Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2008 May
2008 April
2008 March
2008 January
2007 December
2007 November
2007 October
2007 September
2007 August
2007 July
2007 June
2007 March
2007 February
2006 October
2006 September
2006 August
2006 July
2006 June
2006 May
2006 April
2006 March
2006 February
2006 January
2005 December
2005 October
2005 September
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 February
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
My Links
Canadawide
Juan Cole
TPM
Daily Dish
CanucksCathie
E-Group
vanramblings
peace order and good government
Calgary Grit
True North
Gwynn Dyer
Public eye
declan
Sean
Progressive Blogs
Voice in the Wilderness
Tilting at windmills
sec 15
tyee
one damn thing after another
Antonia Zerbisias
Buckets of Grewal
Blank out Times
Accidental Deliberations
Heartlands
Rick Mercer
buckets too
Amazing wonderdog
The Maple Three
The Hive
Cindy Silver 7
Cindy Silver 6
Cindy Silver 5
Cindy Silver 4
Cindy Silver 3
Cindy Silver 2
Cindy Silver
Cindy Silver Sum
Cindy Silver 9
Cindy Silver PR
Cindy Silver (blogs Canada)
Cindy Silver (Blogs Canada 2)
Liberal Blogs
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| First God now Marx and with any luck Chomsky |
| 03.31.04 (3:13 am) [edit] |
|
Many a right wing critic has claimed that what happened since 1917 has proved Marx wrong. Marxism was tired and it was a miserable failure. On the flip side of things, there are those who say Marxism has never truly been put into practice. Marxism as practiced is simply a perversion. Both are wrong for the same reason. Marx's vision for a communist utopia was never adopted or perverted and there is a simple reason for this; he had no such vision. The young Marx did feel that Capitalism would come crashing down in 1848. In a letter to Marx, Engels even went so far as, half jokingly, recommend a cousin as minister of Agriculture. To this end, the polemical Communist Manifesto contained 10 briefly spelled out “generally applicable” things that would help birth communism in the “most advanced countries”. However, after the failure of the 1848 revolutions, the 30 year old Marx dedicated his life to detailing Capitalisms “inner contradictions”. He died doing so. He fished but one of proposed 6 Volumes of Capital. Volumes 2 and 3 were put together by Engels from what Marx left behind. He never got around to laying out a comprehensive plan for birthing Communism, nor did he feel the need to. By the end of his life, he was content that one way or another it would become a reality; his “Science” told him it was to be so. (Marx became ever more open to the possibility that Communism would come about through peaceful and democratic means. On a different front, in 1882 preface to the Communist Manifesto Marx even granted the possibility that a country need not be thoroughly capitalist to transform itself into a communist state. The country he had in mind was Russia and this is the, much ignored, proviso he added. “Now, the question is this: can the Russian Obshchina, through greatly undermined, yet a form of the primeval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of communist common ownership? Or on the contrary, must it first pass through the same process of dissolution as constitutes the historical evolution of the West? The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development.”) As to what a communist society would be like, despite his musing as a 25 year old that under Communism one would be able fish in the morning and read Plato in the afternoon, the elder Marx steadfastly refused to foretell what “the cook shops of the future” looked like. What truly bugs me about this fruitless debate is that while the two sides, neither of whom know anything about Marx, were arguing, Marx died. The New York’s Observer’s Ron Rosenbaum provides a perfect example about the comic nature of such a debate. “Goodbye to all that. The phrase occurred to me when I heard the sad news that Christopher Hitchens was leaving The Nation. Sad more for The Nation, a magazine I’ve read on and off since high school, now deprived of an important dissenting voice amidst lockstep Left opinion. Mr. Hitchens was valuable to The Nation, to the Left as a whole, I argued back on Jan. 14 in these pages, because he challenged "the Left to recognize the terrorists not as somewhat misguided spokesmen for the wretched of the earth, but as ‘Islamo-fascists’—theocra tic oppressors of the wretched of the earth." He was leaving in part, he said, because he’d grown tired of trying to make this case in a venue that had become what he called "an echo chamber of those who believe that John Ashcroft is a greater menace than Osama bin Laden." The Nation still has assets of course: the incomparable polymath literary critic, John Leonard; the fierce polemical intelligence of Katha Pollit, which I admire however much I might disagree with her; some serious investigative reporters. And recently Jack Newfield, who long ago co-authored an important book on the populist tradition—still a faint hope for a non-Marxist Left in America. But Mr. Hitchens’ loss is a loss not just for the magazine, but for the entire Left; it’s important that America have an intelligent opposition, with a critique not dependent on knee-jerk, neo-Marxist idiocy. And it’s important that potential constituents of that opposition, like Nation readers, be exposed to a brilliant dissenter like Christopher Hitchens.” While, Rosenbaum is right about the Left’s myopic focus on the US and Israel (where was the New Left when Rwanda and the Congo needed them?), he has things between Hitchens and the rest of the Nation staff ass backwards. Indeed, although, Hitchens was once a Trotskyist, I am willing to bet a week’s wage that few of Naomi Klein and company have never heard of Feuerbach, skimmed through Hegel’s Philosophy of Right or waded through all three Volumes of Capital. Marx is simply not read let alone understood by the 30 something Left. Their champion is Chomsky. Just as an aside, Chomsky is not only the most cited author alive, he is, according to the Chicago Tribune, one of the most cited intellectual luminaries of all eras. Chomsky placed eighth, just behind Plato and Sigmund Freud. Now, it is hard for any serious thinker to take Chomsky seriously anymore. He is way past his expiry date. http://canadawide.blogspot.co... Scroll down to The Fruits of Chomsky’s Mind Need First to be Checked for Worms and then Washed. The problem is that Chomsky is very much the spokesperson of his intellectual generation and that the new generation of leftist intellectuals has swallowed the message of the baby boomers whole. Namely, their anarchistic lack of faith in the morality of the state or its actors is such that they feel that the ability of the state to wage war should be taken away. Any action, however, inadvertently, beneficial furthers an inherently undemocratic power structure. What buttresses this belief is the highly ethnocentric belief that what enemies America has and by extention the West has are, more or less, entirely of their own creation and that the key to not making any new ones is to so tie down its government it will not be able to act in politically realist manner. |
| 0 Comments |
| Irish Smoking Ban: Harbinger of things to come |
| 03.30.04 (1:44 am) [edit] |
| While people, can certainly choose what pubs and clubs they go to and while people can refuse to work in a certain establishments, most people have no choice but to work. As such, most people would agree that in theory that the government should prohibit employers from needlessly exposing their employees to danger. Alas though, theory is one thing and practice is another. For all sorts of reasons, regulatory bodies sometimes turn a blind eye to work place dangers and when called on this they simply deny the obvious. There should be no such discrepancy in the case of second hand smoke. The government readily acknowledges that second hand smoke is dangerous. It is for this reason that they require tobacco companies to say that “second hand smoke kills” on cigarette packaging and it is for this reason that they have already banned smoking in most workplaces already. Some governments have even mulled over the suing tobacco companies over the damage that second hand smoke has caused. All of this makes the failure of certain governments to extend such a ban to all workplaces particularly galling. But there is more. Eventually someone will get around to suing one or more levels of government for this and while private individuals and entities can always argue the merits of claim that second hand smoke is dangerous, the government, whose stated position is that second hand smoking is dangerous, would be forced to either concede the point, or undermine the basis one of largest public health campaigns in the country’s history and worse still the very legitimacy of all future public health campaigns. So, hurray for Ireland. In choosing to go ahead with a country wide smoking ban they become the first country to do so. |
| 0 Comments |
| To Jack: Make Harper out to be just another Republican |
| 03.28.04 (3:12 pm) [edit] |
|
If I was to send a letter to the NDPs Jack Layton, it would go something like this I have flirted with joining the Federal NDP for some time now. What holds me back is several key policies that I disagree with and the belief that if things do not change the electorate will again assign the NDP to the margins of Canada’s political debate. With regard to the latter, the sponsorship scandal has me particularly worried. The Liberals have dropped in the polls and the Conservatives have made significant gains. The NDP, meanwhile, have stayed pretty much the same. If this holds true and the sponsorship scandal turns out to be the election’s defining issue, not only will the NDP not return to its pre 1993 status, but the whole national debate will shift to the right. My question to you is does the NDP have any plan to shift the focus of the campaign in a different direction? For what little it is worth, I would suggest that you go after Harper and not Martin. The problem with going after Martin rather than Harper is that the NDP’s strength is that its stance on various big issues is in line with what the majority of Canadians are thinking (gay marriage, Iraq, gun control, the failure of the war on drugs, decriminalization of marijuana) and while Harper’s social conservatism makes him an inviting target, Martin is holding his cards close to his chest. (From a strategic point of view, I can understand Martin’s reluctance to show his hand. He risks loosing a lot of support, particularly in Ontario’s hinterlands. That said, in the mid to long term backing gay marriage and the decriminalization marijuana makes perfect political sense. Not only, are younger voters increasingly on side, but the Western press firmly backs these two issues. Indeed, the Economist pronounced Canada “cool” and the New Yorker’s Hendrik Hertzberg said the following in the independence issue no less. “Good old Canada. It’s the kind of country that makes you proud to be a North American.” All and all, in the US alone, gay marriage and a plan to decriminalize pot, has gained Canada glowing reviews in the NY Times, Washington Post, San Jose Mercury, Pittsburg Gazette, the Christian Science Monitor and the aforementioned New Yorker. http://canadawide.blogspot.co... [Scroll down to "Is Cananda cool?"] By the way, if Canada could somehow find a way, in a few years time, around US objections and become the first country to legalize marijuana, I am sure Canada would receive a mountain of positive press.) The tricky thing is that in so long as Martin is content to hold his deck close to his chest, the NDP will have a difficult time making these issues key election issues. It is not enough to raise Harper’s social conservatism. The NDP will need to make a lot of noise in the process. The way I think this can be done is to compare Harper to Bush. A simple 5 columned add in several key newspapers should do the trick. In the first column list the issues (Iraq, gay marriage, etc.). The next column should contain a box for every issue listed. At the top of the column should be a picture of George Bush. For every issue Bush supports mark the appropriate box with an X. In the next column over do the same for Harper and the next column after that for yourself. Finally, at the top of the last column should be a Canadian flag, representing the Canadian population. The heading for the ad should be as follows: Where do Mr. Harper and Mr. Layton draw their inspiration from? (The NDP should try to paint Martin as another Mulroney. They can say that Martin too is snuggling up to Quebec separatism, that his government is scandal ridden, that he shares the same corporate world view and that Bush is to Martin what Reagan was to Mulroney. Heck, you could ask when Martin and Bush where going to do their version of when “When Irish Eyes Are Smiling".) The ad will naturally enough draw strong condemnation. People will talk about latent anti-Americanism in Canada and the South Korean and German elections will be mentioned and perhaps the Spanish. However, far from hurting the NDP, all this publicity will help draw attention to the NDP platform and will make these issues the focus of the upcoming election. Canadians, particularly those in BC and Quebec, will be all too happy to voice their disapproval of anyone barring any resemblance to Bush. What is more, as the American election is in November, if the accusation that Harper is just another Republican sticks, the NDP will be able to piggy back on what Kerry will be saying about his Republican counterpart in the States. This will be especially useful when it comes to the subject of gay marriage. Like the Conservative party and, indeed, the NDP, the Republican Party has many contradictory tenets. It is at once the party of Red America, the poorer, less educated, less cosmopolitan and more religious cousin of Blue America. 95 of the top 100 richest zip codes went blue in 2000. If a University professor belongs to one the two parties, chances are he is a Democrat. More than 90% are and this is true holds true across academia, from the smallest colleges to the Ivy League. At the same time, the Republican Party is also a party of the super rich and the established corporate elite. The way Rove and company are able to play to both groups is by giving the later group most every thing it wants, while at the same time throwing a few legislative crumbs that appeal the prejudges of its socially conservative base. Bush’s proposal to constitutionally ban gay marriage is perfect example of the Republicans trying to buy many Red Americans, particularly those in the so called Rust Belt, who are waking up to the fact the voting Republican is not in their economic interest. Where this relates back to Conservative party is that by developing a strategy that appeals both to rural Canadians and the Bay Street crowd, Harper, a la Bush, will try to have his cake and eat it too. By telling rural Canadians that they are being bought out at a bargain basement price, forbidding gay couples, for example, from marrying is not worth cuts to social services that will most affect them, the NDP can defeat this strategy and take many of those rural seats that are up for grabs. |
| 0 Comments |
| Dangerous Offender Status and Capital Punishment |
| 03.28.04 (1:47 pm) [edit] |
|
Even though there is no proof that capital punishment serves as a deterrent, I think a case for capital punishment can be made. From time to time certain criminals hit a societal nerve. Not surprisingly, once caught and convicted these people become the face of evil for whole communities. Here in lies the problem; so long as these people remain alive these communities remain haunted by such figures. There is no better example of this than Clifford Olson. Since, his arrest in 1983, Olson has found himself in the media spotlight from time to time and whenever that has happened old wounds where once again ripped open. Olson also has become the living embodiment of what people think is wrong with the justice system. Executing Olson and his kin seems the only way giving afflicted communities, but certainly not loved ones, a sense of completion and peace and clear sense that justice has prevailed. The problem is that if Canada were to reintroduce the death penalty as a punishment for first degree murder, some of the same problems that plague the States and helped get capital punishment abolished in the first place would again plague the Justice System. Most notably, while the introduction of DNA evidence has lessened the likelihood of innocent person being put to death, the likelihood of an innocent person being convicted of a capital crime, somewhere down the line, is still pretty high. As such, just as Olson has become a living argument for capital punishment, Guy Paul Morin has become a living argument against capital punishment. I think there is a way around this objection, but to my knowledge I am the only one to have put it forward. What I purpose is that the state be allowed to execute someone not for what they have done per say, but for what they are. In a Canadian context what this would boil down to is this: Rather than defining what is a capital crime, the notion of Dangerous Offender should be refined to include people convicted of first degree murder and that authorities should have the option of executing, at least offenders, deemed such because they met the first criteria listed below. Technically speaking, the possibility of executing a person for a crime they did not commit would not exist. Currently, “under the Dangerous Offender provisions, the Crown can ask that an offender be sentenced to remain in prison for as long as he or she is considered dangerous, which in some cases, can be indefinitely. This must be done through a special court hearing held soon after the offender has been convicted. Not all offenders are considered dangerous. In order to be considered a DO, an offender must have committed a "serious personal injury offence" (for example, sexual assault, manslaughter or aggravated assault). Murder is not included since a conviction results in an automatic life sentence. In addition, there must be evidence to show that the offender constitutes a risk to others, based on any one of the following: •a pattern of repetitive and persistent behaviour that is likely to lead to injury or death, or a pattern of aggressive behaviour showing indifference to the safety of others; •the likelihood of injury through a failure to control sexual impulses; or •a crime so "brutal" that it is unlikely the offender can inhibit his or her behaviour in the future. Incidentally, "as of September 24, 2000, there were 276 active Dangerous Offenders in Canada; representing approximately 2% of the total federal offender population.” |
| 0 Comments |
| Bertuzzi's Suspension was Arbitrary |
| 03.22.04 (2:17 am) [edit] |
|
The problem I have with the Bertuzzi suspension is procedural and not substantive. Historically, the NHL has treated stick related infractions much more seriously than non stick related infractions. Hitherto, the longest suspension for an elbow, or a punch is Matt Johnson’s sucker punch for which he received 12 games. In this sense there is no point in comparing what happened to Brasher, also a completely unprecedented suspension, with what happened to Moore. What is more, the decision to factor in a victim’s health, whether in the long term or short term, is also completely without precedent. In all, Bertuzzi will miss at a minimum 13 regular season games and 4 playoff games. Potentially he could miss up to 28 playoff games and if the suspension carries into next year god knows how many regular season games. The decision to suspend Bertuzzi for the playoffs is particularly extreme. The NHL has historically been very reluctant to suspend someone for long durations during the playoffs. Claude Lemieux received only two games for what he did to Kris Draper; had he done that in the regular season. it is generally aggreed that he would likely have gotten around 10 games. The NHL’s decision to use a knew unspecified rubric to suspend Bertuzzi is completely arbitrary and seems akin to a judge choosing without explaining himself to hand down a 50 year sentence for a crime that usually nets at most 15 years. What the NHL should have done is handed down a stiff suspension (e.g., last 13 games of the regular season 4 playoff games). Then, in the summer Bettman and company could have sat down with the players union and management and hashed out an agreement that spelled out clear criteria the league would use judge whether a player would be suspended and if so for how long. They could also spell out what penalties would be given out for publicly inciting violence. If it was then decided that the health of the victim of incident should be taken into account, fine. If it was decided that a Moore like incident warranted a 50 game suspension, that is fine too. If the McSorely and Hunter cases proved anything, it is that far from setting the NHL on a new course the odd draconian suspension has further mudded the waters. The system for handing down suspensions is, as more than a few NHL players have already noted, even less predictable then it was before. If you sucker punch a guy, you will get anywhere from between 2 to 12 games. If on the other hand you sucker punch a guy and by some fluke the guy ends up with two fractured vertebra in the subsequent pileup, then you get the stiffest suspension ever handed down. Contrary to what Bettman might think, a fluke occurrence can not be used as precedent: after all, a fluke occurrence is by definition rare. What is worse, since fluke occurrences are by definition rare, Bertuzzi’s punishment is not likely to deter anyone from taking a shot at another player; if they think it through at all, they are going to be thinking, what are the chances. The same thing goes for the fine leveled against the Canucks. In so far, as Clarke can wax poetic about hurting Hossa and Havlet and not get punished, the message the head office is sending is that so long as someone does not end up with two fractured vertebra, such talk is permissible. |
| 1 Comments |