Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Speech Acts II

Speaking of free speech, has anyone noticed how the story about the Fred-Phelps-inspired ban on funeral demonstrations disappeared? The conspiracist who lives behond my right shoulder says it was about the same time as the Danish cartoons blew up.

Man, Phelps is a piece of work. No one can accuse him of red-blue partisanship now that he's protesting at military funerals, saying "God Hates America." He is in his own little world...

But the response to his latest insanely offensive activity is scary. Now people want to ban protests at funerals, which just goes to show that we are not really interested in free speech in this country. Not really. Nor in any limitation on government. At least those of us in the red states (I almost forgot which is which). No, what we want is theocracy. We want laws against bad stuff. You don't like something that Phelps spewed at a funeral? Let's ban all demonstrations. The legal moralizing this represents is totally over the top. It's like if kids get caught reading an Abbie Hoffman book about how to blow up the school: ulp, we better ban.... books.

Phelps needs to be shut down or drowned out, no doubt. But counter-Phelps actions in civil society are infinitely better than legislative ones.

With laws like these, there will be no need to complain about Jimmy Carter or Rev. Lowrey speaking the truth at Coretta Scott King's funeral-- you could just have them arrested.

This is another instance of an attempt to "depoliticize" American public life, which basically whitewashes the deeply political character of military funerals. Patriotism, warrior jingo, and all the rest is not politics, it is natural truth. Anti-war speech is the political speech. That can be excluded, but extolling the virtues of the Empire need not be disturbed.

The harder it gets to counter that idea, the deeper the trouble we're in.

Speech Acts

Ok, I was going to comment on the Danish cartoons issue a while ago, and never found my way here. I admit it is scary to see the reaction, and I support the idea of a secular public sphere, in which blasphemy is not acceptable grounds for violence. But still, you have to marvel at the arrogance of the Danes. The prime minister refuses to meet with Muslims who want to "dialogue" about the issue. Even more egregious: the paper refused cartoons of Jesus because they were deemed offensive, before putting out a call for cartoons about Muhammed, basically saying "please send us something offensive."

But what's the appropriate response? Certainly not legal action against the paper or the cartoonist. Some gestures of goodwill toward Islam by the government wouldn't hurt. It's a good opportunity, though, to think about how to struggle with media without censorship. How to hit them where it hurts for doing something stupid? What motivates newspapers? Obviously sales, but I'm not holding my breath that the usual readership are going to do anything.

It occurs to me that awards carry some weight for cultural institutions like this. Clearly, it's high time for a negative award system. While competing for pulitzers and their equivalent, then, newspapers also have to try to avoid nomination for an award for the worst abuse of the journalistic profession, or some such. That would get interesting.

In any case, the rioting and burning and general anti-Danish business is a perfect opportunity for all of us not to be Christopher Hitchens. That guy is so annoying-- his islamophobia is intense. Somehow he is getting all this praise as a "public intellectual," when his thinking is mush: there are scary Muslims out there, including people like the 9-11 hijackers. They critique western society, so anyone else who critiques western society must be destroyed. Meanwhile, the Bush empire promises to destroy the scary Muslims, so rah, Empire! Man, when lefties go right they go all the way wrong.

That's no way to say Dubai

Anybody there? Hello?

Good. Now that I've neglected this log long enough to get rid of everyone I can... rule the world... Mwa ha ha !

No, but really. Come on, now. This business about the ports is ridiculous. "The Arabs" are not going to be in control of our ports, unless "they" are in control of the U.S. coast guard. I heard some apparently conservative JMU kids on WXJM last night complaining about it. Their logic (which is pretty funny in itself, because you can hear them figuring it out as they go, on the air) was basically that the Arab emirates needed to be shunned because, while they did not FUND the 9/11 attacks (thanks for clearing that up), they did allow their banks to be used to fund it. I think the dude said something like "they allowed themselves to be touched by terrorism."

Ok, now we're going to close the Boston airport for the same reason. For that matter, how about we close the Pentagon? It was certainly touched by terrorism when that plane hit it. Come on, boys, don't be silly.

There is so much to critique this administration for, and I am usually not one to pull back the reins in that department (read the Conyers Resolution and impeach the creep at once!), but people need to lay off the ports issue. I've heard it called "political grandstanding," but think about what the basis for critique is here: folks are upset because an Arab company is getting involved in our shipping business. No matter how you spin it, that's a racist concern. It only plays into Bush's should-be-nonsensical idea that critics of the empire don't want brown people to have democracy. So cut it out, already.

The thing that's really depressing about it is that this is an opportunity to grandstand. Basically, there's no political liability for equating Arab with terrorist in the public discourse. That's a disgrace, and nobody should take advantage of it to embarrass the prez. He is perfectly capable of embarrassing himself.

Saturday, February 04, 2006

Say What?

Hello? Hello? Can you hear me now?

It's been a way long time gone since I've weighed in here--not that there have been a dearth of moments of danger, but if I were an NPR personality, I guess they'd have been saying "Ben Chappell is.... Away." Just haven't logged in for awhile.

But this is just too interesting not to comment. Marike and I have been watching casually but with interest the resurgence of the left in Latin America. Seems like the whole continent is joining in with those crowds in Mexico that met Salinas & Zedillo's promises of the bounty of free trade with "First World? Ha Ha Ha!"

Like Hamas's polling victory in Palestine, the elected left governments are a direct challenge to US lip service about democracy. If you go on and on about democracy and then you see it happen and the last people you (the empire) want elected end up on top, things get weird. Like this:

Marti, who died in 1895 during Cuba's war of independence with Spain, has been glorified in Cuba as the ultimate anti-imperialist, a label both Chavez and Castro have embraced for themselves in their struggles with the United States.

Far from seeing them as regional heroes, the Bush administration considers the men to be populists who threaten democracy and individual rights.

Rumsfeld expressed the same fears about Bolivia's new leftist president, Evo Morales, during a National Press Club appearance Thursday. "We've seen some populist leadership appealing to masses of people in those countries. And elections like Evo Morales in Bolivia take place that clearly are worrisome."
Ok, everybody follow that? Populists are people who threaten democracy and individual rights, principally by appealing to masses of people. I presume this explains why, rather than working to make Mexico more like the U.S., Curious George has been trying so hard to make the U.S. more like Mexico, i.e. tilting the whole economy toward the benefit of a smaller and smaller group. If he manages to alienate everybody and entrench policies that are beneficial to the richest few, at least no one can accuse him of being a populist (not even with the alien accent, for a Maine Yankee).

So, if a handful of people are pleased and the masses pissed, democracy is secure. Maybe this is one of those unknown knowns or something. Explain, please, Rummy. In the meantime, everybody vote for populist impeachers come this fall.