Chris' Occasional Rants

06 April 2003

Moving house If you accessed this site via the radio.weblogs.com/109604 URL please note that this will no longer be updated. I have moved the site to the following location: http://www.peaceblog.org See you there! 4:55:47 AM  comment []

05 April 2003

Extreme rhetoric makes for bad debate Ben Fritz argues that as the invasion continues, and debates rage about tactics and policies, some politicians and pundits have been using extreme rhetoric that serves only to shut down open discussion, rather than encourage it. The New York Post's Ralph Peters, for instance, ...has referred to the New Yorker as "a minor magazine loosely affiliated with the Baghdad regime." This is simply absurd. Does Peters ever read the magazine? It has been broadly supportive of the "War on Terror" and the invasion all along, even if the editorial line sometimes disagrees with the Bush administration's methods. On the other hand, in his online column for The Nation, John Nichols compared the current media to that of the Soviet Union and labeled some right-wing pundits "neo-conservative commisars." Now this I can almost sympathise with, but it doesn't help in trying to understand what's actually going on. It seems the US media are unable to see beyond the binary world view that they have themselves created, with eager prompting by those in power in Washington. The progressive left's reaction, sometimes using outdated and simplistic metaphors, makes it difficult to take the attacks seriously. Now Akamai, a web hosting company, has pulled the plug on Al-Jazeera, giving no reason for their decision. Who, I wonder, put the pressure on them? The government, their advertisers, or was it simply a policy decision coloured by the fact that the company is Jewish-run and possibly against the right of free speech for the Arab community? The corporate media (and the wider business community) seems to be completely in tow to this "us and them" approach, fostered by concepts such as the "Axis of Evil". Is this simple self-interest, or is it a new form of "corporate fascism"? Guilty as charged. Source: spinsanity 4:34:14 AM  comment []  War as metaphor From an article by George Lakoff. (Discuss it here.) The basic idea of a just war uses the Nation As Person metaphor plus two narratives that have the structure of classical fairy tales: The Self Defense Story and The Rescue Story. Millions of people around the world can see that the metaphors and fairy tales don't fit the current situation, that Gulf War II does not qualify as a just war - a "legal" war. But if you accept all these metaphors, as Americans have been led to do by the administration, the press, and the lack of an effective Democratic opposition, then Gulf War II would indeed seem like a just war. But surely most Americans have been exposed to the facts - the lack of a credible link between Saddam and al Quaeda and the idea that large numbers of innocent Iraqi civilians (estimates are around 500,000) will be killed or maimed by our bombs. Why don't they reach the rational conclusion? One of the fundamental findings of cognitive science is that people think in terms of frames and metaphors - conceptual structures like those we have been describing. The frames are in the synapses of our brains - physically present in the form of neural circuitry. When the facts don't fit the frames, the frames are kept and the facts ignored. It is a common folk theory of progressives that "The facts will set you free!" If only you can get all the facts out there in the public eye, then every rational person will reach the right conclusion. It is a vain hope. Human brains just don't work that way. Framing matters. Frames once entrenched are hard to dispel. Source: Doc Searls, via Too Much News 3:10:57 AM  comment []

03 April 2003

An open letter to my MP, Malcolm Wicks (Lab, Croydon North) Dear Mr Wicks, I recently read[1] that the US, not being party to the 1997 anti-personnel mine convention, is planning to deploy landmines as part of their military "strategy" in Iraq. I would like to know what the UK government is doing about this, as you are required to uphold the provisions of the treaty. At the very least I would expect a statement from the Prime Minister, publicly condemning the use of landmines in what is already a heavily-mined region. Since the invasion, and the Prime Minister's pathetic comments last week[2] on the illegal treatment of POWs held at Guantanamo Bay, I have given up hope of the UK supporting other international conventions such as the -- obviously optional -- one signed in Geneva. After all, the action in Iraq is not a "war" as such -- none has been declared. Unless, of course, one is referring to the War on Terra[tm], which seems to have different, as yet unwritten, rules. At the rate he is going I wouldn't be surprised if Mr Blair decided that membership of the UN and the ICC wasn't such a good idea after all. And you would blindly follow him. Thank you for your letter explaining why you support the illegal and immoral invasion of a sovereign nation state. By your actions you have lost my vote. I have always been a strong Labour supporter (and occasional activist), but I will almost certainly not vote to return you to office unless you can convince me that you are doing everything in your power to get the UK's armed forces out of the quagmire that they have been led into by forces bent on pure self-interest, if not quite pure evil. The UK's immediate withdrawal from Iraq would send a powerful signal to the world, acknowledging that: 1) the Iraqi people clearly do not want to be "liberated" by invading Western armies; 2) this invasion is not, and never was about, WoMDs nor the "War on Terror"; and 3) killing and destruction accomplishes nothing but death and more destruction. There is another way. The triumph of fear[3], an article published by Tikkun, one of the few major Jewish-American organisations opposed to the invasion, points to another approach to the problem. Given the current situation, I continue to hope for the swift capitulation of Hussein's regime, much as I do for the impeachment of President Bush, installed by a different kind of coup. Fear not, the second superpower[4] may yet be finding its feet. Sincerely, Chris Brody [1] http://www.icbl.org/country/iraq/ [2] http://tinyurl.com/8qiw#30326-04_spnew3 [3] http://tinyurl.com/86t9 [4] http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/24839 7:54:04 PM  comment []  42 days to a Googlewash The Register comes out all guns firing at the blogging community's apparent "redefinition" of a term, calling it Orwellian doublespeak. Is it true that a small coterie of A-list bloggers is able to change the way we (for we: read Google users) define a phrase? Or is there really something bigger going on? Update: Good discussion at MetaFilter Source: moreover 4:15:50 PM  comment []

01 April 2003

Hussein claims to be 'pleased' as the ICC names its prosecutor Surely it's only a matter of time before they attempt to try Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld & co. as well? Blair might well escape prosecution this time (he was only obeying orders) but who will come out looking the worst once the international jury is in? Source: meooglefilter 9:13:40 AM  comment []  The second superpower James Moore, Senior Fellow of Harvard Law School, writes: As the United States government becomes more belligerent in using its power in the world, many people are longing for a "second superpower" that can keep the US in check. Indeed, many people desire a superpower that speaks for the interests of planetary society, for long-term well-being, and that encourages broad participation in the democratic process. Where can the world find such a second superpower? No nation or group of nations seems able to play this role, although the European Union sometimes seeks to, working in concert with a variety of institutions in the field of international law, including the United Nations. But even the common might of the European nations is barely a match for the current power of the United States. There is an emerging second superpower, but it is not a nation. Instead, it is a new form of international player, constituted by the "will of the people" in a global social movement. Read on... Source: Dave 4:24:13 AM  comment []  The battle between Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon Rummy's invasion plans seriously flawed? Seymour Hersch investigates. Source: blogdex 2:47:51 AM  comment []

© Copyright 2003 Chris Brody. Last update: 06/04/2003; 04:57:04.