Newton's Third Law

Fear The State

2005-09-19T18:00:00.000+10:00

"Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity, quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace."

"The twentieth century will be known in history as the century of Fascism."

- Benito Mussolini

Mussolini's timing might be a few years out, but his description of fascism is spot on. An essentially unprincipled form of governance, whose operational mode is guided by political expediency and whose defining essence is a belief in perpetual war - a perfect match for the neocon oligarchy running the Western hemisphere. Neocon is what we call fascists these days. It stands for neo-conservative, although they are hardly conservative and there's certainly nothing new about what they propose.

The past few years have seen Western, so-called democracies in the United States, the UK and Australia lurch towards the kind of fascism unseen in the West for over fifty years. Laws such as the USA PATRIOT Act and its possible successors, as well as new legislation being tabled in the UK and Australia are rapidly eroding fundamental civil liberties which are the bedrock of our democracy. Yes folks, rights such as freedom of speech, the right of habeas corpus, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, right to peaceful assembly and many others are under a calculated, sustained and vicious attack from the instruments of government charged with protecting us and our rights.

Many reasonable citizens are being bamboozled by repeated pronouncements that in the "current climate", "in the face of increased threats", "in order to stave off terrorist attacks" we need to introduce new laws and tighten existing ones so that we can "vanquish terrorism", "starve evil ideologies of oxygen" and "safeguard our way of life". What a crock! Terrorists are not interested in our way of life. You think Osama cares if you prefer the Rolling Stones to Britney Spears? They are interested in their way of life. They want us to stop meddling in their back yards. Sounds like a damn good idea to me. I leave you alone, and you leave me alone! And could someone please explain how taking away MY rights improves my security?

Wake up people! The arrival of the fascist state will not be announced on the evening news, nor will it make the headlines of the daily papers. The infrastructure of fascism is being built up all around us in tiny increments and being sold to us by concerned politicians and sincere pundits. Already the noose is tightening. But people are happy to let each right disappear. Why? Through lack of exercise! Freedom of speech? Peaceful assembly? "You mean stopping the radical, ratbag protesters? Good riddance." Habeas corpus? "Habeas what? Oh, you mean detention without charge, kangaroo courts, secret decisions and no legal representation. Well obviously that's for terrorists not citizens...right?". Don't kid yourself. Our civil rights are not optional extras. They are not the pickles on the burger. They ARE the burger! Democracy without civil rights is like football without the ball - kind of pointless and not much fun.

Today's fascists don't wear brown shirts and jackboots. They wear business suits and polished shoes. They don't wield the state-run media as propaganda outlets. Powerful friends wield their media empires as propaganda outlets for them. They don't protect the state from infiltrators and subversives. They protect "our way of life" from terrorists and evil ideologies. Like their glorious predecessors they seek a unipolar world with themselves as unchallenged hegemons. They wield their might unilaterally out of sure knowledge of their own superiority. To them, the ends justify any means including torture and pre-emptive nuclear strikes. They seek to impose their vision of a new world order on all and sundry, by force if they have to. And the rod they use to keep us all in line, citizens and foreigners, friendly states and rivals alike - is fear.

Why Don't We Get It?

2005-09-11T13:21:00.000+10:00

"Some people think only intellect counts: knowing how to solve problems, knowing how to get by, knowing how to identify an advantage and seize it. But the functions of intellect are insufficient without courage, love, friendship, compassion and empathy."
- Dean Koontz

In reading media reports and so-called analyses of terrorists, their actions and motives, I am struck by the near-universal tendency to either ignore or inanely over-simplify the motives of these people. In part, I can understand the reluctance of many to avoid looking at motivations too closely. At what point does analysing motivations slide into promoting justifications? In light of laws being considered in the UK and Australia, journalists could be forgiven for deciding that discretion is the better part of valour. More than likely though, it is simply easier to avoid thinking too hard. It's too easy to provide canned, one-dimensional excuses - "they hate our way of life", "they're evildoers". This both parrots and abets those in whose interest it is to avoid a more detailed examination, and does an extreme disservice to those of us who have woken up to find we are terrorist targets.

Let us be clear. The actions that are typically tagged as" terrorst" in the media are exactly that. They are explicitly meant to hurt, injure, maim and cripple their targets physically, psychologically, politically and economically. Some of those who plan and engage in these acts are criminally insane. But many are not. And the level of support that terrorist groups garner around the globe in the face of continuing violence begs the question - why? While the vast majority of people in the world do not support terrorists, many sympathise or identify with them. Why? It is abundantly clear that there are many in the world who see those reviled as terrorists as freedom fighters, righters of wrongs, David's versus a western Goliath. This support exists in varying degrees and with various foci throughout large parts of the world. From the Wahhabist fundamentalists who have the specific desire to see infidel America out of Saudi Arabia; those who oppose the US's influence in the global economy; those who consider the West indifferent to the suffering of the Palestinians; those who remember past injustices; those who desire a free hand to shape their country in their own image - all these people believe in the validity of their own causes and to a greater or lesser extent view the West (most specifically America) as either perpetrators or collaborators of sustained, on-going injustices. In any sufficiently large population like this you will get the full spectrum of support, ranging from understanding and sympathy, all the way to direct involvement.

Psychologically it is very difficult to accept that "we" could possibly be construed as the "bad guys". The desire to be loved is a natural instinct felt by people not only as individuals but on behalf of the groups we belong to: the family, the faith, the state. The single most difficult thing is to empathise with the "enemy". To put ourselves for a minute in the other guy's shoes and see things through his eyes. Empathy does not mean a blank acceptance of opposing points of view. But to empathise is to say, "OK, I see where you are coming from. I understand why you feel this way". This is the first step to understanding, to diplomacy, to compromise. And the reality is that compromise we must. The events of the last few years are proof writ large that the West cannot continue to behave unilaterally, with disregard for the positions of those less able to achieve their goals. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Just as we decry terrorist acts irrespective of the motives behind them, we too need to understand that unilateral bullying and the imposition of our world view is considered hateful by those subject to them. The ends don't justify the means for anyone and the inevitable blowback is not lessened by having had noble intentions.

A large number of people in the world are in utter despair at the inability of us in the West to see their points of view - to empathise with their position. An equally large number of people cannot understand why the rest of the world is so resistant to the causes the West espouses. This is the fundamental sticking point that perpetuates the endless cycle of violent action and reaction in a macabre Groundhog Day. We must lift ourselves out of this ever-quickening, circle-dance of death. Failure to do so will be catastrophic. Laws that quash dissenting opinions, that stifle legitimate debate in a fog of fear do nothing to make us safer.

Sister Cities

2005-09-05T13:57:00.000+10:00

"This right here I'd have to say is very similar to Iraq, the way the people are - hungry, very angry"
- Michael Rogers, National Guard

One year from now it may be that we will all look back at hurricane Katrina and the destruction of New Orleans as the turning point that resulted in America's withdrawal from Iraq. Rogers' simple observation may end up doing more to end America's military involvement in Iraq than any other single thing.

The single greatest barrier to war is empathy with the other side. The ability to see the human in others and to relate to their pain is a natural barrier to hostile action which armies and governments have, since time immemorial, striven to overcome. In the wake of hurricane Katrina's display of "shock and awe" we may see the media finally drawing a parallel between the despair and anger that Americans have been feeling in the last week with the anguish and hopelessness which has infected millions of Iraqis since the early nineties.

Let's hope that when the waters subside, the recriminations cease and the recovery is well under way, that the lasting legacy of Katrina may be that many will carry with them a sense of what it is like for those on the receiving end of American "shock and awe".

Our Way of Life

2005-09-01T05:06:00.000+10:00

"We cannot have peace if we are only concerned with peace. War is not an accident. It is the logical outcome of a certain way of life. If we want to attack war, we have to attack that way of life."
- A. J. Muste

"This way of life is worth defending."
- George. W. Bush

Over the last few years, as the War on Terror (WOT) has dragged on and people seem less inclined to accept non-answers, the backers of the war have trotted out a steady stream of causes, excuses, justifications and stated goals that shimmer and morph, chameleon like - one into another. The latest explanation for the mess we're in is that terrorists are opposed to "our way of life". Yep, that's what you get with comic book "evildoers" - one dimensional plot devices.

What is it about our funky lifestyles that really gets Osama's goat? Let's do a quick side-by-side comparison.

Democracy
This is one that clearly defines us and them.
In the "havens of terror" where evildoers come from, people tend to be resigned to voting for the same guy each time - the one who promises not to shoot you if you vote for him. This is called a one-party state or dictatorship. Opposition to the ruling party, where it exists, lives on the fringes and is constantly hounded by the state-run media. Opponents of government policy are branded as unpatriotic traitors.
In the West, we tend to elect one of two major parties whose differences in foreign policy (and most others) can be measured in "bee's dicks". A few minor parties contest elections as well, although they tend to be ridiculed in the free press. Those that oppose government policy are branded unpatriotic traitors on talk-back radio.

Equality
In the axis of evil (and supporting cast), your status in society is defined largely on tribal grounds. Your "tribe" may be defined by your ethnic, religious or party affiliations. If you aren't in the ruling tribe then you tend to be considered at best a borderline subversive, and at worst an enemy of the state.
In the civilised West, we believe that all men (and women) are created equal. We won't discriminate against you regardless of your race, religion or creed. Unless you come from somewhere east of West. Or if you're a towel-head. Or one of those lily-livered liberals out to subvert our democracy. In those cases, you better goddamn assimilate pretty quick Mohammed or you can take your chocolate coloured ass back to your own country!

Freedom of Speech
In the the outer darkness people aren't allowed to say what they think. Ideas that are contrary to the tribe's beliefs are considered heretical and subversive. It can be dangerous to your career or even your health to espouse what you really think.
On the contrary, in the lands of hope and glory we strongly believe that people should be allowed to say what they think. Even if it is contrary to popular opinion. However, since we also believe in democracy ie majority rule, we employ special people to help those with contrarian views accept the majority position. We call these people "shock jocks" which comes from their origins in radio, although we have them on TV and in the papers as well. Holding unpopular views is a strong tradition in the West. As long as they're not too unpopular.

Independent Media
In the tortured lands east of Freedom government controlled media outlets are thinly disguised vehicles for the propagation of the faith or the party line (depends on whether its is a theocratic or secular tyranny). These so called journalists make no pretence of independence and merely parrot the prevailing meme.
In the lands of the Free we have media outlets owned by independent moguls. These unbeholden media corporations whose stated goal is profit maximisation, tend to echo the majority view. Minority views on substantive issues rarely get a decent airing as this would hardly help the bottom line. Instead, we have government run media outlets for the publication of unpopular views.

Freedom of/from Religion
The world's tyrannies can be neatly divided into two kinds. Godless and fundamentalist. Both are bad.
The world's democracies tend to be secular...ish. We believe people should be free to believe in their own god, or not as the case may be. As a result we keep government and the courts free of religion. Anything else would be an unjust imposition of one particular strain of religion on the whole nation. We don't let religious leaders unduly influence our policies eg foreign policy, or education.

As you can see, there is plenty there for the terrorists to hate. We are just so different to them. They try and impose their hateful beliefs on their own people and on the rest of the world whether they want them or not. We on the other hand, are nobly trying to plant the seeds of democracy around the world. Whether people want it or not.

Educating Peter

2005-08-25T11:10:00.000+10:00

"Never ascribe to malice, that which is adequately explained by incompetence."
- Napoleaon Bonaparte

Australian Treasurer Peter Costello, this week complained about the pervasive left-wing bias that teachers in the public school system impart on their young charges. He reached this conclusion after an encounter with a single student who, after listening to Mr. Costello talk about Australia's relationship with the United States, queried "What have the Americans done for us?"

Indeed.

Ah, Peter, Peter, Peter. Are these the same teachers whose inability to teach the 3 R's the Government is complaining about? But I'm sure you understand that a single student doesn't make for a very valid statistical sample. As treasure I would expect you to know a little bit about numbers. Let's not be too harsh on the boy or his teachers. Perhaps this is just a little insight into what it really means to have a system where education is a privilege not a right.

What is really interesting is that the Treasurer never answered the question. What is really sad is that the media didn't take him to task for avoiding it. So, taking the student's question at face value, I will boldly step in and attempt to answer for him. It should be fairly simple. Certainly, in World War II the Americans were pretty handy - that can't really be disputed. Although the trendy, revisionist protrayal of the US as the sole rescuers of the world might be disputed by, say...the Russians.

What else? Well going back a bit there was Vietnam - that was where we were supposed to stop the Communists from toppling the dominos in the rest of Asia. OK, so we were lied into going. And we lost. And 30 years later the Communists vanished in a puff of smoke anyway (except in Vietnam were I suspect they've hung on just to spite us). But it was still worth it right? I'm sure the families of the dead would agree.

In more recent times, and on a lighter note, there's the Australia US Free Trade Agreement. That seems to be working out well. Then of course there's the US' "robust" foreign policy in Australia's neck of the woods - no problems there. And how can we forget the war on terror? That's doing us the world of good.

Question answered?

Seriously though, Costello's remark is a pathetically transparent attempt to tar any opinion that doesn't ring with pro-war jingoism as "anti-Western". It's also an insidious attempt to garner credibility for an unpopular war by linking it in people's minds with the "just" war - World War II - and the need to stay loyal to our true friend and ally when they need us. Well Mr. Costello, they don't need us this time. They can lose this one without us.

Our Mothers Cry Loudest

2005-08-19T06:06:00.000+10:00

"Until the philosophy which holds one race
Superior and another inferior
Is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned
Everywhere is war, me say war

That until there is no longer first class
And second class citizens of any nation
Until the colour of a man's skin
Is of no more significance than the colour of his eyes
Me say war

That until the basic human rights are equally
Guaranteed to all, without regard to race
Dis a war

That until that day
The dream of lasting peace, world citizenship
Rule of international morality
Will remain in but a fleeting illusion
To be pursued, but never attained
Now everywhere is war, war"

- Bob Marley, "War"

This week has seen pervasive and quite sympathetic media coverage of the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza strip. We have been treated to images of anger, frustration and despair as people have been forced to abandon their homes and become essentially refugees in their own land. The outpouring of grief is genuine and even Isreali Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was moved to tears over the situation. Palestinians however might be excused for wondering why their refugees (who number in the millions) rarely get such a sympathetic hearing. Which of course leads us to that wonderful phenomenon of perceived media bias.

The reality is that most media outlets either conciously or subconciously tend to pander to the biases of their readership. The same is true in Melbourne, New York, Beijing and Islamabad. Despite this however, consumers of news in the West certainly expect the HeraldSun and the New York Post to hold a higher standard of reporting than the People's Daily and the Pakistan Times. Unfortunately this belief is largely unfounded. The last few years have seen Arabs and Muslims demonised most unfairly. In Australia, this has included the shameful casting of asylum seekers as villainous criminals bordering on the sub-human - a portrayal that was shamelessly exploited by the governing Liberal Party to return to power in the 2001 elections.

This pandering to our tribal instincts, our fear of the other, is the key factor that lets governments fight wars in our name and run roughshod over civil rights at home. This division of society into "us" and "them" creates a climate where dissenting opinions are howled down. It leads to a racist and gruesome exchange rate of death where the deaths of "our folk" are only pushed off the front page as a result of thousands or more deaths of those "others" not in our tribe. Where the tears of our mothers outweigh the torrent of tears coming from the other side.

If we can't get past our own base instincts, see past the inflammatory rhetoric and see the other side as the same as us - human beings, we don't stand a chance to solve the problems we face. When we let fear and racism triumph over rationality, we are binding ourselves to a future of unending hatred and war.

The Real Axis of Evil

2005-08-15T14:21:00.000+10:00

"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives."

- Major General Smedley Darlington Butler, USMC (retired).

In his State of the Union address back in 2002, George Bush enlightened us on the existence of an "axis of evil" - Iraq, Iran and North Korea. These were deemed to be "rogue states" responsible for global terrorism and the haunting spectre of future mass destruction.

Of these three, North Korea is the single, confirmed, on-the-record, in-your-face nuclear weapon wielder - "nyah, nyah, and there's nothing you can do about it Yankee".
Which is of course why the chickenhawks in Washington are ... talking about getting tough. Possibly. One day.

Yep, the desktop bombadiers, so eager to crush an Iraq beleagured by a decade of sanctions, and busily making plans to nuke Iran, are ... doing nothing concrete about North Korea. Why is that I wonder? Heck, its not like they'd have to concoct any artificial pretexts in order to act.

Yet Iraq, whose WMD's proved more illusory than Santa's sleigh was virtually bombed flat. And now Iran is in the neocons' nuclear cross-hairs. Just what is going on? Many conspiracy theorists keep flapping on about "war-for-oil", but the reality may be a little more subtle than that.

It turns out that of the three countries in the so-called "axis of evil", two happen to be oil-producing nations. In 2000, Iraq announced that under the oil-for-food program, it would only accept payment in Euros as opposed to US dollars. After the Iraq war in 2003, the US occupying power stated that payments were being returned to US dollars.
Courageously (in the "Yes Minister" sense), Iran decided late last year that it too would seek payment for oil exports in Euros. It didn't take long for the drums of war to start their insistent beating.

What has North Korea got to do with all this? Bugger all. They are the proverbial red-herring in the publicly stated "axis of evil" configuration. In fact, their place could more readily be taken by Venezuela. That's right, democratic, peace-loving, non-terrorist inspiring Venezuela - which just happens to be a major oil exporter and whose leftist government is being courted by Euro Zone economies to sell oil for euros.

Is it a co-incidence that leader Hugo Chavez has fought off three serious attempts to destabilise his country in the past three years? This journalist doesn't think so. The most recent of these was an abortive coup. Attempts to determine the instigators of the coup have not progressed very far. The CIA never could go past a good coup.

But why does it matter whether oil is sold for dollars or euros? Well it matters a whole bunch if you are the United States of America. To cut a long story short, the US is effectively getting a huge interest free loan out of the rest of the world trading in US dollars. The US can do what no other country can and run massive trade deficits which would cripple any other nation. Since the real lingua-franca of the industrialised (and rapidly industrialising) world is actually oil, any wholesale conversion to euros would mean that the countries buying oil would seek to convert their vast US dollar investments (eg Japan's investments which are almost single-handedly responsible for propping up the American economy), into euro investments. The proof of this thesis is in the ease with which the dollar can be made to tremble when these investors mull their options.

This is the United States' achilles heel. It is the fundamental weakness of this superpower. And instead of addressing the root issues and repairing their economy, instead of preparing to play on a level economic playing field, it is instead wielding its might like the worst schoolyard bully, intimidating its economic opponents into submission.

The Power of One

2005-08-15T09:29:00.000+10:00

"We ourselves feel that what we are doing is just a drop in the ocean. But the ocean would be less because of that missing drop."
- Mother Teresa

This week, the established media had its gluttonous desire for sensation and propaganda disturbed as a lone individual sought to hold accountable those whose decisions resulted in the death of her son. Cindy Sheehan who lost her son in Iraq has been lionized by those against the Iraq war for her attempt to hold President Bush accountable. Not surprisingly, her heart-felt and eloquently expressed position has drawn the ire of the powerful pro-war lobby who have been rabid in their attempts to discredit her. Rupert Murdoch's Fox News has been particularly pernicious in its attempts to smear her.

I must admit to admiration for this woman. It takes courage to challange the prevailing meme. The fact that the right-wing propaganda machine is in a frenzy to discredit her speaks volumes about how well aimed her blow has been. And while those of us in the "reality based" community might realise that these attacks on Cindy are based on lies, most viewers of Fox's fascistic "hour of hate" (aka "The O'Reilly Factor" ) are unlikely to come across the facts.

Still, just like the drops in the ocean, the attempt is still worth making. If even one mind is opened, one heart is softened, one opinion changed, one life saved, then the fight has been worth it.

Freedom or Speech?

2005-08-09T17:36:00.000+10:00

"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."
- Martin Niemoller

In the wake of the recent bombings in the UK, the government of Tony Blair is formulating legislation to restrict speech which incites, promotes or endorses terrorism.
In the US meanwhile, the Senate is considering a bill to wind back some of the more repressive sections of that country's ironically named "Patriot Act".
In Australia, the Attorney General, Philip Ruddock has stated that the hardline islamic group "Hizb ut-Tahrir" - recently banned in the UK - will remain legal as they have not broken the law. Apparently, not-advocating violence and never having aided or abetted terrorists or affiliated groups is a good enough reason to stay out of jail. But that's OK because our pro-active leaders have left open the possibility of "strengthening" the legal code in order to ban the group in the future. Phew! That was close.

Who are these people kidding? "Strengthening" the legal code? In my book, arbitrarily changing the law such that that thoroughly legal speech which does not advocate or endorse violent means, all of a sudden becomes retrospectively illegal - ain't no strengthening. However in the Orwellian times in which we're living, governments in the West are out to convince us that the best way of safeguarding our freedom, our way of life, is by subverting those very freedoms which define our way of life. Yep, the terrorists hate us laid-back, happy freedom lovers so much that they want to bomb the crap out of us. And of course our government's response is to limit our freedoms, and inch ever-closer to the totalitarian regimes which we proscribe.
This is the modern version of "we had to destroy the village in order to save the village".

Brilliant. It reminds me of Baldrick's "cunning plans" in the TV show "Black Adder".
"My Lord, I have a cunning plan. Since the terrorists hate our way of life - especially the freedoms we flaunt in their faces, we could just abolish all our freedoms and deny them a legitimate target! That'd stick it up'em my Lord!"
At this point, the freedom-loving electorate should emulate Lord Black Adder in responding "Shut up Baldrick."

Neither Freedom Nor Security

2005-08-07T22:05:00.000+10:00

"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

The Australian Labor Party, not content to merely follow the governing Liberals to the right of Attila the Hun has chosen to boldly regain the political initiative with respect to the "war on terror" (WOT). Ahead of a planned "emergency summit" of Australia's state leaders, Labor is stoically sacrificing our liberties in order to safeguard the nation from the terrorists who would destroy us.

While I appreciate the sentiment, is this really necessary? Our Prime Minister, "Honest" John Howard, assures us that our involvement in the WOT has not increased the chance of a terrorist attack on Australian soil. In fact he's convinced that staying in Iraq is the only way to lower our risk profile.
Very comforting. But then why is Attorney General, Philip Ruddock positively exhorting us to feel "extremely nervous"?

Troubling times indeed. I'm not sure whether I should be alert or alarmed.

And while I'm not sure about Laborite Nicola Roxon's assumption that the majority of the Australian populace have never read Orwell's 1984 - thus giving them "a pretty realistic view" about having their freedoms curtailed, I am 100% confident that the Labor Party will continue to set new records for electoral irrelevance.

Welcome

2005-08-07T13:26:00.000+10:00

Welcome to Newton's Third Law.

This is where my occasionally coherent ramblings regarding current global and Australian events are exposed for all to see. Hopefully I'll get a chance to post every day or two.

The name Newton's Third Law, is meant to highlight what I believe to be a fundamental law governing human behaviour as well physical objects. In this context the law could easily be formulated as "push me and I'll push back".

My wish is to provoke critical thought, with the less lofty, secondary goal of mildly amusing any readers. Feel free to leave your comments but please try to keep it polite.

Each post reflects my thoughts at the time and I reserve the right to change my mind on any topic I may expound upon. I also declaim all responsibility for the effects of any life-changing thought processes (however unlikely) which I may inadvertently trigger in readers' minds.

Cheers,
Mike.