While we’ve all been fuming lately about the explicit tyranny of multinational oil and financial companies, the media’s role in our looming depression is just as criminal. Unbelievably, the gap between media coverage and reality seems to grow as their market share falls. You would think they would get it. You would think that they would begin to understand that they are being punished by their readers for telling obvious lies and having obvious bias. The coverage surrounding the Israeli/Palestine massacre is just the latest example of the corporate media’s commitment fascism. With this in mind, I felt it important to quote a list that offers some counter-arguments to the media’s axiomatic talking points about the nature of this conflict.

Top 5 Lies About Israel’s Assault on Gaza by Jeremy R. Hammond

Posted by: Amir Sahib In: Israel| Palestine| War

Lie #1) Israel is only targeting legitimate military sites and is seeking to protect innocent lives. Israel never targets civilians.

The Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated pieces of property in the world. The presence of militants within a civilian population does not, under international law, deprive that population of their protected status, and hence any assault upon that population under the guise of targeting militants is, in fact, a war crime.

 

Moreover, the people Israel claims are legitimate targets are members of Hamas, which Israel says is a terrorist organization. Hamas has been responsible for firing rockets into Israel. These rockets are extremely inaccurate and thus, even if Hamas intended to hit military targets within Israel, are indiscriminate by nature. When rockets from Gaza kill Israeli civilians, it is a war crime.

Hamas has a military wing. However, it is not entirely a military organization, but a political one. Members of Hamas are the democratically elected representatives of the Palestinian people. Dozens of these elected leaders have been kidnapped and held in Israeli prisons without charge. Others have been targeted for assassination, such as Nizar Rayan, a top Hamas official. To kill Rayan, Israel targeted a residential apartment building. The strike not only killed Rayan but two of his wives and four of his children, along with six others. There is no justification for such an attack under international law. This was a war crime.

Other of Israel’s bombardment with protected status under international law have included a mosque, a prison, police stations, and a university, in addition to residential buildings.

Moreover, Israel has long held Gaza under siege, allowing only the most minimal amounts of humanitarian supplies to enter. Israel is bombing and killing Palestinian civilians. Countless more have been wounded, and cannot receive medical attention. Hospitals running on generators have little or no fuel. Doctors have no proper equipment or medical supplies to treat the injured. These people, too, are the victims of Israeli policies targeted not at Hamas or legitimate military targets, but directly designed to punish the civilian population.

Lie #2) Hamas violated the cease-fire. The Israeli bombardment is a response to Palestinian rocket fire and is designed to end such rocket attacks.

Israel never observed the cease-fire to begin with. From the beginning, it announced a “special security zone” within the Gaza Strip and announced that Palestinians who enter this zone will be fired upon. In other words, Israel announced its intention that Israeli soldiers would shoot at farmers and other individuals attempting to reach their own land in direct violation of not only the cease-fire but international law.

Despite shooting incidents, including ones resulting in Palestinians getting injured, Hamas still held to the cease-fire from the time it went into effect on June 19 until Israel effectively ended the truce on November 4 by launching an airstrike into Gaza that killed five and injured several others.

Israel’s violation of the cease-fire predictably resulted in retaliation from militants in Gaza who fired rockets into Israel in response. The increased barrage of rocket fire at the end of December is being used as justification for the continued Israeli bombardment, but is a direct response by militants to the Israeli attacks.

Israel’s actions, including its violation of the cease-fire, predictably resulted in an escalation of rocket attacks against its own population.

Lie #3) Hamas is using human shields, a war crime.

There has been no evidence that Hamas has used human shields. The fact is, as previously noted, Gaza is a small piece of property that is densely populated. Israel engages in indiscriminate warfare such as the assassination of Nizar Rayan, in which members of his family were also murdered. It is victims like his dead children that Israel defines as “human shields” in its propaganda. There is no legitimacy for this interpretation under international law. In circumstances such as these, Hamas is not using human shields, Israel is committing war crimes in violation of the Geneva Conventions and other applicable international law.

Lie #4) Arab nations have not condemned Israel’s actions because they understand Israel’s justification for its assault.

The populations of those Arab countries are outraged at Israel’s actions and at their own governments for not condemning Israel’s assault and acting to end the violence. Simply stated, the Arab governments do not represent their respective Arab populations. The populations of the Arab nations have staged mass protests in opposition to not only Israel’s actions but also the inaction of their own governments and what they view as either complacency or complicity in Israel’s crimes.

Moreover, the refusal of Arab nations to take action to come to the aid of the Palestinians is not because they agree with Israel’s actions, but because they are submissive to the will of the US, which fully supports Israel. Egypt, for instance, which refused to open the border to allow Palestinians wounded in the attacks to get medical treatment in Egyptian hospitals, is heavily dependent upon US aid, and is being widely criticized within the population of the Arab countries for what is viewed as an absolute betrayal of the Gaza Palestinians.

Even Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has been regarded as a traitor to his own people for blaming Hamas for the suffering of the people of Gaza. Palestinians are also well aware of Abbas’ past perceived betrayals in conniving with Israel and the US to sideline the democratically elected Hamas government, culminating in a counter-coup by Hamas in which it expelled Fatah (the military wing of Abbas’ Palestine Authority) from the Gaza Strip. While his apparent goal was to weaken Hamas and strengthen his own position, the Palestinians and other Arabs in the Middle East are so outraged at Abbas that it is unlikely he will be able to govern effectively.

Lie #5) Israel is not responsible for civilian deaths because it warned the Palestinians of Gaza to flee areas that might be targeted.

Israel claims it sent radio and telephone text messages to residents of Gaza warning them to flee from the coming bombardment. But the people of Gaza have nowhere to flee to. They are trapped within the Gaza Strip. It is by Israeli design that they cannot escape across the border. It is by Israeli design that they have no food, water, or fuel by which to survive. It is by Israeli design that hospitals in Gaza have no electricity and few medical supplies with which to treat the injured and save lives. And Israel has bombed vast areas of Gaza, targeting civilian infrastructure and other sites with protected status under international law. No place is safe within the Gaza Strip.

http://www.amirsahib.com/top-5-lies-about-israels-assault-on-gaza-by-jeremy-r-hammond

Quebec,

I got no beef with you. I’m sorry the Conservatives act like everyone in the West wants you to leave.

From,

Vancouver

1. Bill C-61: Conservative commitment to the unenforceable and distinctly unfair, bill C-61. Why is this an important issue? Here are just a few reasons (source: http://www.brendonwilson.com/blog/2008/06/16/talking-points-to-defeat-bill-c-61/): “It forces you to buy media you’ve already purchased”, “it makes your devices less useful”, “consumers will be unable to influence the market by finding new uses for their existing media and copyrighted materials”, and “it makes the public domain works inaccessible”, to name but a few aspects. Read the article for more.

2. Climate Change and the environment: The recently announced environmental policies in the conservative party platform are yet again, a sad excuse at pretending to care about the environment. Not one environmental organization I could find gave it a thumbs up. “The Conservative party platform missed the opportunity to strengthen the party’s inadequate approach to global warming, and instead added more uncertainty to it. The party also failed to announce support for a key renewable energy program that’s about to expire, and did not offer a strategy to deal with the environmental impacts of runaway oil sands development.” (source: http://www.pembina.org/election2008/blog/Cons-Platform) More: “The Conservatives’ national emissions target for 2020, which is equivalent to just 3% below the 1990 level, falls far short of both the targets adopted by leading countries and of what the science tells us we need. Mr. Harper has called global warming “perhaps the biggest threat to confront the future of humanity today ” That urgency is nowhere to be found in the party’s platform.” And perhaps the most impressive evidence that “doing something” will not actually destroy our economy: “Between 1990 and 2006 Sweden cut its carbon emissions by 9%, largely exceeding the target set by the Kyoto Protocol, while enjoying economic growth of 44% in fixed prices.” (source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/29/climatechange.carbonemissions)

3. Anti-Green Energy: We are missing important alternative energy opportunities because of Harper’s bias towards the oil industry. A really tangible example is this: “the founder of a Canadian-made, 100 per cent electric car says the federal government is blocking him from selling his cars in Canada. Warehoused Zenn cars in St. Jerome, Que. (CBC) The ZENN (zero emissions, no noise) electric car is already being sold in the United States, Mexico, and Europe, where it has won awards” (source: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/10/26/electriccar-zenn.html). A more abstract statement from the Toronto Sun: “Canada fails to recognize that there’s money to be made in developing a green economy, some of Canada’s brightest scientists heard yesterday at a 20-year conference reunion. ‘There is profit to be made in developing technology to fight pollution’, said Howard Ferguson, the original chairman of the historic climate Our Changing Atmosphere: Implications for Global Security conference in 1988. About a dozen of some of Canada’s eminent scientific minds — Nobel Prize winners among them — shared ideas and reunited yesterday to mark the 20th anniversary of the conference in Canada and lambast the world’s inaction”. Another opinion; “the Conservatives remain the only party not to signal a renewal of support for green electricity. The ecoENERGY for Renewable Power program will run out of money this coming year, stranding billions of dollars of investment. A lack of leadership on renewable power in Canada means that investors will likely seek opportunities in the United States, which recently  announced a decision to continue its support for renewable power. Canada’s green power industry will continue to fall behind the Americans without a renewal of federal support - and this platform failed to make that commitment”. (source: http://www.pembina.org/election2008/blog/Cons-Platform)

4. Reduced Transparency: Elected on the promise of making government more open to the public, Harper has done the exact opposite. “Too often, responses to access requests are late, incomplete, or overly censored,” Information Commissioner Robert Marleau said in an introduction to his first annual report. “Too often, access is denied to hide wrongdoing, or to protect officials or governments from embarrassment, rather than to serve a legitimate confidentiality requirement”. (source: http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics/story.html?id=cf2b9830-7185-4036-bf8e-f164fca973ca&k=7741) This, combined with Harper’s reduction in press conferences (refusing to meet with the Parliamentary Press Gallery) and strangle-hold on party opinions, is not only breaking an election promise but damages Canadian democracy.

5. Telecommunications, Banking and Media Monopolies: Who likes paying higher cellular data rates than Rwanda? (source: http://blogs.itworldcanada.com/idol/2008/05/26/why-is-canada-more-expensive-than-rwanda-for-mobile-data-access/) Who likes the fact that Japan has Internet that is 8x faster than ours at a fraction of the cost? (source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/28/AR2007082801990.html?nav=rss_technology) The difference? “In 2000, the Japanese government seized its advantage in wire…. regulators [in Japan] compelled big phone companies to open up wires to upstart Internet providers”. I’m sure Harper loves that idea.

Then there’s the 10% - 20% fees to access your money at ATM’s in addition to a host of other unpopular banking service fees. This industry accounts for the highest volume of consumer complaints to the Better Business Bureau. The public opinion polls on this are enough to make the case: “In response to the question, ‘Do you agree or disagree with the suggestion that the federal government should ban fees charged when people use ATMs of financial institutions other than their own?’, 70% of Canadians agreed, while only 26% disagreed”. (source: NRG: Research Group)

And finally, the pathetic media situation in Canada. One really has to look no further than the Vancouver Sun and Province to get a sense for what’s wrong here. “In addition to the National Post, CanWest now owns 14 large city dailies, 120 smaller dailies and weeklies, and the Global TV network, Canada’s second-largest private broadcaster. The company also has private TV networks in Australia, New Zealand and Ireland, among other holdings”….”CanWest chair Israel (”Izzy”) Asper [this is a 2002 article] told the CanWest Global annual shareholders meeting on January 30 that “on national and international key issues we should have one, not 14, editorial positions.” But this reverses the guarantee of local autonomy the newspaper chains promised regulators when they were allowed to amass their empires, gobbling up independent dailies from the 1970s through the 1990s.” (source: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1106) As a result of this media concentration, Canadians get inundated with inaccurate information that suits the economic interests of one company.

6. Shameful Foreign Policy: This is very simple. We as Canadians are complicit in torture thanks to our involvement in Afghanistan. TORTURE! TORTURE! TORTURE! TORTURE! “The government had initially denied the existence of [evidence of torture], stating in writing that ‘no such report on human-rights performance in other countries exists’. The Globe and Mail subsequently used the access of information law to force the government to turn over a copy of the report, which is titled ‘Afghanistan 2006: Good Governance, Democratic Development and Human Rights’. But the report given the Globe had been heavily censored in the name of ‘national security’; numerous passages depicting the deplorable human rights situation in Afghanistan and the violation of basic civil liberties by Afghan authorities were blacked out” (source: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/apr2007/afgh-a27.shtml). The Liberals have a shared shame here, as they got us in to that wonderful hornets nest.

What else can be said?

Continuing to fail on our foreign aid obligations: “The Harper government has been silent as to Canada’s obligations to alleviate poverty around the world and to increase aid to reach the target of 0.7% of GDP” (source: http://www.greenparty.ca/en/policy/visiongreen/partfive).

Uncritical support of Israeli and American war-crimes in Lebanon, Palestine, and Iraq; Including the forced retraction of a government report critical of Guantanamo Bay.

7. Drug Policy: Against a growing body of medical evidence and against the wishes of the majority of the population (55% in favour of complete legalization, source: http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/16300), the conservatives continue to insist on criminalizing drugs like marijuana. From the Canadian Medical Association Journal: “Mr. Justice Minister, let’s decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use.”
(source: http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/186/canadianmedical.shtml) Thousands of Canadians are unfairly imprisoned for marjiuana related offences, many thousands more have criminal records as a result, and finally, organized crime is being fueled by this incompetent and ignorant policy.

8. Ideologically motivated arts cuts [Possibly retracted due to popular opposition]: Despite a net increase to Canadian Heritage funding (less this year), selective funding cuts to some arts programs are a genuine concern. Some of the stated reasons for the cuts were that the programs included: a “general radical”, “a left-wing and anti-globalization think-tank” and a “rock band that uses an expletive as part of its name”. Harper seeks to fund artistic programs that are uncritical, unquestioning and uncontroversial to his power base. Independence be damned.

9. Secret Trade and Security Agreements: Have you heard of the SPP? ACTA? No? Maybe that’s because these agreements are being negotiated with no public input, just like NAFTA. These are perhaps the most important problems on this list. The criticisms of these agreements are deep enough that you really need to do background reading to understand what’s happening. Here are some brief criticisms:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_Prosperity_Partnership_of_North_America#Criticism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement#Criticism

Beyond ACTA and the SPP, our existing international trade regimen under NAFTA and individually under the WTO, need to change. These agreements continue the trend of leveraging capital flight to drive down wages, exploiting countries with the laxest environmental and labour standards for manufacturing and ultimately continue the 30 year downward spiral of middle class real-wages. “the substantial economic gains of the past quarter-century have not been fairly shared. Thanks to Canadians working harder and smarter, the national economy grew by a stunning 50 per cent. Yet median earnings, the midpoint of the income continuum, remained virtually unchanged.” (source: http://www.thestar.com/Canada/Census/article/420651)

10. The Old Stuff: This is the stuff everyone worried about before the conservatives were first elected but has been kept under control by the fact that they had a minority government. Should the conservatives get a majority, these issues are back on the table and nobody really knows what they’ll do. Issues surrounding: the public health-care system, the poor judgment behind supporting the Iraq war, the CBC, abortion, and a host of issues regarding privatization of public assets. On all of these issues, the conservatives have extremely unpopular opinions but Harper has muzzled his MP’s to such a degree that the public simply has no idea what might happen. Not even myself. Either way, it wont be good.

11. This a bonus criticism. It is completely ideological so I did not include it in the top 10. The economic crisis we are currently seeing around the world will force us to make some very difficult decisions. Canada is not immune from the problems, however buffered we have been so far. If we do have a depression on our hands, it would be wise to remember how these kinds of problems were dealt with in the past. FDR, who is commonly attributed with lifting America out of the depression, invested massively in public works projects to spur the economy and get people working again. In contrast to this, FDR was strongly opposed by the business community. To the point that a fascist coup attempt devised by prominent business leaders, was only narrowly defeated. I’m not saying Harper is fascist; certainly not. I am saying that he has demonstrated, via Bill C-61 and his treatment of the press, that he does not adequately understand the importance of democracy and this could lead to policies that  make a bad situation worse. Make what you will of this criticism, only time will tell.

And the other candidates?

Elizabeth May - She actually seems relatively articulate and vaguely on the same page with the criticisms outlined here. There are some nuts in the Green Party so be careful and candidate specific. Vote for her if it doesn’t matter in your riding.

Jack Layton - The best of the major candidates. Has very well articulated stances on all the issues mentioned here. Generally the best option in this election.

Stephan Dion - Only vote for your liberal candidate if the situation is desperate. Their policies are only marginally better than the conservatives, but it’s enough to matter. They do have a better environmental platform than the conservatives and don’t have quite the same contempt of the democratic process. ie: In my old riding Deborah Meredith didn’t even show up to debates, additionally, in the Vancouver Center debate I went to two weeks ago, Lorne Mayencourt also refused to go. From what I’ve seen this is typically the trend.

Stephen Harper - Fail.

And Finally:

http://www.voteforenvironment.ca/

Like many people, I have mixed feelings about Hezbollah. On the one hand they seem to be closely tied to the corrupt clerics in Iran and are no stranger to anti-semitic remarks; but on the other, they are all that stand between Israel and their predilection for massacres in Southern Lebanon like those at Sabra and Shatila. I read comments by Chomsky who met Hassan Nasrallah right before Israel’s brutal assault on Lebanon last year, that he was actually a fairly nice and well-meaning man but it wasn’t followed up by much more other than to talk about the war. It was interesting then to read the other day when a fellow Zmag forum poster asked Chomsky this question:

Professor Chomsky,

if you were nasrallah would you give up hezballah’s weapons? do you think they ought to? barsamian asked you in what we say goes what you think of him and you responded that he is a very pragmatic man. could you possibly elaborate? does he seem like an honest, compassionate man?

i have a sort of bias towards nasrallah because he’s the only arab whose speeches are translated into english and put on youtube, great way to learn arabic, so i’ve literally gone through and analyzed each word of 4 of his speeches.

To which Chomsky’s response was as follows:

Reply from NC,

My impression is about the same as others who have met him: for example, Edward Peck, White House official responsible for terrorism in the Reagan administration, who described Nasrallah, after an interview, as having given “a logical, reasonable presentation…just an educated intelligent man talking about serious issues that he perceived.” On Hizbollah’s weapons, his position, as I understand it, is pretty simple. The first question is whether Lebanon has a right to have a deterrent against US-backed Israeli aggression. If the answer is “No,” then Hezbollah has no right to weapons. But it’s a strange answer after five such invasions, each murderous and destructive, one of which killed some 15-20,000 people and destroyed much of the country, all of them without credible pretext. Suppose, then, that the answer is “Yes.” Then what would the deterrent be? One answer would be a credible US guarantee, but that’s not in the cards (to our shame). Could it be the Lebanese army? No one believes that. We’re left with one deterrent: Hezbollah. When I was in Lebanon in 2006, before the latest Israeli invasion, I spent a fair amount of time with some of the strongest opponents of Hezbollah, and continually raised this question. No one had an answer.

I’d like to see a credible international guarantee against further US-backed Israeli aggression. Short of that, it’s hard to see what the argument would be for Hezbollah to give up its weapons, though no doubt it is highly undesirable for a state to harbor an internal non-state military force.

The outstanding Lebanese journalist Rami Khouri, writing in the major English language Lebanese newspaper, captured the basic point rather well: “Hamas and Hizbullah are among the most effective and legitimate political movements in the Arab world: They have forced unilateral Israeli retreats that no Arab army could induce; won elections democratically without resorting to the gerrymandering or ballot box stuffing that most American-supported Arab regimes live by; provided efficient service delivery and local governance to their constituents; and sustained resistance to Israeli occupation that appeals to the desire of ordinary Arabs to restore dignity to their battered lives and to their shattered, hollow political systems.”

That’s exactly why they are hated and feared by the US and Israel.

NC

Kind of puts the organization in an interesting light.

While finding headlines for Novemberfourth.org the other day, I noticed something strange about the submissions on Digg pertaining to McCain and Palin. An enormous amount of them had been marked as being potentially inaccurate. This struck me as odd, since many of the submissions were simply true or false. It wasn’t like there was much room for interpretation. Just have a look at these examples:

Well, did he or didn't he?

A satirical voicemail can be inaccurate?

Was it or wasn't it?

So every claim made by Palin was exactly true?

So maybe Digg needs an accuracy vouching system? Where users can override these kinds of claims at times when “possibly inaccurate” is “possibly inaccurate”. However, this does come right on the heels of complaints by many users that Digg has a liberal bias and that many rumours about Sarah Palin were shown to be false. So what to do?

I think some more bury options might help. Something like “Misleading Title”, “Remember it’s Innocent Until Proven Guilty”, “Omitting too Many Relevant Facts” etc… All of these provide more precise information then the vaguer “Possibly Inaccurate”

newspaper-warning

the image is 4.25 by 2.75 inches, perfectly designed for the $20/175 package of stickers at http://www.123stickers.com/

While reading this post last night about the bond market, I couldn’t help but notice the graphic linked halfway down. It’s a graph mapping the correlation between recessions and some other economic stuff. What caught my eye though is that according to the chart, every single recession in the last half a century has occurred under a Republican.

The following is a transcript of a conversation between Noam Chomsky and a Zmag forum user. It discusses some of the similarities and differences between the two schools of libertarian thought which have been discussed on this blog before. (Chomsky is in bold).

Hello Mr. Chomsky.
I’m assuming you know who Ron Paul is.
And I’m also assuming you have a general idea about his positions.

Here my summary of Mr. Paul’s positions:
- He values property rights, and contracts between people (defended by law enforcement and courts).

Under all circumstances? Suppose someone facing starvation accepts a contract with General Electric that requires him to work 12 hours a day locked into a factory with no health-safety regulations, no security, no benefits, etc. And the person accepts it because the alternative is that his children will starve. Fortunately, that form of savagery was overcome by democratic politics long ago. Should all of those victories for poor and working people be dismantled, as we enter into a period of private tyranny (with contracts defended by law enforcement)? Not my cup of tea.

- He wants to take away the unfair advantage corporations have (via the dismantling of big government)

“Dismantling of big government” sounds like a nice phrase. What does it mean? Does it mean that corporations go out of existence, because there will no longer be any guarantee of limited liability? Does it mean that all health, safety, workers rights, etc., go out the window because they were instituted by public pressures implemented through government, the only component of the governing system that is at least to some extent accountable to the public (corporations are unaccountable, apart from generally weak regulatory apparatus)? Does it mean that the economy should collapse, because basic R&D is typically publicly funded — like what we’re now using, computers and the internet? Should we eliminate roads, schools, public transportation, environmental regulation,….? Does it mean that we should be ruled by private tyrannies with no accountability to the general public, while all democratic forms are tossed out the window? Quite a few questions arise.

- He defends workers right to organize (so long as owners have the right to argue against it).

Rights that are enforced by state police power, as you’ve already mentioned.

There are huge differences between workers and owners. Owners can fire and intimidate workers, not conversely. just for starters. Putting them on a par is effectively supporting the rule of owners over workers, with the support of state power — itself largely under owner control, given concentration of resources.

- He proposes staying out of the foreign affairs of other nations (unless his home is directly attacked, and must respond to defend it).

He is proposing a form of ultranationalism, in which we are concerned solely with our preserving our own wealth and extraordinary advantages, getting out of the UN, rejecting any international prosecution of US criminals (for aggressive war, for example), etc. Apart from being next to meaningless, the idea is morally unacceptable, in my view.

I really can’t find differences between your positions and his.

There’s a lot more. Take Social Security. If he means what he says literally, then widows, orphans, the disabled who didn’t themselves pay into Social Security should not benefit (or of course those awful illegal aliens). His claims about SS being “broken” are just false. He also wants to dismantle it, by undermining the social bonds on which it is based — the real meaning of offering younger workers other options, instead of having them pay for those who are retired, on the basis of a communal decision based on the principle that we should have concern for others in need. He wants people to be able to run around freely with assault rifles, on the basis of a distorted reading of the Second Amendment (and while we’re at it, why not abolish the whole raft of constitutional provisions and amendments, since they were all enacted in ways he opposes?).

So I have these questions:

1) Can you please tell me the differences between your schools of “Libertarianism”?

There are a few similarities here and there, but his form of libertarianism would be a nightmare, in my opinion — on the dubious assumption that it could even survive for more than a brief period without imploding.

2) Can you please tell me what role “private property” and “ownership” have in your school of “Libertarianism”?

That would have to be worked out by free communities, and of course it is impossible to respond to what I would prefer in abstraction from circumstances, which make a great deal of difference, obviously.

3) Would you support Ron Paul, if he was the Republican presidential candidate…and Hilary Clinton was his Democratic opponent?

No.

10. Marijuana Decriminalization. A 2007 poll conducted by Zogby International indicates that a slight majority of Americans favour the abolishment of criminal penalties for minor marijuana offenses: “Forty-nine percent of respondents, including 57 percent of men, said they would support “a law in Congress that would eliminate federal penalties for the personal use of marijuana by adults and allow states to adopt their own policies on marijuana.” Only 48 percent of those polled said they oppose such a law; three percent were undecided. The poll has a margin of error of ±3 percentage points.” ¹ Growing numbers are also in favour of outright legalization with 41% agreeing that “the government should treat marijuana more or less the same way it treats alcohol: it should regulate it, control it, tax it and only make it illegal for children.” ²

9. Universal Health Care. Various polls ^{1 2} find that Americans want significant changes to the current medical system, including guaranteed government coverage even if it means paying more: “Americans across party lines willing to make some sacrifice to insure that every American has access to health insurance. Sixty percent, including 62 percent of independents and 46 percent of Republicans, said they would be willing to pay more in taxes. Half said they would be willing to pay as much as $500 a year more.”

8. Stricter Campaign Finance Laws. A large majority (66%) of Americans support an increasing of regulations on how politicians obtain and spend money. ¹ Regarding the 2000 election: “Nearly three-fourths of the voters participating in the survey said Texas Gov. George W. Bush’s $70 million fund-raising tally is ‘excessive and a sign of what’s wrong with politics today.” Similarly, 40 percent said Bush is the presumptive nominee because of “the amount of money he raised.’” ²

7. Equal Aid to Palestinians and Israelis. Increasingly dissatisfied with the mid-east peace process, Americans want more results for their high levels of aid money to Israel. “in polling conducted 2002-2003, majorities supported the US withholding or reducing its aid to Israel and the Palestinians, as a means of pressure to influence their behavior”. ¹ Americans also favour increasing the levels of aid to the Palestinians contingent on acceptance of a negotiated peace proposal: “Asked in a May 2003 PIPA poll “if the Palestinians come to terms with Israel in a peace agreement, do you think the US should equalize the amount of aid it gives to Israel and to the Palestinians,” 67% indicated they would support an equalizing aid to Palestine.” and “In the same 2003 PIPA poll with a different sample, respondents were told how much aid is currently given to Palestine, and were then asked to provide their own assessment of how much aid should be given if Palestine were to make peace with Israel. The median response was to increase aid to $1 billion, more than 14 times the $70 million provided at the time. The average response indicated a willingness to increase aid to $2.37 billion (somewhat lower than the amount indicated for Israel).” The terms of peace are overwhelmingly accepted by the Palestinian population: “A total of 72.1% of Palestinians support the Taba or Oslo B Agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.” ²

6. Reducing Military Spending. When Americans were asked in a 2005 poll how they would structure the Federal budget, the answers could hardly have been more clear: “Defense spending received the deepest cut, being cut on average 31 percent — equivalent to $133.8 billion — with 65 percent of respondents cutting.” This does not indicate an unwillingness to support the troops however: “respondents particularly preserved spending for troops, including for salaries (82%), the overall number of military personnel (61%), and development of new equipment for infantry and Marines (64%). Spending relevant to fighting terrorism was also preserved, such as for intelligence (62%), troops for special operations (58%), and advanced communications systems (69%). Also preserved was spending on capabilities for conducting peacekeeping (58%), fighting insurgents or guerrillas (56%), and work on new types of high-technology missiles and bombs (55%).” ¹

5. Increased Social Spending. The same poll showing American’s interest in cutting defense spending also pointed to areas where spending would increase of people had control over the economy: “The largest increases were for social spending. Spending on human capital was especially popular including education which was increased $26.8 billion (39%) and job training and employment which was up $19 billion or a remarkable 263%. Medical research was upped on average $15.5 billion (53%). Veterans benefits were raised 40 percent or $12.5 billion and housing went up 31 percent or $9.3 billion. In most cases clear majorities favored increases (education 57%, job training 67%, medical research 57%, veteran’s benefits 63%), though only 43 percent of respondents favored increases for housing.” ¹

4. Acceptance of the Kyoto Protocol. By a wide majority Americans agree that the United States should participate in the Kyoto protocol: “In June 2005, PIPA simply asked “based on what you know, do you think the U.S. should or should not participate in the Kyoto agreement to reduce global warming.” A strong majority of 73% favored participation. This was up a bit from September 2004, when only 65% favored it. Only 16% in June 2005 and September 2004 opposed participation.” ^{1 2}

3. A Diplomatic Solution with Iran. Only 20% ¹ - 40% ² of Americans support a military strike against Iran to destroy its nuclear facilities. Diplomatic action backed by sanctions is supported by about 60% of Americans: “This ABC News/Washington Post poll finds sanctions the preferred option across the political spectrum”.

2. Pulling Troops out of Iraq. Both the American citizenry and armed forces support a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq: “Most Americans support the U.S. House provision setting a timetable that calls for most U.S. troops to be out of Iraq by September 2008, said a survey released on Wednesday. According to the CBS News poll, 59 percent of those surveyed favored the provision while 37 percent opposed it.” ¹ Perhaps even more telling is the strong opposition to the war from within the army itself: “An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows.” ²

1. The Impeachment of George W. Bush. Majorities of Americans think that George Bush should be impeached for one of two possible crimes: unauthorized wire-tapping of the public and/or misleading the people in to a war with Iraq. On the matter of wire-tapping: “The poll found that 52% agreed with the statement: “If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment.” 43% disagreed, and 6% said they didn’t know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 2.9% margin of error.” ¹ On the issue of Iraq: “The poll found that 50% agreed with the statement: “If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him.” 44% disagreed, and 6% said they didn’t know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 3.1% margin of error.” ²

Runner Up.

Jurisdiction to the International Criminal Court. “Americans are at least twice as likely to agree as to disagree that the United States should participate in the International Criminal Court (53%-22%)” ¹

jordan [at] introspections.org

Licensed under Creative Commons

editors note: Since writing this article Dennis Kucinich has emerged as a force of his own. Please read this article in the context of Ron Paul being one of the lone honest politicians at the time to make a break on the Internet. In addition, Chomsky has contributed his own opinions on Ron Paul.

Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky

Having been a long time libertarian, it’s been interesting to observe the rise in popularity of Congressman Ron Paul on the Internet. I first discovered him about a year ago when I read a transcript of a speech he gave to Congress on monetary policy. It was startling to see such honesty, especially from a Texas Republican; it was truly the last place I expected to find it. His withering critique of the petro-dollar represented a kind of understanding that American politics usually holds in contempt; and indeed that is the status of Ron Paul to the Washington elite, contemptible. His success on the Internet and his appeal to a wide audience bring up a number of important issues and offer an important possibility of dialogue in a highly divided nation.

Untangle yourself for the moment from political prejudices and think about this statement; the libertarian left and the libertarian right are in most cases indistinguishable. Consider this quote from the distinguished social libertarian, Noam Chomsky:

“I find myself in substantial agreement with people who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists on a whole range of issues; and for some years, was able to write only in their journals. And I also admire their commitment to rationality which is rare.” ~ Noam Chomsky, in an interview entitled “Noam Chomsky on Anarchism,” December 1996

We have all grown up with immensely distorted views of “Left” and “Right”. Anyone who favours state medical is branded a Communist and anyone who favours a weakened central bureaucracy is labeled a dangerous Libertarian. No need to listen to the actual arguments, this extremely superficial distinction is all that is required. At least that’s what we’ve been taught to think. The truth is that anyone who has taken the time to classify their political position as “libertarian” has done so out of a shared belief in maximizing human freedom.

The Ultimate Wedge Issue: Private Property

The libertarian left and right have been easily divided by their differing views on private property. Those on the right believe that social libertarians just want to steal all their property, while those on the left are fond of saying that property itself is theft. The reality of course is much more subtle. While there are reactionaries in both camps, a moderate synthesis between the two is achievable and would certainly help promote reasoned debate, ultimately undercutting the reactionaries. If we boil the arguments down to their most important features:

left) Private structures of control can be as bad or worse than state structures.

right) The freedom of the individual to create and produce must be the central focus of a political system.

That’s it. This is the wedge issue that divides the left and right. Kind of ridiculous isn’t it? What is needed is a serious debate of these issues. A real debate. Not the kind you see on CNN or FOX; One that can clear the air on why there are really differences of opinion on global warming, gun control, Medicare, “free” trade and environmental regulation. People need to hear this stuff when it is not suffocated inside a bag of patriotic posturing. I want to see Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky make time in their busy schedules to create dialogue between two marginalized forces. Why these two men? Ron Paul is on the verge of making a breakthrough by appealing directly to people through the Internet. The mainstream press is having a hell of a time suppressing his popularity and with continued support he could become a serious challenger for the presidency. His appeal extends deep in to the left, but to really make inroads with this constituency he is going to have to negotiate with the “arguably the most important intellectual alive”[1].

To put it mildly, this would not be like debating Rudy Giuliani. Noam Chomsky has had an iron grip on the most prestigious philosophy chair in the world for 40 years for very good reason. His knowledge of political systems and human nature has seen intellectuals like Richard Perle, Alan Dershowitz, Michele Foucalt and BF Skinner humiliated in their exposed ignorance. Whether people on the left have even heard of him, his influence guides them because he guides the opinion leaders. This is not a negligible number of people. His approval could directly or indirectly give Ron Paul considerable support. There is common ground between Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky, such that if the left and right can put aside their differences momentarily and engage in reasoned dialogue we have a brief chance to accomplish what was once thought impossible: democracy.

[1] Robinson, Paul (February 25, 1979). The Chomsky Problem; Chomsky. New York Times: “Judged in terms of the power, range, novelty and influence of his thought, Noam Chomsky is arguably the most important intellectual alive today. He is also a disturbingly divided intellectual.”

jordan [at] introspections.org

Licensed under Creative Commons