PALE BLUE DOT

It Can Always Be Worse

OK, how to say this without sounding like a complete elitist?

Plenty of historians agree with Pres. Jimmy Carter that the current Bush administration is the worst since the nation was founded. Yet some Bush critics live under a misconception that this is the worst of all possible worlds. Bush's vacillating positions on immigration, both before 9/11 and as recently as the crafting of the immigration bill, should show us that the president understands the nuances of the global movement of peoples better than most members of his party. Sometimes, critics point to Republican extremists like Arizona's John Kyl or Colorado's Tom Tancredo to show us that we could live in a far worse world than the Bush empire.

Yet even Kyl and Tancredo pale beside the grassroots Republican activists cited in the June 10 New York Times article on who really killed the immigration bill. These people are much scarier than the worst that Thomas Frank could imagine in Kansas. Certainly, it seems silly to advocate a law on a minimal level of displayed intelligence before one could vote. Let's take evolution. Sam Brownback's position is nuanced, not dumb. Yet if you believe cavemen frolicked with dinosaurs, you're too dumb to vote. If you, like Alan Jackson, can't tell the difference between Iraq and Iran, you're too dumb to vote. If you think all Mexicans should be shot at the border, you're too dumb to vote. There are lots of dummies out there, and things could be far far worse than they are in the nation's leadership.

Admit that the Black Bloc are Morons

No matter how badly you think free trade diminishes the chances of developing-nation advancement, there is scarcely an argument to be made for preemptively assaulting police protecting G8 summit members, as happened in Rostock June 2. At some WTO and G8 meetings, members of anarchist and autonomen cells are set upon by police. That is not what took place in Rostock. Provocateurs were at fault for setting out to injure police.
Thankfully, members of all the peace and economic progressive groups protesting in Rostock came out with a unified denunciation of Black Bloc members on June 3. This is not simply an issue of squishy pacifists vs. youthful street fighters. Every now and then, a justification can be made for leaving pacifism behind and putting on the anarchist bandana. The problem is the nature of the provocateur. Just as the world told George Bush in March 2003, it is never OK to strike first unless your existence is truly threatened. Bush and Cheney went from "preemptive" to "preventive" war justifications, and the anarchists in Rostock seemed to be promoting preventive police battles.
There are too many folks on the left who have a confused attitude regarding the Black Bloc, both in a desire to attract youth and energy, and because Black Bloc members have a certain tough romanticism associated with black bandanas and a "never-back-down" attitude. When I was in Washington DC at an IMF summit in 2000, the crowd stood and cheered when Black Bloc members entered a rally. But when anarchists behave as though they are indeed victims of an "infantile disorder," they should be denounced as the morons they turned out to be in Rostock.

The Impact of Cindy and Ward

The dual events over the Memorial Day weekend, of CU President Hank Brown calling for the firing of Ward Churchill, and Cindy Sheehan announcing she's through with being an activist, underscore the sad state of oppositional and dissident activity in this nation.

First, Ward Churchill: I continue to believe that Churchill can do some fine research, particularly on the subject of government repression, as exemplified in a recent article on Richard Held Sr. and Jr. he did for Z magazine. But Brown's beef, as well as those of many Boulder faculty committee members, has been more about Churchill's unwarranted attacks on others accusing him of plagiarism and research misuse, as it has been about his ill-considered comments on 9/11. Churchill's snide comments on all those who critique him scarcely help his cause. It's interesting to note that the local comment boards at sites like the Denver Post are almost completely anti-Churchill. There are still a few activists in Boulder who support him, but the near-universal exasperation with him is an indication that one important attribute for any activist has to be "plays well with others." If you come across as defensive and arrogant, no one will listen to what you have to say.

As for Cindy, how can one disagree with most of her farewell screed? The Democratic Party does indeed lack the guts to seriously challenge the war, and the American people do indeed care more about American Idol winners than world events. Maybe some people think that Cindy gave up too easily, but as a concerned political buff with an interest in world affairs, I often feel that I need a crash helmet for the number of times I hammer my head against a brick wall. The problem does not begin or end with the unprecedented stubbornness and arrogance of the Bush administration. That problem is exceeded by the willful ignorance of American citizens, who seem to relish in going out of their way to avoid important news in order to obsess on Lindsay Lohan's latest arrest. A society built around info-tainment certainly does not deserve democracy.

No Admirable Ukrainian Sides

Libertarian ranters like Justin Raimondo were highly skeptical when Viktor Yushchenko claimed Dioxin poisoning, and I often thought Raimondo went too far. But in the current battle for Kiev taking place between Yushchenko and Yanukovich, neither side is trying to prove itself righteous. Yushchenko is as smarmy as his enemy. I hope that this teaches some neocon democracy spreaders to be cautious with Central Eurasian "color revolutions" on the Russian border. A pox on all Ukrainian houses.

Free Speech TV

Free Speech TV, on the satellite Dish network, is carrying a talk I gave at Mercury Cafe in early March - should be on rotation for next couple weeks. Still waiting to see if the Web site carries a streaming version of the video.

Honor Killings, Clitorodectomies, and Indigenous Rights

First off, let me say I'm a big fan of Cultural Survival International, and I think everyone should check out their quarterly magazine. Many traditions and histories of indigenous people are dying as quickly as endangered species, and we should do everything we can to preserve and honor indigenous cultures. But that does not mean that we need to take the hippie-dippie view that indigenous=righteous. There's a lot of traditional practicies that are abhorrent, and should be banned on a global basis. I remember getting into a heated discussion with a Lakota Sioux friend as long ago as 1984, telling him I thought that many "manhood" ceremonies of the plains tribes constituted torture. He asked me why I didn't put circumcision in the same category. Good point.
In recent years, female circumcision, or clitorodectomy, has become a heated issue in African cultures, while honor killings, usually of young women, have become an issue in Islamic cultures. The most recent case concerns Do'a Khalil, a teenage resident of Irbil (check out all my Jan-Feb postings on this Kurdish city in Iraq), and a member of the Yazidi sect. She was stoned to death for daring to fall in love with a Sunni boy. Let's hope this makes the issue of honor killings as red-hot in the Persian Gulf as recent cases have made the same issue in Pakistan. It's time for human rights activists, women's rights activists, and even indigenous rights activists to join together in one voice and say: There is not room on this planet for honor killings and clitorodectomies. Such practices must be universally banned, and such bans enforced. Some traditional cultural practices belong only in museums.