Category Archives: Politics

Michael Moore To Broadcast San Francisco Kent State Truth Tribunal

Posted on by

West Coast witnesses and participants are invited to record their stories

First New Media Truth-seeking Initiative Documents 1970 Campus Shooting of Kent State University Students

On Aug 7-8, 2010 filmmaker Michael Moore will livecast the hearings of the Kent State Truth Tribunal, streaming in real-time the accounts of participants and witnesses to the events surrounding the 1970 Kent State shootings, that left four students dead and nine injured. This livecast is a continuation of the first real-time broadcast of a truth-seeking initiative on Kent State and will be broadcast on www.MichaelMoore.com from 9am-5pm PT. The Tribunal in San Francisco follows a four-day tribunal in Kent, Ohio in early May which marked the 40th anniversary of the campus shootings and assembled over 70 testimonies.

The Kent State Truth Tribunal in May resulted in an outpouring of original participant testimonies, some who shared their stories for the first time since the shootings, forty years ago. Demand for participation was immense at the 40th anniversary yet many witnesses and participants in the events surrounding the shootings were not able to travel to Ohio.

“San Francisco was a cultural and political hub in the sixties and seventies and it is no accident that so many young people scarred by the events of Kent State headed west after the tragic events of May 1970. Forty years later, the west remains a progressive mecca and many Kent State participants made the west coast their home, like me. We will collect their experiences of the Kent State shootings to continue to try to learn the truth about Kent State in 2010,” said Laurel Krause, tribunal founder and sister of Allison Krause, one of four students killed at Kent.

The Kent State Truth Tribunal was convened by family members of students killed at Kent State in order to record and preserve the stories of those directly affected by the shootings and reveal the truth of what happened on that day 40 years ago. The Ohio National Guard, who opened fire on the protesters, has never publicized the findings of its internal investigation into command responsibility for the shootings.

Michael Moore commented on the truth tribunal: “40 years after the Kent State killings, justice still has not been served. The Kent State Truth Tribunal brings us closer to that goal by sharing first-hand accounts with the public. I am grateful for their efforts and hopeful that some day the truth will come out.”

Three days after the original Kent State Truth Tribunal the Cleveland Plain Dealer broke a major story about a recorded order to fire given to the Ohio National Guard on May 4, 1970. Then on June 15th, in the U.K., British Prime Minister David Cameron apologized for the killings of Bloody Sunday, a strikingly similar event in 1972 where British paratroopers fired on demonstrators, killing 14 people.

Tribunal organizers are asking the United States government to acknowledge the ‘wrongs’ of May 4, 1970, in the hope of reclaiming what was lost that day – freedom to protest and to peacefully assemble and the democratic right to question the government and hold it accountable for wrongdoings.

The Truth Tribunal is generating a comprehensive historical record of the Kent State massacre. Interviews are being conducted by award-winning filmmaker Emily Kunstler and like the 40th anniversary hearings, will be simultaneously livecast on the home page of www.MichaelMoore.com Archived interviews can be found on http://truthtribunal.org/testimonials. The footage and mementos from the tribunal will be physically archived and available for viewing by the public as part of the permanent collection at the renowned Tamiment Library at New York University.

The west coast tribunal will take place over the weekend of August 7 & 8, 2010 at 150 Green Street, San Francisco, California. Organizers are asking for all original participants and witnesses of the event surrounding the 1970 Kent State shootings to pre-register at www.TruthTribunal.org/preregister. An East Coast Tribunal will follow in New York City on September 25 & 26.

On May 4, 1970 the Ohio National Guard opened fire on unarmed students protesting America’s invasion of Cambodia during the Vietnam War. In a day that changed America, four students were killed and nine were wounded as they protested against the war. The incident triggered national outrage in a country already divided. In immediate response to the Kent State shootings, more than four million students rose up in dissent across 900 campuses, generating the only nationwide student protest in U.S. history. No one has been held responsible for the deaths and injuries that resulted from the shootings.

Wikileak in Afghanistan {Carl Packman}

Posted on by

Julian Assange won’t find himself on any leaked document, but he should be under no illusion: he is enemy number 1 now. The owner of Wikileaks may have just tickled a ball too many with his latest release; 90,000 records of incidents and intelligence reports about the conflict in Afghanistan.

Homeless Assange, whose profile on the Guardian notes him as confessing a genetic disposition to rebel, has spent the last 24 hours justifying his acts, in light of fierce criticism from the White House, who have said the leaks – probably the result of hacking (their assumption) – which contains classified and sensitive information could put the war effort in jeopardy.

The twitter hashtag #warlogs has had discussions ranging from whether to see Wikileaks forever more as a champion of free speech, or as a danger, more intent on causing naive damage and anarchy rather than any grown up appeal to classical liberal motifs.

Having seen a sample of the records myself I can conclude one thing for the nice readers at Frost Magazine: we are at war.

If you want to find out anymore, say if you want to see what Osama Bin Laden told intelligence in his poetic, tyrannical phraseology, or perhaps you’d like to see how much carnage the Taliban have caused with roadside bombings, go and see the files for yourself.

Though when you see them remember one of the main reasons why this stuff isn’t on public display (other than the issue of a national threat, or sensitivity to families): war is rubbish, people die, and it is often better to put it to the back of one’s mind, for otherwise the emotional proximity to what is really going on can have deleterious effects on a reasonable and rational opinion of the war effort in Afghanistan.

I call this the problem of overproximity, and I first spoke about it last year with regard to the camps in Calais that were home to many migrants. Photojournalist Jason Parkinson, a good guy, was frustrated by then immigration Minister Phil Woolas’ response to the camp. He wrote in the Guardian:

It is easy for Woolas, back in London, to arrogantly state these men don’t deserve asylum in the UK. But in doing so he exposes his distance from the issue. If he had bothered to go to the camps and squats around Calais and talk to these people, hear their stories first hand – perhaps then he would remember they are human beings and not just a statistic or price tag on a government spreadsheet.

It is my contention that it didn’t matter where Woolas made the decision if it involved taking a look at what the UK could do, but certainly visiting the camp was not going to help, only other than putting Woolas in a situation where his proximity to the problem would influence his reponse (we all know his stomach for pressure, just see Joanna Lumley take him down).

The leaked documents have the potential to change people’s mind in the wrong way, it will remind people that death is common to war, and that strategy has not always been good in Afghanistan.

The shock of the reality has the potential to delete from our emotional minds the cost of not challenging the Taliban – this network of extremists will not stop until every son of every scared parent in Afghanistan has forcefully been signed up to fight in their fascist wars.

The Fat of the Land {Carl Packman}

Posted on by

There is a simple reason why I predict the two taser shots received by Raoul Moat on the morning of 10 July had nothing to do with his eventual death. Not because disruptions to ones nervous system couldn’t release a spasm that would set off a trigger to an unfortunate whose gun happened to be pointed at his own head. No (although I’m sure you can find these conspiracies on Moat’s popular facebook fan page). Rather, a bit of shock therapy could shake a bit of sense into the bugger.

Subsequently, I would like to prescribe a bit of shock therapy to our health minister Andrew Lansley if he expects fatty food producers to take it upon themselves to cut salt, sugar and spice (and everything that’s nice) out of the nations food, now that the regulators are out.

With no regulation, why wouldn’t Dave Osler be right to say:

“Anti-obesity campaigning in Britain will soon be brought to you courtesy of Bombay Bad Boy-flavour Pot Noodles, Snickers, Golden Wonder and Fanta. Or at least it will be, if Andrew Lansley gets his way.”

Lansley recently told food manufacturers that if they were to be nutritionally responsible then they could be spared regulation. The next week it is revealed that the Food Standards Agency is to be abolished.

This has been met with calls that government has “caved in to big business”. Either that or food manufacturers, in a week, suitably impressed Lansley that they would be culinary ethical (to coin a phrase). Although Labour health spokesman, and leadership candidate, Andy Burnham, probably hit the nail on the head when he said that: “It does raise the question whether the health secretary wants to protect the public health or promote food companies.”

The same food companies that Professor Terence Stephenson, president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, among many other leading doctors, asked Lansley and the government to stop giving a platform to by allowing them to advertise their products during sports events, shortly after Lansley announced that manufacturers of crisps and confectionery could play a central role in the Change4Life campaign.

One of the main beneficiaries of austerity, be that the killing off of the FSA or for customer popularity, is bad foodies. McDonalds, it was reported in 2008, defied the credit crunch by recruiting 4,000 people to fill ‘McJobs’.

KFC, also back in 2008, according to one report, enjoys “strong growth as Britons are drawn towards cheaper eat-out deals in the face of the recession.”

There were gasps of horror when George Osborne announced OBR predictions of 2m more private sector jobs within five years(although how much of this should be taken at face value is questionable, with the early departure of Sir Alan Budd, whose parting gift was to say the Treasury needs more outside regulation – and he should know). The McJob could be the future; which means less unionisation, less workers rights, and an almost robotic allegiance to the French fry.

There has been one overall winner of this period of negative economic growth, and that is bad food. Unhealthy people die, so why wouldn’t our government want to cosy up to the winners. Lets just hope the public isn’t reminded that Andrew Lansley is being bankrolled by some dreaded private health firm now… (whoops).

Frank Huzur on Imran Khan, Jemima, the Taleban and writing.

Posted on by

I was delighted to interview writer Frank Huzur recently. Frank specializes in Indo-Pak political affairs and is incredibly knowledgeable on India, the Afghanistan war and the Taleban. He has a book coming out soon, Imran versus Imran: The UNTOLD STORY, the biography of Imran Khan.

Frank had this to say about the book and then the interview follows:

It has not been a smooth journey across the border. For an Indian national, irrespective of profession-media is more notorious in India-Pakistan for stoking the fire of jingoism and sowing the seed of hatred—it is always a thorny affair to travel to each country. I somehow have been fortunate to visit Pakistan seven times in three years. Writing the biography of Imran Khan was, indeed, a powerful motivation. Nevertheless, travelling through different areas, Lahore, Mianwali (ancestral place of Imran Khan and his political constituency) and Islamabad–was always a tough ask, considering the combustible political situation on streets. Terror attacks, hundreds of them–quite big in size and casualty, have hit high profile targets, some of them during my visit.

Irrespective of everything, I maintained my focus on the goal, and returned each time armed with a vast range of anecdotes and impressions of Imran Khan and Pakistan politics. People of Pakistan have been very beholden to my literary endeavour and have never discouraged me from probing further into their lives and times.

Imran and his family and friends were very warm and friendly during numerous round of interviews for the biography. His brother-in-law and sisters in Lahore were candid in sharing their side of the story.

Jemima Khan in London was equally considerate and beholden to my requests. She was very forthright in sharing her impressions of Imran. I am indebted to her for taking the interview at her Studio One apartment, Fulham Broadway in April, 2008.

1) How did you get into writing?

FH: I discovered as early as in 8th grade at school that writing was my natural instinct. The urge to write began with composition of poems in English. Reading of Wordsworth’s poems, I wandered lonely as a Cloud, The Solitary Reaper, Strange Fits of Passion have I known romanticised my imagination. By the time I was a school graduate at the age of 15, I tasted blood with the publication of some of my poems on the New Delhi-based English dailies, including The Asian Age. I was in love with the romantic age in English literature, and doted on the Lyrical Ballads, a joint publication of William Wordsworth and Samuel Taylor Coleridge. Before taking a maiden shot at playwriting, I had composed over 100 poems under the title of Remembering Her. When I joined Hindu college, Delhi University in 1995, poetic sentiments found expression in prose and play. In summer of 1998, I published my maiden play, Hitler in Love with Madonna. The title of the play was dubbed weird by friends, and critics were attracted like moth to the lamp during rehearsal itself. However, it brought me a fair share of public acclaim in the national press, for its political undercurrents.

Poetry and play further fired my imagination to comment on the burning issues of society and politics. In the spring of 1997, I had the temerity to launch a monthly newsmagazine, Utopia, with heavy dose of political reportage from around the world. The inaugural issue of Utopia in March 1997 coincided with the political debut of Imran Khan across the border in Pakistan. Since then, political churning in the subcontinent and elsewhere continues to fire my imagination to dabble in chiefly three genre of literature, poetry, drama (fiction) and non-fiction. I am still a few years away from writing a novel.

2) You have written a lot about Imran Khan and have a book coming out soon about him. What can you tell us about him and why is he so fascinating to you?

FH: The fascination with Imran, to speak the truth, bordered on paranoia during school days. I was growing up in Patna, capital of a benighted state like Bihar in India, where cricket was staple diet. Throughout ‘80s Imran was a household name for apparent reasons. However, I found myself increasingly obsessed with the other side of his charismatic persona, such as his philanthropic passion, which was on display during the 1987 World cup semi-final in Lahore. Imran lost the battle against Aussies, announced his retirement and despite winning the car in the ‘Man of the Series’ award, he gifted it to Abdul Qadeer. He had already started a fierce campaign to build the cancer hospital in memoriam of his mother, Shaukat Khanum. I was a 10 years old cricket wannabe at the time. Still, I could experience the magic moments of Imran’s other side, a cricketer who was a crusader for a public cause and an opinionated sportsman who could talk for hours on issues of public interest. Gathering such impression of Imran in the face of prevailing media stereotype at the time like he was a playboy, junkie and Lothario was quite a unique experience. Doting on a superstar from across the border, supposedly an enemy country for an average Indian youth, was another surprise.

Nevertheless, Imran Khan was a ticket to hate-free zone vis-a-vis Indo-Pak barbed wire rivalry goes. He has never been an anti-India rhetorician.

The childhood obsession with Imran became a passionate act of observing his political innings in the prime of my youth as a writer and journalist. Visiting Pakistan for over half-a-dozen occasion in the past three years of troubled past opened my eyes to a vast sheaf of reality bites. Not only about the man who has been deep into maelstrom of his political struggle and movement for justice, but also about the bedevilled country, mired into morass of bad political morals.

My biography of Imran Khan, Imran Versus Imran: The Untold Story (expected last week of July, 2010, Falcon & Falcon Books Ltd. London) is an unambiguous enquiry into his political innings. This is not about a cricketing legend. Imran versus Imran brings out the so far unknown sides of a legendary crusader who has sacrificed on several fronts, including his marriage to Jemima, children living in London while he braves the heat and dust on Pakistani streets, luxury of cloistered life in the West and a lucrative career in cricket administration or commentary box. Like a Sufi who lives by his passion and instinct for a cause, Imran has been an Avant-garde voice against the status-quo in Pakistan.

3) What do you think is next for Imran?

FH: Imran will not fade out in the present avatar. Those who know the former captain of Pakistan cricket team will testify to his childlike lust for grabbing his toy. Capturing power is not his agenda. Power doesn’t please him, which is why he has been quick in rejecting several offer of alliances with nearly all the political formations. He could have won a good number of seats in February 2008 Parliamentary elections. Yet he listened to the voice of his conscience and boycotted the polls as a tribute to lawyers’ struggle for restoration of Independent judiciary.

Like Jemima told me, even if Imran doesn’t succeed in electoral terms, he will remain a yardstick by which honesty of a politician in mud pond of Pakistan politics will be measured. However, Imran will not give up. The youth of the country are solidly behind him, and he is promising them a ‘bloodless revolution.’ Imran will go down even in his political innings a successful crusader. Even though he is still not a maverick and a great organiser of political programmes, he does stand his chance. He is gearing up to go for jugular sometime in near future.

Having said that, Imran Khan is a unique politician who is rabidly against the American policies and on-going drone attacks in the tribal areas, not to mention a series of suicide bombings targeting civilian population in Lahore and elsewhere. Imran will not soften his anti-America stand in order to capture power. He wants to create history like Ayatollahs in Pakistan, and he doesn’t give damn to those who accuse him of being a ‘devil advocate’ of Taleban.

4) What do you think of the current political and economical situation of the world today?

FH: The world politics is on the brink of tectonic shift in its scope and character. Forces of privatization and globalisation are under intense scrutiny in nearly all the countries, be it the USA, Europe, Latin America or Indian Sub-continent. The economic crisis, in the past couple of years, has robbed the crystal ball gazing off its sheen.

Europe is experiencing a paradigm shift vis-a-vis confrontation with corporate state. The upsurge in stocks of Liberal Democrat in the British Parliamentary elections is a testimony to the ‘wind of change blowing in the air.’ In Germany, there is a surge of support for Die Linke (The Left) led by Oskar Lafontaine. In Nederland, the Socialist party is looking set to replace the Labour Party as the principal opposition party. Greece’s economic woes have triggered a massive surge in mass support for the rapid rise of the Coalition of the Radical Left. Spain and Norway, Socialists are already entrenched in power corridor. Least said the better about the Latin American countries like Bolivia, Venezuela, Brasil and others where socialist sentiments have acquired a zing even among youth.

In Indian subcontinent, love affairs with corporations continues and it will have its moment of reckoning in near future. Though the ruling party, Indian National Congress is a centrist party, its policies of late have been hammered on public streets for extreme pro-corporation bias. The principal opposition party led by Hindu nationalist Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) is not perceived much different from the ruling coalition of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA). However, a vast crowd of poor Indians, especially in northern provinces of Hindi heartland where majority of Indians live on their small agricultural holdings, are veering towards the third alternative, socialist party of India. Samajwadi Party, (Socialist Party of India) is the third largest political bloc on the floor of Indian Parliament. Over the past couple of years, the party is registering massive inroads into hearts and minds of common Indians under the vibrant leadership of its young leader, Akhilesh Yadav, who is a suave, English-educated master in Environment from University of Sydney. Akhilesh is the principal rival to Rahul Gandhi’s juggernaut in the most populous province of Uttar Pradesh, and probably a counterfoil to Rahul Gandhi’s premier ambition to rule the highly-cherished state.

The politics across the border in Pakistan is a worrying sign for us all in the sub-continent. However, the transfer of power from President Zardari to Prime Minister Gilani and recent surge in judicial activism augurs well for fledgling civil institutions in the beleaguered nation, which has been an important ally of the USA-led coalition against war on terror. Imran Khan’s role can’t be discounted, as he has fired the imagination of Pakistani people over pros and cons of democracy and dictatorship.

In all, President Obama is yet to demonstrate his famous ‘audacity of hope’ calibre, and as of now, he is looking like an Ostrich over Afghanistan. General Stanley McChrytal’s unceremonious exit is a serious setback to the American strategy in Kabul.

5) Do you think the war in Afghanistan is winnable?

FH: There are no winners in war, whether in Afghanistan or Vietnam. For centuries, the Great Game theory has been pounded of its barest bone and flesh in the opium fields of Kandhar. The Soviets were sucked into interminable conflict and by the time realisation dawned upon them, they had become paupers in every conceivable way. The USA and Britain didn’t learn a lesson from the condemned past before committing chaotic blunder after blunder.

The Taleban should have been taken out of their hideouts. Nine years later, the army of rugged Pathans are now lurking at gates of Kabul. Nine years of bloated and arrogant war machinery has created only mausoleum of thousands of innocent Afghan men, women and children, over 1,000 American soldiers and over 100 British soldiers, not to mention tragic loss of NATO soldiers and a great number of promising journalists, including Daniel Pearl. Had the war on terror in Afghanistan been on the course of achieving even ten percent of its laid-out objectives, Taleban would not have mushroomed in the tribal areas of Pakistan and bombing its innocent civilians and military General Headquarters.

Adding further insult to injuries, the cost of Afghan war has overtaken that of Iraq for the first time this summer. President Obama is committing $65 billion more, with total cost of fighting the Taleban and Al-Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan all set to zoom past $100 billion in 2010 alone.

The Afghan war is a catastrophic blunder on all fronts. Just as the Soviet’s humiliating withdrawal destabilised the neighbouring regions, the prevailing situation on the border of Pakistan bodes ill for even eastern neighbourhood of India.

6) What is your writing schedule?

FH: Writing is a spontaneous process for me. I never plan my writing schedule. However, I am a night animal, and prefer to borrow more from arterial stretches of imagination late into the night. The midnight hours are more simulating as the din of daytime robs me off creative cultivation of thoughts.

7) Do you think it is possible to defeat the Taliban?

FH: Taleban is a stateless phenomenon. Which is why it is difficult to root these faceless warriors out for once and all. Taleban is an idea, and a vampire-like creation out of the monstrous cocktail of Jihadi ideology and distorted interpretation of Islam. If the Western powers commit to fight the idea of Taleban, only then its elimination is possible. Liberal and democratic forces should be encouraged to penetrate into the deep pockets of extremist heartland where young, impressionable minds are being indoctrinated to slaughter innocents of the civilised society.

8 ) India is known as a place where people go to find themselves. What makes India so magical?

FH: India is not just a place populated with people of diverse faiths and caste-ridden Hindu population. India’s secret weapon is her tenacity, ability to smile in face of fierce tragedy. There are islands of poverty in every single metropolis, not to mention hundreds of small towns and millions of villages, yet beauty of India cuts through rivers of sorrow as millions of Indians rise and fall in their perennial search for salvation. Every Hindu caste Indian has his own deities, his own temple where he believes his deity will rain milk and honey if he surpass other fellows in his offerings. Spiritual fascism of high priests apart, there are many portals of liberating one’s soul. The vastness of the country offers its own aesthetic beauty where a person from northern temple town of Benares will find himself alien in the southern temple city of Tirupati in lingua and look, yet a northerner and southerner will be united in their common pursuits of salvation at the feet of stone-deity.

India is home to more Muslims than Pakistan, and its secular, democratic polity has endured powerful assaults over the fabric of its communal accord. However, the land of mystic seers and shrines is in the grip of difficult challenges, of late as terrorism of all shades rears its ugly head.

9) What is next for you?

FH: I am about to write a couple of more biographies, preferably a biography of India’s socialist titan, Mulayam Singh Yadav, who has ruled India’s most populous state, Uttar Pradesh three times and has also been ex-defense minister. I am also working on the biography of Britain’s top Muslim, Dr Khurshid Ahmed, who is winner of CBE from the Queen, for his pivotal role in improving the image of West in Muslim countries. In addition, I am also working on my debut novel, albeit a tad slow.

Thank you Frank.

For more on Frank, follow the link

The Gall of Prince of Wales {Carl Packman}

Posted on by

Have you ever said out loud: oh my, how have they got the gall to say that? Occasions arise when the gall of your heroes can come back to hurt you. I’m on the political left, and as such I quite like the words of Polly Toynbee, she’s very well skilled in saying things that I want to hear, but she does have some gall.

There was the time when the lads at Though Cowards Flinch noticed that Polly was writing in support of outsourcing to ‘improve standards’ instead of supporting workers’ rights in the public sector. Then there was the time on Question Time when Richard ‘why bring up the world war, just actually why, why‘ Littlejohn outed Polly for her fancy foreign houses (Littlejohn hates foreign houses).

Toby Young, Tory boy of such popular cultural hits as How to show Cameron in a bad light and still love him to bits, pointed out that Toynbee had gall for criticising free schools when sending two of her three own children to private school for part of their education.

When someone finds this out on twitter, I believe it is shortly followed by the hashtag #fail.

Toynbee is someone who ought to represent my political viewpoint, but by night she illustrates a perversion of that view. And it hurts those to whom she writes for the most.

Now that I’ve shown myself to take this approach to people I used to respect, I can now turn to people I have never had respect for, and show them to be gall-ish too.

Prince Charles, it turned out, earned £271m in property deals in 2008, making an estimated £43m in profit.

The Mail reported back then that:

“The Prince’s income from the Duchy [created in 1337 by Edward III for his eldest son Prince Edward to provide an income for the heir to the throne] in 2007 was £16.3million or £12.8million after tax.”

This was after a massive £1m pay rise the year previous.

Yet he now comes out in support of ordinary people against property developers.

As the Guardian puts it:

“It is an unlikely claim for a prince who enjoys a £17m private annual income and employs 16 gardeners but Clarence House today said that Prince Charles believes it is his duty to defend “ordinary people” against profiteering property developers.”

This emergency budget is set to make 1.3 million people unemployed. My suggestion for him showing his support for all ordinary people is by contributing to the cuts, by getting his Mother to wave ta-ta to Edward IIIs outdated financial model, and giving up the Duchy. Then campaigning for the abolition of the monarchy, while throwing support at the scheme to nationalise all ex-royal buildings, thereby safeguarding tourist money to the country.

Until then, the man has some gall.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/29/prince-charles-planning-property-developers

The Budget: to progressive what Kim Jong-il is to moderate {Carl Packman}

Posted on by

We’ve had the first budget by the new coalition government, called out by a small boy, nervously looking down at his sheet, behind him a Prime Minister with a face so red backbenchers thought it was daytime (it was daytime, but they didn’t know it was daytime by any other measure than David Cameron’s face, which actually isn’t a measure of time at all, allegedly) and two Liberal Democrats, whose party once called the rise in VAT (which was called today, starting in January 2011) the Tories’ ‘secret plot‘.

Though, back then, the plot referred to Tory plans to raise VAT to 19.5%. Judging by the chants of ‘here here’ today by Nick Clegg and Douglas Alexander, either we are to take it that once VAT rises to 20% it stops being a plot, or the Liberal Democrats have their hands tied in this coalition government. All such speculation has been achieved on this subject, and it doesn’t look good for the yellows.

Julian Glover of the Guardian on the day of the budget argued that it was not: “as a Thatcherite one would have done, seek[ing] to divide the nation between winners and losers. It was a one-nation one, albeit produced in desperate circumstances.” Certainly all the talk of “progressive” (that vacuous blanket term for anything not fascistic or carried out by a person over the age of 50 – Ken Clarke beware) provided the cover with which to place over our eyes, while our ears heard insistence from the Treasury that “The top income decile [consult graph 1 here for further explanation] sees the largest absolute losses, while, on average, the bottom three income deciles experience the lowest losses”.

But if the way in which Ozzy Osborne has dealt his number blow is progressives then I might as well sign myself up to that Facebook group supporting Kim Jong-il right now.

VAT always hits the lowest paid in society the hardest, though mostly what George has forgotten is proportion and scale. If figure A earns £200 a week and the government decides to take £10 more of that away, while figure B earns £2000 a week, and the government also decides to take £10, figure A feels more of a pinch in spite of the fact that both have contributed the same.

Now this is not an accurate picture of what the government are doing at the moment, but certainly the illustration holds true, that though the top income decile will see the largest amount of money taken from them on their pay packets, this is because they are earning more. This does not represent an equal distribution of the “pinch” when you consider that those on the bottom end of the income decile, though not contributing as much (as they don’t earn as much as those on the top decile) feel more of a pinch by the raise in VAT, freeze on public sector pay and freeze on benefits.

It doesn’t follow that since figure A has less on his income statement than last year, that figure A is feeling the pinch more than figure B, in fact the opposite is true. This does not represent everyone taking an equal hit. Until this is rectified, the coalition government’s budget plans are to progressive what Girls Aloud were to dignity.

Big Brother and the mask of Domingo Cavallo {Carl Packman}

Posted on by

What did the anonymous spy tell his audience who came to listen to him speak on an unrelated topic?: “I’m a spy”. Now, why on earth would one tell an audience one was a spy, when that is precisely the case, and presumably trying to maintain ones anonymity? Exactly because an audience would not expect a spy to admit one was a spy, and so be fooled by the admission, or at least not register the game at hand at all.

What would you do if you were an Argentine Minister of Economy when you were in the government palace in Buenos Aires, protestors outside wanted to tear your head off for screwing things right up, and you wanted to get out?

Slavoj Zizek reminds us:

A supreme case of such a comedy occurred in December 2001 in Buenos Aires, when Argentinians took to the streets to protest against the current government, and especially against Domingo Cavallo, the Minister of Economy. When the crowd gathered around Cavallo’s building, threatening to storm it, he escaped wearing a mask of himself (sold in disguise shops so that people could mock him by wearing his mask). It thus seems that at least Cavallo did learn something from the widely spread Lacanian (ref: Jacques Lacan, French psychoanalyst and student of Freud) movement in Argentina—the fact that a thing is its own best mask.

This was at a period when Argentine politicians could not even walk around town or be seen in public at all, let alone be seen to buy expensive items from expensive places. The period came to be known as the cooking pot revolution (so called because of the banging of pots in the centre of town by youths and workers dressed in masks).It was in protest at destructive privatisation measures of almost all government owned assets, linking the Argentine peso with the US dollar, lowering import tariffs, and abolishing restrictions on capital flows.

The former president Carlos Menem avoided the capital city altogether, the city mayor Anibal Ibarra shaved off his beard to avoid recognition while Cavallo took to wearing a mask of himself.

Like the spy announcing to a laughing audience that he is a spy, Cavallo took to wearing a mask of his own face (like many other protesters against him) in order to conceal who he really was.

Big Brother, recently, has also learnt that the thing is its own best mask, with the contestant who dressed as a mole, while simultaneously trying to convince other housemates that he wasn’t a mole. And he succeeded. Instead the other housemates voted Yvette, the medical student, who now thinks everyone hates her.

Few of us thought we would see the day when a protest movement in Latin America could be so well imitated, by such popular culture.

Carl on the Israeli – Palestine conflict {Politics}

Posted on by

Surprise of all surprises, there are left wing groups in existence today who are pro-Israel. J-Street is a not for profit advocacy group in the US who campaign for a peaceful two-state solution on the Israel-Palestine conflict, supports refined petroleum sanctions on Iran to curb their achieving nuclear weaponry, encourages border negotiation of Jerusalem, and views illegal Israeli settlements as a constant obstacle to peace.

It’s president, Jeremy Ben-Ami, recently said on the subject of the blockade: “There wouldn’t have been a flotilla if Gazan children had enough food, had schools and clean water to drink.”

Through the frivolity with which certain neoconservatives and Zionists like to throw around the term anti-Semite (where anti-Zionist, pro-Palestinian or pro-two state solution, all different concepts, might have sufficed) the sensible, anti-fascist, left (often, rightly, exemplified in distinction to the socialist workers/Respect party, as mentioned here and here) have to be careful when criticising Israel so as not to be tarred with such a rancorous brush.

Earl Raab, founding director of the Nathan Perlmutter Institute for Jewish Advocacy at Brandeis University, was so very far from the point when he mentioned that prejudice against Israel is often a bridge to anti-Semitism, though became closer when he distinguished this from antisemitism as such.

Tariq Ali, historian and political activist, once mentioned that: “the supposed new ‘anti-Semitism’ [in Europe today, is a] “cynical ploy on the part of the Israeli Government to seal off the Zionist state from any criticism of its regular and consistent brutality against the Palestinians…. Criticism of Israel can not and should not be equated with anti-semitism.”

I recognise leftist appeals to anti-Semitism, or trace elements of Islamist appeasement in the ranks of so-called left wing movements, preferring victim idolatry to reasoned political standpoint, but I’m still tempted by what Ali recognises that a certain few Israel supporters often obfuscate, with their liberal use of the paranoia sword, what is criticism of the crimes committed by the state of Israel and what crosses the line into anti-Semitic strokes. But to be sure, many people now find it difficult to tell one from the other, and it is a thorn in the side of the left.

The centre-right have an easy time of it though. Just look at our current Foreign Secretary William Hague. He recently condemned what he called Israel’s “unacceptable” blockade around the time of the flotilla deaths, causing little stir, and not much more than the word “astonishing” and “wobble” as criticism, from former speccie editor Matthew d’Ancona.

In 2003 Hague described America’s foreign policy as “bleeding away,”and in 2006 Hague opined that: “In some instances, such as attacks on the Lebanese army or on parts of the civil infrastructure, Israeli actions have been disproportionate, and our Foreign Office should not be afraid to say so”.

He is supported by a Prime Minister who chose September 11 of 2006 to announce reservations of the UK-US special relationship, not to mention the untrustworthy characters inside the European Conservatives and Reformists that he defends.

I don’t think Hague is an anti-Semite, but nor do I think a lot of leftists who are branded this are, either. I wonder why Hague is getting let off for his critical eye on Israel and American foreign policy while the left get cuts and bruises for it. Have the dubious voices who wrongly liken left-wing criticism directed at Israel being anti-Semitic won their little battle?