Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Too dumb

I don't get this criticism of Chris Hedges and his newest book. It was cited in comments here, and John Caruso replied that it was basically self-refuting, referring to the criticism, I think. But when Shivani cites twenty-odd philosophers and cultural critics of the mid-20th century in arguing that Hedges' argument is half a century old, I don't know enough to keep up, so I sort of half-nod and don't know what he means.

I go into it assuming Shivani, like this critique from SMBIVA, is attacking Hedges, one of the few public liberals I actually like, from the left. Indeed, he hits the essential incoherence of the "liberal class" idea, and attacks the idea that at some point, this agglomeration was a responsible part of the citizenry, on the side of the working class, not crackpot realists for endless war, or something. But he goes off twice on Hedges for not supporting globalization, which he maintains is vastly improving the economic situation of South to East Asia. And suddenly I have to recalibrate my conceptual apparatus (where I handily box in commentators because classifying things is great). Shivani claims globalization and the theory of comparative advantage as one of the great victories of liberalism, and I realize two things (or think I do).

1. Shivani is here using "liberal" in the original sense, still prevalent outside the US, not the sense of "social democracy."

2. Shivani is not the socialist I expected, but a social democrat of some stripe with an unusual faith in the efficacy and justice of the "free market."

To me, globalization has resulted in convenient new ways to distribute wealth upward, and contributed to the exploitation of workers on six continents. I would expect that the evidence he would adduce for the beneficial effects of neoliberalism would not actually establish a causal connection — some of most of the advances in the standard of living would be in spite of, not because of, capitalism. He advocates "the free movement of capital and people," but in reality, it is only the capital that moves freely; the people cannot. To me, this part of "globalization" is a lie. And my understanding is that many economies, notably South Korea's and that of the US, were built up by protectionism.

But I am not convinced that I could defend these views of mine at any greater length than I just have. I could not give an opinion on whether Hedges has gotten it utterly wrong about American art. Nor could I say in what way Hedges' views follow those of the people Shivani claims in various parts of the article:
Reinhold Niebuhr, Theodor Adorno, Hannah Arendt, Walter Benjamin, Umberto Eco, Neal Gabler, Aldous Huxley, Walter Lippmann, C. Wright Mills, Ortega y Gassett, George Orwell, Neil Postman, David Riesman, William H. Whyte, Noam Chomsky, Sheldon Wolin, Dennis Kucinich, Edward Bernays, Dwight MacDonald, James Howard Kunstler, Nouriel Roubini, Naomi Klein, Paul Krugman, Jared Diamond, Malthus, Neal Gabler, Russell Jacoby, Mark Helprin, Jaron Lanier, and Arthur Schlesinger.
In short, I know nothing and rely on others to provide me my opinions.

Surprisingly, Shivani thinks that Hedges' views should instead be informed by Immanuel Wallerstein, Tzvetan Todorov, David Harvey, Ulrich Beck, or Slavoj Žižek," at least three of whom I know to be Marxists, and assume not to be huge fans of globalization. Finally, I admit that I don't know where this author is coming from, nor can I debate him. I can merely, stubbornly and without justification, disagree.

Letting down the beleaguered people of El Salvador

Two emails, to and from, cross-posted from my DepressionJournal, telling part of the story of my failure. I spent a long time on the email, debating what was or wasn't TMI and did or didn't make me sound like a PoS, but I never got a response, so I assume I came off as vapid, self-pitying, and useless as I feel. I really didn't deserve a response, and I respect the decision not to reply.



Hey Jeff,

How are you doing? Great to meet you at the action with Miguel Rivera. I just wanted to give you a reminder about the El Salvador movie night that we're having tonight at Encuentro 5 - it's from 7-9pm, and if you're on facebook the invite is here: [omitted]

If you can't make it, would you be interested in having coffee and talking more about our anti-mining/anti-CAFTA (Central America Free Trade Agreement) campaign? We've got some cool stuff coming up - we're targeting shareholders of Pacific Rim Mining, trying to get meeting with Rep. McGovern to ask him to sponsor a letter about renegotiating free trade agreements, and planning a party next month to celebrate CISPES' 30th anniversary. Would you be interested in getting involved in any of those things in particular?

Take care & hope to talk to you soon,
[redacted]


Hey [redacted],

Thanks for remembering me! It was nice to meet you too.

I'm in Rhode Island now, probably until next year; I've gone on medical leave from grad school due to severe depression... part of which is a crippling doubt about my own abilities that makes me think I can't contribute to causes or society in any meaningful way. That in turn makes me feel very guilty, because I've become aware of vast injustices but don't feel able to help combat them.

(That's probably too much information, but I feel like it's fair warning.)

Anyway, I'm unsure how much or what I can do (I'm trained in math, so I don't have many real-world skills), but I *would* like to help in any way I can.


Take care,
jeff

News break

I took a three-weak break from reading the news, and it made me feel like a self-centered asshole out of touch with the world. Not coincidentally, that's what I felt like before the news break, but the feeling worsened. The problem, or at least part of it, is that I used to read my blogs for several hours a day, four or more, and finish the day with ten tabs open I promised to myself I would read the next day. And this would repeat for weeks. And Firefox would crash, and I would archive those links and feel guilty I wasn't able to read more, and feel terribly stupid and ignorant.

I'm typing this in Safari, because if I try to restore my Firefox session my computer will hang and I'll just have to force quit it, but I'm not ready to give up on those articles and admit I'll never read them. I don't understand how other people do it. What it is it they have that I don't, and how can I get it? The depth of understanding the bloggers I read seem to exhibit is something I lack, and my incapacity pains me. Part of the point of this blog was to be proactive about it. But I can't think for myself or remember what I read.

I would like to be the sort of person who convinces other people of my views, and thereby makes the world a better place, sort of, but it turns out I'm bad at that. I tried that on Facebook, and I just wound up tired and frustrated, leaving many comments unanswered, feeling that the people I was responding to were making fundamental, simple mistakes, but not calling them on it because every time they answered, I felt like I had to answer again, and there was another hour gone when I tried to assemble my thoughts into coherent form. And I realized, yes, that's the nature of political debate, but I'm not up for it.

In summary, I am not the kind of person I want to be.

I also would like to be the sort of person who reads a lot of books, Chomsky and Bakunin and Shakespeare and Virgil and and and and... and learns a lot (retention is a problem), but my news hobby was such that it was all I was doing. Yet I was still behind, never able to catch up with the events of the day.

And ultimately, the point wouldn't be to analyze the news, but to do something about it, and there I've fallen far shorter than anywhere else. I cannot contribute to society in any way.

My problem

Arthur summarizes my problem well here, not with reference to me, in addressing people's concerns about WikiLeaks. Briefly, the post he is responding to worries that WikiLeaks could be used by the State Department, etc., to leak information, true or false, supporting USGov policies. Arthur's response is that the point of WikiLeaks is to put the choice into each of our hands, to make the information available to every one of us and make us the ultimate arbiters of its meaning. In other words, it's a democratizing force that destroys appeals to authority by vesting authority in all of us.

And as a libertarian socialist, I think that's great, however I've come to believe I'm incapable of making my own decisions and need some sort of external authority. I've definitely made some choices in what kind of arguments appeal to me and what kind of ideals are important, but in the end, I feel like I'm always agreeing with someone else's argument, not making my own. I started really noticing this with respect to politics in 2008, and that's part of the reason why I erected this (failed) blog. The effort hasn't been successful; instead I've become ever more reliant on authority, at least the kind that agrees with me, and unable to think for myself. I don't have the time or the energy to go through the latest WikiLeaks dumps or any of so many other things I would have liked to have done. I can't rely on my own judgment, because frankly I suck.

Letters to and from my Congressman

Sending an email to a Congressman is like spitting in the wind... or something, but here goes.

Dear Jeffrey:

Thank you for contacting me regarding Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I appreciate your sharing your thoughts with me.

Congress, President Obama, and U.S. diplomats continue to work towards peace and stability between Israelis and Palestinians. I believe negotiations are necessary for comprehensive peace and our own national security. I support the principles of the Oslo Accords and the "road map" for peace. I applaud the President and Secretary Clinton's efforts to continue talks. I am confident that negotiations can lead to the parties agreeing on an outcome that reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent state, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders.

I believe that the United States needs to continue to support Israel as an international ally. The Administration has requested $3 billion in Foreign Military Financing for Israel for next year, an increase from $2.22 billion in the previous year. I voted for this financing and plan to continue supporting Israel's ability to defend itself.

The security of Israel and the entire international community are endangered by Iran's nuclear proliferation threats. The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act, H.R. 2194, imposed sanctions to put pressure on Iran to comply with international regulations regarding its nuclear program. I voted in favor of this bill on the House floor on June 24, 2010, where it passed 408 – 8. President Obama signed this legislation into law on July 1, 2010.

I chose not to sign onto House Resolution 1553, which expresses support for Israel to use any means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by Iran. This resolution was introduced to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on July 22, 2010. Like all nations, Israel has the right to defend its sovereignty, but I was concerned that this resolution might encourage Israel to pursue a more military policy with respect to Iran which could lead to even greater instability in the region.
On May 31, 2010, a flotilla attempted to break the Israeli and Egyptian blockade to Gaza. This blockade prevents terrorists from bringing weapons into Gaza. Israel has been unfairly condemned as the aggressor in this incident. I signed the Poe-Peters letter sent to President Obama on June 29, 2010. This letter expressed support for Israel's right to stop the importation of weapons and other materials that can be used to launch attacks against its citizens.

Since 2009, President Obama has called on Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to halt the expansion of settlements in the Palestinian territories. As both a strong supporter of Israel and a champion of human rights all around the world, I find these settlements to be a particularly important issue. I know that a compromise between the Israeli and Palestinian governments on the issue of settlements is necessary for stability in the region. As a longstanding and committed friend to Israel, I believe that a compromise on this issue is necessary to resolve the ongoing conflict.

I wish nothing more than to see Israelis and Palestinians living together peacefully. With the United States once again playing a strong and active role to building peace, under the leadership of President Obama, we have an opportunity to create a lasting peace in the region to which all parties can agree.

Thank you again for sharing your views with me. Please feel free to contact me again on this or any other issue. If you would like to receive periodic policy updates, please signup for my e-newsletter at http://markey.house.gov/signup.



Sincerely,

Ed Markey
Member of Congress



Representative Markey,

Congress, President Obama, and U.S. diplomats continue to work towards peace and stability between Israelis and Palestinians.
Just like they've been working on it for twenty years, with billions of dollars of financial aid and fighter jets to one side, in exchange for a temporary freeze in settlement building in East Jerusalem.
I believe negotiations are necessary for comprehensive peace and our own national security.
The security of the U.S is not and has never been at issue.
I support the principles of the Oslo Accords and the "road map" for peace.
The Oslo Accords aren't principled, and the "road map" was a publicity ploy. The land grab goes on, as new "reality on the ground" is achieved.
I am confident that negotiations can lead to the parties agreeing on an outcome that reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent state,
What has ever happened in the past that would make you confident of such a thing?
and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders.
A Jewish state is one with Ashkenazi ethnic supremacy, and a "Jewish and democratic" state is a transparent oxymoron. A multiethnic state designed for the benefit of one of its constituent ethnic groups (now complete with loyalty oath) will always be racist. Zionism is racism.
I believe that the United States needs to continue to support Israel as an international ally.
Or what? Will it be driven into the sea?
The Administration has requested $3 billion in Foreign Military Financing for Israel for next year, an increase from $2.22 billion in the previous year. I voted for this financing and plan to continue supporting Israel's ability to defend itself.
Poor little Israel, unable to defend herself without billions of dollars of aid. That's what all the wars have shown, is it? Is that what the bombardment of Gaza in January of 2009 that killed hundreds of civilians showed? The 2006 war on Lebanon? Is there anything so disgusting Israel's military could do that you wouldn't see fit to finance it?
The security of Israel and the entire international community are endangered by Iran's nuclear proliferation threats.
The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate found no evidence that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons. Despite politicians having found it inconvenient, no evidence has been produced superseding its judgment.
The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act, H.R. 2194, imposed sanctions to put pressure on Iran to comply with international regulations regarding its nuclear program. I voted in favor of this bill on the House floor on June 24, 2010, where it passed 408 – 8. President Obama signed this legislation into law on July 1, 2010.
Iran has the right to peaceful use of nuclear energy under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, which it has signed, unlike India, Pakistan, and Israel. But we don't hear about the danger their nuclear arsenals pose, or, of course, that of the US. I don't want anyone to have nuclear weapons, but the only thing specifically unacceptable about Iran having them is that they are an Official Enemy of the U.S. and Israel. We give the Iranians nothing but incentives to gain nuclear weapons. On the "Axis of Evil," simply compare North Korea to Iraq.
On May 31, 2010, a flotilla attempted to break the Israeli and Egyptian blockade to Gaza. This blockade prevents terrorists from bringing weapons into Gaza.
The blockade prevents building material and various arbitrarily-chosen food items from entering. Dov Weisglass said its mission was to put the Palestinians "on a diet," and the result has been an epidemic of malnutrition.
Israel has been unfairly condemned as the aggressor in this incident.
Yes, because commandoes with guns rappelling down via helicopter onto a ship bearing aid isn't aggressive. Because shooting people, in the back in many cases, isn't aggressive. Murdering nine people armed with found poles and utility knives isn't aggressive. And because deliberately starving a captive civilian population isn't aggressive.
I signed the Poe-Peters letter sent to President Obama on June 29, 2010. This letter expressed support for Israel's right to stop the importation of weapons and other materials that can be used to launch attacks against its citizens.
Yes, like concrete, tomatoes, and coriander. See , for example. How can anyone call that defensive?
Since 2009, President Obama has called on Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to halt the expansion of settlements in the Palestinian territories.
Obama has genuflected to Netanyahu at every turn and Netanyahu has thumbed his nose at him, Biden, and the world. The rest of the world watches in horror the crimes you glibly justify.
As both a strong supporter of Israel and a champion of human rights all around the world,
There is no such thing. A strong supporter of Israeli policy is a champion of apartheid, dispossession, racism, and seemingly endless cruelty. A supporter of the Israeli people, on the other hand, wouldn't make excuses for the behavior that makes their state an insane pariah state.
I find these settlements to be a particularly important issue. I know that a compromise between the Israeli and Palestinian governments on the issue of settlements is necessary for stability in the region.
The settlements are illegal under international law. They always have been. They are built on occupied territory, stolen from the people who were already dispossessed during the Nakba. The settlers are bigots with a messianic streak, often violent who throw their garbage down on the people whose villages they occupy, who are protected by the military of a country that officially disavows any responsibility for their actions, who are given their own special roads in occupied territory that they have colonized. A compromise is indefensible.
As a longstanding and committed friend to Israel, I believe that a compromise on this issue is necessary to resolve the ongoing conflict.
In this very statement, you name one party as a friend, and neglect to mention the other. Inevitably, the party you are not a committed and longstanding friend of will be called on to compromise what little they have left.
I wish nothing more than to see Israelis and Palestinians living together peacefully.
From what you've said above, you wish for nothing more than the status quo.
With the United States once again playing a strong and active role to building peace,
This is a delusion or a lie. Obama is no better than Bush in this regard. If America wanted peace, there would be peace by now.
under the leadership of President Obama, we have an opportunity to create a lasting peace in the region to which all parties can agree.
We honestly could, if the US wanted it.

I find this letter very disappointing.


Jeffrey Carlson