Ron Paul Revolution: The RNC’s big tent vs. Ron’s

“Every time the Republican Party, which has the look of a scared gang of WASP placeholders, tries to reach out, it continues to weaken our already eroded constitutional liberties. Unlike the Democrats, who are multicultural, big-government maniacs but who know what they are, the Republicans are merely greasy operators. They pretend to be interested in “getting government off our backs” but expand the welfare state and federal control over education while unleashing costly wars of choice. And they would sell their mothers into slavery to receive the endorsement of the NAACP or to elicit a compliment from Abe Foxman. Although I could not conceive of the Democrats courting Phyllis Schlafly or Burt Blumert, I could easily imagine the big-tent Republicans at Heritage groveling before the ADL. They did it last month….”

Paul Gottfried at Lew Rockwell.

On the other hand, Paul fans should probably adopt candidate’s own demeanour – refuse to grovel to power but conduct yourself civilly at all time.
” This,” says Bob Murphy, ” is the way to win a revolution based on love.”

There I have to make a qualification. On my part, I am not interested in revolutions. And we are all suffocating from love….or what passes for it in PC-speak.  It’s a revolution, yes, but a revolution based on respect — a far more satisfying thing than love. Self-respect…and respect for others.

Impure art from the Land of the Pure

The upcoming Pakistani film-festival in Glasgow is an attempt for Pakistanis in Glasgow (where they are a huge percent of the minority population) to show us glimpses of the art of modern Pakistan.

Why do I blog it (thus seriously compromising my own view point and positioning myself as a terrorist-sympathizer, alien, and whatever else in the current national pychosis)?

Because seeing our enemy (“Pakis” are undoubtedly enemies here) in human terms is always good. Seeing him as something other than a bearded, murderous fanatic out of the Middle Ages is good. Listening to what Pakistani women have to say about the bearded ones is good. Knowing more about the Pakistani diaspora is also good.

The more we know and can feel and see from another person’s point of view, the greater our mastery of reality. The more we master reality, the more capable we become of shaping it.

The less we know, conversely, the less capable we are. The more we end up boxing with shadows.

The war on terror, right now, is prolonged, delusional shadow-boxing.

As a game, it’s fun. But fun only until we exhaust ourselves, which we almost certainly will, because we are fighting the wrong thing the wrong way.

We will find that out shortly. We will exhaust ourselves. And then our nemesis really will come. And it won’t be from the Middle East.

Meanwhile, here is an essay by one of the festival coordinators, Scottish Asian novelist and a correspondent of mine, Suhayl Saadi:

 

‘Broken Maps’ by Suhayl Saadi (commissioned by ‘The Herald’ newspaper, March 2004)

Beautifully-lit, the white walls of the Rohtas 2 Gallery in Lahore, Pakistan could be a miniature modern Vatican Map Room, except that in Zarina Hashmi’s exhibition, energetically curated by Salima Hashmi, Dean of Beaconhouse National University School of Visual Arts, every map is fractured, every place, broken. Yet one is not left with the sense of emptiness one sometimes feels after visiting galleries of contemporary art in the West.

Theatre, visual art, music, literature and puppetry in Pakistan arise from economic, physical and social life. Over the past thirty years, much of the arts has been led, driven and created by women. They receive little official support and yet are burgeoning and gaining increasing recognition abroad. Vital, aesthetic and plugged-in to networks of intra-national, regional, and global politics, they are as far from bourgeois pastimes as you can get. Every artist is de facto an activist.

During the long, dark night of Zia’s dictatorship (1977-1990), artists were imprisoned or prevented from working and a shameful parody of Islam was burned into statute. In a deeply patriarchal society, Woman became the Other. Over the years, artists have worked with the women of the Craft Cooperative Movement, have explored the conceptual centrality of Sufism in South Asia, have translated to and from intra-national languages and have been diligent in every field of folk culture. Women writers challenge a dominant romanticism; this is art as truth-telling.

There is anger, yes, in a country where wealth distribution is like an Escher folly, where, in spite of the national debt, military spending never seems to run dry, where ‘honour’/dowry killings are rife, where most women work outside the home in fields or offices yet have a farcical level of public representation, and where health statistics and literacy levels, especially for women, remain scandalously low. However, key themes of this art seem to be humanity, sensibility, tolerance, dialogue, love and understanding – a powerful alternative cartogram to that of the Taliban-types who have just taken over the government of the Northwest Frontier Province of the country.

Grassroots artistic bodies get funding mainly from donors, private sponsors and NGOs, while the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation links together journalists, writers, lawyers, transport and water administrators across the seven countries of South Asia and aims through civil societal means to drag governments into action. Poetry is intimately linked with the Women’s Movement, and far from being in thrall to the West (whose rulers, to maintain hegemonic control of trade and resources, have created, financed, armed and skillfully utilised the fundamentally misguided Islamists), in their creations these artists draw deeply on the living cultures of the region.

Surely, given the right ‘creative cluster’ approach (à la Oslo, which has one of the largest Pakistani communities outside South Asia), the youth of Pollokshields, Bradford and Tipton might plug in to the verve, activism and centredness of these arts movements. Once you have painted a picture or written a poem, it becomes increasingly difficult to render your brain subject to someone else’s machinations. Subverting nihilistic unemployment and fascistic thought, the link between art and political and economic life is real. Civilisation is partly about connectedness. It is hugely exciting that the Scottish Arts Council is exploring such creative interactions.

Some Pakistani artists point to the difference in attitude between their own embassies and those of India, which actively promote art abroad. Just as, irritatingly, the world refers to Britain as ‘England’, so the conception of South Asia resides in the numinous iconic receptacle of ‘India’.

The general perception of Pakistan heaves with inchoate archetypes of bearded violence. The blame for this lies with tenacious Western folk prejudice, with contradictory notions of national self-image and with the political instability and entrenched patriarchal feudal interests of successive Pakistani governments. Who, internationally, knows of Sadequain, whose artistic stature matches that of Dali? Or of the sharp intellect of feminist poet Kishvar Naheed? Or of the fearless Ajoka Theatre, set up by actor-director Madeeha Gauhar twenty years ago with the express purpose of exploring the social relevance of themes of living traditions of dance and drama? Or of Jamil Naqsh, whose elegant, visceral paintings currently inhabit the luminous, echoing galleries of the 1920s Rajput-Mughal-style Mohatta Palace Museum in Karachi?

Artists of both sexes in the ‘Land of the Pure’ are carving out new territories, untrammeled by either cultural bankruptcy or the dysfunctional parameters of religious psychosis. The maps are broken. The lights in the galleries of Pakistan are switching on. Let us hope that they will not go out again in our time.

Suhayl Saadi recently accompanied freelance arts curator Alina Mirza on her Scottish Arts Council-funded feasibility study of the arts in Pakistan.

Going literally wrong: Bible banging away

“Such is the agenda of A. J. Jacobs’ achingly funny memoir The Year of Living Biblically. Jacobs, the author of The Know-It All, begins by describing himself as a secular Jew. (“I’m Jewish in the same way the Olive Garden is an Italian restaurant. Which is to say: Not very.”) In spite of his own detachment from religion, he is increasingly curious about the ways it influences 21st-century American life. Rather than standing on the sidelines or casting himself as an aloof pundit, he dives in head first and decides to spend a year living all the commandments of the Bible—that’s right, all of them. A sampling:

He hires an earnest New York shatnez tester to ensure that his garments don’t mix wool and linen (Deut. 22:11).

He can’t utter the names of false gods (Exodus 23:13), which means that “I’ll have lunch with you on Thursday” or “let’s get the kids together for a play date on Wednesday” are flat out, since Thursday and Wednesday honor Thor and Woden, respectively.

He won’t touch his wife during and just after her period—or any woman, for that matter (Lev. 15:19). He can’t even sit on a chair a menstruating woman has occupied, which makes navigating the Manhattan subway a bit tricky.

He allows the sides of his hair to grow uncut (Lev. 19:27), and by the end of the year the fashion-challenged combination of his long earlocks and all-white garments (Eccl. 9:8) causes people to cross to the other side of the street rather than encounter him….”

More here.

Hillary takes a hit on Bill’s gifts…

There is little that Ms. Clinton can say about her marriage that ever helps her. Her latest contretemps is naming a giraffe and a bracelet of cubes as romantic gifts – evoking raunchy mirth among freepers on the right and quite a few in the center too.

I dislike HRC’s politics, agree that the interview in Essence where she came up with this was probably calculated to play off against the molto married Guiliani, and also agree she doesn’t have what is usually regarded as a winning personality, but the limitless rage she evokes from people baffles me. Why not let her just be a person who’s stuck it out in a difficult marriage? Why does she have to be painted a kind of cross between Evita, Leona Helmsley and Madame Mao, whose sole motive in staying married was to keep that “Clinton” behind her name?

A more sympathetic view here at Mother Jones:

“Suddenly female voters saw in Hillary every woman who has had to put up with demeaning crap from men. And a lot of male voters simply saw an underdog standing up and rallied to her side. She crushed Lazio by 12 points. In November, John Spencer, who will be remembered only for calling Hillary ugly, went down to a defeat three times as ignominious.

It’s amazing to see just who can rush to Hillary’s side when the issue becomes the bare-naked question of trying to bring down a high-achieving woman. During a discussion of snipes at Martha and Hillary on Tina Brown’s TV show, Laura Ingraham, who once wrote a book called The Hillary Trap: Looking for Power in All the Wrong Places, confessed, “I’ve gone through that. I’m the right-wing info babe. That’s the box I’m put in…. Powerful women carry a heavier burden…. No one likes to see a woman get too powerful, too fast, too smart.”

And no, don’t tell me trashing the personal lives of politicians is some kind of public service. It simply caters to our basest appetites, letting us give free reign to our envy of the powerful, the long streak of misogyny we still harbor (coupled simultaneously with a kind of overfeminization of the general culture), a good helping of prurience and voyeurism. Ressentiment. The venom of the weak.

Mrs. Clinton is a capable, well- qualified woman, with many years of work behind her, a mother, almost 60 years old. I would not talk in private about a street- walker the way people think fit to talk publicly about a woman who is running to be president of the country.

And I dislike her politics intensely.

Bush on World War III

“That George W. Bush is a born-again Christian is not a national secret. Neither is the fact that his brand of Christianity, evangelicalism, embraces the notion of the “end of days,” the coming of the Apocalypse as foretold (so they say) in the Book of Revelations and elsewhere in the Bible. President Bush’s frequent reference to “the evil one” suggests that he not only believes in the Antichrist but actively proselytizes on the Antichrist’s physical presence on Earth at this time. If one takes in the writing and speeches of those in the evangelical community today concerning the “rapture,” the numerous references to the current situation in the Middle East, especially on the events unfolding around Iran and its nuclear program, make it very clear that, at least in the minds of these evangelicals, there is a clear link between the “end of days” prophesy and U.S.-Iran policy. That James Dobson, one of the most powerful and influential evangelical voices in America today, would be invited to the White House with like-minded clergy to discuss President Bush’s Iran policy is absurd unless one makes the link between Bush’s personal faith, the extreme religious beliefs of Dobson and the potential of Armageddon-like conflict (World War III). At this point, the absurd becomes unthinkable, except it is all too real….”

Scott Ritter as truthout.

Comment:

The problem is that people see this as only a Christian evangelical interpretation. Unfortunately, many other religions – Islam, Hindu, even New Age – have teachings which can be used to support an “end times” interpretation — if one chose to do so.

Again, the source of the problem is not so much religion per se as literalism…

Propaganda state: Walt and Mearsheimer on the pro-Israeli lobby

“Do you think the upcoming 2008 presidential campaign will provide a chance for the Israel lobby’s influence to be discussed?

Regrettably, no. The candidates will undoubtedly disagree on a wide array of domestic and foreign-policy issues: health care, education, taxes, the environment, what to do in Iraq, how to deal with a rising China, etc. But the one issue on which there will be virtually no debate is the question of whether the United States should continue to give Israel unconditional backing. Even though almost everyone recognizes that U.S Middle East policy is a disaster, no serious candidate is going to suggest anything other than steadfast and largely unconditional support for Israel. Indeed, all the major candidates (Clinton, Edwards, McCain, Obama, Romney, etc.) have already expressed their strong and uncritical backing for Israel, even though the campaign is just getting underway. Not only is this situation bad for the United States, it is also not good for Israel. The United States would be a better ally if its leaders could make support for Israel more conditional and if they could give their Israeli counterparts more candid and critical advice without facing a backlash from the Israel lobby.”

More here in an interview wit Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, authors of a best-selling book on the Israeli lobby and its influence on US foreign policy in the Middle East.

Meanwhile, Haaretz is sizing up the presidential candidates, all except Kucinich and Paul, the only two who oppose our one sided support of Israel. Coincidence?

Bobby Jindal – Louisiana’s New Governor

Bobby Jindal, the son of Punjabi immigrants, has become Louisiana’s first post-Katrina governor, winning over 52% of the votes.

Jindal, a former Rhodes scholar, who lost his bid for governor by a narrow margin four years ago, then became a US congressman, and is now at 36 the state’s youngest governor.

Apart from being desi (this is the Indian word for “country” and means something like home boy), Jindal is interesting to me for his staunch down-the-line conservative position — dead against abortion and dead in support of teaching creationism in the schools. An odd position for someone who was a double- major in biology and public policy at Brown University, not known for being a Christian school.

Jindal’s anti-abortion stance is the orthodox Catholic one, only to be expected from a convert. And constitutionally, the states really ought to be free to conform to the predominant sentiment in communities. But, although Roe v. Wade was not especially a good decision as jurisprudence, it is the settled law of the land. Hopefully, Jindal will learn to negotiate that thoughtfully.

However, Jindal’s support of teaching creationism in the schools is more problematic to me.

I really don’t see the need to teach “Creation Science.”

It’s perfectly possible to reverse the incorrect “anti-religion” mode of interpretation of the constitution without endorsing a religious theory of creation in the classroom. You could, for example, teach various metaphysical or mythological theories of creation in a religion class, or you could teach comparative religious ethics in a philosophy class (or, in electives/activities outside the curriculum). But that would be quite different from endorsing a particular religious doctrine, which would – I think – violate the anti-establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Nevertheless, I can’t help but feel pleased at what Jindal’s election says about race. Race-mongers like to tell us that we stand or fall on race relations. And many in the PC crowd among opinion makers indeed do. But on the ground in America it’s usually a different business. Yes, there’s still a lot of nastiness, there’s still a lot of suspicion, ignorance, and warranted and unwarranted friction among groups. Still, I rather think that in this country, beliefs and ideas are proving stronger than simple affinities of skin color and ethnicity sans any other consideration.

Consider the ethnic and cultural difference between a typical white southerner and a Punjabi – even a Catholic convert — and between, say, a Punjabi and a Tamilian from the south of India. How much closer should the south of India and the north be? Much closer, you’d think, than a Punjabi and a southern white. But, I doubt if you would find a Tamil chief minister of Punjab. At least, not very easily (I could be mistaken, so I’ll research this more).

I’m not saying that race is not an important consideration in politics. It is. And I think it’s fairly natural to prefer someone – other things being equal – of your own race. But other things are rarely equal. Race in those cases becomes an invidious category – as the courts say, and could be used to disqualify well-qualified people.

Louisiana has just proved it’s unwilling to do that.

Good for it.

On the contra Jindal side, here are some indications of political expediency in his position, from some DailyKos bloggers who see his victory as an unmitigated disaster.

But I tend to think what’s happened in Louisiana may have much less to do with Jindal’s social positions than people assume. It might have to do with people simply being fed up with incompetence in the government – especially post-Katrina – and with fiscal irresponsibility.

In defense of this position, I should say that I usually give a very bright person the benefit of the doubt in such things. My reasoning is that you can excuse a few sins from the very competent on the grounds that the rest of the time, you’re getting a good deal. There’s no escaping the incompetent though.

The devil himself has to take a breather from being wicked once in a while. But stupid is 24/7.

Update:

I didn’t really comment on Jindal’s Iraq war position. I assumed –  as he is a staunch supporter of the Republican party line – that he’s pro-war. Here are his exact positions.

Since I’m fairly convinced that both parties are committed to the war and that – apart from Paul and Kucinich — everyone else is pretty much following the same line (with some fudges), it isn’t going to change the equation much one way or other.

A ratio of 2,801:1+ million

Anyone who says that 9-11 justified the war in Iraq is saying, in effect, that the deaths of 2,801 people (let’s round it up to 3000) justifies the killing of over a million (and here we are ignoring the deaths of US and Iraqi military and Afghan civilians and military). Let’s round that down to 1 million. That’s 3000 to 1 million or 3 to 1000 or 1 to about 333.

What that means is that for each American life, we think killing 333 foreign lives is justified.

Try to translate that into private life. Imagine that you come home and find that someone has killed your son or wife. Imagine that you then feel justified in going into a neighborhood (sort of) close to where your suspected murderer lives and blowing up all the homes there and killing several hundred people.

What do you think the reaction of other people, let alone the government, would be? Wouldn’t you be considered insane? Wouldn’t you quickly be arrested, hauled off to a maximum security jail (with bail set as high as possible) and put on a 24-hour watch?

By contrast, in the world of states, the avenger is allowed to justify himself in public places, create alliances with other neighborhood thugs, threaten new neighborhoods, arm himself to the teeth, threaten even his own family members and feel highly virtuous — even pious — while doing so.
Is there anything more telling about the fundamental immorality, and even lunacy, of the state system? No use just blaming the US government. You can be pretty sure that there are dozens of other governments all over this planet, which in the same place, would do the same…. or worse.

Which leads us to the inescapable conclusion – the state system is a grossly immoral conspiracy against all decency and humanity.