Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For Deceember 16, 2015

Dec 9

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on our addiction to pseudo events in the news. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

The purpose of news about pseudoevents is to cause us to lose interest in real news and real events. And the less attention we pay to real news and real events, the less accountable those with wealth and power are to the rest of us.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dec 12

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost containing a video of a Muslim woman claiming that much, if not the majority, of Muslims pose a threat to the West. This appeared in Heidelblog.

One of the problems with this post is that it removes the context from Islamic terrorism. While the title here talks about Global Islamism, it fails to mention America's Empire. It fails to mention how America, and the West, has intervened in Islamic nations. For America, that started in 1953 with the overthrow of a democratically elected government and the installation of a dictatorship as its replacement. For the West, it started in earlier when France and England took control of parts of the Middle East including what is now called Iraq? And what about the West's support for dictatorships such as the one in Saudi Arabia? And none of this mentions Israel's occupation of Palestine and the atrocities that it daily visits on the Palestinians. And before pinning anything on the Muslim religion, we should acknowledge how America has intervened in over 50 nations since WW II and that includes disrupting or overthrowing democracies over 30 times. Does that record show an adherence to the Western values of free speech and tolerance?

In his book Al-Qaeda: The True Story Of Radical Islam, Jason Burke, who approached this subject from an investigative journalistic point of view, noted that Islamic terrorism is not a monolith. Within Al-Qaeda, are both secular and religious participants. Within those Muslims who have participated in terrorism, there are both those with localized and global perspectives and goals. However, as the West continues to support the oppression of people in Islamic and other nations, eventually some start to join together. In addition, he noted that people get involved with terrorism when the available political structures offer no legitimate way to address grievances. Considering the brief record of American interventions cited above, is it possible that our nation's policies is significantly responsible for some of the Islamic terrorism we see in the world?

Note that if 1% of all Muslims are fighting some kind of Jihad, that would leave us with over 10 million radical Muslims to battle. As for the polls cited above, remember that what they want for where they live is not necessarily what they want for all nations. In fact, that was stated explicitly. And yet, there seems to be an effort here to associate Islamic terrorism with those advocating Sharia law. Thus some of the polls are used to give a false impression of what we are facing. In addition, the citation of such polls tell us little. Before drawing conclusions, what is need are the demographics of those participating in the polls.

This isn't to deny that there aren't serious problems with terrorism from terrorists with either local or global concerns. But these problems will never be adequately addressed by the kind of approach taken by this article. Rather than addressing the problem, articles like these simply promote attitudes and policies that both fan and add fuel to the flames. And that is not to mention the self-righteously oblivious view of one's own nation or group.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dec 14

To Joe Carter and his blogpost citing the work of Samuel Gregg as he answers the Pope’s criticisms of Capitalism. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Gregg's writings show either an inability or unwillingness to criticize Capitalism. This is seen in his denial of Capitalilsm's materialism, which Martin Luther King Jr. called pernicious and as materialistic as what was attributed to Communism, as well as how it causes poverty through wealth disparity, and its relationship to the destruction of the environment. And what is not even mentioned in Gregg['s writings is mention of how globalizing trade agreements weakens national sovereignty and increase foreign investor sovereignty. And why that is mentioned by those who pride themselve on love of country is a mystery.

We should note here that as globalized Capitalism allegedly eliminates poverty, it sometimes does so at a  very high cost. For example, globalization is credited with bringing the largest group out of poverty, the Chinese. However, when one llooks at the sweatshop labor conditions endured by some and the environmental hazards suffered by those in major cities, such as Beijing's most recent red alert for smog or that roughly 25% of the air pollution in LA can at times be attributed to air pollution coming from China  (see   http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/weekinreview/chinas-next-big-boom-could-be-the-foul-air.html?_r=0   ) with air pollution is not China's only environmental problem, we see that whatever benefits Capitalism is bringing to China, there are significant problems that must be addressed.

Or we could talk about India's eonomic performance. While Greeg included India on his list of nations that escaped poverty through globalization and Capitalism, Gregge fails to mention that the number of Inidian farmers who have committed suicide because of the economic distress they have suffered due to "free trade" numbers in the hundreds of thousands. So apparently, while overall numbers in Indian's economy might be increasing, such improvement is not reach all sectors especially the critical sector of agriculture.

We could also talk about Chile and its ecape from poverty. What is not mentioned is how Chile got its economic start. It was through a US sponsored coup where a democratically gov't was replaced with a brutal tyrant. That tyrant, General Pinochet, was indicted for crimes against humanity before he passed away. He did get a hearty thumbs-up from both Reagan and Thatcher. And again, not all Chileans benefited from that strictly enforced globalize Capitalism (see   http://santiagotimes.cl/very-high-inequality-in-chilean-society-breeds-resentment/   ).

The above provides partial narratives of just a few of the nations Gregg listed as proving how honorable and productive globalized Capitalism is. As for the USA, where income for much of the population ranking below the 90% in wealth has stagnated for decades, we see a growing wealth disparity and a shrinking middle class. We measure our economic progress by gains made on Wall Street even though those gains are distributed in terriby disproportionate amounts and where the greed on Wall Street not ony showed massive corruption, it almost crashed the world's economy.

BTW, none of this mentions how trade agreements attack national sovereignty. Just to note a couple of examples here, Costa Rica is being sued by a Canadian mining company for denying the company the right to mine for Gold in its borders. The reason for the denial was the belief that such miniing would significantly hurt the environment. Another case involves the WTO and how it is threatening to place sanctions on the US for some of the consumer warning labels put products. But it was our gov't that decided on placing those labels on products in order to inform consumers.

So far, I don't see why Gregg or others at Acton step back from their roles as Capitalism's cheerleaders to become Christian critics who call for reform or even the replacement of Capitalism with other systems.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Joseph Sunde and his blogpost on how the 6 parts of Capitalism, as he identified them, creataed the wealth we enjoy today. He made an analogy between those parts and the 'elves of the shoemaker.' This appeared in the Acton blog.

Are 'elves of the shoemaker' the most appropriate analogy to use here? Take private property for example. We are celebrating private property in a world full of scarcity as if the holding of that private mitigates the effects of that scarcity? Does the ever growing wealth disparity we see around us qualify private property as a good 'elf'? 

But let's suppose the exclusive ownership of property allows for world improvement--supposing that without asking for proof that is. Is that what we are seeing today? Are we seeing more hoarding and resource wars while others go without?

Elf #2: This elf is voluntary exchange. But what is the basis of our voluntary exchange? Is it so that we can get the most out of the deal for ourselves? If so, how does that provide for those who have less than the average person to give in exchange?

Elf #3: Dvision of labor is celebrated by those on top, not necessarily those on the bottom. In addition, Adam Smith strongly criticized a strict division of labor. He stated that when a person's job becomes limited to simple tasks that always, or almost always, produce the same or similar results, that person loses his ability to 'understand' and to create solutions . Thus, such a man becomes 'stupid' and 'ignorant (see pg 21 of http://samples.sainsburysebooks.co.uk/9781134091188_sample_518267.pdf   or Smith, 1776: 781–2 in Wealth Of The Nations). So it is easy to understand why those at the top would celebrate the division of labor that limits the intelllectual exercise by those who are underneath them and are competing for scarce resources in the market place.

Elf #4: Yes, risk-taking by entrepreneurs should be conditionally honored. But should these risk-takers enjoy privileges over the rest of us as if they were part of an aristocracy? We are all forced to become risk-takers. Yes, the kinds and degrees of our risk-taking are different. However, there is a danger here. That danger is to grant privileges to entrepreneurs that put them above the rest of us. In the end, gov't is formed so that it represents them more than the rest of us showing that while entrepreneurs are allowed to depend on gov't, the rest of us are restricted to relying on the good graces of a limited number of entrepreneurs. And indeed, with corporate welfare and the  number industrial compexes (i.e., military industrial complex or the prison industrial complex)  that rely on gov't business for survival, that is what many of us have been left with.

Elf #5: Certainly the accumulation of capital is an important part of our economic system. But we need to ask what are the tradeoffs involved with today's accumulation of capital? Again, with today's growing wealth disparity as well as the growing control money has over our political systems, it is easy to see what some of those costs are. In addition, with accumulated capital going to those with wealth rather than sharing that with those who labor, how are we not teaching society that wealth is more important than work?

Elf #6: The problem with elf #6 is not the desire for a better life, but what defines a better life. Is it things or our connections with others, especially with those who are in need?

There is something completely disingenuous about this article. For it would like us to believe that what we have today is the result of what our economic system has enabled invidiuals to accomplish. It is a "We Built That" cheerleading article. The problem lies with the truth claims of "We Built That" message. For history teaches us  that when societies reach new zeniths in wealth and prosperity, it happens within the context of empire. This happened within the Roman Empire. And this happened within the British Empire. Is there any reason to doubt that what we have today is, in large part, due to it happening in the American Empire? 

The Ukrainian Crisis Shows The Complexities Of Life

I have a great deal of respect for the Ukraine because of the ties that some of the people whom I have either read or known have with that country. I could start with one of my most memorable students who was in one of my computer science classes. That class met 3 times a week for lectures and recitation and then the class was divided into two 2-hour lab periods with students being required to attend only one of those labs. My Ukrainian student attended both so that she could do her work in one lab and help her classmates in the other.

Then Noam Chomsky's father came from the Ukraine as did Anna Politkovskaya's parents. In addition Kseniya Simonova is from the Ukraine. All of these people have painted a pleasant picture of the Ukrainian people for me.

But obviously, Ukrainians are a diverse people as the recent unrest has shown. The unrest revolves around economic ties and performance. The Ukraine's economic performance has suffered so much since 2004 that the its economy is in dire straights and thus a decision had to be made. Should the Ukraine reestablish closer economic ties with Russia or should it reach out to the West with its neoliberal austerity cuts? Of course there were other options but it is unclear if they were considered. The Ukraine was choosing between hanging with a bully who could beat up anyone in the region or trusting a hachet-happy, austerity accountant who skims profits off the top while deciding who in the country will and won't get an allowance. 

Those who opposed closer ties with Russia, which is a wise choice, wanted the Ukraine to look to Europe. Those who opposed dependence on the EU, which is another wise choice, wanted the Ukraine to get into bed with Russia. One might be the loneliest number but the number two all too often leads people into making regrettable decisions.

But a further complication comes into play when one considers that some of the anti-government protesters were ultra-nationalists. One of these ultra-nationalist groups, Svoboda, had historical ties with the Nazis because of associations with past groups that had anti-communist and anti-Semitic sentiments. In addition, it has current ties with far-right, nationalist groups in Europe. Far-right groups, like Svoboda, are looking to cut the cord with Russia and thus their asking for help from the EU is considered to be more of a means than an ends (click here).

We should also add some context to Russia's involvement here. Russia's losses in WWII were horrific: 20 to 25 million people. In fact, it has suffered devastating invasions from the West twice last century and once during the century before that. And while the deal which Gorbachev negotiated for the reunification of Germany specified that there would be no eastward expansion for NATO, eastward expansion is exactly what Russia saw. In fact, during the 2008 Presidential election when candidate McCain was supporting the deployment of Ballistic Missile Defense Systems (BMDS) in former Warsaw Pact countries, Russia was threatening to use tactical nuclear weapons on the bases in Eastern Europe should the bases be built. That is because such bases, though proposed to offer a defense shield against future Iranian missiles, could actually have been used to lower Russia's nuclear deterrent. 

So in essence, we really don't know who we are helping, why we are helping, and what ends we are working toward by supporting the revolution. At the same time, we know the devil we would dance with if we support Russia. All we can do is to note that neither of the first two choices for an economic alliance and rescue are preferable. That is because help from either Russia or the EU comes with a parasitically debilitating price tag for the Ukraine.

Certainly there are good revolutionaries in the Ukraine, but what we are witnessing with the political unrest is proof that we have not learned from WWII. For while some think that WWII taught us not to resort to war to solve our conflicts, which is partially true; in reality, WWII should have taught us that the price of continued expansion and empire is too high for anybody to pay. For expansion and empire eventually bring conflict and then destruction. 

And it matters not whether that expansion and empire does not involve armed conflict. In fact, most expansions today are done invisibly through economic means. But expansion and empire are what is being pursued nevertheless. And the rewards go only to a select few. So what peace groups in and out of the affected areas should be working for is obvious. Not only should they work to oppose any planned armed conflict, they should also act as barricades to all attempts at expansion whether it comes from Russia or the EU. In other words, the Ukraine needs no strings attached economic help along with fuller democratic controls. To not oppose those who would take advantage of the Ukraine's vulnerability and unrest is to fail to understand the Ukraine's crisis.

'Never Again' Was Never Learned

The movie The Book Thief brings back thoughts of WW II whether they come from personal experience or from reading. All sane people who have even a minimal knowledge of WWII react to that time in history by muttering the phrase, 'Never Again.' But the problem here is that the phrase is ambiguous. Is a person who says, 'Never Again,' referring only to the suffering of the Jews or are they only referring to the suffering of all victims of the Holocaust? Are they referring to the suffering of all of the war's victims or are they just referring to the dehumanization of  groups of people (a.k.a., calling people from specific nationalities, 'untermenschen') in the name of nationalism? Are they referring only to the domination of other people or do they include the wars of aggression, emerging empires, or to something else?

For example, when the Israeli government treats Palestinians the way it does, does the phrase, 'Never Again,' enter the consciousness of those in the government? Or perhaps we should ask what our fellow Americans or government is referring to when they say, 'Never Again'? Are we only referring to the victims of the Holocaust as we spread our economic and political empires? And what about Europe? When its people and governments say, 'Never Again,' are they referring to the persecution of specific groups of people while it seeks joint control over resources and as they experience a rejuvenation of nationalism? The list of countries or groups who should be asked what they mean by 'Never Again' can go on and on.

It's important to be precise here because what we don't mean is just as important. For if we only are referring to preventing the Jews from suffering from atrocities when we say, 'Never Again,' does that mean we don't care if other groups suffer greatly? Does it mean that we don't care whether there are continued attempts to dominate different people or countries or that we don't care if there are empires or wars of aggression?

All of this brings us to where we are today. We currently have a global, economic class war that is being fought on some fronts in a blitzkrieg manner. The victims of the war, whether they be foreign or fellow Americans receive little sympathy by the guardians of our economic system. Such victims are said to be responsible for their own individual fate because of their past decisions and a failure to be responsible. Little do these guardians know that they are guarding a machine, just as the Germans once defended the Nazi machine, by trying to assert that people only have extrinsic value. Those who have learned how to contribute to the machine are the ones who are doing well while the rest eventually become relegated to the rank of untermenschen. 

So do we care what will happen to those who have lost their jobs and/or homes because of the financial shenanigans of our financial institutions and to those live lives of financial hopelessness? And do we care about those who are being forced into the slavery of sweatshop, migrant labor, or are being trafficked as long as we are doing well? Aren't all these people regarded as untermenschen by the powers that be and, perhaps, by us too?

When we say 'Never Again,' we could be referring to actions that produced the most immediate and telling results, the unspeakable atrocities of the holocaust. And certainly we can say that we are not conducting another holocaust against the Jews. But what about the millions of Vietnamese who were killed in the Vietnam War? And what about the tens of thousands we had killed in our interventions in Latin America? And how many Iraqis died from the combination of our sanctions and invasion of Iraq? And how much suffering have Afghanis experienced beginning with our proxy war against the Russians there during the 1980s? Have we really learned the meaning of the phrase, 'Never Again.' 

Do we understand what the striving for empire and dominance brings to those who are on the wrong side of the struggle? For such endeavors may not be the resulting actions associated with the Holocaust but they were actions that contributed to the Holocaust. So even if we were to say 'Never Again,' it just cannot be to the Holocaust itself, we must say it to those actions that made the Holocaust a realistic possibility. For we cannot excuse ourselves from violating 'Never Again' if we continue to look to conquer, whether economically or militarily, and we look to dominate to build our own empires and living spaces. Not only have we caused enough suffering already, we have made the worst atrocities more possible and even acceptable by what we become more willing to do or by inciting others to seek revenge.

But before closing, we should note that besides contributing actions to the Holocaust, we also have supporting actions the atrocities of Nazi Germany. The supporting actions were performed by everyday people and society's institutions, especially the Church. Those citizens who did not resist the Nazis in some way were complicit with what they did. For the citizens had the resources available to them to learn what was happening. But instead, they preferred being a kept people when times were good and obedient citizens the whole time. As for institutions like the Church, they had given up their prophetic role in order to be protected from scrutiny and persecution.

Certainly we are not as bad as the Nazis and whatever faults we can find with ourselves pale in comparison with that of the Nazis. So some will claim that, at least in part, we have learned 'Never Again.' But we have already caused a great deal of suffering since WWII and our most important crises of environmental destruction, possible war with WMDs, and a growing poverty from wealth disparity do threaten the lives of more people than we care to admit. And our past sins and current crises are the result of some of the same factors that contributed to the Holocaust: holding to a sense of entitlement based on the belief in one's superiority and the relegation of others to being less than ourselves. Can we claim that we have learned 'Never Again' simply because, so far, we have produced fewer victims? 

In addition, it isn't just America that hasn't learned 'Never Again,' it is every group and nation that looks to expand its dominance and shuts its eyes to the suffering of others. Here, Russia and China, just like America, in the name of nationalism,  have clearly demonstrated that they have failed to learn 'Never Again.' 

At some time, the dam containing our crises and dangers will break and who knows the number of future victims. But regardless of that number, we will know who will be responsible for the suffering. We who were quiet and compliant will be. For in our passivity we have demonstrated that we have failed to learn 'Never Again.'