Chris Brauer Media Project [BLOG]

What on earth is going on in Switzerland? The poster on the right is plastered all over bus stops, train stations and post offices in Swiss cities (except in Geneva where the campaign was banned by city council) in anticipation of federal elections on Sunday, 21 October. It is a rallying cry from the SVP (Swiss People's Party) to "create security" through the expulsion of foreign families who have broken the law. Activist groups in Switzerland and the United Nations have complained that it is blatantly racist but the SVP probably isn't worried about that as the party opposes Swiss membership in the EU and the UN.

Swiss President Micheline Calmy-Rey is worried that Switzerland's image as a "bridge builder and promoter of dialogue" was tarnished by violent demonstrations against the SVP campaign last week in Bern. But if you subscribe to the any publicity is good publicity school of public relations than maybe all this tension and worldwide coverage is a good thing for the SVP (known as the UDC in French and Italian).

The last time the SVP were at the center of such a political storm was when they led a call for the banning of minarets (mosques) in the country: "We don't want minarets," said SVP member of parliament Oskar Freysinger. "The minaret is a symbol of a political and aggressive Islam, it's a symbol of Islamic law. The minute you have minarets in Europe it means Islam will have taken over". Despite this almost absurdly simplistic rhetoric and action the SVP is currently leading in polls and looks likely to form the next government in Switzerland. The Guardian calls the SVP campaign "racist, Europhobic, isolationist - Switzerland for the (white) Swiss".

"Foreigners", many of whom are born in Switzerland but are denied citizenship, comprise a quarter of the Swiss workforce and make up around 20% of the population of more than seven million.

Labels: culture, politics, religion

It feels fitting on the fifth anniversary of the planes crashing into the World Trade Centre in New York to watch the film United 93 -- an informed fictional account of the only plane not to connect with its target on that fateful day.

What strikes the viewer is the suffering of the innocents as the plane descends into the Pennsylvanian countryside. Everyone fights for their lives and are shocked to find themselves in the situation. We have all run the thought experiment of what you would do in the last minutes of your life if the end was inevitable. Most of the actors in the film declare their love.

Is it interesting that North Americans (perhaps westerners) can so easily understand the context of the film. Innocents are caught in the crossfire of global political tension and the result is tragedy. But we don't seem to be able to extend this to people from other lands and cultures. Over 40,000 civilians have been killed in the was in Iraq. One can imagine if they could make movies that reached North American audiences the same impact would be felt.

The photo that accompanies this post was taken three weeks after 9/11 on a trip to New York for a friend's wedding. It is absolutely true that if you visit the site when people are thinking about what happened a fog hangs in the air. On the plane from Toronto to New York an Egyptian man sat three rows behind me. I noticed him as soon as I got on. I watched his movements as he went to the bathroom with his bag and was about to say something (feeling guilty of racial profiling later) when a 10-year-old kid between us told the stewardess: "... that man has been in there for a while and he has a turban". She banged on the door and there was some excitement in the plane before he emerged a minute later. Turns out he was a Coptic priest with piles.

Nothing speaks with greater urgency to our understanding of the world than 9/11. Perhaps it is because it represents the anarchy of the unpredictable. A bomb on our plane is no different from a sudden bomb in our house. The continued tragedy of the innocents does not speak well to the development of humanity.

See also Evil Genius and Misinformation and Spin on the Chris Brauer Media Project

Labels: comment, culture, politics

Ideas coming out of Canada these days are distinctly un-Canadian, sometimes literally. It is fitting that the latest brain wave of the new war-mongering attitude of Canadian politicians comes with suitable graphically violent metaphor: "We've thrown, if you will, a transformational grenade in the middle of our recruiting process," Canadian chief of defence staff General Rick Hillier said.

The shards and fragments of this blast are that the Canadian government is considering a change of policy to allow non-Canadian citizens (eg. landed immigrants) to enlist in the Canadian Armed Forces. One can imagine a backroom conversation from the Armed Forces Council:

"We need to recruit tens of thousands of new soldiers."
"Ya. But no-one wants to sign up for peacekeeping missions that have nothing to do with peace and put themselves in harm's way for dubious geo-political motivations."
"Well can we rent some soldiers?"

If we think back to when Paul Martin "bravely" told the US that Canada would not be sending troops to Iraq there was a lot of discussion of backroom nudge-nudge wink-wink deals between officials that Canada would take care of Afghanistan in return for a muted US response to Canada's lack of involvement in Iraq.

The problem with the potential new recruiting strategy is not that non-citizens will die instead of citizens - all persons are of equal value in our shared humanity. It is that this will become a political and social force.

Again we can imagine a questionnaire for Canadian immigration in 2007:

Canada Immigration Questionnaire

Question 1: Name: ___________
Question 2: Would you be willing to take a job and serve the Canadian Armed Forces? YES NO
(if you answer yes to Question 2 proceed to Question 75, if no please answer questions 3-74 in Ojibwa, native language to a portion of indigenous Canadians)
Question 3: Are you a terrorist?
...
...
Question 32: What ideas and interests do you believe in?
...
...
Question 62: Do you have any skills and abilities to contribute to the Canadian social life and economy?
...
...
Question 75: Signature ______________

For reference to the possibilities of this scenario see the US where military includes naturalized citizens and non-citizens. In 2002, the traditional five-year waiting period to apply for U.S. citizenship was waived for foreign-born members of the military.

Labels: canada, politics

Featuring streaming of Coldplay's Fix you.

After two short years away in the UK the Canadian news coverage of global issues is shocking. For the first time in memory Canadians are depicted on the world stage firing guns on ranges getting ready for duty, dying from roadside bombs, and in the end, picking sides in sovereign disputes. Stories from Afghanistan and troop memorial coverage and battles are the intro to national broadcasts instead of humanitarian or social/economic stories. The bravery of these soldiers is beyond dispute but the cause is political.

Surely in a 21st century beset by global warming, depleted carbon fuels, and mass differences in global quality of life (what's the quality rating for being a victim or the families of fatalities reported in the news) we should focus on coming together instead of driving apart. The teaser for the new 9/11 film "World Trade Center" (Oliver Stone no less) brings back memories in 2001 of talk of a two year moratorium on media factional storytelling after the attacks .

Wait until the audeince is ready. The producers waited awhile longer and stories have been leaking in dribbles but here they come. Make no mistake this story will be told and retold as inspiration on demand. What are the stories being told in the Middle East? Likely they tell a far different tale.

The Coldplay-infused film teaser (Windows Media) speaks of 9/11 as an event that is to define a generation. I always thought of the fall of the wall and the end of the cold war as the would-be defining moment of my generation. Optimisim was in the air for one world, one society but just 15 years later the entire story is being rewritten and the smoke clouds of trouble are gathered over planet earth. Sooner or later we will arrive at the Star Trek mantra of "infinite diversity in infinite combinations" and stop hurting each other. Who's tired of waiting?

Labels: canada, politics

For years pundits and analysts have been predicting that video will experience the same treatment as text and audio on the Internet. Social networking sites will dominate, copyrights will be infringed relentlessly, and memes will spread like wildfire. Everyday is seems a new site pops up offering users the web-based ability to upload and rate videos or embed code on sites to share. Some examples are youtube, castpost, clipshack, googlevideo, dailymotion, grouper, ourmedia, revver, vimeo, and vsocial.

In my travels across these sites I watched a lot of fun short clips. There is something for everyone and some of the originality in remixing is really creative. Like this video of George Bush mixed to show him singing U2's epic Sunday Bloody Sunday.

Labels: funny, internet, music, politics, video

In the words of American author and philosopher Robert Heinlein: "The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa". We all know that truth can be incredible sometimes but how about those sneaky credible untruths.

Zogby International conducted a recent poll of American soldiers in Iraq that reflects on the power of misinformation and spin culture to create false credibility in 21st century political life.

An incredible 86% of February, 2006 respondents to the face-to-face random sampling interviews said the US mission in Iraq is mainly "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9-11 attacks". Just 24% said that "establishing a democracy that can be a model for the Arab World" was the main or a major reason for the war.

No proof or evidence of any possible link between the former Iraqi dictator and the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center has ever been supplied or credibly drawn. But magically it looks as if this connection is gaining momentum in the cloudy and confused spaces of media consumption.

In the buildup to the war linking Iraq and 9-11 seemed a critical necessity for the spin machine behind American foreign policy. A New York Times/CBS poll in early 2003 showed that 45% of Americans believed there was a connection after Bush delivered prime time after prime time messages interlacing but never directly linking the two concepts.

By September, 2003 with troops already deployed in the Middle East belief in the American public that Hussein was "personally involved" in the 9-11 attacks had grown to 70%.

It seemed the trend was stalling in February, 2005 when confidence in this personal connection dropped to just 47% of Americans who believed "Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the US".

But now the startling news that almost 90% of the troops on the ground in Iraq believe this spurious connection to be the main reason they are deployed in the region. And these are not fresh scrubs new to the conflict as three quarters of the poll respondents have served multiple tours in Iraq.

So what on earth could explain this continued misconception? What else could it be if not the result of a lack of clarity and respect for truth in the media? And isn't this the kind of thing the Internet was supposed to shine a big light on with distributed voices around the globe, citizen media, and all the rest? It would make an interesting study that could provide us with some real insights into what exactly is happening in our information shapeshifting culture.

Labels: politics

Adding his voice to a confused debate on politics and sport, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solano said banning Iran from World Cup 2006 was an option "not to be excluded that could cause more than a few problems for the government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad".

Might cause a few problems for football fans and players as well. The annoying habit of politicians treating sport like just another arrow in the quiver of political discourse has returned.

Apparently the problem is an Ahmadinejad speech in which he remarks that Israel be "wiped off the map" and called the Jewish Holocaust a "myth". Obviously a ghastly way for a sovereign leader to speak. So it naturally follows that the global community should ban Iranian football players - many of whom currently ply their trade on German Bundesliga clubs - from participating in the World Cup. FC Koln president and former West Germany World Cup hero Wolfgang Overath started the discussion in Dec, 2005: "Such comments from a head of state are really grounds enough to exclude a country".

Maybe the real problem is political courtiers sticking their noses in affairs that are not of their concern. Like football. It's not Ahmadinejad but Mehdi Mahdavikia of Hamburg FC who will lead Iran on to the pitch and the ideas are not to be confused. Noone affiliated with the Iranian football team has made any offensive remarks about anything. Unless you count when Ali Karimi of Bayern Munich predicted (correctly in the end) a trouncing win over Arsenal last year in the Champions League. That might have just personally hurt.

Of the current crop of Iranian footballers the three most high-profile all play for professional clubs in Germany - Mahdavikia, Karimi, and Vahid Hashemian of Hanover. Part of the emerging rich multicultural fabric of German society is the influence of the east, led by bustling and energetic Turkish and Iranian communities.

Fueling freedom of expression and the emerging Iranian blogging community is an infinitely more powerful weapon than football if promoting political discourse in Iran is a goal.

And isn't football supposed to be about the fans anyway?

Iran's youth is presumed to be leaning towards the West. Much is said about the average Tehran teenager's lust for pop music, holding his girlfriend's hand in public places and partying. But he is also an avid football fan. Banning Team Melli from Germany 2006 would be no less of an insult to him than seeing his Pink Floyd cut off by that same West. The night Iran qualified for Germany 2006 was a memorable one. Iranians of all ages defied the rigid islamic morals and danced in the streets of Tehran and other major Iranian cities till dawn. Do Overath and others in the West really wish to deprive the Iranian people of these rare moments of genuine happiness? We hope not.
- Posting from group blog Iranian Truth

Labels: politics, sport

Interesting piece in a recent Guardian article on the implications of the Freedon of Information Act and what can be found out. Highlights include the following:

• A consultant investigating the collapse of the carmaker MG Rover actudally charged £11,860/day for work. What a crazy gig.
• A fight between two school boys damaged one of the disputed Elgin Marble figures. One of the boys fell in the British Museum in 1961 and knocked off part of a centaur's leg.
• Dirty Mark Thatcher (son of Maggie)
• In a 1985 pop concert in Bejing, Wham and Chinese government officials struggled to find common ground. Surprise, Surprise. But note that in 2006 China is already larger in GDP than Britain. Watch out now.

Think of a question and you can ask it. It is the anti-Spin. That is the marvel of freedom of infromation. The Internet already works that way. It is a case of transparency required to participate. Say what you are doing or you cannot be heard.

Read the Guardian article on Freedom of Information

Labels: politics

It's almost unbelievable that the Ukrainian presidential election ended up as rigged as everyone though it might (listen to NPR's audio broadcast last week). It seems that no amount of pre-coverage threatening a rigged election could impact the actual outcome. For those who follow global politics the results of the Ukrainian election were under the microscope, an epic battle between Russian-oligarchy-State Media powers embodied by Viktor Yanukovych (already announced the winner by Vladimir Putin, enemy of the free press and democracy) and the western candidate Viktor Yushchenko who is only considered Western because he is moderately progressive.

How about the reported 96% turnout in Eastern Ukraine, home to the most crooked election committee! It's not over yet but it is terrible to see these kind of shenanigans in the modern world. We are in the modern world. Give us a break!

Labels: politics

Strange and bizarre happenings in the Benelux (Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg) region of Europe and a far cry from 'Gezelligheid', the famous Dutch word for feeling the unique experience of coziness, of a comfortable, relaxing time and place that Dutch homes and cafes seek in their decor and atmosphere.

The tolerant image of this region has been badly shaken in recent weeks following the murder of outspoken filmmaker Theo Van Gogh and subsequent charge of a Muslim suspect. Since his death on Nov 2 there have been over 20 arson attacks on mosques and churches in tit for tat violence. And now a popular Dutch politician is calling for rejecting immigration from non-western nations. Geert Wilders has formed his own right-wing political party, the Wilders Group, and opinion polls shows his popularity soaring. Predictably videos have been released on the Internet calling for his beheading as a path to the reward of Paradise. Wilders has gone into hiding but continues to communicate with the media. Muslims make up about 6 per cent of the Netherlands' 16 million people. As often happens during times of inflamed emotions it is the radicals on all sides who are dominating the debate ... "No more Muslims in our country!" ... "Off with his head!" ... that sort of thing.

Meanwhile in Flanders, the Dutch speaking part of Belgium, the most popular national political party in recent opinion polls has been banned by Belgium's appeals court. The Vlamms Blok was banned for violating anti-racism laws and campaigns for forcible repatriation of immigrants and promotes fear of Muslim citizens. This is the most popular political party with over 25% support in opinion polls?? With a radical far-right agenda so deplorable as to find itself banned by a court of law for prejudice!

There is a lot of righteous conflict going on in the world today, negotiations increasingly marginalized to be replaced by war, terrorism and more conflict. Maybe it is extending beyond the soldiers in these conflicts to the streets of the world's cities where a common sense of shared humanity is increasingly elusive. Game after game is currently going by in Spanish football (soccer) at the national and club level with fans hurling racist chants at black players and joining together to brazenly make monkey sounds when these players are in possession of the ball. Where is the silent majority in all this, the ones who will not stand for these kinds of abuses in the name of tolerance and a fundamental understanding that all we share is our humanity? In the words of Bishop Desmond Tutu, "when you demean the other, you demean yourself".

Labels: politics, sociology

For background on the comical domain name registration policies in Canada see this earlier post. But what else would you expect from a board of directors made up of Internet activists who ignore the plight of Canadian businesses through policies that often serve to support spam and trademark infringement.

Let me give you an example. CIRA offers a domain name dispute resolution process to resolve, well, disputes over .ca domain names. So let's take a scenario. You own a business and have trademarked the name "Alliance Construction" in Canada. I register the domain name allianceconstruction.ca with a CIRA certified domain name provider and when you contact me, I offer to sell you the domain name for $500. You now have two choices. Pay me the $500 and I will transfer the domain name or undergo the domain name dispute resolution process and recover rightful ownership of trademarked material. Seems like the process is the way to go? Not unless you are interested in paying the $4300 tariff you (the complainant) must pay to undertake the process. And if you win you have no recourse to recover that tariff fee. So now you are faced with a choice of paying me $500 and obtaining ownership of the domain name or paying $4300 to undertake the process where you can only hope for the same outcome. And what is my risk? $0. Nada. Nothing. Zip. Zero. Like I said. CIRA sucks!

Labels: canada, internet, politics

Am I the only one who was at least a little surprised when the US Presidential election came and went and Osama Bin Laden wasn't miraculously found?

Not to be another conspiracy theorist but anyone who has experience behind the scenes of orchestrated electoral campaigns understands that in this cynical, opportunistic and secretive world absolutely all options are in play on the road to victory. See the Watergate hotel for reference.

It just seems too absurd that the wealth of technical, financial and human resources being devoted to his capture keep coming up empty handed. How long do you think you could elude this armada without limits? How many of your friends would turn you over to authorities anonymously for $25 million?

So here's the rub. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

Ask yourself this question: If you were a member of one of the richest families in the world who could live any life you choose without concern for cost, with access to the best of the best at all times, for what would you give it all up? Honestly? Do you have enough conviction in any philosophy to eat simply when you can eat gourmet, to live in caves when you can live in mansions, and to risk your life over and over again on behalf of others and philosophical conviction?

It's time to admit that if Bin Laden is crazy he is crazy like a fox. He certainly holds a crazed vitriol hatred, primarily aimed at Israel and America, fueled by anti-semitism, radical interpretation of The Koran and years of raw experience in one of the world's most gruesome war conflicts. But among all those he confronts on the battleground Bin Laden is infamous for leading by example, his deeds passed on by his followers, quietly hypnotized by stories of his selfless bravery and valor in Afghan battles, and if they are lucky, by his level gaze and steady voice in rare personal appearances. That's not something we hear much about, Bin Laden the war hero, shot countless times and a survivor of poisoned gas attacks. And crazy doesn't keep you hidden from the man. If values won the US election for George Bush than surely we can recognize the same qualities in his arch-enemy and followers. Whether you agree with these values is irrelevant, only that you respect their existence, for like Bush, he sticks to his guns without compromise, and he pursues his enemies relentlessly.

For better insight into the character and convictions of the world's most wanted man turn off the endless senseless, sensationalism and uninformed chatter of network TV and start with these three stories:

ABC reporter John Miller interviews Bin Laden personally in 1998
How Bin Laden got away in the Afghan hills at Tora Bora
PBS Biography from anonymous source

Labels: politics

According to The Economist: "Germany's economic growth has lagged far behind that of the rest of the rich world during the past few years". The recommended solution is cutting taxes, allowing more skilled immigration, and making the education system more efficient.

But the causes of Germany's economic distress are possibly rooted in deeper cultural misgivings about the "economization" of all aspects of civic life. Even political advisor Wolfgang Schäuble, architect of a German Conservative Credo promotes a notion that "the market is merely a tool, not an answer to every human problem".

One day in 1991 I sat on the stoop of an elite Frieburg University frat house with the magnificent Naomi Creutzfeldt and a couple of friends who were members of the university fencing club and had the chivalrous battle scars to prove it. The subject was the economy and there was a cockiness to the German perspective, at the end of a flourishing run where the Mark (R.I.P.) had soared. Even I remembered getting 2.5 to one against the Canadian dollar and was astonished to see the currencies near equal.

But then something strange happened to a nation that I have learned to love, having been to the country over a dozen times in the last 20 years. My father was born in Bremerhaven on the North Sea in 1940 (significant date?), and I have deep nostalgic connection through my grandmother and relatives, many still in the country.

But after 1992 Germany made a stutter step, and then another, and shortly stopped moving all together. It was around that time that I worked on the floor of a coffee factory for Jacobs-Suchard, makers of fine coffee and chocolate (beauty Toblerone). One day in my first week I opened one of the coffee vats one turn too far and couldn't get it closed. Three tons of coffee spilled out on the floor and all around me. "Helfen! Helfen!" I hollered but my co-workers simply gathered in a circle around my misfortune, my boss smiling and slapping me on the shoulder. They helped me shovel it into the trash and later in the shower I brewed some of the gourmet lost in the unfortunate accident. It reminded me again of the teamwork and pride that have made the German brand respected for reliability and quality. But it is precisely these workers, unionized, apparently overpaid and over benefited according to economic theories, that are at the center of the economic dispute. Those workers were proud of their jobs, made a good living, were loyal to their company, and contributed back into the economy. But those jobs are getting squeezed and it looks like Germany faces no alternative but to assimilate.

Their malaise extends beyond the economy into their national sport of football (soccer) where they seem unable to exhibit anything close to support. While the stands are filled for many a Bundesliga game anyone who has spoken to a German national team supporter will tell you that they are the most self-depreciating lot in all of the world's most popular game. When I went to World Cup 2002 in Japan I had to stand alone in supporting the team even though they went all the way to the final before falling to a Brazilian team that was the best in the world by some distance. No shame in that surely? Wrong. German fans will tell you that their team was boring and played uninspiring football. You can bet that if the English made it to their first World Cup final since 1966 the fans wouldn't care if they did it by scoring in the first minute and kicking the ball into the stands for the rest of the game.

So why can't Germans get back on their feet after the boastful 80s? Nationalism and pride are dirty words in Germany, associated with their collective guilt at past endeavours. Maybe hosting the 2006 World Cup will invite the world to see a happier and more stable Germany, aware of the unique contributions they can offer to the world, and not afraid to admit it.

Labels: politics, sociology

Some thoughts on the second presidential debate at Washington University in St Louis. Not very well evolved thoughts. Like a sprinkle of thoughts.

It seems you have to be a $$billionaire$$ to run for president. Possibly just a millionaire but preferably a billionaire. It was such a touching moment during the 2nd Presidential debate when billionaire Kerry found common ground with billionaire Bush and surprising contender "Charlie" (ABC moderator Charles Gibson) as the three people in the room who might suffer financially from rolling back a Bush tax cut for the rich.

You can't help but think that there is a bit of common ground lost with the voting public when all the candidates are billionaires. And it is not just in the USA. New Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin is either a millionaire or possibly even a billionaire. The reason is that it is hard for a non-billionaire primarily concerned with the rolling fortunes of a risk-infused bank balance to adopt the mindset of a billionaire.

So what you have with these debates is a schooled at Yale billionaire's boys club performing in front of a nervous general public audience struggling to read Q-cards, often mispronouncing their own questions. You feel Bush's backroom boys told him to be assertive. Sometimes it seemed Bush walked that fine line between assertive and scary, out-of-breath, crazy-eyed fiend. You had to wonder if Bush didn't dip into a stash of some nasty hydroponic Canadian BC Bud when he was practicing but opted not to on national tv and paid the price. It seemed even more possible when he disclosed:

"When a drug comes in from Canada I want to make sure it cures ya and it doesn't kill ya. My worry is that it looks like it comes from Canada but it comes from a different part of the world."

So the obvious answer my friends is to sample. Just a thought. And from that assertive occasionally raged into crazy-eyes. Kerry took a different approach, playing with the farce, like a billionaire plays with solid gold juggling balls. He got a question from an audience member asking him to look straight into the camera and declare he won't raise taxes. So Kerry looked straight into the camera which had to be looking straight at him because of the nature of the question. Hence he grabbed some straight in the camera time with America. Tricky. Tricky. But not so tricky that your average viewer doesn't see straight through it. It's easy to dislike Bush's machismo but poor Kerry remains difficult to like.

I think one of the problems with attacking tax cuts for billionaires is that this is the stable of the American dream. By going after the top 1% of financial earners Kerry is going after the Valhalla, Eldorado, and Graceland of citizen aspirations. It's like introducing a new lottery by describing how the winners will be persecuted and asking for the support of all the participants. Nobody wants to go after a winner because secretly we all be believe we will be winners one day. It is one of the often unspoken pillars of capitalism. By nature of 1% there's limited room at the top but we secretly think we can all fit in there, like high school kids into a Volkswagen. Take that pillar away and the game gets a lot less attractive for a lot of players.

Everyone has an opinion on Iraq ranging from crooked and illegal occupation to the libertarian deliverance of freedom. It really is the trickiest topic to address. But couple it with the pathetic responses Kerry and Bush gave to Jim Lehrer on the topic of Sudan during the first debate (both agreed studiously that it was genocide, shaking their helpless heads) and you can frame these topics. Political leaders massaging the levers of power should recognize that rhetoric of any kind is only as believable as the maxim of their actions. As in Emmanuel Kant's epic categorical imperative: "Always act so that you can will the maxim of your action to become universal law". What a beauty! Implicit to this moral law is that there are two universes: the phenomenal world of experience, and the noumenal world of reason. We live in these worlds and experience good and evil. An act that you would by willing that anyone or everyone should perform is a good act. His law demands that everyone act at all times as though he/she were the ruling monarch of the universe and the principle of his/her action would automatically become the principal of the action of everyone. IIt sound like a free pass to become leader of the free world.

And as such we can look to the opinions on Iraq and Sudan expressed by Bush and Kerry during the first two debates in this philosophical light. Kerry scores first by attacking Bush in a bully light. The underlying text decrying the possibility that at some future date, in India/Pakistan, North/South Korea, China/Taiwan more bullies will emerge, pointing to precedent. You went unilaterally into Iraq to protect your interests and we are now doing the same. We are also too strong to be stopped. Bullies on the rampage all licking their lips at the savaging of the UN that occurred under Bush's watch.

But when we look further to the issue of Sudan, Kerry's false start on Iraq crumbles, and the maxim of his action descends to dwell with dour and hostile Bush. Neither man distinguishes himself in dodging questions on the topic, speaking of non-existent African forces, and shaking their heads with such a serious shake.

Kant's law demands that we set the standard for others through our actions. So the standard is that we can walk in anywhere we like and bully whoever we like over whatever we like. And the standard is also that we will not come to the aid of those in desperate need of our available support unless there is an obvious advantage to our interests. Oh please. Why do you have to set the bar so high? Whatever will future generations do to improve these lofty standards?

For a better example you can return to the Crusades of the 12th century described brilliantly by James Reston Jr in Warriors of God:

"The King was a very giant in the field, and was everywhere in the field -- now here, now there, wherever the attacks of the Turks raged the hottest," reported a chronicler until unbelievably he was unhorsed!

"Sire, see him there! On foot!" one of the Arabian Sultan Saladin's sergeants shouted to his lord excitedly. Saladin had seen it all.
And turning to his brother el Melek el-Adel, he said "Go. Take my two swiftest Arabian horses and lead them to him. Tell him that I send them to him, and that a man so great as he is should not be in parts such as these, on foot, with his men."

"It was the crowning act of chivalry in the entire Third Crusade. The present was 'for the brave deeds he had done and all the prowess he had won,' el-Adel said when he reached Richard in the melee. He requested only that the King remember the gift later should he be so lucky as to return from the battle alive."

So not only was Saladin victorious in vanquishing the crusaders from Holy lands but he also established precedent in a maxim of action. The bar needs to be set high by nature of leadership. Saladin and Richard the Lionheart understood that but do the current presidential candidates? What if a candidate suddenly announced that they were heading to Sudan to restore the people and land to safety in the interest of a common humanity. Their suffering is our suffering, your suffering is mine. Would it blow the lid off the rhetoric or would the polling numbers crumble. I have no idea. But I'd like to find out.

Labels: literature, politics

Who knew it was actually a condition? Like so many of the modern conditions it is always a bit surprising to hear that individual actual experiences can be categorized. I fundamentally disagree with polling on the premise that it is impossible to predict what millions will do from the reactions of thousands. We are all our own creature. On Liberty was one of my favorite texts as a teenager. So back to the condition. Watching the Presidential debates and recent discourse in Europe, Canada and the Middle East, it is impossible not feel cheated, fed a poor quality beef, a great threat in the era of BSE. Turns out that all these politicians are suffering from a condition called "Cognitive Dissonance". At least that's my read from the condition sometimes used to describe s personal state of confusion: "I'm suffering from cognitive dissonance" in the nerdiest of the nerdy worlds.

Here's what it means. From University of Twente in the Netherlands comes a definition of the two key components:

1) dissonance is psychologically uncomfortable enough to motivate people to achieve consonance, and
2) in a state of dissonance, people will avoid information and situations that might increase the dissonance.

So the example is Robert Mugabe claiming the Zimbabwe bottom line looks good, Bush struggling to describe Iraq, Margaret Thatcher on the poll tax, Clinton on Lewinsky, Kim Jong-Il on nuclear weapons, Thabo Mbeki on AIDS, Colin Powell on keeping his pride, Putin in Chechnya, and Gerhard Schroeder on the economy. Treat them with care. They are suffering to a condition similar to the guy at a party who tells terrible jokes and everyone laughs uncomfortably and then tells another stinky joke. It's called cognitive dissonance. I think we must all suffer from it to certain degrees. Some more high profile than others.!

Labels: politics

According to Plato the best form of government is a "benign dictator" who is appointed by the educated elites and serves to the end of his life for the betterment of society. All his decisions would be made based on the best long term outcomes for his society and he would not be accountable to the short term interests of fickle media, industry, special interests or even public. In the modern era how does this compare to vaunted democracy? Democracy filled to the brim with condescending fickle. A flip through a single edition of the New York Times doesn't flatter the current democratic process with low turnouts and massive complex efforts at manipulation from special interests on all sides. Here's a few examples. A Democratic ad campaign that highlights the Bush connections with the Saudis build on poll indications of "deep-seated distrust by Americans of the Saudis". A Republican ad campaign from the infamous Swiftvets draws tenuous links between "Hanoi Jane" Fonda and John Kerry as unpatriotic protestors during Vietnam. A Kerry speech tries to relate rising Medicare costs to the bill for the war in Iraq as if the money going to Iraq would otherwise have gone to Medicare. A clever letter to the editor laments the "Orwellian" use of US Government programs like the "Healthy Forests" initiative that environmentalists hate and the "Patriot Act" that libertarians despise. Another letter gets it, coming in from a young Californian voter calling out the "baseless character assasinations" in the campaigns and blasting the current political discourse as obscene. Basically human beings will master any system if given enough time. Democracy has grown up in places like the US and the power brokers, like poker players with a couple years of texas hold-em experience, have learned the system. Communication Planning dominates the agenda. Maybe we need a little benign dictator to shake the system loose and create new pop culture energy around the cult of personality. Nothing could be worse than a barrage of reality tv and political stump speeches. Give us a break.

Labels: politics