea that every man has an equal right to shape the world and society he lives in is not a commonly accepted one.

In practice the United Kingdom recites a democratic cerimonial but has no actual democracy. Wishful thinkers will say that our democracy is limited, more pragmatic people will recognize that it is mostly a fiction of forms.

In practice our individual democratic power is only recognised in so much as we may delegate it and concentrate it in the hands of a representative.

To a certain extent, we may observe the use and abuse of the power we have surrendered in delegation and then we may choose to renew our mandate or bestow another representative with our power.

It is extremely rare for common people to be allowed to vote directly on an issue, and even in such cases (referendums) the questions will often be pre-formulated by others and the outcome may not have legislative status.

To many people the most important mass-delegation event occurs at national elections, so in practice most people participate in democracy once every four or five years.

One tick on a pre-groomed face or banner every half-decade.

This, without a hint of irony, is called the democratic process and, along with other minor voting occasions (local elections, European elections etc.), is deemed sufficient evidence of a democratic society.

The only form of democracy which is tolerated consistently is representative democracy and democratic power is for the most part recognised in the moment in which it departs its bearer and concentrates, in the form of consent, at the feet of a delegated leader. Our democratic power is acknowledged by officialdom in the very moment we surrender its control to somebody else.

Voter apathy (as it is called) is one consequence of this structure of channelled democracy; although it is seldom discussed in the mainstream media or by our cathodic (so-called) intellectuals, it is quite plausible that many do not vote because they do not perceive mass delegation in favour of an unknown media personality as being a valid use of their democratic power. Other reasons for low voter turnout are the perception that ones vote will make little difference, that all vote-gatherers will essentially enact similar policies (those with a chance of victory certainly will) or even the refusal to choose something which one does not desire.

These are all excellent reasons for not voting. Indeed one must ask whether the expression voter apathy is best suited to those who refuse to take part in our current form of castrated democracy or rather to those who accept to participate by eliciting one of (usually) two parties or media-heads with substantially identical agendas.

Take the UK as an example; we are told (by interested parties) that there are only three candidates for victory: the Conservatives, New Labour and the Liberal Democrats. This being the case, where is one to vote “no” to neo-liberism, “no” to neo-colonialism? Who does one vote for the upholding of conservative principles, who does one vote for social justice?

In the US it is said that there are only two factions of the Business Party (Democrats and Republicans), the same is true of the United Kingdom and most of the EU; in fact the Business Party is the only party, which can win an election in the western world.

Why? Well print and broadcasting businesses repeat it incessantly and so the pragmatic-vote is created and citizens scramble to adhere to the least catastrophic faction of the Business Party.

Please note that these people are not making an informed choice, nor are they choosing as such, they are instead trying to avert the rise to power of the most extreme branch of the only party.

Evidently there are many other reasons to vote a given party including nostalgia, perception of a shared ideology, trust in party members etc. but very few wholeheartedly adhere to the agenda (which most citizens ignore) of any given faction within the Business Party and these few have often helped shape the agenda (or, in some cases, drafted parts of it outright).

These people vote out of expedience although, it must be stressed, their power resides not in their votes, which would be too few to win an election, but in their ability to induce others to vote for their interests or, alternatively, to relinquish their vote.

Said individuals despise and fear democracy in equal measure.

One of the most parroted myths of our western democracy is that incompetent, lazy, selfish leaders will not see their mandate renewed and will thus be voted out of office. The notion is largely correct though what it would appear to imply is not.

There is no democratic selection of candidates; bad leaders are not replaced by better ones, they are simply replaced by another one. Once Tony Blair has been shown to be a murderous fanatic, he can then be replaced by somebody else with different, but similarly undesirable characteristics.

From the Business Party obviously.

How does this work?

Come election time, the media will give prominent coverage to the most powerful players in the political arena so historical opposition i.e. the Conservatives will enjoy much airtime as will the Liberal Democrats because both have historically done well in previous elections. New (or Not) Labour will also enjoy much airtime as the defeated force and will still be regarded as a prime contender.

It makes little or no difference whether people’s opposition was to policies which are similar or identical to those which Tories and LibDems have on the agenda; this is not a critical analysis of past policy failures or future policy implications it is the fawning to power and the industrial practice of news journalism.

The media will give prominence to dissident voices from the other two factions of the Business Party during the current government’s demise and then publish intentions of vote which reflect their coverage of the (internal) dissidence. Even before the electoral-machine is set in motion, the media has already provided the pre-conditions for another session of pragmatic-voting. This practice cements and perpetuates the status quo and is at the heart of the Media and Business Party’s self-perpetuating mandate.

It becomes thus easy to infiltrate a party with an important voter basin and completely pervert the party’s declared ideology, secure in the knowledge that the media’s industrial practices will perpetuate your popularity notwithstanding. All you need then is a couple of chronically irresponsible Eton boys and you have access to a party with a huge popular base and the guarantee of self-perpetuating media prominence.

It is the ideal trojan horse for big business.

Not surprisingly the Conservatives do not have a conservative agenda, Labour works against labourers and the Liberal Democrats are a spurious form of both their adjective and their noun.

All things considered, representative democracy though limited and tightly constrained, may not be a pointless exercise given that voters do not surrender to the perverse logic of pragmatic-voting, providing that we pay little attention to voter intentions and exit-polls.

We can participate meaningfully in a representative democracy if we endevour to inform ourselves of all parties’ actual agendas, regain the courage of our convictions and defend our right to choose and form the society we wish to live in.

Is this enough?

No it is not. Politics cannot be entirely delegated to third parties and the democratic power of the citizen cannot be relinquished through representation.

The revolutionary potential of democracy is such that it cannot limit itself to the practice of fair representation.

To be continued in future posts…

The Witch Doctor does not know any of the other medical bloggers personally, indeed she does not even know who they are with the exception of Dr Rita Pal, Dr Bloggs and more recently Julie. However, it is just about possible to deduce one or two things about the ages of most of them and an interesting phenomenon is developing.

Dr Grumble was pointing out yesterday that of those medics who blog regularly there are probably very few young doctors among them. I may be wrong about this, and apologies to the youthful ones if I am, but it seems to me that The Ferret Fancier and The Junior Doctor are the youngest. There is a great new medical blogger who might be younger still.  Rita is probably next in line. I’m not sure about Basics Doc - he might be next. There may be more younger doctors or medical students still blogging regularly and My Black Cat is going to look them out. The remainder seem to be “at their prime” or past it depending on whether it is a good day. The Witch Doctor, of course is of an evanescent  age depending on what particular spell she is under.

The Witch Doctor seemed to misunderstand what Sam was saying over the weekend. She thought Sam was of the opinion that the older bloggers were a load of old medical fogies who lived in the past and were resistant to change. However what I think she was really saying was that we were resistant to any degree of privatisation within the NHS.

I think Sam is really quite fond of us all in spite of our weird ways.

Over the weekend too there was some despair among the bloggers regarding which party to vote for in the next election.

In the past there was probably a general trend for those with a Socialist leaning to vote against privatisation and those with a Tory leaning to vote for it. Not sure what you did if you were a Liberal though. But now the waters have become very muddy and no-one seems to know what each party stands for.

This led The Witch Doctor to contemplate what would be her voting pattern in the next election. She also spent some time considering her views on privatisation.

Now, we witches are not hindered by any present or past allegiance to any political party. We are certainly not and never have been socialists, old labour, new labour, social democrats, communists, tories or liberals. We have absolutely no allegiance to any of the new or extremist parties either. We believe all political ideologies eventually become tainted and we look out for that happening to whoever is in power and do what it takes to vote that party out. We are truly floating voters. It makes us feel important. We love it when they woo us round about election time.

The wooing is good fun but a waste of the politician’s time. The Witch Doctor will wend her way to the polling booth and do whatever it takes to vote against hubris.

She will not take leaders into account at all because she has learned over the past few years that they do not run our country. It is the gurus in the Think Tanks and powerful businessmen that encircle our leaders who do that.

One of the problems is that there is a new political ideology that has been foisted upon us unawares. It is a problem because no-body understands what it is about. Many have never even heard of it. Not knowing it is happening and not knowing what it is really about means we don’t know whether it is good or bad.

It is called The Third Way.

Another name for it is Communitarianism.

Tony Blair’s name was closely linked to The Third Way. So are those who surrounded him and those coming after him.

However, it is likely that all three major political parties are now Communitarian to a greater or lesser extent. This is why the voters are confused.

If you do a Google search for articles published on The Third Way, you will find a little intertwinglement or two. But you have to know what you are looking for.

The Witch Doctor placed a little Third Way intertwinglement experiment in Saturday’s post. It was so deeply hidden, she doesn’t expect anyone to spot it. Especially those who refuse to click.

Communitarianism is the reason why Old Labour who used to be so in favour of nationalisation, is now wooing the private sector. We witches also believe it is the reason behind The Skills Escalator.

All political parties will be hand in glove with the private sector from now on, so you’ll need to get used to it.

It is an important part of Third Way politics.

My Black Cat and I will try to learn all we can about The Third Way before the next general election. We have already learned a little.

And we’ll look for more intertwinglements.

Just in case some of them turn out to be very important.

a red apple ……………………

The Witch Doctor – Link to a random page

_________________________________________________

LINK TO UK MISSING KIDS WEBSITE

LINK TO MISSING PERSONS WEBSITE

_________________________________________________

© Dlundin | Dreamstime.com

Corruption has been an integral part of human nature. And the slightest opportunity to make a few quick bucks or extract a benefit or two by being ‘slightly corrupt’ is too tempting to be let gone away. In view of strict checks and balances including the accountability practices in the private sector and the strict stand against malpractices have kept corruption at a low in the private sector. However, absence of the above factors in the public sector has led to rampant corruption in the public sector to the brink that now Govt. officials simply do not bother about the consequences of their corruption.

And in order to put a check on that the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI) was introduced which enabled the citizens to question the Government officials, especially the Bureaucrats in order to ensure transparency and put a check on corruption. As it directly challenged the modus operandi of the corrupt bureaucrats and their easy money-making processes, there was a lot of opposition to the Act being passed and even after that, the bureaucrats kept shouting, “People are misusing RTI Act,” and stuff.

However, I wondered, RTI Act only enables truth to come out and how can someone misuse truth? But when I saw this news, my query was answered. In a nutshell the news is about how Municipal officers of Bangalore are threatening hotel owners that if they don’t pay up money than, they will answer to the RTI Application filed against their hotel license. And if they pay up money, they would give some nonsensical answer to the RTI Application.

Hats off to the bureaucrats – A tool designed to check corruption has been successfully converted into a legal tool of extortion by the corrupt Govt. officials. This is actually misuse of RTI Act and none other than by the bureaucrats.

Catch me if you can, but you don’t want to, do you?

Voranai Vanijaka

Bangkok Post: November 23, 2009

http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/27906/catch-me-if-you-can-but-you-don-t-want-to-do-you

Does anyone actually think that the Thai authorities want Thaksin Shinawatra arrested? If they wanted Thaksin arrested, wouldn’t he already have been arrested?

Could it be that the reason he hasn’t been arrested is simply because they don’t want him in custody?

Why launch a coup when he was in New York? Did that mean he was not supposed to be arrested in the first place? Why did he pack more suitcases than Imelda Marcos on his trip to the UN meeting in New York in September 2006? Was it because he knew there was to be a coup? That it has been arranged and he was informed by the coup makers ahead of time? Why was he allowed to attend the Beijing Olympics when the court had already convicted him and he was in Thailand, in the grasp of the Thai authorities?

The term political decorum is key to understanding Thai politics. Certain things are just a matter of time honoured tradition. When a coup is launched against you, good political decorum dictates that it’s time for you to go away quietly. Retire to your billion baht home, your mansion in the Swiss Alps and live out the rest of your days in luxury. After all, you’ve worked tirelessly for years in stealing from the country. Don’t make a fuss. Just fade away. It’s good political decorum.

You’ve been in charge because you’re allowed to be in charge. There’s a prior arrangement. You’re removed because you’ve broken a prior arrangement. You’ve been naughty. So you have to go. Someone else has to replace you to continue stealing from the country.

A military coup in Thailand is simply a tool of up-keeping political decorum. The only time when a coup turns bloody, is when there’s a third party involved _ someone else who could not abide by the act.

For example, in the May 1992 coup by army commander Suchinda Krapayoon, the Chartchai Choonhavan government was set to fade away quietly. Why? It’s simply because the late former Prime Minster Chartchai had good political manners. Violence broke out in the streets and gave rise to Bloody May only because someone else wasn’t willing to play ball _ Chamlong Srimuang.

But Thaksin Shinawatra? He’s a bad boy. He has no manners. Not only did he break a prior arrangement while he was prime minister, after the coup, he just won’t go away quietly.

Dear readers, Thaksin had already returned to Thailand during the administration of his nominee Samak Sundaravej. The Constitutional Court found Thaksin guilty of wrong-doing. He asked if he could go to the Beijing Olympics and said he would return to face his punishment. They said, yeah, okay, see you soon.

Now, isn’t that ridiculous? Could it very well be that the verdict was just for show? That they really didn’t want him arrested? That they, once again, gave him a chance to fade away quietly?

One may say that the Samak Government saw to it that he was able to leave the country. I don’t think so. We well know the Samak Government was as potent as a 70-year-old who couldn’t find his Viagra. They couldn’t order the police to give a traffic ticket, but army generals could _ and that’s the point.

So why did the authorities keep lett-ing him go?

Readers know well that I am no fan of this former prime minister and that I think he is a dangerous megalomaniac, but one thing we have to give to him. Thaksin Shinawatra is a fighter. One doesn’t become this rich and powerful if one isn’t a fighter. One couldn’t have turned the landscape of Thai politics upside down and swept an entire election if one isn’t a fighter. Thaksin Shinawatra is a fighter. Certain people did not count on that.

Because Thaksin is a fighter with a lot of cash in his hands, naturally there are those willing to fight with him. Mob for hire has been a time-honoured occupation in human civilisation since the days of the Romans. Which brings us back to why the authorities do not want Thaksin arrested.

Dear readers, imagine Thaksin in handcuffs on Thai soil. Just imagine it. What would happen? The red shirts would make the Songkran incident look like a picnic in the park. There would be blood in the streets. Thailand, politically and economically, cannot afford that. The Thai authorities don’t want to arrest him. The Thai authorities don’t have the stomach for it.

Likewise Thaksin. Although he’s a fighter, he’s not a warrior. A fighter fights for rewards. A warrior fights for beliefs. If he were a warrior, he would gladly extend his wrists to the handcuffs. Then let’s have it out in the streets and may the man with the most cash win. Or else, the tanks can come charging in.

So if the fear is civil war in the streets, the game is not to defeat Thaksin Shinawatra.

The game is to defeat the red-shirt movement because without them, Thaksin will have no support base.

The best way to defeat the red shirts is, of course, by the Democrats winning the next general election. Because democracy is the only legitimate argument the red shirts have in support of Thaksin and against the Abhisit Vejjajiva government. If the Abhisit government wins, then the democracy argument will be moot.

Which is why Thaksin and the Puea Thai Party are doing their best to agitate and undermine the Abhisit government, pressuring him to dissolve the parliament and call for an election. Because they believe that the earlier the election, the better chance of a Puea Thai victory. It’s a matter of baht and satang.

Which is why the Abhisit government is doing its best to delay the general election. They need to take time and gather as much popular support as possible by handing out populace incentives. It’s also a matter of baht and satang.

When the time comes, if the Democrats do not win, then we all may have to answer to the people who are really in charge of this country: The military.

[FACT comments: Doh! That pesky democracy sure gets in the way!]

‘Times’ under more pressure

• Bangkok Post: November 23, 2009
• http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/politics/27936/times-under-more-pressure

The government will put more pressure on The Times of London to hand over the recording of ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s controversial interview after the news outlet rejected the first request.

The government’s request for the audio recording with Thaksin – the transcript of which appeared on The Times’ website on Nov 9 – had been rejected with the newspaper citing press freedom, PM’s Office Minister Sathit Wongnongtoey said on Sunday.

However, he said, the office would send a letter to seek an explanation as to why The Times had refused to offer the recording of Thaksin’s interview.

He said if The Times online is sincere and did not conspire with Thaksin to verbally attack and offend the supreme institution of Thailand, it should send the recording for checking, Mr Sathit said.

Following the publication of the Thaksin interview, the government denounced the ousted premier for offending the monarchy.

Thaksin has maintained that he was loyal to the monarchy and accused The Times of distorting his comments.

[FACT comments: Duh! And Thai govt expected another result??? That’s what’s called a, umm, free press…]

Times refuses to hand over Thaksin tape

• Bangkok Post: November 23, 2009
• http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/160747/times-refuses-to-hand-over-thaksin-tape

The London newspaper that printed an interview with Thaksin Shinawatra focussing on the monarchy has “unofficially” refused to turn over the original tape to the Thai government, PM’s Office Minister Sathit Wongnongtoey said on Sunday.

The government “requested” a copy of the original tape of the interview between The Times newspaper and the fugitive ex-premier, the miinster said.

The interview took place earlier this month, and according to Mr Satit it is “thought to contain material considered offensive to the monarchy.”

Mr Sathit told repoerters the daily did not provide a reason why it would not provide the taped interview, but merely said it had the right not to comply with the request.

Mr Sathit said he had again ordered officials to send a request again and ask the daily to “reply officially”. He claimed the article hurt the feelings of the Thai people.

The interview was conducted in Dubai where Thaksin is staying in self-imposed exile. The newspaper said the interviewer was Richard Lloyd Parry, a British foreign correspondent who is Tokyo-based Asia editor of The Times.

The ex-premier has claimed the online edition of The Times “distorted” his remarks.

Thaksin was sentenced in absentia in October last year by a Bangkok court to two years’ imprisonment for abuse of power by helping his then-wife acquire a parcel of prime Bangkok commercial property at a price far below its market value.

Sangha split opens door for women

Sanitsuda Ekachai

Bangkok Post: November 23, 2009

http://www.bangkokpost.com/blogs/index.php/2009/11/20/sangha-split-opens-door-for-women?blog=64

When the monastic elders in Thailand were busy with the Wat Sothorn monks’ protest two week ago over who would get to be the abbot of their rich temple, their Western counterparts were simultaneously facing a serious split over the ordination of bhikkhuni (female monks).

Here in Thailand, we just shook our heads wearily at the sight of angry monks trying to retain their grip on temple wealth.
Temple corruption, you see, is old news. So is the failure of the council of elders to ensure transparency regarding temple finances.

But no matter how unhappy we are, we tell ourselves we should follow the saying, Chua chang chee, dee chang song which advises us to stay away from problems involving monks and nuns.

While the local reaction is resignation, that of the Western laity’s bhikkhuni ordination is a quest for change.

One is about hopelessness. The other is about hope.

Isn’t it telling?

At issue in the Western clergy is the expulsion of Ajahn Brahmavamso from the Wat Pah Pong Forest Sangha under the lineage of Luang Por Chah, for engineering the full ordination of women at his temple in Australia, in violation of the Thai elders’ anti-bhikkhuni mandate.

Disillusionment runs high because the Western laity hold the Wat Pah Pong Forest Sangha in high esteem and they think their Ajahns (teachers) could do better than just meekly submit to the patriarchal, feudal Thai clergy whose views on women are shaped by sexist Thai cultural norms.

They might understand that their Ajahns, having had to practice in a totally foreign culture, see submission as a way to let go of old conditionings and the sense of self.

They might realise that, along the way, their Ajahns need to incorporate some Thai cultural values which focus on relationships and group harmony.

But they expect their teachers to choose compassion for women monastics and the principle of gender equality over traditional submission to authority.

Their hurt deepened when Amaravati and Cittaviveka forest monasteries in Great Britain imposed a draconian contract (http://bit.ly/LiMdt) on their Siladhara nuns, forcing them to formally accept the inferior status and the bitter reality that they could never become bhikkhunis there.

Thanks to the internet, an international community of Buddhist laity promptly emerged to protest against the Western Forest Sangha’s decision against bhikkhuni ordination and the draconian contract for the Siladhara nuns.

Apart from encouraging more openness to full female ordination, their e-petition at http://bit.ly/2wndUC subtly reminds the Western clergy that they are now operating in societies with strong awareness of democracy, transparency and gender equality.

So they cannot simply dismiss the voices of the laity if they want the monastic Thai forest tradition to thrive in the West.

Given the ever louder calls, we are witnessing the making of the Western forest tradition, one that is more open, more democratic and more respectful of gender equity.

Exciting, isn’t it?

The Western Sangha should not feel annoyed. They should be glad.

The petition calling for dialogue shows the laity still have hope in their Ajahns. It shows they still care.

Sadly, that cannot be said about the situation in Thailand.

Despite resistance from traditionalists, there is no stopping bhikkhuni ordination now.

In Thailand, women bypass the Thai clergy to be ordained in Sri Lanka. Overseas, women now have a place to be ordained in the Thai forest tradition if they so wish.

Meanwhile, the Siladhara nuns are reportedly leaving Amaravati to set up their own sanctuaries.

We must admit, with gratefulness, that the Western Sangha have prepared them well. The nuns are now ready to fly, to create a more open and caring atmosphere for women to practice in the West without being held back by Thai traditions, the way their Ajahns must endure with.

The challenge ahead is huge. But with Dharma and spiritual perseverance, they will become a source of inspiration and confidence for many more women who want to follow the same path.

Again, we must thank the recent storm in the Western clergy for making it happen.

End Game

In chess the end game is where the player with the greater assets on the board attempts to convert those superior assets into an incontestably won game. Currently the extreme left wing ideologues of the Democratic Party are attempting to convert their assets of a Democratic President and a solid Democratic majority in Congress into a “won game” where their ideology is incontestably embedded in law. We are currently witnessing a bloody end game in politics and one side seems to have most of the advantages.

In chess there are few true surprises in the end game. The principles of the end game in chess are well known. However in real life and politics surprises are not only possible, but often probable. In 1993 a lot of people thought that Bill Clinton would ram through his vision of universal health care. That failed and other unpopular measures like the Assault Weapons Ban led to Democrats losing control of Congress.

President Obama and the Democratic leaders of Congress clearly are trying to replay that defeat. The object of their end game is to extend government control and oversight into all sectors of the American economy, and in fact, into all sectors of American life. If they succeed America will have a very hard time returning to the system of individual freedom and private enterprise that made America a beacon of freedom and hope to the world for centuries.

Politicians have been fighting the “middle game” for decades and decades, each side maneuvering for advantage. Leftist politicians during that time have over and over again shown greater consistency and determination. In the recent and brief interval of Republican control of Congress and the Presidency the right proposed a “Contract With America” that had some very good principles but the Republicans were completely inept at getting to an end game where they could defeat the leftists on principle.

Perhaps the true conservatives have one more chance. There is a real possibility that the Democrats have overestimated their strength. By attempting to pass massive health care initiatives and economic disasters like “Cap and Trade” legislation during a painful economic depression they may have made a serious mistake that could again cost them control of Congress in 2010. At this time it seems almost certain that the Democrats will lose seats in 2010. Even if they don’t lose absolute control of Congress, their reduced majorities will make truly ambitious legislation impossible.

If those Americans who still value individual freedom and individual initiative want to defeat the the leftists bent on micro managing every aspect of American life and industry, then they need to understand the left’s strategy for the political end game now in progress. It is known as the Cloward-Piven Strategy.

The Cloward-Piven Strategy, like many truly nasty ideas, is a product of leftists in Academe. Richard Cloward and Frances Piven were radical Socialists teaching at Columbia University when they first articulated this strategy. Their strategy most simply articulated was to create radical community and grassroots organizations that would make more and more demands on government. At some point those demands would lead to a financial and political crisis where revolutionary change would be possible.

ACORN was a product of this strategy. ACORN “community organizers” worked tirelessly for decades to demand that banks and financial organizations make bad loans for political profit. We are now seeing the result of that campaign in the financial crisis that started off in the mortgage industry in the United States.

We are seeing the Cloward-Piven Strategy in the calls for massive spending in health care. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together ought to be able to see that if passed this legislation will push our already weak economy over the edge into disaster. Proposed “Cap And Trade” legislation will devastate our energy production and raise the cost of energy substantially.

Many people voted for Barack Obama and the Democrats in 2008 hoping for “Hope and Change.” A lot of those people thought that Barack Obama and his ilk really had their best interests at heart. We are beginning to see differently.

The only logical conclusion that I can come to is that Obama and the other extreme left wing ideologues of the Democratic Party are actually attempting an end game based on the Cloward-Piven Strategy of setting up impossible goals for government that will ultimately lead to a collapse of our present system. They hope to replace that system with a Socialist system more to their liking.

Americans need to see, and to understand, that it is an end game where the goal is not their welfare, or economic recovery, but rather it is an end game designed to forever change America into a country where just about everything is controlled and supervised by bureaucrats in a Big Government.

George Orwell described how Big Government works through Big Brother. Barack Obama appears to have an ambition to become our Big Brother.

lwk

[CJ Hinke of FACT comments: Honestly, we do expect to see Thaksin back in Thailand. Likely with his billions intact and not in a gaol cell. If a military coup can rescind a working Constitution, we just don’t have any respect for rule of law. And maybe we just don’t deserve one. Hmm, and what about the lèse majesté charge and extradition from the PM’s favorite countries???]

So Richard, Why can’t British public schoolboys rule Thailand?

Andrew Drummond

The Times: November 10, 2009

http://www.andrew-drummond.com/2009/11/10/so-richardwhy-cant-british-public-schoolboys-rule-thailand/

I have been watching with interest the web reaction to ‘The Times’ interview with Thaksin on some of the local forums, and am amazed that few people actually get it……. and that, perhaps,  includes the author.
The interview by Richard Lloyd Parry was indeed a scoop. It was the first time Thaksin laid his cards on the table to such an extent to the foreign press, and even though nobody else from the foreign press seemed to want to chase this particular scoop, Parry got full access and then a tape recorded interview – the transcripts which were apparently provided by Thaksin’s staff themselves.

So Thaksin went into this interview eyes wide open and obviously expecting some political capital out of it.
Now take a look at the news story and look at the actual transcript of the interview.
Well actually you can’t check the news story now if you are in Thailand, unless its posted somewhere else, because that has been blocked, well, so says the man you cannot gag in ‘The Times’.
Actually the interview has not been blocked which is quite surprising, or it it?  No not really, because it is the news story more than the interview, which has caused the offence.

Enter the conquering hero
Actually the author has missed the bottom line on this story and that it is quite simply: Thailand is going to the dogs but Thaksin says will come back to power in Thailand by hook or by crook with Puea Thai after the next election, his sins will be wiped, he will be found not guilty, and he then can put the country together again and save us all.
If he wants to march in, he will march in from the north, but he wants to avoid bloodshed, he says, thankfully for once.
Richard Lloyd Parry, in the interview labours a lot on, and questions, the role of the Monarchy and or institution thereof.  That is all perfectly valid. But Thaksin Shinawatra is very careful in his answers, whether we believe him or not. He has said nothing against the monarchy, but criticised advisors to the monarchy and even suggested they tried to ‘assassinate him’.  In fact the Times claims that Thaksin wants the monarchy reformed, but that comes from a question by RLP  and Thaksin is answering ‘Yes, Yes’  to reforms of institution around the monarchy.

So actually the interview does not stand up the story but perhaps could have done had he asked the appropriate questions and we have to assume the ‘Times’ has not censored the interview.

Actually anyone reading the interview might gather that the interviewee thinks he is one step short of canonisation. So blood has already been drawn there intentionally or otherwise.

But in fact what ‘The Times’ has done is to use the interview to convey a certain set of circumstances, and relationships, which have been widely talked about in journalistic and diplomatic circles in Bangkok, and London, and get them into a news story.
It would be inappropriate for me to spell out what that conspiracy, real or imagined, is.

That ‘Times’ agenda seems to be confirmed by a follow-up story by Richard Lloyd Parry headed: ‘The interview that dared to break Thai Royal taboo’.

I have always seen, rightly or wrongly, Richard Lloyd Parry, as a closet supporter of Thaksin, even though he once described him as unsavoury he has painted, the current Prime Minister, as much more of an ogre.  I took ‘The Times’ to task about it about earlier in this year. See this for example ‘The charmer making a mess of his country’.

Richard,  who lives in Tokyo, as a journalist has never had to live under Thaksin and things like the ’War on Drugs’ and media suppression and men with baseball bats at the FCCT.

The possibility that Thaksin could actually be guilty of the crimes brought against him have been given half hearted acceptance in ‘The Times’ if any at all.

The fact that he was democratically elected it seems is enough. This is about a threat to democracy. Of course democratically elected leaders can have their own agenda as Adolf did.

The newspaper was silent about his critics when Thaksin took over Manchester City. If you wanted to see criticism of Thaksin you had to look to the sports pages of the Daily Mail and Guardian.

Anyway I voluntarily  parted company with ‘The Times’ earlier this year to return to my old friends at the ‘Evening Standard’ (or rather  ’Eenie Stannit’ according to comedian Eric Morecombe).

By that time  I was concerned about ‘The Times’ and went public about why, and after 10 years, they were suddenly equally concerned about my byline appearing in ‘numerous other newspapers’.

Though I have since written for them, I do not want to represent them. They would be foolish to disagree.
Anyway, who am I to say Thaksin is not a democrat and a man of the people which he described himself in the interview, agreeing he had some similarities to Aung San Suu Kyi?  Well they were both democratically elected and removed from power for example.

Needless to say Thaksin is a lot friendlier with Burma’s ruthless military junta, with whom he does business, so you wont see him chanting in support of democracy and Aung San Suu Kyi.

(And ‘man of the people’? Well he was not exactly brought up in the fields of Isan. He comes from a long line of Thai Chinese Royal tax collectors (ironically) and muleteers doing something along the Thai Burma border and dealing with whatever used to cross there.)

On November 9th Richard also wrote this. ”Mr Thaksin is a paradox. While in office, he was feared and loathed by many Thais, especially the educated middle-class, as an opportunist and authoritarian who trampled on human rights, the media and independent institutions in the pursuit of power. For the rest of the population he was — and remains — Thailand’s most adored leader, re-elected repeatedly and forced out by a naked military coup.

“After the generals returned power to elected politicians Thais voted for Mr Thaksin’s supporters and proxies who were subsequently forced out of power not at the ballot box, but through a series of questionable court decisions.”

That’s one way of looking it (though I am not sure what a naked coup is) and clearly Richard thinks the courts were rigged in all the Thaksin cases.  So lets not talk about what his new buddy Hun Sen in Cambodia  is doing to his people and their land and homes, which he is  bulldozing selling to foreigners, Thaksin included.  Thaksin will not be talking about it, as he is now economic advisor to the Cambodian government.

What it means though is that, if and when Thaksin comes back into town on his white charger, and Thai courts become honest again and find him innocent, I’ll be following British public schoolboy Abhisit and paddling my own canoe out of town and heading for retirement like that other ex-British public schoolboy and former excellent but unelected Thai PM, Anand Panyarachun.

So why can’t former British public schoolboys rule Thailand?

I guess we are out of touch with the common man.

Monitoring and repressing for the monarchy

Political Prisoners in Thailand: November 20, 2009

http://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/monitoring-enemies-of-country-and-monarchy/

In a government that is increasingly authoritarian, Prime Minister’s Office Minister Sathit Wongnongtoey seems most enthusiastic about  increased repression and censorship. The Nation (19 November 2009: “Govt to monitor Jakrapob’s phone-in: Satit”) reports that Sathit has reminded “media outlets to abide by the law when reporting the phone-in of fugitive red-shirt leader Jakrapob Penkair…”.

Sathit stated that the authorities would “closely monitored by authorities” because he believed that Jakrapob  wanted to “smuggle weapons via the Northeast borders for an uprising during the rally from November 29 to December 3.”

He added: “The government is definitely keeping a close tap on Jakrapob who is acting hostile to the country and its revered institution…”.

Sathit repeatedly demonstrates the monarchy’s significant political role and the Democrat Party’s determination to repress dissent and opposition to protect the current order.

Update: Sathit is also cited in the Bangkok Post (21 September 2009: “Abhisit gets radio death threats”). This report claims that red shirt community radio stations in Chiang Mai had threatened Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva.

The Post states this somewhat circumspectly this way: “Some community radio stations are said to have threatened to kill Mr Abhisit in a bomb attack during his visit.” It adds that Democrat Party MP for Bangkok “Boonyod Sukthinthai lodged a complaint with … police against the host of a programme broadcast on FM 92.5 community radio in Chiang Mai. The complaint demanded an investigation into Phetchawat Wattanapongsirikul, host of the Sapha Kafae (Coffee Council) programme, and his co-host, who was not identified.Both were accused of encouraging their audience to come out to protest violently against Mr Abhisit. Mr Boonyod also handed over audio clips of the programme broadcasts to the CSD for further investigation.”

If it is true that a station called for Abhisit to be killed, then this is a serious issue. As serious as PAD speakers calling for the beheading of Hun Sen, General Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, and Thaksin Shinawatra, alluding to an old Thai saying of shedding blood to wash royal feet.”

As is now usual, the Democrat Party-led government is awash with double standards. So PAD can call for murder and not a peep from them, but an allegation of a similar call from Chiang Mai reds and Minister Sathit is wound up into repress mode yet again.

He has ordered the community radio stations in Chiang Mai be closely monitored and he claims “have repeatedly incited red shirt supporters to protest against Mr Abhisit’s visit to the province on Nov 2.”

That might be true, but if Sathit knows it, why does he also state that there is no clear evidence?  Indeed, he says: “When there is clear evidence that they have violated criminal law and community radio regulations, the stations will be shut down and face legal action…”. Is Sathit simply trying to intimidate opposition and red shirt community radio stations?

The government is planning “[e]xtra-tight security is being planned. Twenty companies of police and another 20 companies of troops from the 3rd Army will be deployed during the prime minister’s visit.”

Abhisit “warned Thaksin Shinawatra’s supporters in Chiang Mai to stop their hostile action, saying they should work with the government to bring about peace and reconciliation in the province.”