The danse macabre of US-style democracy

117 comments from readers

ikotubo
24 January 2008 at 11:46

I stopped believing a word of what I hear or read from the global media the day I heard a journalist (he must have been from the BBC) describe stone-throwing Palestinian kids as being in "conflict" with the Israeli army - yes, the same Israeli military with its deadly gadgetry, which is supported by over 200 nuclear warheads! Apparently, stones thrown by kindergarten kids have the same impact as Apache shells and missiles fired from M16s and Merkava tanks...

writeon
24 January 2008 at 16:49

John,

The coverage by the BBC of the United States is dire, really dire. I just don't recognize it as the country I know at all. It's like there talking about another USA, a mythical country that is an illusion.

What's doubly irritating and insulting, is this idea that people who criticize the Bush regime are somehow 'anti-American'! Justin Webb is simply the pitts. The guy had a whole series about 'anti-Americanism' and it was truly awful. The people he interviewed weren't anti-American at all, they liked most things about America.

I wrote to Justin Webb about how terrible his series was, how biased, how confused, how I regarded his stamp of anti-Americanism as a form of smear and nothing more. What about the large majority of Americans who can't stand Bush and his class-war policies at home, and his bloody and illegal wars abroad? Are we to accept the idea that these people are also 'anti-American'? So after Webb was finished with the anti-Americans he found abroad, why the hell didn't he do a series about the anti-American, Americans that live in the United States?! Because such a series would show up how shoddy and tendentious his journalism is. Clearly this dirty phrase anti-American when used in an American context, inside the US, and against Americans, reminds one immediately of the McCarthy period and HUAC, and the smear tatics that charlatan used.

I remember when the Prince of Liars, Tony Blair openly attacked the BBC and its journalist for 'distorting the truth' about hurricane Katrina and the disaster in New Orleans. He accused them of going over the top and being anti-American. What rot! So typical of that creep. What some of the BBC guys did was actually report what they were seeing for once, because even for them the results of the catastrophe were so shocking and the response of FEMA and the White House so hopelessly incompetent, and people were dying on the streets in front of them, that they counldn't ignore it. And Blair didn't like the tone of the truth!

The worst thing is, the BBC appears to have taken Blair's appalling jibes to heart and promoted Justin Webb to head their campaign to 'rehabilitate' the United States. He is so servile and sycophantic. Some of the adjectives he uses make ones toes curl in embarrasment. When propaganda is so obviously propaganda it loses its effect. The BBC used to be masters at effective, sophisticated and subtle propaganda, probably the best in the world, now, with Justin Webb in charge they are really losing it big time!

ikotubo
24 January 2008 at 18:04

A friend once told me it's all about the word "access." What's the point, he explained, of reporting the unvarnished truth (which is what most self-respecting politicians want to hide from you) if you end up ensuring that no one allows you access anymore? It's a classic Faustian bargain: privileged access in return for being the Establishment's mouthpiece.

GideonPolya
24 January 2008 at 20:48

Excellent article by John Pilger. I have just finished reading the latest edition of William Blum's "Rogue State" that describes in devastating detail the post-war American "holocaust" referred to by John Pilger - a holocaust that is remorselessly IGNORED by racist, lying, Bush-ite and neo-Bush-ite mainstream media and politicians in the American Murdochracy and indeed the other Western Murdochracies.

William Blum's "Rogue State" shockingly catalogues post-war American crimes against humanity, detailing the devastation of a swathe of countries in Latin America, Africa, Asia and elsewhere variously subject to US-imposed bombing (even in Serbia, Europe) , invasion, subversion, CIA-backed coups, occupation, overthrow of democracy (even in Australia and Fiji) and mass murder.

However the bottom-line parameter measuring the impact of American "democratic imperialism" (democratic tyranny, democratic Nazism, democratic Fascism) is excess death (excess mortality, avoidable deaths, death that should not have happened). From UN Population Division data is it is estimated that excess mortality in the period 1950-2005 has totaled 1.3 billion globally, 1.2 billion for the developing world and 82 million for countries subject to occupation by the US as a major occupier in the post-war era (cf 727 million and 142 million excess deaths associated with post-war UK and French imperialism, respectively) (see "Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950" by Gideon Polya, copies in some major libraries).

While relative clean-skin Obama is supposedly against the war in Iraq, he has nevertheless voted for war funding and, as pointed out by John Pilger, wants to "bahm" Pakistan. However his opponent Hillary Clinton has a huge amount of blood on her hands .

An article on Newsvine entitled "How many kids did Hillary Clinton help kill?" (in Iraq 1990-2008, Afghanistan 2001-2008) estimates 3.6 million (the 90% avoidable of the 4 million under-5 infant deaths in those periods) - a point reiterated by an article in MWC News entitled "US mass infanticide. 4 million reasons why Hillary Clinton is unfit to be president".

Yet the mainstream media and politicians IGNORE the horrendous reality . A recent article published on Countercurrents and ICH asks "How many children will Bush America kill in 2008?"- the answer about 0.5 million (as assessed from the latest UNICEF data for the Occupied Haitian, Somali, Palestininian, Iraqi and Afghan Territories).

The Decent America that the world still loves is not yet dead - but Decent American Democrat candidate Dennis Kucinich only got 1% support in the New Hampshire Primaries. John Pilger is correct in applying the term "holocaust" to American serial mass murder. However one should also apply the term "genocide" (involving "intent to destroy in whole or in part" according to Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention).

Thus post-invasion excess deaths in the Occupied Palestinian, Iraqi and Afghan Territories now total 0.3 million, 1.5-2 million and 3-6 million, respectively; the post-invasion under-5 infant deaths total 0.2 million, 0.6 million and 2.2 million, respectively (90% avoidable and due to Occupier war crimes through non-supply of life-sustaining requisites demanded of Occupiers by the Geneva Convention); and refugees total 7 million, 4.5 million and 4 million, respectively). )

Yet while the Awful Truth is only a few mouse-clicks away (e.g from UNICEF, WHO) the horrendous realities of the Palestinian Genocide, the Iraqi Genocide and the Afghan Genocide are remorselessly IGNORED by mainstream media and politicians in the US and Western Murdochracies.

Silence kills and silence is complicity. Active or passive holocaust denial is evil and repugnant. Follow the example of outstanding writers like John Pilger and tell everyone you can.

Seán
25 January 2008 at 02:20

Thanks for hitting the nail on the head. Jimmy Carter, history's greatest monster, surely not.

antileft
25 January 2008 at 09:00

"None of this drivel is journalism. It is anti-journalism"

Agreed. I love the way that pilger is a known supporter of Cuban democracy, and yet somehow finds a way to criticise the American version in every article. Pilger, your ranting was worrying in the 60s, it was was an irrelevance by the 80s, an amusement in the 90s, and an embarrassment in the present day. Do keep it up- we need a laugh.

antileft
25 January 2008 at 09:03

Ah Pilger. I do love hearing a known communist and supporter of castro ranting on about American democracy. In the 60s, your ranting was worrying, by the 80s it had become irrelevant, by the 90s it was an amusement, and in the present day its an embarrassment. Do keep it up- we need a laugh.

Cybertiger
25 January 2008 at 09:08

"Jimmy Carter, history's greatest monster, surely not."

The sad fact is that Jimmy Carter is an alien from planet Amerika ... and liable to be tarred with the same monstrous brush.

antileft
25 January 2008 at 09:19

Kybertiger, why do you always leave such unintelligent posts?

Cybertiger
25 January 2008 at 10:10

@littlecommiebasher

"Kybertiger, why do you always leave such unintelligent posts?"

I suspect the unintelligent Amerikan will carry on up the Kyber ... until he reaches the land of the setting sun.

antileft
25 January 2008 at 11:00

Well, nice try anyway, Kybertiger!

Cybertiger
25 January 2008 at 12:16

"Do keep it up- we need a laugh."

Now that the sun is rising behind the little green aliens on planet Amerika, I was hoping 'intelligenceHarry' might pop in to do his usual cabaret - his usual commie-bashing act - over the green and pleasant land that is Pilger's. Where is Harry when one needs some intelligent design?

ikotubo
25 January 2008 at 14:45

How could an insightful article have provoked these worse than infantile responses from supposedly rational adults?

Cybertiger
25 January 2008 at 16:43

@ikotubo

Sorry for being kittenish - these terrible 'reds under the bed' paranoid folk bring out the big kitten in me. I agree about the insightful article.

b2211
25 January 2008 at 23:55

Rapacious american greed rampages through the weaker world. no matter that this is no different from other dominant humans for a million years, just men must resist unto death.

CalumCarr
26 January 2008 at 00:50

Another excellent article.

Also I need to thank John for writing about Justin Webb. I criticised Webb too and elswhere my blog post and John's article were linked. Gave me my best traffic ever. If only every day I was linked with JP!

Also reading his article reminds me why John is where he is and I am a very humble blogger.

MoralAct.com
26 January 2008 at 05:51

So, the segregationist George Wallace is your paragon of truth telling? Regarding your referenced quote, Wallace saw no difference between the Republicans and Democrats because they both supported racial integration in the southern U.S., which he opposed. No better is your use of the racially charged smear "Uncle Tom." Poor form Mr. Pilger.

ikotubo
26 January 2008 at 06:51

To MoralAct.com:

I see where you're coming from, but it's not only the odious George Wallace that has left us with such a bitter irony: a certain Saddam Hussein (remember the butcher of Baghdad?) also happened to be more truthful than Bush, Rice, Chenney, Rumsfeld and Blair put together, in regard to WMDs - well, except you're one of those who still chooses to believe their lies.

Eolas
26 January 2008 at 07:07

It's been a few years since I read anything by the carefully coiffed, permanently tanned John Pilger and it's nice to catch up again. I see from the Comments that, by and large, he's still being followed by the usual collection of crackpots, conspiracy theorists and jew haters. As for his cheap shot at presidential candidates' "rictal wives". Has he looked at the capped-teeth rictus of a grin on this page. I'll let the late Auberon Waugh have the final word: Ever before he talks "something about the bottomless stupidity and deviousness of Pilger's face had me in stitches." or perhaps even better. "the sinister and repulsive Daily Mirror heart throb." How he's missed..

ikotubo
26 January 2008 at 11:58

To Eolas:

I feel obliged to share with you a piece of childhood wisdom I learned while at secondary school, which I believe will serve you well in future: never launch a personal attack against your opponent in a debate; it is the surest sign that you have run out of ideas.

Eolas
26 January 2008 at 14:06

Thankyou ikotubo, but please don't feel obligated to share any more of your trite childhood wisdom. I only debate people with credibility and who I consider to be my intellectual equals. And John Pilger, and reading your other Comments, obviously yourself, don't qualify.

ikotubo
26 January 2008 at 16:06

To Eolas: It's free...

jimdenham
27 January 2008 at 09:35

This despicable piece of "jounalism" (sorry, "drivell") goes beyond any acceptable critque of the US political system, or the US ruling class. It appears to be a hate-filled, poisonous attack on America and all its people. Its as racist as anything you'll hear from the BNP. It is, regardless of Pilger's irrelevant claim that the term is "totalitarian" in origin, truly anti-American in the sense that the BBC's man Justin Webb uses the ter. Pilger simply hates the US, all its people, and anyone willing to defend it, however critically. Hence his distateful and racist description Barak Obama as "a glossy uncle Tom".

Pilger has lost it.

antileft
28 January 2008 at 06:54

It seems that even most people who read Pilger think hes a hypocritical, bigoted old fart. It is fascinating, though isnt it? Its like reading something by an intellectual who's gone a little crazy and deluded. I'd love to see him move to Cuba. Hey Eolas, I enjoyed your post.

Oh and ikotubo, what on earth has saddam got to do with anything?! Honestly, you sound like Pilger "Well, America is always bad, so Saddam, Iran, Cuba, etc etc must always be good!" What a loan of nonsense.

Cybertiger
28 January 2008 at 07:50

@Harryproantileft

"What a loan of nonsense."

In my humble opinion, the idiots of the idiot nation are the loan sharks of the underworld.

antileft
28 January 2008 at 08:00

Cybertiger, I know exactly what you mean! I'd also like to add that the kittens that know how to open the gate are the ones that eat the most fish.

Cybertiger
28 January 2008 at 09:01

@Harry the pro

"I'd also like to add that the kittens that know how to open the gate are the ones that eat the most fish."

What a load of old kittenish nonsense.

PS. I love loads of kippers - but I don't get them off the idiot nation.

antileft
28 January 2008 at 09:29

Oh yes I love kippers too. Hey, here's another one to think about: The stupid kipper speaks gibberish to hide the fact that he's too stupid to have anything to say. Think about it. Maybe if you really think hard, youll see what Im saying.

writeon
28 January 2008 at 10:20

There are a lot of very childish, silly and trite comments on this thread, that tell us far more about the intelligence, level of education, and knowledge of the posters, than they do about John Pilger and the elections in the United States. Can't you just find some other playground?

John Pilger's 'problem' is that he's been there, met them close up, and seen it all before, again and again. It's a kind of curse, to have a vivid memory of the past.

Clearly he's both angry and frustrated by what he sees this time too. It's difficult for him to buy into the myth when he's seen so much of the reality. In American 'religion' and 'politics' are mixed up. Every time it's a new 'saviour' who promisses 'hope' and 'change' and the rivival of what's best in the American Dream, and every time there is the morning after the election, when one wakes up to the cold light of day and realizes how little has changed.

It would be nice, warm, and rather comforting; like an opium haze, to believe that change in society really happens through the ballot box, despite the massive, entrenched, institutionalised, and structural inequalities of wealth and power that exist. Comforting, but, alas, an illusion, or 'fairy tale', as Bill Clinton might say.

Whilst I think John was a bit harsh on Obama, the phrase 'glossy uncle tom' is a very emotive when taken out of context, however, I've heard Black Americans described Obama using similar language.

Perhaps Obama means well, he may even really believe in his own powerful, though defuse, rhetoric about change and hope. Clearly he is tapping into a well of desire in America, a desire for change and the hope that it's still possible, despite all the disappointments of the past and the betrayal of idealism.

And maybe this is what irritates John Pliger the most and makes him angry; the consequences of the betrayal, intentional or not, of youthful idealism, the betrayal of people's hopes, dreams and desire for change.

Realsim is often confused with cynicism. Hoping and dreaming and wishing, just aren't enough anymore, if they ever were. In the words of the old Who song;

"Meet the old boss, same as the new boss. And I get on my knees and pray, that we won't get fooled againg! Oh, no, we won't get fooled again!

antileft
28 January 2008 at 11:16

yes, but writeon- the problem with pilger is his blatant one-sidedness. He doesnt seem to understand that the best way to expose a lie is to tell the truth in an even-handed way. When Pilger is told to report on the American election, he thinks "great! I can rant about what a sham it all is." And then he watches a bit of BBC, does a little reading on the internet, and writes his report. Shoddy, shoddy journalism. He already knows the answer before hes done any research! And because Pilger is so damn one-sided, he makes his anti-American message sound stupid and anti-American people sound like a bunch of marginalised idiots. Now, to be clear- Im as anti-American as the next guy. This damn war was the stupidest piece of foreign policy Ive ever seen, and their democracy is pretty tacky and shallow too. But this raving old fool is just making our view sound bad.

Cybertiger
28 January 2008 at 12:45

@Harry

"He doesnt seem to understand that the best way to expose a lie is to tell the truth in an even-handed way."

I love your crude pro-Americanism.

antileft
28 January 2008 at 12:53

@Kybertiger

Remember, sometimes a kipper with a white stomach is less likely to be eaten by the shark than the kipper with a long beard and fluffy eyebrows.

Cybertiger
28 January 2008 at 12:56

"sometimes a kipper with a white stomach is less likely to be eaten by the shark than the kipper with a long beard and fluffy eyebrows."

Is that an ancient Japanese proverb? What does it mean?

antileft
28 January 2008 at 13:09

It means, Kybertiger, that a Kipper which doesnt have any opinions and speaks gibberish all day long can expect other kippers to do the same. Or, to put it another way, The kitten with one paw bigger than the other sometimes drinks milk from a carton and sometimes from a glass- but it also likes kippers, often from a plate.

Cybertiger
28 January 2008 at 13:23

"It means, Kybertiger, that a Kipper which doesnt have any opinions and speaks gibberish all day long can expect other kippers to do the same."

So Harry, is that your excuse for spewing kipperish all day?

antileft
28 January 2008 at 13:27

A kipper is only a kipper when it has a white underneath, or as another, somewhat moronic kipper once said:

"I suspect the unintelligent Amerikan will carry on up the Kyber ... until he reaches the land of the setting sun."

Although, he didnt know why he used K instead of C. I suppose it was just the lack of opinions.

davef
28 January 2008 at 13:38

I am not ashamed of being ant-American. I am ashamed of people who toady to and apologise for America. If America’s Founding Fathers were here, I hope they would be ashamed of what their country has become. America is (it likes to think) the only Superpower which means global hegemony in military, financial, scientific, technological and cultural matters. If you just take a moment to think about it, is this even remotely desirable? If it isn’t invented or done in the USA, it doesn’t matter. I always cringe when the BBC uses the words ‘American-Style’ to describe some new initiative (usually on the lines of some privatisation – selling off cheap to US corporations - of a government responsibility like health care which has failed in the US and now they want to sell their snake oil here!) What is wrong with us? Have we lost the ability to think for ourselves? It’s about time my country grew up. A lot of zombie people in UK, suckered by the propaganda, would be perfectly happy to become the 51st State. Well, we already are. America has such a hold on us that we daren’t refuse to get involved in their military imperialism. What is this hold? What have we not been told? It’s about time my country grew up – no more imperialism, no more illegal wars - and stood up for itself. At the recent Bali binge on climate change, when America was being its usual ‘Can’t do that because we say No’ obstructionist , I was delighted and elated to see one delegate say “Well, if you don’t want to be part of the solution, get out of our way!”. He was probably punished later, but it was a glorious piece of rebellion.

To the gentleman who said we British invented imperialism and genocide, I am willing to concede, in modern times we certainly did. Of this, I am deeply ashamed and I’m afraid no amount of ‘Oops, sorry!!’ will do. It is part of our shameful history and also why the rest of the world hates us even though we are decent and fair-minded chaps etc. But we did it mostly with guns and naval power. America has done it with nuclear warheads, stealth planes, WMDs, B52 Bombers, carpet bombs, Apache gunships etc. etc. It’s a whole new order of magnitude of slaughter and genocide done in the name of ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’. So laughable, it makes you cry ..

davef
28 January 2008 at 13:52

P.S.

Yes, Webb is a disgrace. He has gone more native than even the saintly Alistair Cooke. The Americans loved him apparently.

Cybertiger
28 January 2008 at 14:56

@Harryantileft

"I suspect the unintelligent Amerikan will carry on up the Kyber ... "

The extent of your ignorance never fails to mesmerize me! Have you never seen the 99th best British film (movie) ever?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carry_On..._Up_the_Khyber

I suppose it was just the lack of any sense of humor.

PS. please note the appalling American notations included - for comprehension purposes - by our less well endowed brethren including Harry.

antileft
28 January 2008 at 15:29

No, Kybertiger, I havent seen that obscure gem. You get moody when someone talks like you, eh?!

Now, hows about explaining the use of the letter K? Or is it, as they say, a case of kippers eating chicken meat when they should be shaking hands with tiny yellow sharks in order to avoid being cooked and made into Kans of meat?

MoralAct.com
28 January 2008 at 15:45

ikotubo:

Amusing re-direction (or mis-direction) of the discussion: I criticize Pilger for distasteful word choice and you accuse me of supporting Bush. Are you shilling for Pilger?

writeon
28 January 2008 at 17:22

Antileft,

I don't believe John Pilger is anti-American. I do believe he prett much loathes and dispises the American 'ruling class' and the economic and political system they rule over with such ignorance and brutality, at home and abroad. A system which has had enormously negative consequences for millions of foreigners and now seems to be turning on ordinary Americans at home.

But I feel odd defending and interpreting John Pilger, and for free! Maybe if he had more space in the New Statesman, he'd sound a little less one-sided? He's certainly, as far as mainstream journalism is concerned, been marginalised in the British press. Once opon a time he was a star, roving reporter for the Daily Mirror, with a regular audience of millions. I'm not sure that he's really changed all that much, but the times certainly have.

Europhobe
28 January 2008 at 20:03

I had successfully avoided Pilger's drivel for a good long while. Foolishly i looked again. Nothing has changed, usual incessant anti-American racist ranting/babble. I shall have to start boycotting again, though sadly last time it seemed to have no effect obviously. sigh. will have to try harder.

Europhobe
28 January 2008 at 20:05

Oh and since i only saw it now. I disagree with writeon. I think he is anti-American. even his off-hand comment about George Wallace (the only salvageable American by the looks of it) is phrased to hint that "he was shot" - who shot him is the next question, but since unanswered, i suppose we clump it with all the other malvivants clustered in this nonsense.

Ergo
28 January 2008 at 21:21

There are those who can dismiss the CIA inspired murder of between 8 hundred thousand and a million people in Indonesia under Suharto, children as young as 3 because they carried the"virus" of communism; the killing of around 4 million Vietnamese, Cambodians and Loatians, because they were,"comminist" (American pronunciation) the murder of 200,000 East Timorese, and American trained death squad torture and killings all over Latin America, yet criticize Cuba, a country of well-educated and selfless people, because of its human rights record. Laughable.

As for Israel, Moshe Dayan himself said that if Palestinians wanted to live in the area they should get used to "living like dogs". People who support the US and its client state Israel without question have nothing to say of interest to me. And don't bring up Rwanda and other places as an argument against focusing on Israel and the US. The US and Europe screwed them all up to begin with, but these countries don't pretend to the fine principles we are used to hearing concerning what motivates the US, Israel and Europe.

papigosh
28 January 2008 at 23:12

Americans are a very lovely bunch. The only problem is the double speak and actions of their leaders unfortunately swallowed hook, line and sinker by the docile citizenry. They insist on democracy in the middle east but would not accept the outcome of a free and fair election that throws up Hamas as the winners of the Palestinian elections. On the other hand, the world was quite happy to accept George W Bush as the winner of a very flawed election against Al Gore.

In Africa, the US via the CIA, orchestrated the overthrow of popularly elected leaders like Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, Kwame Nkrumah In Ghana and many more with disastrous consequences for the continent. Ditto in Latin America.

The US is happy to arm herself with the most sophisticated weaponry known and unknown to mankind including nuclear and then arrogates to herself the right to prevent other independent countries from acquiring same. On another note, imagine if it was North Korea, Cuba or a middle eastern country that was impeding progress on climate change and the US was on the other side of the fence; plans would have been afoot to bomb them to submission or as one of them put it recently, back into the dark ages. Even the Europeans who no longer believe might is right (i wonder why), simply kowtows to the Americans.

As a popular musician from A frica, Fela Anikulakpo-Kuti noted on western democracy decades ago, it is either a demonstration of craze or a very crazy demonstration. John Pilger calls it the danse macabre of US-style democracy

writeon
29 January 2008 at 01:14

This is probably futile, but here goes. George Wallace had an interesting career in politics. He started in one place and finished in another. To characterize him as a stupid, biggoted, rascist, demon; is an oversimplification of a complex man, time, and life. I used to believe he was a total monster without a single redeeming characteristic, or human trait. A black hearted villain, bent on returning the south to the days of slavery. He was the epitomy of white rascism, or at least he appeared to be the epitomy of white rascism, or was presented as the epitomy of white rascism.

Wallace was also a populist. He had a following among the white working class which was regarded with concern by establishment politicians and the main parities, for a time it looked like he might become so popular that he could even break the two party stranglehold on US politics. He had momentum behind him, he was intelligent, articulate, and charismatic, and perhaps most tellingly his support came from the American working class.

Then he was shot, stopped in his tracks, literally. He spent the rest of his life paralysed in a wheelchair. Funny isn't it how men who are perceived as a potential threat to the ruling system in the United Sates, seem to get shot. Mere coincidence, over and over again.

Not everything Wallace said was rascist rubbish. Much of what he said concerned the hypocracy of the northern Wasp elite, who demanded change in the south, at the same time as racial segregation existed in the liberal north only in a different form, economic segregation, economic aparthied. In the area of education Wallace criticized wealthy, liberal northerners who simple moved their kids out of schools and left them full of black kids, whilst in the south many whites were too poor to make that choice, they were forced to live with the consequences of policies the northerners could buy themselves out of.

Later in his life Wallace modified many of his ideas and became more radical and even more populist. He believed he was the victim of an attempted political assassination to shut him up and remove him from the scene, much as happened to Martin Luther King. Paradoxically many Blacks quite liked Wallace compared to other politicians who they regarded as hypocrites and liars. Wallace for all his faults, and they were many, seemed honest, one knew where one stood with him. He was also spot on about the there not really being a dime's worth of difference between the Democrats and Republicans.

antileft
29 January 2008 at 04:11

Eartoground, What the hell has Suharto got to do with anything?! Honestly, its like reading an article about a British election, and posting about how lousy the food is. Is it relevant? What are you saying, exactly? That "Americans are all a bunch of scumbags"? This is exactly the kind of rediculous repetitive anti-American CRAP which makes the rest of us who hate most of their foreign policy look stupid. It's not black and white- America=bad, their enemies=good. Honestly, typical simple Pilger reader: in another life, youd have been a racist.

antileft
29 January 2008 at 04:21

And youre right, writeon, it is futile. If Pilger is writing about a man who the vaste majority of people think of as a stupid, biggoted, rascist, demon, then of course he should mention what you just wrote instead of just assuming that everyone knows. To not do so would be very bad journalism. It's like praising Hitler because, as one in 1000 people might know, he made a decent curry, but forgetting to mention that fact. Itd be a little silly, wouldnt it?

Simon Hallow
29 January 2008 at 04:41

Hang on, isn't the greatest crime of the US that they have made these shores safe enough for JP to write up this lovely suicide bomb of an essay? Methinks so. As for 'Uncle Tom', well....Finally, if America is so awful to you why don't you occupy your time with something else like other people do. It suggests a severe lack of imagination.

Richard Cheeseman
29 January 2008 at 10:57

Antileft is an obvious troll. Don't feed the trolls.

antileft
29 January 2008 at 11:08

Oh yes Cheeseman, it's easy to dismiss an arguement by giving a silly name. Unfortunately for you and the other brainless Pilger-backers here, its you who are the marginalised, ignored group on the far left which even the left is embarrassed by these days.

antileft
29 January 2008 at 11:09

Thanks for your one-line contribution though- very intellectual. Im sure it added a lot to the debate.

MrBuj
29 January 2008 at 12:18

The way I see it, JP is simply borrowing Wallace's words to state his own, there is no particular "praise" involved as was suggested above.

Cybertiger
29 January 2008 at 12:29

"Antileft is an obvious troll. Don't feed the trolls."

Harry (aka antileft) is a trolling fisherman and hard-nosed capitalist success story. He trolls happily for kippers from a little boat in the South China Sea - feeding little fishy tit-bits to stray tiger cubs who live somewhere high up the Khyber pass. Tigers love the odd kipper (brain food) but they tend to eat little trolls for breakfast.

antileft
29 January 2008 at 12:44

^Yes, Im a troll, in direct contrast to Cybertiger here who as you can see is a serious commentator.

Sam Davis
29 January 2008 at 14:37

Much of what Pilger says is perfectly true, although crediting Clinton with dismantling the New Deal is over the top. Most of the New Deal, certainly the progressivist notion that all human activity should be subject to government management, is with us still.

The foundation for the current hypocrisy of American politics dates back at least a century, to the supremely egotistic Theodore Roosevelt, whose policies, with the addition of some steroids, became those of most presidents who followed him. TR saw the presidency as a "bully pulpit," and when sermonizing did not work, was perfectly prepared to expand government power to address whatever ill he saw at home, or abroad. His neo-imperialism in that regard, from his personal ride up San Juan Hill during the Spanish-American war, to his outright theft of the Panama Canal Zone through dismemberment of Colombia, set the tone for much of American foreign policy since.

The U. S. Constitution does not give the role of "national nanny" to the president; indeed, it does not give that role to any government official. Rather, it established a constitutionally-limited federal republic, whose powers have been widely expanded at home and abroad to the detriment of just about everyone save a small clique of special interest groups - corporate, union and cause-related. The illegal evolution of the U. S. government from limited republic to all-powerful majoritarian democracy has heightened the imagined importance of the presidency. Not surprisingly, those most active in seeking the job are usually the most outrageously hypocritical, power-hungry egomaniacs, which makes perfect sense viewed in the context of the last century.

The American journalist H. L. Mencken, writing many decades ago, supposed that we would not be satisfied until we had elected a "moron" to the presidency. While an argument can be made this has already happened several times, the most horrifying possibility is that we will elect a Caesar, a Napoleon or a Franco who will effectively end real freedom.

The stage is set, after all, if the experiences of ancient Athens and ancient Rome, and more recently the aftermath of the French Revolution and the Weimar Republic are useful guides.

NativeAmerican
29 January 2008 at 14:39

JP,

Personal commentary masked as journalism is worse than so called crimes of politicians that you rail against. Put down the pen and get in the arena, ... oh, wait a minute, the British 'system' is so closed that even a oily lefty bugger like you couldn't penetrate a micron.

Well, keep pining away for the Utopian days of Stalin and Castro, the only system where a smart little boy like you can lord over the unwashed hordes. The rest of us over here in America have a superpower to evolve and guide. Oh, we do it with exuberance and noise, and if the rest of the world wants a nominal vote since they are subjected to it on TV every 4 years, then tet me suggest the following: turn the TV off and go build your own superpower.

Semper Fidelis

Pat T
29 January 2008 at 14:42

Julius Nyrere, the same fellow who imposed forced collectivisation on his people, who moved them from lands their tribes had lived on for countless generations to state-run farms that actually ended up reducing agricultural production?

Google "ujamaa" if you don't know what I'm talking about.

And if it weren't for Reagan's "freedom agenda" you'd be speaking Russian - and if it weren't for America's "freedom agenda" in the 1940s you'd be speaking German - though on the other hand, you would be drinking better beer.

Trey4115
29 January 2008 at 15:00

This is strange. For years I've heard people talk about how the media has declined, the ways honesty in journalism and reporting have fallen, etc... but I never thought I would read a string of comments and think to myself "Huh, it's almost like the criticizers are following in the footsteps of what they've been criticizing..." without any feelings of irony or humor. And yet, as I read through all of this, I notice that most of the material I've read over the last hour (ranging from articles to articles against those articles to comments for and against the article makers) seems to be mostly the same in it's basis, even if it's all dressed up differently.

antileft
29 January 2008 at 15:25

"Well, keep pining away for the Utopian days of Stalin and Castro, the only system where a smart little boy like you can lord over the unwashed hordes."

Haha hit the nail on the head.

Beluga
29 January 2008 at 16:09

All there is to say is that America uses the world as it's own private GI Joe playground.

barberquilting
29 January 2008 at 19:33

What an idiot, this Pilger must be. If I had to listen to him to often I kill myself. Life is not worth living and all the problems in the world has to be United States fault. Give me a break ! You babbling idiot.

barberquilting
29 January 2008 at 20:22

I bet you were not complaining when the private GI Joe came to England. I believe you were begging for us!

Pencils
29 January 2008 at 20:34

Antileft - I noticed you've posted a lot here; thanks for using a name that tells us what you are, so I know not to waste my time reading your posts.

Anyway, to the article: just fine, the comments on Webb being the heart of it. He hasn't stuck in my mind, but Pilger's comments could apply to any of the Beeb's 'say anything to get promoted' clones.

Apart from that, I'm appalled by the level of education or general knowledge of most of the posters on this thread - excepting Cybertiger, Writeon and a few others, it's way below par for this site. I wonder if they've been directed here on a 'get Pilger' mission by some zionist hate-site. Anyway, I suggest to these people - you really haven't much chance of catching up with things; for YOU there really is no hope - the world is going to get a lot harder and you are going to go under. Try getting into hard drugs; then you won't care.

Trey4115
30 January 2008 at 00:10

@Pencils --Please clarify, are you saying that this thread isn't a good example of news boards in general, or are you just saying that the overall mental capabilities shown in this thread don't quite match up to what you've come to expect from this site specifically? I'm curious because the first would suggest that it's possible that my pessimism is misplaced (although even your post seems to have the same ring to it for some reason, even if it's 'different' from the rest of the post on here for the most part, so I won't be singing 'Happy Days Are Here Again' over your post) while the second would more or less reinforce my fears.

Whatajoke
30 January 2008 at 05:33

Pilger, how much did Fidel pay you to write this trite garbage? Sad to say you've become a hack, through and through. REAL journalists don't have self-aggrandizing testimonials from pseudo-sources posted next to their copy in a lame attempt to justify its own opinion, far removed from actual fact. At least try to be unbiased and analytical instead of unnecessarily scathing and sensationalistic.

Cybertiger
30 January 2008 at 09:19

@barberquilting

"Life is not worth living and all the problems in the world has to be United States fault."

Global capitalism is the virulent malignancy that will make life not worth living ... and it is Americans that have spread this cancer around the world.

antileft
30 January 2008 at 09:38

"Global capitalism is the virulent malignancy that will make life not worth living ... and it is Americans that have spread this cancer around the world."

And before them, the British, the French, the Spanish, the Portuguese, not to mention all the other players throughout history, from the Romans to the Monguls. Maybe instead of spending your time scanning the dictionary for long words in order to make your moronic comments sound intelligent, you should read a little about history Cybertiger?

ColOx
30 January 2008 at 09:53

"Hillary Clinton...is anti-feminist."

Please, Mr Pilger, don't rush to give any evidence in support of such contentious statements (my ellipses excise only the part of the sentence I find less disputable). You and Mr Pinter might believe this to be "the filthy truth," but I don't see much "steely attention" having gone into ascertaining it.

Cybertiger
30 January 2008 at 10:19

The US sits at the top of the global capitalist dung heap. The US is the world champion dung-spreader ... spreading the evil that is bringing misery and death to world's population.

Le survenant
30 January 2008 at 11:10

The dunghill cock crows that he is master of all he surveys while standing on a pile of fresh manure, that is what symbolizes present day U.S.A. Now we have to work to drive that cock off that manure pile, so that mankind can be free from the slavery and turmoil of American imperialism.

As long as free men refuse to resist the injustice and continued servitude inthe world, they are party to the crime of imperialism that the U.S. has unleashed upon our world.

Cybertiger
30 January 2008 at 12:32

@Le survenant

"As long as free men refuse to resist the injustice and continued servitude inthe world, they are party to the crime of imperialism that the U.S. has unleashed upon our world."

Your words remind me of those of John Stuart Mill and Edmund Burke from long ago.

John Stuart Mill an English philosopher and economist, wrote,

“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing”.

And Edmund Burke in ‘Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents’ (1770) wrote,

“When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.”

And in a more telling sentence that preceded the quote above, John Stuart Mill said in a discussion about international law in 1867, said,

“Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.”

antileft
30 January 2008 at 13:19

^^ What a load of crap.

“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing”.

Another thing they might need is for good men to use weak, one-sided, hysterical arguements without any real facts or specifics.

Cybertiger
30 January 2008 at 13:58

"What a load of crap."

It's always the innocent (good) who suffer when American manure hits the fan.

HerbertAsquith
30 January 2008 at 14:10

Pretty hysterical, tendentious nonsense.

So politicians have to say different things to different audiences? And they have to mince words? Shocking! I'm truly shocked! Who'd have thought that winning the presidency involved building coalitions? Who'd have imagined that you can't govern an enormous country like the USA and remain ideologically pure? (You wouldn't even get elected as Prime Minister in Britain).

The left suffers from a perennial inability to see shades of grey. Yes, politicians have to draw support from different groups from different agendas. Yes, the process of doing that is messy, and not for the squeamish. But guess what? They can still do good at the end of it. And the fact that you can't hear an echo of your sad leftist obsessions in any of the electoral rhetoric does not mean that the candidates are identical. It's just that you choose to regard the differences as unimportant when measured against your utopian vision. Well I don't share your vision, and there are plenty of others who don't, either.

antileft
30 January 2008 at 14:40

"And the fact that you can't hear an echo of your sad leftist obsessions in any of the electoral rhetoric does not mean that the candidates are identical. It's just that you choose to regard the differences as unimportant when measured against your utopian vision."

Perfectly put. For all those far-lefties (like Pilger) who are so ignorant that they actually think that both sides are the same- here's a quick guide:

Generally:

Republicans are pro-life, Democrats are pro-choice

Republicans want a smaller government, Democrats want a government which does more

Democrats want universal healthcare, Republicans are more concerned with cost

Democrats are more likely to be against the death penalty

Republicans are against gay marriage

Republicans prefer more christianity in their politics

Democrats favour gun-control

Republicans like a bigger military

Democrats prefer international institutions, Republicans prefer unilateralism

Republicans dont care if the country becomes less equal, as long as the overall wealth goes up, whereas Democrats prefer more equality.

Republicans are usually more pro-business, Democrats are more pro-the individual.

There's a starter for you- there are many other differences- to find out more, go to your local library, idiot. Yes youre right, there isnt a communist candidate. But then, communism doesnt work, so the system is quite clever like that.

"Of the presidential candidates I have interviewed, only George C Wallace, governor of Alabama, spoke the truth. "There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Democrats and Republicans," he said. And he was shot."

Nice one Pilger. You need to do a TINY BIT MORE RESEARCH next time.

Michelle
30 January 2008 at 17:09

Pilger is correct in his complaints about Webb's journalism. It's sickly sweet and strictly follows what US media says Americans should believe or question. However, he shoots himself in the foot with Wallace praise and the Uncle Tom statement. The Wallace statement about the lack of difference between Democrats and Republicans is only correct when one views how those parties target their constituency during an election season.

And for the record, here in the States the correct term is not 'uncle tom', its 'oreo'. Furthermore, it is just as unacceptable for a white Brit to use the term as it is for a white American. I don't care how long a journalist has been operating, that's exactly the kind of latent racist nonsense that enlightened people from both the UK and the US have been trying to overcome for decades.

I have do have a question for the commenter's though. While I understand the logic behind your anti-Americanism, what I don't understand is why you all seem to expect the States to keep our noses out of some countries affairs, but want us to take direct intervention in other countries?

Regardless of what the US does, after we vote in a new administration, the fact it is a superpower with the largest military cannot be changed. Those facts give the country a duty to help the world, but it is one that must be used wisely. Granted, wise decisions haven't been made lately. But over the last 50 years or so those decisions, right or wrong, have been made to protect US interests - which is technically the job of whatever administration is in power.

Here's hoping a new administration brings about actual (good) change, because in the voting booth all a person has is hope - that one jackass will be better for your country than the other jackass

And for all of you who have been calling the US a giant dung pile, I strongly urge you to visit someplace in the States other than New York City, Los Angeles or Disneyworld - oh and Texas too.

writeon
30 January 2008 at 17:29

Antileft pulls his so-called 'differences' and 'generalisations' out of his magician's hat with a flourish, almost as if we should step back in awe; awe at his intellectually brilliance and impressive knowlegde of American political culture and society, poor, deluded, ignorant fools, that we are. What on earth does his base this overreaching, preening, arrogance on?

Antileft doesn't actually say what he means by 'Democrats' and 'Republicans' who suposedly represent two different "sides" of the American political spectrum. His list of "differences" is very selective and overly simplistic, superficial generalisations.

Given the vast size of the United States and its huge population, different geographical regions and their populations display attitudes that cut across and contradict Antileft's primative applications.

Does he mean to contrast the views and attitudes of; voters, activists, elected representatives at the local, state, regional, or national level, Congressmen, or Presidents? All of these groups regularly cross over the apparent differences between the 'sides' on whole range of issues. Not only that, the attitudes of Congressmen compared to voters are often differ substantially, even inside the same party and in different regions. One of the things that characterizes American politics is how unrepresentative the political attitudes of the Washington elite are compared to the rest of the country. This theme returns again and again in national elestions.

The list displays a very narrow and superficial grasp of the complexities of American politics and the differences between the main parties. One has to understand that there's a substantial difference between form and practice in the United States. Formerly, on paper, in rhetoric, it would appear that substantial differences exist between the Democrats and Republican politicians, but in practice, in reality, the differences are minimal. It's more a difference is style, rather than content one observes, and Antileft's list illustrates this reasonably well, though I fear unintentionally.

The difference is less significant as between the Whiggs and Tories in british political history. Both parties support the socio/economic status quo. As there has never been a mass Labour or even a Social Democratic party in the United States, the Republican and Democratic parties represent two Conservative factions, rather than two distinct political entities with contrasting or opposing ideologies.

Ideologically they are pretty much agreed on all the major, substantive issues, but differ in emphasis and detail. What's always struck most european observers of the political scene in Washington is how extraordinarilly narrow the political debate is on the major issues of the day. It's the startling level of agreement between the Democrats and Republicans that strikes most careful and perceptive observers of the United States, compared to most European countries. But then this is obvious, given the historic absence of socialist or social-democratic politically opposition.

Cybertiger
30 January 2008 at 17:34

@antileft, aka Harry

"Democrats are more likely to be against the death penalty"

But the Republicans are pro-life. How does that all figure?

Cybertiger
30 January 2008 at 18:31

@writeon

"Formerly, on paper, in rhetoric, it would appear that substantial differences exist between the Democrats and Republican politicians, but in practice, in reality, the differences are minimal."

Can anyone really tell the difference between Pepsi and Coca-Cola? Pro-life or pond-life? It seems to me that all Americans swim about furiously in a vast pond of sickly, fizzy pop.

barberquilting
30 January 2008 at 18:38

Anyone who believe Pilger writing, I pity you. His is so anti- America and full of hate. Believe him if you must to feel better about yourselve.

writeon
30 January 2008 at 19:35

At the risk of being stamped a believer in conspiracies, I think one can perceive the outline of a pattern in many of the reactions to John Piliger's articles in the New Statesman and elsewhere.

It's interesting the amount of response his pieces receive compared to other articles in the magazine, why is this so? Are his writings really that provocative? Is he really so Left-wing? Or is there another reason for the attention he musters?

I think his political stance is pretty mainstream Old Labour. I've never really thought of him as being particularly radical in his political views. The only thing he seems radical or angry about is in relation to the question of genocide and mass attacks on fundamental human rights, and surely everyone agrees that such transgretions are to be condemned, wherever they take place?

What is John Pilger's real sin? It can't really be his politics because he's a moderate leftist, a democratic socialist who supports middle of the road policies like a well-financed and effective welfare state. As such he's part of a long social democratic tradition. Making him out to be some kind of radical leftist is absurd. Not only absurd, it ridiculous, a smear tactic, a slur.

But he is scathing in his oposition to western imperialism and he's been that way for fifty years, since he witnessed the genocide in Vietnam. But I think was really leads people to attack him with such violence is his criticism of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the various human rights violations committed by the Israeli army on the civilian population. If he'd only ignore what's happening in Palestine I sure life would be a lot easier for him.

antileft
31 January 2008 at 06:12

Writeon, you will see looking back that I used the word "generally" at the beginning. Yes, there is cross over, and yes, different states will have people with different views. And yes, people within each party have different views. How can they not? This is an open political system. It is the same in every serious democratic party. People have different views. That's a strength, not a weakness. Obviously, with a country the size and incredible diversity of America (something Pilger readers often forget with their "it's all the same" attitude), it is very hard to have a party that represents a large number of people. But I think from reading your post that surely you would agree that "theyre both the same" is a false statement? You seem to understand that my generalisations above dont tell the whole story- cant you also understand that Pilger's even bigger generalisation was even worse?

"It's interesting the amount of response his pieces receive compared to other articles in the magazine, why is this so?"

Thats a bit obvious isnt it? If someone wrote an article about how terrible black people were, theyd receive a lot of negative posts. When Pilger does the same thing to Americans, do you think the result should be any different? Of course he's a radical leftie. Moderate lefties dont simply hate everything American. Go back and read some of his other posts- hey, if you can find just one pro-anything American comment, Ill eat my own shorts. Remember, with a country as big, successful, and influencial as America, there are one hell of a lot of good points as well as one hell of a lot of bad points. I'd like to read one compliment from Pilger. Go ahead, try and find one.

Oh and Cybertiger, your posts are so purile and childish that theyre not even worth posting. Although I disagree with writeon and a lot of others here, at least they have minds and are able to think. You should do something else.

antileft
31 January 2008 at 07:03

"Can anyone really tell the difference between Pepsi and Coca-Cola? Pro-life or pond-life? It seems to me that all Americans swim about furiously in a vast pond of sickly, fizzy pop."

Is that supposed to be funny or something?

Cybertiger
31 January 2008 at 09:26

@Harryantileft

"Is that supposed to be funny or something?"

Remember Vietnam? Remember My Lai, March 1968? Women were raped and over 500 Vietnamese villagers were slaughtered. There were no Vietcong and there was but one American casualty, a soldier boy who had shot himself in the foot. This guy, a funny GI, was drunk on fizzy pop. But was it Coca-Cola or was it Pepsi?

antileft
31 January 2008 at 09:37

Erm Cybertiger, how could he have been drunk on Coca-cola or Pepsi??

Cybertiger
31 January 2008 at 11:27

@antileftHarry

"Erm Cybertiger, how could he have been drunk on Coca-cola or Pepsi??"

Amerikans don't have the monopoly on stupidity ... unless you're an Amerikan of course.

antileft
31 January 2008 at 11:35

Haha cybertiger, you embarrassed yourself, didnt you?! Go on, admit it- that was a pretty embarrassing error!!!

cpark3r
01 February 2008 at 20:15

I don't think Pilger is necessarily anti-american, at least not from what I can see in thie piece. Personally I dont see anything offensive in what he's written here. The Uncle Tom comments are a little off the deep end, but I doubt anyone really takes that remark seriously anyway.

He realizes that in America - like most places - politicians will say and do just about anything to get elected. The difference is we Americans get caught up in the self righteous illusion that somehow we are special and above everyone else's democracy. It's this superiority complex that makes the entire election seem ridiculous.

This diconnection between reality and the media rhetoric (and particularly from the BBC) that brings out his ire. On this I have to agree with him. I'd like to see the media come to earth and grill these people so we can see what they are really made of. That's what they are there for. They are supposed to be working for us not for them. People need to learn there is a difference between news and advertisement.

papigosh
02 February 2008 at 04:56

Democracy and £14 billion windfall by the Oil giant - Shell UK.

As Shell celebrates its £14 billion windfall this year with its share holders and the people of the UK, they should try and remember the words of one of their bosses. The bulk of this revenue is generated not within the UK but overseas, particularly the Niger Delta region of present day Nigeria.

The area known as the Niger Delta is now in the throes of militancy and armed insurrection as a result of spectacular poverty and environmental degradation on an astronomical scale brought about by the activities of oil companies like shell in collaboration with the massively corrupt government of Nigeria.

The struggle to free the people of Niger delta from stifling poverty and environmental degradation from which Shell massively profits, has over the years moved from non-violent agitation culminating in the killing of Ken Saro-Wiwa to the current armed insurgency with no sign of reprieve for the long-suffering people of this region.

It becomes very apparent why so called western democratic institutions including the UK government is doing absolutely nothing to rein Shell in its rampant exploitation and environmental degradation of an oil-rich but paradoxically the poorest region in Africa. An area with the highest infant mortality even by African standard. That is the power of a £14 billion a year conglomerate otherwise called Shell UK.

It may be, an equally powerful documentary by John Pilger or Michael Moore, on the plight of the Niger delta people, long forsaken by their own government and at the mercy of this super efficient money spinning machine called Shell, may bring the attention of the world already captured by Iraq and Iran, to a people and region left to wither away. They stand absolutely no chance whilst the rest of the world fret over their mortgages.

Over to you John and apologies for my diversion.

ftakeith
04 February 2008 at 15:48

John Pilger is a legend and after reading everyone of his books and his excellent documentaries like his latest one called war on democracy I feel very well informed what has gone on the world in the past and in the future

America spent $930billion on weapons during the Vietnam war and a few trillion dollars on nuclear weapon, if the USA would have spent that money on health, getting rid of gun crime and making the USA a great society, the US Presidential Election is a sham and the bbc should have just one reporter based in the USA and have a reporter around Europe

Britain should join the euro like we Irish as we are the 5th country where most british emigrants go to live

Pierre
04 February 2008 at 21:56

I wonder what the Americans mean when they say "When it's in our national interest we will do whatever it takes" I'm a Canadian and until the Americans stop being the Worlds primary terrorist country I would not sell them a drop of oil or litre of water.

Would they bomb us as well?

Greta
05 February 2008 at 00:55

Americans need a way out, John. Obama is more than glossy and he didn't graduate first in his class from Harvard because he kissed a lot of white butt, he was first because he kicked a lot of white butt.

I know the Obama energy seems unrealistic, dreamy even; I know you've been there and as a disappointed Romantic I too am cynical. All the same ... Obama is the best shot to at LEAST get us out of this damned war the fastest (Richardson would be my ideal pick as VP, Mr. We're-out-in-6-months). Obama isn't beyond rethinking Pakistan.

Please be realistic. Even Hell has its degrees ... and you can't tell me another stint of Billary won't burn us ... again. Hillary has no interest in restoring habeas corpus or forbidding torture. Obama does.

That's the bottom rung we've got to climb back up to.

Now I want to know how he feels about HR1955 limiting political speech.

And a word about Mr. Webb and the crimes of the BBC ... he referred his readers back to your article, and prints a great many comments critical of himself and the BBC. He printed my rather gruesome suggestion that Billary, in desperation, might sacrifice Chelsea (Iphigeneia) to blow back to Troy, er, the White House.

What you're missing is that Obama might, just might be interested in restoring the Constitution and removing some of King George's Executive Orders.

When all else fails, lower your standards. We have to start somewhere ... and the Constitution is our dharma and sanga, our single refuge, our common hope, our only weapon.

merlin
05 February 2008 at 17:00

What have we done to Democracy?

Western democracy is touted as the primary solution to the world’s ills and that every race, colour and creed, in not adopting this paragon of virtue, is denying itself the tool with which to support a liberated and meaningful life.

In this 21st century this attempted “democratization of the world” has led to more unrest and violence than at any other time since the end of the last world war. Why should this be the case, when it seems a laudable desire to empower the people, enabling them to have a say in how they would like to shape their own society?

Sadly democracy has undergone a radical change in the West with the rise of a new style of government run by a new breed of “professional” politician – someone with limited experience of life outside of politics, and who’s primary source of income comes with the political job.

In this new environment personal integrity can be challenged from two directions - firstly, from a need to hang on to the job for personal financial survival, and secondly from the need to find the wherewithal to mount an election campaign to continue to hold on to the fiercely sought after power that comes with the job.

What we are now witnessing, in the growing civil unrest and changes to the environment is as a direct result of the movement of the democratic emphasis away from meeting the needs of the voter, and increasingly towards meeting the needs of the sources of political sponsorship. Some 500 years ago in the UK “true” power was wrested away from the monarchy by parliament, and now it is being removed once again, but this time to the corporate sector.

Originally it made good sense to take the power away from a single individual and place it in the hands of elected representatives of the people, thus broadening the application and influence of that power for the greater benefit of all. However we are now beginning to return to a restricted process again as we bow, not to the whims of a single monarch, but the demands of a single doctrine – profit.

Any application of power by a single source is never healthy, by the very nature of the narrowness of the criteria that need to be satisfied – be that human ego, or financial accountability. Life is not about narrow confines, but balances and checks against a broad spectrum of aspects of the human condition, which also have to take into account our presence in the natural world.

The unrest and violence we are now experiencing comes from those who can see what the West cannot – that we are touting capitalism in the guise of democracy, and the resultant secular society created through the financial doctrines used to manage people.

By the very nature of the human condition there will always be abuses of power, and true democracy provides the means with which to manage that abuse through proper accountability by those exercising the power. “The will of the people” may sadly be sniggered at in this current environment but there is no other way of effectively managing society. We have tried communism and dictatorship, both of which have failed the test of time.

It was ever thus, and unless we can find people to lead us who recognize who and what we are and how we truly function as a species, then the present environment will see the corporate sector eventually self destruct through the demands of endless high profit growth, carrying us all in its wake.

cosmoos
06 February 2008 at 11:40

Those in power, both in America and Europe and probably elsewhere ,have no intention of bringing about a world where justice and democracy will flourish.The arms dealers and the bankers will continue to finance and arm whoever will buy their products.No one in positions of power in the West has raised a finger to stop them.Corporate capitalism is a law unto itself. The EU for example, will continue to force poor countries to sign "free trade" agreements that are never going to be in their interests.So poverty will still exist and expand across the world.

Unless we wake up to the real agenda of these people and stop believing most of the spin that we get from politicians and the media, then it will continue.And profit at the expense of poor will continue.

Pierre
06 February 2008 at 17:20

Cosmoos

Right On

mike input
06 February 2008 at 19:18

John, your one of my favourite journalists, no doubt, i´ve sampled you many times because what you have said hit home many times.....just curious though why you call Obama an Uncle Tom....you know dem is fighting words?!

I actually haven´t heard the "O-man" come out with specifics about what he´d do if he became the man with the access codes that comes with the key to the biggest house in Chocolate City, so i can assume why you called him a tom, but i don´t wanna assume. If ya have a moment, please clarify, cheers

taghioff.info
07 February 2008 at 03:04

I wonder how many British lefties go all the way to American publications seeking intelligent debate...

I think this in itself say a lot about the quality of American Democracy.

You guys, you can move to Europe and argue with, what will seem to you as an American to be, well-educated lefties all day long if you like.

antileft
07 February 2008 at 06:29

"The EU for example, will continue to force poor countries to sign "free trade" agreements that are never going to be in their interests.So poverty will still exist and expand across the world."

You really dont understand economics do you? Trade is generally good for an economy. Hey, take a look at the EU- when a country joins, it booms and quality of life goes up. I guess thats surprising to you, is it? Would you prefer sanctions?

Cybertiger
07 February 2008 at 09:25

"You really dont understand economics do you?"

It’s the Economy, stupid!

It is my humble opinion that Harryantileft is a prime example of the crushing poverty of that barely human species known as Homo Economicus.

cosmoos
07 February 2008 at 10:45

" Free Trade".What does this term really mean in practice? Well lets look at water companies that set up in countries like Peru for example. Once they were in, the price of water went up by a 100% in a very short space of time.Naturally the customers were so incensed that they came out on the streets and protested. The government were forced to take water back into the public domain.Is this what you mean 'antileft' by "free trade"?This form of preditor capitalism only benefits the "haves" The "havenots" rarely get a look in.

Such blanket terms as trade; the economy are meaningless unless you take into account the conditions on the ground. Companies naturally want to make a profit. what I'm questioning is that they frequently do this at the expense of the poor.Life for them is not improved and is frequently made worse by unfair trade agreements.

A "fair Trade " system is a better way to go.Unfortunately the corporate giants are not really interested in a fairer trading system that will enable more countries to dig themselves out of poverty. If they were we would see a narrowing of the gap between the rich and the poor countries.Alas the reverse is the case.

I suggest you look at the WDM site and particular articles dealing with 'Water Wars' www.wdm.org.uk

antileft
07 February 2008 at 12:24

"Once they were in, the price of water went up by a 100% in a very short space of time."

Of course, if you dont privatise the water companies properly, itll be a mess. If there isnt any real competition of course the private companies will charge as much as possible! It has to be done intelligently, especially with things like water/transport as there is usually only one organisation supplying these things.

Besides, this isnt generally what people mean by "free trade"- they usually mean the removal of tarrifs and subsidies, and allowing foreign companies to operate on a level playing field.

"If they were we would see a narrowing of the gap between the rich and the poor countries.Alas the reverse is the case."

This is a particularly ignorant statement. Arent you aware that developing nations are now growing at a faster pace than developed ones, and have been for a long time? If you arent aware of this I can supply graphs- I hope you are...

Oh and Cybertiger, its a shame your back- I thought youd given up and gone to Yahoo chat. Have you been getting "drunk on Pepsi or Coke" again? Idiot.

Cybertiger
07 February 2008 at 12:44

“Have you been getting "drunk on Pepsi or Coke" again? Idiot.”

Oscar Wilde once remarked that, “there is no sin except stupidity”. Is God in forgiving mood? Harry and the Americans must be giving Him a terrific headache.

antileft
07 February 2008 at 12:55

Oh yes Im the stupid one, Cybertiger! Let me just remind you what you typed earlier:

"This guy, a funny GI, was drunk on fizzy pop. But was it Coca-Cola or was it Pepsi?"

Who do you think is the stupid one here, Cybertiger? Think about it carefully now...

Cybertiger
07 February 2008 at 13:46

"Who do you think is the stupid one here, Cybertiger? Think about it carefully now..."

Apart from stupidity, I sense a certain irony deficiency in the complexion. Pop some pills, Harry - or shoot yourself in the foot.

antileft
07 February 2008 at 14:06

Sorry Cybertiger, but Im not drunk enough on Pepsi to shoot myself in the foot. God youre stupid "irony deficiency in the complexion"! You just add words to make yourself sound clever!

Cybertiger
07 February 2008 at 15:27

@Harryantileft

“You really dont understand economics do you? Trade is generally good for an economy.”

Five years ago I climbed to the top of the Rwenzori Mountains in Uganda. After the conquest, I was shopping for provisions for my overland bus journey to Dar es Salaam. On the shelf in the little grocers shop in Kampala were two jars of peanut butter. The import from the USA was cheaper than the local product. I call that unfair trade.

antileft
08 February 2008 at 03:13

Yes, that is what we call unfair trade. America has a lot of tarrifs, subsidies, and trade distortions, like most countries. The EU is worse for this with their high farm subsidies. Japan is worse that both of them. This is exactly the point Ive been trying to make-these subsidies hurt the poor more than anyone. They also cost us a lot of money. With free trade, Ugandans would stand a better chance.

lavinia moore
08 February 2008 at 05:56

When a person can only respond to a serious issue under discussion with eleven year-old throw away lines, the question should arise, how is it that the world's richest and most well-endowed countries have so obviously failed to educate their own people?

Many in the west habitually deride Africans for their "primitiveness" and "unthinking violence", the Middle East for its inability to organise an even half decent democracy and the "south" for not being able to organise anything at all worth while.

Yet the country that lays claim to be the epitome of democratic ideals, freedom and modernity does not even have the capacity to remove a leader who is considered to be a war criminal (as defined by most international and national laws), is patently obtuse, ignorant and a megalomaniac, and who has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, some even from his own country, the mother country of the empire on which the sun never set ( a lesson there surely!) could not honestly confront its leader and have him removed for dishonesty, arrogance(based in superstitious delusional beliefs) and the same war crimes, and that sycophantic state at the bottom of the world which insists on calling itself "the lucky country" cant even get it together to remove their leader who lied so often and about so much : children overboard, GST, low interest rates (they are now possibly the highest in the western world) and the Iraq war.

The citizens of the USA have willingly colluded, as have the citizens of the UK and Australia, with leaders who not only don't care about the rest of the world's people, but dont even care about their own.

So what is the answer they come up with?

More bread and circuses!

Kokoda trail tourist hols.

Olympic Games waste.

Super Tuesday Hoopla!

If the people continue to accept this drivel why should anyone be the slightest bit surprised at the facile inanities that pose as serious politics in the USA?

And why is anyone surprised at the level of debate in the media about it.

Pilger and too few others excluded!

Cybertiger
08 February 2008 at 10:26

"With free trade, Ugandans would stand a better chance."

That was a nasty left wing swerve! Careful, Harryantileft - you'll hit a tree or something nastier.

cosmoos
08 February 2008 at 12:54

If they were we would see a narrowing of the gap between the rich and the poor countries.Alas the reverse is the case."

This is a particularly ignorant statement. Arent you aware that developing nations are now growing at a faster pace than developed ones, and have been for a long time? If you arent aware of this I can supply graphs- I hope you are...

Growth "antileft" does not neccessarily mean that those at the bottom of the economic ladder benefit.One can supply grafts just like statistics to prove what you wish them to.

The truth is that both in the developed and the developing world the gap beween the rich and the poor has been and is growing wider.You seem to believe in Thatchers idea of the 'trickle down effect' In practice it doesn't work.Poverty is increasing ,because the economic system is dominated by giant corporations who,with the support of the WTO always have an unfair trade advantage.

antileft
08 February 2008 at 14:57

"Poverty is increasing ,because the economic system is dominated by giant corporations who,with the support of the WTO always have an unfair trade advantage."

Erm no, poverty is not increasing- its decreasing at the fastest rate in recent history. Just in china alone, the recent change to capitalism has been the most successful poverty-relief program in history. Your knowledge of the statistics is incredibly lacking.

As for inequality- the problem is not inequality, or the number of rich- the problem is the number living in poverty, without any ability to compete. And that's dropping very quickly.

"In China 25 years ago, over 600m people—two-thirds of the population—were living in extreme poverty (on $1 a day or less). Now, the number on $1 a day is below 180m. In the world as a whole, a stunning 135m people escaped dire poverty between 1999 and 2004."

From here: http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cf...

Look at the graph comparing poor countries to rich ones for a bigger picture of the world.

I havent been "using statistics to proove what I want them to"- these are statistics accurately quoted-from the UN and the World Bank via the Economist magazine. I recommend reading less negative left-leaning magazines with far-left agendas and stuffed full of opinions, and instead read ones with more facts.

Look at the graph here too:

http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cf...

Oh and Cybertiger, youre being a moron again. I wasnt being left- I was being anti- American farm subsidies and trade barriers. Honestly, you do cheapen the arguement. Do something else, moron- youre not smart enough to debate here.

antileft
08 February 2008 at 15:09

From that last article:

"Almost 32% of people in the developing world lived on less than a dollar a day in 1990. In 2004 that figure was 19.2%. It should fall below 16% by 2015."

Imagine that- within just 14 years, extreme poverty has dropped in the poorer countries from 32 to 19.2 percent. And it could eventually go from 32 to 16 percent- thats HALVING poverty in just 35 years! Thats a good rate Id say- and pretty clear proof that we re doing something right. What dyou think cosmoos?

Pierre
10 February 2008 at 17:02

Terrorism is not only about occupying another country it's also about economics, the americans have been practising economic terrorism for decades.

William Spring
23 February 2008 at 12:28

Dear John, I have spoken to you on a few occasions and am a complete fan

of yrs (except on pro life issues where we may not see eye to eye!) But

neither do I see eye to eye with some so called US pro lifers, concerned

about the unborn but not bothered abt respecting human life when it comes

to those actually living on this planet. As for the BBC and Helen Boaden I

totally agree. I think we shd have a petition on line for the resignation

of HB. Listening to the BBC now is like listening to Radio Moscow back in

the 1960's. The real news is abt the 15th item and then one has to

interpret it. I complained recently to the BBC re a piece on Somalia: the

BBC said there was a humanitarian crisis there because of the war between

Ethiopia and Somali irregulars. (I think they may have called the Somali

forces "terrorists".) To which I replied "up to a point Mr Copper" as the

war is actually between the US/UK and the Somali people, with us using the

Ethiopians as our surrogates. The moment Somalis were getting themselves

back together again,thanks to the Islamic Courts Movement,the yanks upset

it. "Failed states" have to remain failed. Rightly you've pointed out UK

involvement from Diego Garcia. This was Blair's last war ...on Africa. I

run an ecumenical pressure group, CANAUK which started off in 1999 @

Highgate Magistrates Court when we tried to issue summonses v Blair for

war crimes. Our meetings were ignored by the BBC, although we had more

present than at many of Blair's focus groups. My blog was recently taken

down by Google without explanation. My PC was wrecked, & I am still trying

to retrieve my address book. The biggest hoot since I was off line was

Blair becoming a Catholic: cd anything be more preposterous & it has

certainly put me off making a similar journey! Only if the Vatican

demanded 4 penance that he climb to the top of Mt Kilimanjaro barefoot

with bell, book and candle, cd his conversion be considered credible. No

thought either was given by the Vatican to the consequences for ME

Christians of admitting Blair. Fr Seed's emphasis, on cheap no cost

coversion for VIPs, is misguided & unscriptural. How wd we feel if we had

learned Himmler had converted to Rome @ the end of the war? But I forget -

he was already a Catholic. I wrote to Rowan Williams saying you & Robert

Fisk & Pinter & Galloway & Craig Murray & a handful of others represent

the authentic voice of Christian humanism in our country & the only real

opposition to our despicable regime, although none of you necessarily

claim a religious bias! (I hope this may change!) The deafening silence of

the Church in terms of UK endorsement of torture and wars of aggression is

shameful. Best wishes as ever from William J Spring canauk director

rajeeve
26 February 2008 at 07:28

only some same voices were heard in the comments, one among that of lavinia moore.

This article of JP throws much insight to the hypocrisy of american election system and he is right in his conclusions.

and a request to people like anti-left and others. it is always better to concentrate and opine about the article and its contents rather than brick batting with the other commentators.