153 replies to this topic

[niner]

I sometimes wonder what it's like to be Jewish, and to always look at people as if they hate you because of your race. That certainly can't be healthy.

Try being black.

I'm trying to be Sammy Davis Jr.

[maxwatt]

Not bad choices, though I would say more often then not the influence of leaders is overstated and it is the civil society of a nation which causes it to succeed or fail. In that respect, this whole thread is misguided. We don't need good leaders. We need good citizens.

Best Point of Thread!

‎"The rulers of this most insecure of all worlds are rulers by accident; Inept, frightened pilots at the controls of a vast machine they cannot understand".

William Burroughs Ah Pook is Here: John Stanley Hart is the “Ugly American” or “Instrument of Control” — a billionaire newspaper tycoon obsessed with discovering the means for achieving immortality. Based on the formulae contained in rediscovered Mayan books he attempts to create a Media Control Machine using the images of Fear and Death. By increasing Control, however, he devalues time and invokes an implacable enemy: Ah Pook, the Mayan Death God. Young mutant heroes using the same Mayan formulae travel through time bringing biologic plagues from the remote past to destroy Hart and his Judeo/Christian temporal reality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C5XuylNFLo

[maxwatt]

I sometimes wonder what it's like to be Jewish, and to always look at people as if they hate you because of your race. That certainly can't be healthy.

Try being black.

I'm trying to be Sammy Davis Jr.

עס וועט ניט פליען.
(Es veht nisht fleyn.)
Courtesy Google's Yiddish translator.

Edited by maxwatt, 03 October 2010 - 05:34 AM.

[chris w]

My types :
- past : Kemal Ataturk
- today : Lula Da Silva

Cheers guys. I just can't wait 'til humanity gets outerspace, so we can finally start branching.

Not bad choices, though I would say more often then not the influence of leaders is overstated and it is the civil society of a nation which causes it to succeed or fail. In that respect, this whole thread is misguided. We don't need good leaders. We need good citizens.

You are right, however for this to be workable, you need to have at least seeds of a civil society to start with, which is not always the case. Hence my choice of Ataturk, his example perhaps comes the closest to an acceptable benevolent, progressive dictator that I can think of. Probably it would not be much of an exagerration to say that the actions of Kemal and his cabinet are exactly what brought a civil society in Turkey into existence, for instance through the titanic effort to spread literacy ( a jump from 10% to over 70% within just two years ), he also invited the pragmatist John Dewey to be an advisor in the eduactional reforms.

If you look at all the 4 imperias that were dealt a blow in the effect of WWI, it's remarkable that Turkey as the only one of them didn't descent into a Fascist/Communist hellhole in the next 20 years, he succesfully steered the country between those rocks, and accomplished it practically without blodshed ( a couple of traitors were hanged indeed at the start, but considering the times, he still qualifies as a lamb all the way onward, he actually encuoraged the emergence of civilised parliamentary opposition ).

Even the flavor of nationalism that was promoted by Kemalism was of a mild, "progressive" kind, inclusive more than exclusive, aiming to deemphasize ethnicity over citizenship and that was as good as it got in those days and he didn't embark on wars of conquest.

Too bad his legacy got petrified in modern Turkey to the extent that nowadays it's actually used as a supressive, anti - democratic mean by the military.

Edited by chris w, 03 October 2010 - 06:01 PM.

[maxwatt]

....
Even the flavor of nationalism that was promoted by Kemalism was of a mild, "progressive" kind, inclusive more than exclusive, aiming to deemphasize ethnicity over citizenship and that was as good as it got in those days and he didn't embark on wars of conquest.

Too bad his legacy got petrified in modern Turkey to the extent that nowadays it's actually used as a supressive, anti - democratic mean by the military.

Kurds and Armenians might have some objections.

[EmbraceUnity]

You are right, however for this to be workable, you need to have at least seeds of a civil society to start with, which is not always the case. Hence my choice of Ataturk, his example perhaps comes the closest to an acceptable benevolent, progressive dictator that I can think of.

Good point. Though that isn't as true with Lula, but clearly both leaders were about as good as you can hope for. I think over the long term civil society tends towards a more liberal attitude, but in the mean time uncivilized brutes have time to wreak all sorts of havoc.

Though even under an uncivilized society, emphasizing the importance of grassroots institutions, academia, independent media, etc is still likely a more positive thing to do, since it something you have more control over. In all likelihood, an average person has little control over who the next leader will be, but anyone can help improve civil society.

Kurds and Armenians might have some objections.

The Armenian Genocide didn't happen under Ataturk, and I'm not aware of a lot of state-sponsored persecution of minorities under Ataturk. Though, clearly, there was other sorts of persecution. Do you have any references that show otherwise?

Edited by EmbraceUnity, 03 October 2010 - 09:18 PM.

[maxwatt]

...

Kurds and Armenians might have some objections.

The Armenian Genocide didn't happen under Ataturk, and I'm not aware of a lot of state-sponsored persecution of minorities under Ataturk. Though, clearly, there was other sorts of persecution. Do you have any references that show otherwise?

He was a military general under whose watch it did happen, before he became the ruler of Turkey and forged its secular identity.

This is the Armenian's version of events, below.

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (1881-1938) was the founder of the Republic of Turkey and the consummator of the Armenian Genocide. Kemal was an officer in the Turkish army whose defense of Gallipoli in 1915-1916 defeated the Allied campaign to breach the Dardanelles and quickly eliminate the Ottoman Empire from World War I. A supporter of the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), he stayed out of politics until 1919 when he organized the Turkish Nationalist Movement in the drive to oust the Allies who had placed strategic portions of the country under occupation after its defeat. Kemal established headquarters in Ankara, amnestied CUP members who joined his movement, and regrouped the remaining Ottoman army and other irregular units under his general command.

Kemal first directed his forces against the French in Cilicia with fatal consequences for the Armenians. With Allied encouragement and promises of protection, most surviving Armenians had repatriated to their hometowns in Cilicia in 1919. The attack by Kemalist units against the city of Marash in January 1920, which was accompanied by large-scale slaughtering of the Armenians, spelled the beginning of the end for the remnant Armenian population. The Armenians of Hajen (Hadjin) put up a last desperate fight for seven months only to be reduced by October 1920 to less than five hundred survivors who fled from a city completely torched by the besieging Turks. When the French formally agreed to evacuate Cilicia in October 1921, the debacle signified a second deportation for the Armenians of the region. In the meantime, the Turkish Nationalist forces had gone to war against the Republic of Armenia. With secret instructions from the Ankara government to proceed with the physical elimination of Armenia, General Kiazim Karabekir seized half the territories of Armenia in November 1920 as Red Army units Sovietized the remaining areas. Once again the Armenian population was driven out at the point of the sword with heavy casualties as the city of Kars and its surrounding region were annexed by Turkey.

The final chapter of the Armenians in Anatolia was written in Smyrna (Izmir) as Kemalist forces routed the Greek army and entered the city in September 1922. Soon after, a fire begun in the Armenian neighborhood consumed the entire Christian sector of the city and drove the civilian population to the shore whence they sailed into exile bereft of all belongings. With this exodus from the mainland, Mustafa Kemal completed what Talaat and Enver had started in 1915, the eradication of the Armenian population of Anatolia and the termination of Armenian political aspirations in the Caucasus. With the expulsion of the Greeks, the Turkification and Islamification of Asia Minor was nearly complete.

With the restoration of Turkish sovereignty over Anatolia, Kemal turned his attention to the modernization of the country. Designated President of the newly proclaimed Republic of Turkey in 1923, he embarked upon a thorough-going process of Westernization while promoting a secular Turkish national identity. This effort was epitomized in the adoption of the Latin alphabet for the modern Turkish language. In 1934 the Turkish Grand National Assembly hailed Kemal with the surname of Ataturk, meaning the father of the Turks, in tribute to his singular contribution in forging modern Turkey. With an eye toward securing his legacy, in 1931 Kemal founded the Turkish Historical Society, which was charged with the guardianship of the state's official history. In 1936 Kemal began to pressure France to yield the Sanjak of Alexandretta, or Iskenderun, a district on the Mediterranean under French administrative rule whose inhabitants included 23,000 Armenians. Preoccupied with the deteriorating situation in Europe, France yielded when Turkey send in its troops in 1938. Kemal died that year having prepared the annexation of the district. His action precipitated the final exodus of Armenians from Turkey in 1939 as most opted for the French offer of evacuation to Syria and Lebanon rather than risk mistreatment yet again.

Armenian National Institute: Encyclopedia Entries on the Armenian Genocide

The Kurds thought themselves partners with the Turks (a relationship the Kurds now strongly deny) against the Greeks and Armenians, and gained possession of the Armenians' former territories in return for "forcing them out", a delicate way of saying murdering all those who could not flee (according to Armenian historians.) As a further reward they later received much the same treatment as had been the lot of the Armenians they displaced: their language was eventually banned, they faced discrimination as second class citizens, and they were subject to pogroms nearly as devastating as the Armenians had endured. There were a series of Kurdish rebellions against Turkey throughout the 1920s, and underlying hostilities have endured in varying degree to the present. It is hard to say what practical alternative Ataturk or any Turkish politician had in attempting to forge a modern nation-state form the core region of a defunct ancient empire, whose policy had been to mix disparate and mutually hostile ethnic groups together so they could not effectively rebel against the central government. Ataturk's achievement is great, but I can't deny the cost in blood of his achievement. Israel's treatment of the Palestinians looks downright benevolent in comparison.

Note that Ataturk founded the Turkish Historical Society, to control the official version of events.

Edited by maxwatt, 03 October 2010 - 10:11 PM.
Aesthetics

[chris w]

Max is right to point that out, indeed, it might have sounded too rosy of me in that paragraph he cites, however considering the overall situation of a falling multinational empire, such events are always to be judged with caution concerning the role of particular individuals. I chose him on the basis of his succesfull effort to modernise his country, and on the basis of what he could have become, yet didn't, given what power he had in his hands. The deeper you go back in history, the more violence you will find as means of resolving conflicts, in this context it does matter if a certain leader involved in military actions actively happened to command atrocities or they "only" took place during his watch, in the latter situation an otherwise worthy figure may be given some benefit of doubt IMHO, as long as no one tries to make a moral hero out of him ( like unfortunately Turks in fact did with Kemal ). Plus, it looks the Armenian side has a bit stronger grip on the debate about this historical issue.


Here are some excerpts from the Turkish point of view on the Armenian killings :

Most of those who maintain that Armenian deaths were premeditated and so constitute genocide base their argument on three pillars: the actions of Turkish military courts of 1919-20, which convicted officials of the Young Turk government of organizing massacres of Armenians, the role of the so-called "Special Organization" accused of carrying out the massacres, and the Memoirs of Naim Bey[3] which contain alleged telegrams of Interior Minister Talat Pasha conveying the orders for the destruction of the Armenians. Yet when these events and the sources describing them are subjected to careful examination, they provide at most a shaky foundation from which to claim, let alone conclude, that the deaths of Armenians were premeditated.

In the absence of complete original documents, historians examining the Armenian question have relied only on selected excerpts and quotations. For example, Dadrian related how the deposition of General Vehib Pasha, commander of the Turkish Third Army, described Behaeddin Şakir, one of the top Committee on Union and Progress leaders, as the man who "procured and engaged in the command zone of the Third Army, the butchers of human beings … He organized gallows birds as well as gendarmes and policemen with blood on their hand and blood in their eyes."[19] Parts of this deposition were included in the indictment of the main trial and in the verdict of the Harput trial,[20] but an indictment is not proof of guilt. The context of the quoted remarks has been lost. While the entire text of the deposition was allegedly read into the record of the Trabizond trial on March 29, 1919, the proceedings of this trial are not preserved in any source; only the verdict is reprinted in the official gazette.

Many of the allegations linking the Special Organization to massacres are based not directly on documents but rather on the sometimes questionable assumptions of those reading them. Dadrian has been among the most prominent scholars making assertions for which the original sources do not allow. He described a link between the Special Organization and the Armenian massacres, but Stange, the German officer who wrote the document in question, never actually mentioned the Special Organization but instead referred to "scum.

Turkish authors are not alone in their assessment that the Naim-Andonian documents are fakes. Dutch historian Erik Zürcher, writing in 1997, argued that the Andonian materials "have been shown to be forgeries."[53] British historian Andrew Mango speaks of "telegrams dubiously attributed to the Ottoman wartime minister of the interior, Talat Pasha."[54] It is ironic that lobbyists and policymakers seek to base a determination of genocide upon documents most historians and scholars dismiss at worst as forgeries and at best as unverifiable and problematic.

Edited by chris w, 04 October 2010 - 02:38 AM.

[EmbraceUnity]

Not that this in any way lowers the seriousness of what happened, but I always got the impression that the Armenian Genocide was a special case, since it happened during a pretty chaotic period, and I have a feeling the Young Turks were not some unified group of people but a more informal label that is applied pretty broadly. Nationalists and progressives may have convenient alliances at times, such as forging a nation, but ultimately they have different values and fight tons amongst themselves let alone each other.

In that sense, I would have trouble casting blanket blame the way we ought to with the more uniform and ideological regimes of Hitler, Suharto, etc. Thus, I am not sure if Ataturk deserves any personal blame, or if so how much. So I still think Chris made a fair choice.

Furthermore, to put things in perspective, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, and W Bush each caused the death of more people than the entire Armenian Genocide. For the record, I find all of those people extremely repulsive... Nixon being the least repulsive of the bunch. Though he still killed a million Cambodians and cleared the way for Pol Pot... which probably makes him worse than Pol Pot. And he is the LEAST bad.

Edited by EmbraceUnity, 04 October 2010 - 02:42 AM.

[chris w]

Nationalists and progressives may have convenient alliances at times, such as forging a nation, but ultimately they have different values and fight tons amongst themselves let alone each other.

Yes, if a politician's words are anything to go by, then Ataturk comes across as very forward thinking for his times.

A tribute he gave to fallen ANZAC troops on Gallipoli :
"Heroes who shed their blood and lost their lives! You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and Mehmets to us where they lie side by side here in this country of ours. You, the mothers, who sent their sons from far away countries wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well."

"Mankind is a single body and each nation a part of that body. We must never say "What does it matter to me if some part of the world is ailing?" If there is such an illness, we must concern ourselves with it as though we were having that illness."

"Unless a nation's life faces peril, war is murder."

"Everything we see in the world is the creative work of women"

I'm getting soft with years...

Edited by chris w, 04 October 2010 - 03:03 AM.

[Rational Madman]

Not that this in any way lowers the seriousness of what happened, but I always got the impression that the Armenian Genocide was a special case, since it happened during a pretty chaotic period, and I have a feeling the Young Turks were not some unified group of people but a more informal label that is applied pretty broadly. Nationalists and progressives may have convenient alliances at times, such as forging a nation, but ultimately they have different values and fight tons amongst themselves let alone each other.

In that sense, I would have trouble casting blanket blame the way we ought to with the more uniform and ideological regimes of Hitler, Suharto, etc. Thus, I am not sure if Ataturk deserves any personal blame, or if so how much. So I still think Chris made a fair choice.

Furthermore, to put things in perspective, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, and W Bush each caused the death of more people than the entire Armenian Genocide. For the record, I find all of those people extremely repulsive... Nixon being the least repulsive of the bunch. Though he still killed a million Cambodians and cleared the way for Pol Pot... which probably makes him worse than Pol Pot. And he is the LEAST bad.

Your strained, monocausal explanations for some of these tragic events is terribly at odds with the decision making model that you alluded to in a different posting, and bears the hallmarks of the emotionally charged works of academics like Tariq Ali, Eric Hobsbawm, Tony Judt, Howard Zinn, and Noam Chomsky---whom are quite taken by the explanatory power of monocausality, especially in regards to the ostensibly goliath-like role that the United States played in shaping international politics and the domestic politics of foreign states. And Ataturk gets a pass? I seriously suggest you look beyond the officially sanctioned accounts that treat him like a deity, because there are many warts.

Considering its humble beginning and earlier trajectory, this thread is turning into something really worthwhile, and I'm eager to provide my thoughts on some great posts by EmbraceUnity, ChrisW, Medicineman, MaxWatt, et. al. But I still have to take the Foreign Service Exam tomorrow, which has a pretty nasty reputation for humbling the confident, and precludes me from composing some more thoughtful replies at this time.

Oh, and I also suggest a closer examination of the Cardoso administration, and the serious deficits of the Da Silva administration: shocking instances of executive branch corruption, bizarre foreign policy stances (Iran, Venezuela, the IAEA, and trade liberalization), a party contaminated by inflexible socialists, resource nationalism, reflexive---and usually futile---criticism of the United States, an indifference to the tactics employed by the federal police/state intelligence agency, his Chavez-like commitment to militarily preparing for phantom existential threats, an overly cautious fiscal approach, and a conspicuously triumphant attitude that's without sufficient ground. It will be interesting to see how quickly Rouseff and her successors squander the successful economic gains that have made the Da Silva administration the subject of effusive praise.

Edited by Rol82, 04 October 2010 - 05:33 AM.

[EmbraceUnity]

Your strained monocausal explanation for some of these tragic events is terribly at odds with the decision making model that you alluded to in a different posting, and bears the hallmarks of the emotionally charged works of academics like Tariq Ali, Eric Hobsbawm, Tony Judt, Howard Zinn, and Noam Chomsky---whom are quite taken by the explanatory power of monocausality, especially in regards to the ostensibly goliath-like role that the United States played in shaping international politics and the domestic politics of foreign states.

My view is hardly monocausal, though the United States isn't called a superpower for nothin, and it certainly hasn't been sitting on its hands for the past century. It seems like the majority of the countries in Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, and Central Asia have had coups by US-backed regimes some time in the past century. The rest are kept in check through the everpresent network of US military bases, the 10,000 nuclear warheads on hair-trigger alert, the 11 Carrier Strike Groups constantly patrolling the seas, the spy satellites surveilling the skies, the Predator drones, etc, etc. Not to mention the molding of their economic policies through the Bretton Woods institutions.

Shrugging this off as inconsequential is certainly a convenient position to take, in that it helps deflect attention away from actions for which you hold at least some direct influence over... unlike the actions of Ataturk.

And Ataturk gets a pass? I seriously suggest you look beyond the officially sanctioned accounts that treat him like a deity, because there are many warts.

Ataturk wasn't my choice. I didn't have a choice. I simply said Chris made a fair choice, and that I personally don't feel comfortable condemning Ataturk since the issue is certainly not clear cut.

Moral purity should not be the standard, and I was not using that standard. Though people should demand basic standards of decency be upheld. Unfortunately, that was not the case when Kennedy was installing the Ba'ath party or when Reagan was training Nicaraguan neo-fascist death squads.

Considering its humble beginning and earlier trajectory, this thread is turning into something really worthwhile, and I'm eager to provide my thoughts on some great posts by EmbraceUnity, ChrisW, Medicineman, MaxWatt, et. al. But I still have to take the Foreign Service Exam tomorrow, which has a pretty nasty reputation for humbling the confident, and precludes me from composing some more thoughtful replies at this time.

If you pass, don't get your hands too bloody. Also, be sure that this really is the highest and best use of your labor.

Oh, and I also suggest a closer examination of the Cardoso administration, and the serious deficits of the Da Silva administration: shocking instances of executive branch corruption

Corruption is a tradition in Brazil, and not necessarily the result of any particular administration.

bizarre foreign policy stances (Iran, Venezuela, the IAEA, and trade liberalization)

By bizarre do you mean not completely lock step with the United States? Furthermore, with regard to Iran and Venezuela, do you honestly think state sanctions have ever worked? It didn't work against Saddam, it didn't work against Castro, it isn't working against North Korea, and it isn't working against Iran. Isolating them economically only severs the ties of interdependence which I thought was supposedly a core tenet of neoliberalism.

a party contaminated by inflexible socialists

As opposed to a party full of inflexible corporatists? (see: The Democratic and Republican Parties)

resource nationalism

Right, they are just supposed to auction it at firesale prices to the US, once their IMF debts for shoddy infrastructure projects from Bechtel and Halliburton come knocking.

reflexive---and ultimately futile---criticism of the United States

You do realize how absurd this sounds. Brazil is a US client, they just don't bend over as nicely as some of the others.

an indifference to the tactics employed by the federal police/state intelligence agency

Kennedy employs J Edgar Hoover, and he's a hero, but when Lula fails to criticize the actions of his police strongly enough, he's a tyrant. No double standards here, move along.

his Chavez-like commitment to militarily preparing for phantom existential threats

Please, the military spending of Brazil is absolutely peanuts compared to the US, even as a percent of GDP. For you, an aspiring employee of the State Department, to criticize the military spending of Brazil because of a "lack of existential threats" is far beyond absurd. If anything, they need the military to fight against the drug cartels who have been literally taking over entire cities, thanks to the War on Drugs inflating the profit margins (which is incidentally something the US vigorously promotes in the region).

an overly cautious fiscal approach, and a conspicuously triumphant attitude that's without sufficient ground.

Mission Accomplished.

Edited by EmbraceUnity, 04 October 2010 - 06:20 AM.

[chris w]

Oh, and I also suggest a closer examination of the Cardoso administration, and the serious deficits of the Da Silva administration: shocking instances of executive branch corruption

Corruption is a tradition in Brazil, and not necessarily the result of any particular administration.

Yes and as far as I know, the Cardoso admninistration suffered continuosly from the lack of steady majority in the parliament. Having learned this lesson, perhaps Lula consciously chose to employ a strategy of case-to-case alliances with oligarchs like Nordeste's kingpin Jose Sarney ( for ex Sarney's son became the minister of environment in Lula's cabinet ) to work around this endemically corrupt structure and reach preconsidered goals of his policy, and Lula himself has managed to personally retain a clean slate in the midst of corruption affairs among his co-operates. Remember we are talking politicians here, not pope candidates, which is especially relevant when a politician in question has such impressive hard-number achievements as Lula on his record. Plus Cardoso's end of term saw much harsher events than corruption scandals, like parliamentarian turning out to be a drug lord or even a case of a downright shootout by a senator against another.

Two words - "Bolsa Familia". That's how you do a social program, by any measuring standards it's a success, even the World Bank had some warm words to say about it and that has to tell you something, huh ?
Exactly the way to do such things in a far from transparent political environment, as it bypassess the "medium" stage of governors, so that the money doesn't get sucked in into various vortexes along the way. And it's conditional, but the conditions aren't hard to meet and beneficial in themselves ( education + vaccination )

Lula has probably hit the wall as far as Brasilian power structures go, and he steps down in the best moment for people to remain in awe of this story of success that Brasil is as for now, what happens later is to be seen, maybe he might decide to do some back seat driving on Rousseff.

bizarre foreign policy stances (Iran, Venezuela, the IAEA, and trade liberalization)

By bizarre do you mean not completely lock step with the United States? Furthermore, with regard to Iran and Venezuela, do you honestly think state sanctions have ever worked? It didn't work against Saddam, it didn't work against Castro, it isn't working against North Korea, and it isn't working against Iran. Isolating them economically only severs the ties of interdependence which I thought was supposedly a core tenet of neoliberalism.

The stances look a little less bizarre, when considered that he pretty much tried to be friends with just about anybody between the two Earth poles. With Venezuela they share some important energy supply issues to deal with, so it was only rational of him to shake hands here and there with Chavez, not to mention in order to have him under close watch given his dealings with FARC and God knows who else. And once in office he never seriously looked up to Chavez as to some ideological "older brother", unlike Evo Morales, as was feared by many neolibs, given Lula's union past.

And I guess you're correct on the issue of state sanctions, EmbraceUnity, probably wiser tools are the less spectacular, precisely targeted ones that hit the "rouge states'" elites only. Like, say, freezing some Macau accounts of North Korean topdogs instead of all encompassing trade embargos and such. ( Altough to my knowlege the Cuban embargo hasn't been really that unpermeable afterall, yes ? )

a party contaminated by inflexible socialists

As opposed to a party full of inflexible corporatists? (see: The Democratic and Republican Parties)

The most left wing elements of The Workers Party have departed disenchanted exactly by the fact that Lula didn't turn out to be as radical as was expected. His problem is more in the lack of many true personalities in the party's benches than its inflexibility ( as they may be in fact pretty damn spineless ).



Oh, BTW, I hope Rol passess, so that we have a transhumanist mole in the echelons

Edited by chris w, 04 October 2010 - 10:30 PM.

[Rational Madman]

Oh, and I also suggest a closer examination of the Cardoso administration, and the serious deficits of the Da Silva administration: shocking instances of executive branch corruption

Corruption is a tradition in Brazil, and not necessarily the result of any particular administration.

Yes and as far as I know, the Cardoso admninistration suffered continuosly from the lack of steady majority in the parliament. Having learned this lesson, perhaps Lula consciously chose to employ a strategy of case-to-case alliances with oligarchs like Nordeste's kingpin Jose Sarney ( for ex Sarney's son became the minister of environment in Lula's cabinet ) to work around this endemically corrupt structure and reach preconsidered goals of his policy, and Lula himself has managed to personally retain a clean slate in the midst of corruption affairs among his co-operates. Remember we are talking politicians here, not pope candidates, which is especially relevant when a politician in question has such impressive hard-number achievements as Lula on his record. Plus Cardoso's end of term saw much harsher events than corruption scandals, like parliamentarian turning out to be a drug lord or even a case of a downright shootout by a senator against another.

Two words - "Bolsa Familia". That's how you do a social program, by any measuring standards it's a success, even the World Bank had some warm words to say about it and that has to tell you something, huh ?
Exactly the way to do such things in a far from transparent political environment, as it bypassess the "medium" stage of governors, so that the money doesn't get sucked in into various vortexes along the way. And it's conditional, but the conditions aren't hard to meet and beneficial in themselves ( education + vaccination )

Lula has probably hit the wall as far as Brasilian power structures go, and he steps down in the best moment for people to remain in awe of this story of success that Brasil is as for now, what happens later is to be seen, maybe he might decide to do some back seat driving on Rousseff.

bizarre foreign policy stances (Iran, Venezuela, the IAEA, and trade liberalization)

By bizarre do you mean not completely lock step with the United States? Furthermore, with regard to Iran and Venezuela, do you honestly think state sanctions have ever worked? It didn't work against Saddam, it didn't work against Castro, it isn't working against North Korea, and it isn't working against Iran. Isolating them economically only severs the ties of interdependence which I thought was supposedly a core tenet of neoliberalism.

The stances look a little less bizarre, when considered that he pretty much tried to be friends with just about anybody between the two Earth poles. With Venezuela they share some important energy supply issues to deal with, so it was only rational of him to shake hands here and there with Chavez, not to mention in order to have him under close watch given his dealings with FARC and God knows who else. And once in office he never seriously looked up to Chavez as to some ideological "older brother", unlike Evo Morales, as was feared by many neolibs, given Lula's union past.

And I guess you're correct on the issue of state sanctions, EmbraceUnity, probably wiser tools are the less spectacular, precisely targeted ones that hit the "rouge states'" elites only. Like, say, freezing some Macau accounts of North Korean topdogs instead of all encompassing trade embargos and such. ( Altough to my knowlege the Cuban embargo hasn't been really that unpermeable afterall, yes ? )

a party contaminated by inflexible socialists

As opposed to a party full of inflexible corporatists? (see: The Democratic and Republican Parties)

The most left wing elements of The Workers Party have departed disenchanted exactly by the fact that Lula didn't turn out to be as radical as was expected. His problem is more in the lack of many true personalities in the party's benches than its inflexibility ( as they may be in fact pretty damn spineless ).



Oh, BTW, I hope Rol passess, so that we have a transhumanist mole in the echelons

I appreciate the encouragement, and in all likelihood, I performed quite well---since I'm confident with my essay answers, and unlike many, I managed to finish comfortably within the time constraints. However, it is not a test to be taken lightly, since I believe it to be arguably more difficult than the Bar Examination. Regardless of my results, though, my successful candidacy is contingent on passing the subsequent oral examination, which won't be for a few months. But to be clear, I embarked on this path largely to appease my girlfriend, who has grown weary of my "Benjamin Braddock" phase (although I haven't had a sordid affair with the older wife of a family friend), and insists that I pursue a more ennobling career. So, I'm still ambivalent about actually working for the State Department. And since I'm evidently a militarist with a callous disregard for the loss human life, I would much rather spend my days in a remote country enabling tyrants, killing subversives, marginalizing the sovereignty of nation-states, and advancing the goals of corporatism. Indeed, anything to live up to thoughtless cliches about American foreign policy.

Edited by Rol82, 05 October 2010 - 04:18 AM.

[EmbraceUnity]

But to be clear, I embarked on this path largely to appease my girlfriend, who has grown weary of my "Benjamin Braddock" phase (although I haven't had a sordid affair with the older wife of a family friend), and insists that I pursue a more ennobling career. So, I'm still ambivalent about actually working for the State Department. And since I'm evidently a militarist with a callous disregard for the loss human life, I would much rather spend my days in a remote country enabling tyrants, killing subversives, marginalizing the sovereignty of nation-states, and advancing the goals of corporatism. Indeed, anything to live up to thoughtless cliches about American foreign policy.

Your caricature of "anti-Americanism" may be true for some lunatic fringe somewhere, but I resent the implication that I in any way view the United States in this light. I would hope after our discussions that I would have earned a bit more respect from you than that.

My pointing out of unquestioned assumptions, double standards, and hypocrisies that you have inherited from the US doctrinal system was not to paint you personally in a negative light. In fact, I find you to be a well meaning and knowledgeable person who has much to offer and is seemingly open to reason (hence our discussion). You probably just spent too much time reading Joseph Nye, Paul Krugman, Samantha Powers, and Cass Sunstein... you know... not to make arrogant assumptions about your intellectual influences or anything...

[Rational Madman]

But to be clear, I embarked on this path largely to appease my girlfriend, who has grown weary of my "Benjamin Braddock" phase (although I haven't had a sordid affair with the older wife of a family friend), and insists that I pursue a more ennobling career. So, I'm still ambivalent about actually working for the State Department. And since I'm evidently a militarist with a callous disregard for the loss human life, I would much rather spend my days in a remote country enabling tyrants, killing subversives, marginalizing the sovereignty of nation-states, and advancing the goals of corporatism. Indeed, anything to live up to thoughtless cliches about American foreign policy.

Your caricature of "anti-Americanism" may be true for some lunatic fringe somewhere, but I resent the implication that I in any way view the United States in this light. I would hope after our discussions that I would have earned a bit more respect from you than that.

My pointing out of unquestioned assumptions, double standards, and hypocrisies that you have inherited from the US doctrinal system was not to paint you personally in a negative light. In fact, I find you to be a well meaning and knowledgeable person who has much to offer and is seemingly open to reason (hence our discussion). You probably just spent too much time reading Joseph Nye, Paul Krugman, Samantha Powers, and Cass Sunstein... you know... not to make arrogant assumptions about your intellectual influences or anything...

Would you relax, I was making a joke! Ask yourself, if I considered your views to be residing in the LaRouche domain, do you think I would be seriously engaging you? As for the authors, I don't really care for any of them---save Cass Sunstein---but I mostly read his New Republic pieces.
If we're talking about contemporary authors related to our discussions, I would probably pick Martin Wolf, Clive Crook, Fred Kaplan, and many of the writers at Foreign Policy Magazine, The Economist, The National Interest, and The New Republic. But if we're talking about the more theoretically heavy swingers, then Stephen Walt (although I hated The Israel Lobby), Stephen Van Evera, Chaim Kaufmann, Robert Gilpin, Stephen Krasner, and Robert Jervis. And for the dead guys: Hobbes, Kant, Grotius, Rousseau, Locke, Hans Morgenthau, Hedley Bull, George Kennan, Kenneth Waltz, and after resisting for a while, undistorted Keynes. But as should already be clear, I subscribe to only some of the positions of the aforementioned, since there are some really glaring conflicts with some of their views.

Further, I think you're making the error of judging my positions on a superficial level, and then subsequentially trying to reconcile them (sometimes absurdly) with different schools of thought (e.g. affection for Kennedy=militarist, critic of Iran=pro-sanction, or criticism of resource nationalism=corporatism). But since my thinking is not uniform or completely congruent with any school of thought, rationalizing it can be difficult. In any case, I'll try to make a comprehensive case sometime this week in order to add some clarity, and address some fairly serious analytical errors that I've encountered. Not to mention deliver another rebuke to a facile fly that keeps implicitly ascribing a prophetic quality to his deluded thoughts.

Interestingly, this is the second exchange here where I've been pejoratively accused of being indoctrinated. Does anyone else think it's laughably dogmatic to suggest that contrary positions can only be understood in the conditions of indoctrination? Or to capriciously suggest that they were made without serious reflection. Like, for instance, feeling the need to remind a Kennedy admirer about his controversial role in the Cold War (e.g. Ba'ath Party, Vietnam, etc.), and presuming that this criticism should be revelatory in some way.

Edited by Rol82, 05 October 2010 - 07:32 AM.

[EmbraceUnity]

Interestingly, this is the second exchange here where I've been pejoratively accused of being indoctrinated. Does anyone else think it's laughably dogmatic to suggest that contrary positions can only be understood in the conditions of indoctrination? Or to capriciously suggest that they were made without serious reflection. Like, for instance, feeling the need to remind a Kennedy admirer about his controversial role in the Cold War (e.g. Ba'ath Party, Vietnam, etc.), and presuming that this criticism should be revelatory in some way.

Could you name me some ideologues who would admit to being dogmatic? Outside of religion, basically every doctrinal system that has ever existed has, above all, seemed to its followers as nuanced, pragmatic, common sense, and distinctly non-ideological. Do you honestly think that the US has no system of political thought that emanates from its corporate-controlled airwaves and cloistered Ivy League institutions which select students who have most obediently obeyed their authority figures? With the exception of some of the independent scholars of the Enlightenment which you mentioned, all of your sources are from "professionals" of the political class.

If facts matter, then reminding a Kennedy admirer of inconvenient facts about Kennedy should matter. You act as if this stuff is common knowledge. I can assure you that it isn't outside of perhaps the discipline of International Relations... and truly what a disciplined bunch that is. These are the people who brought us Domino Theory. And you act as if we have no system of indoctrination in the US. It isn't anything new either. I'm sure next you are going to argue that the Monroe Doctrine wasn't really a doctrine, but more of a helpful suggestion which the US simply happened to follow for the past two hundred years. (non-ideologically of course)

Now, maybe you do have some amazing non-ideological defense of Kennedy up your back pocket, but until then, I hope you don't blame me for being unconvinced of your non-indoctrination.

Edited by EmbraceUnity, 05 October 2010 - 07:56 AM.

[Rational Madman]

Interestingly, this is the second exchange here where I've been pejoratively accused of being indoctrinated. Does anyone else think it's laughably dogmatic to suggest that contrary positions can only be understood in the conditions of indoctrination? Or to capriciously suggest that they were made without serious reflection. Like, for instance, feeling the need to remind a Kennedy admirer about his controversial role in the Cold War (e.g. Ba'ath Party, Vietnam, etc.), and presuming that this criticism should be revelatory in some way.

Could you name me some ideologues who would admit to being dogmatic? Outside of religion, basically every doctrinal system that has ever existed has, above all, seemed to its followers as nuanced, pragmatic, common sense, and distinctly non-ideological. Do you honestly think that the US has no system of political thought that emanates from its corporate-controlled airwaves and cloistered Ivy League institutions which select students who have most obediently obeyed their authority figures? With the exception of some of the independent scholars of the Enlightenment which you mentioned, all of your sources are from "professionals" of the political class.

If facts matter, then reminding a Kennedy admirer of inconvenient facts about Kennedy should matter. You act as if this stuff is common knowledge. I can assure you that it isn't outside of perhaps the discipline of International Relations... and truly what a disciplined bunch that is. These are the people who brought us Domino Theory. And you act as if we have no system of indoctrination in the US. It isn't anything new either. I'm sure next you are going to argue that the Monroe Doctrine wasn't really a doctrine, but more of a helpful suggestion which the US simply happened to follow for the past two hundred years. (non-ideologically of course)

Now, maybe you do have some amazing non-ideological defense of Kennedy up your back pocket, but until then, I hope you don't blame me for being unconvinced of your non-indoctrination.

,
Well, I must confess, my affection for Kennedy is mostly homoerotic, which must've been clouding my judgment for some reason. And don't forget, us IR folks also proudly brought you the missile gap, mutually assured destruction, and NSC-68. Anyway, it's late, I've had too much wine, and I'm really irritating my girlfriend. So, we'll pick this up later, and I'll be sure to re-read some choice publications, like Informed Consent.

To revere someone from the professional class, how abhorrent! Really, take a few breaths, and relax!

Edited by Rol82, 05 October 2010 - 08:31 AM.

[Rational Madman]

Interestingly, this is the second exchange here where I've been pejoratively accused of being indoctrinated. Does anyone else think it's laughably dogmatic to suggest that contrary positions can only be understood in the conditions of indoctrination? Or to capriciously suggest that they were made without serious reflection. Like, for instance, feeling the need to remind a Kennedy admirer about his controversial role in the Cold War (e.g. Ba'ath Party, Vietnam, etc.), and presuming that this criticism should be revelatory in some way.

Could you name me some ideologues who would admit to being dogmatic? Outside of religion, basically every doctrinal system that has ever existed has, above all, seemed to its followers as nuanced, pragmatic, common sense, and distinctly non-ideological. Do you honestly think that the US has no system of political thought that emanates from its corporate-controlled airwaves and cloistered Ivy League institutions which select students who have most obediently obeyed their authority figures? With the exception of some of the independent scholars of the Enlightenment which you mentioned, all of your sources are from "professionals" of the political class.

If facts matter, then reminding a Kennedy admirer of inconvenient facts about Kennedy should matter. You act as if this stuff is common knowledge. I can assure you that it isn't outside of perhaps the discipline of International Relations... and truly what a disciplined bunch that is. These are the people who brought us Domino Theory. And you act as if we have no system of indoctrination in the US. It isn't anything new either. I'm sure next you are going to argue that the Monroe Doctrine wasn't really a doctrine, but more of a helpful suggestion which the US simply happened to follow for the past two hundred years. (non-ideologically of course)

Now, maybe you do have some amazing non-ideological defense of Kennedy up your back pocket, but until then, I hope you don't blame me for being unconvinced of your non-indoctrination.

,
Well, I must confess, my affection for Kennedy is mostly homoerotic, which must've been clouding my judgment for some reason. And don't forget, us IR folks also proudly brought you the missile gap, mutually assured destruction, and NSC-68. Anyway, it's late, I've had too much wine, and I'm really irritating my girlfriend. So, we'll pick this up later, and I'll be sure to re-read some choice publications, like Informed Consent.

To revere someone from the professional class, how abhorrent! Really, take a few breaths, and relax!

Oops, I actually meant Manufactured Consent, not the Juan Cole blog. But I was joking anyway, so I guess it doesn't really matter.

[CuringTheSane]

Well that was certainly entertaining, aside from Rol being a colossal prick. Did both of you guys graduate with degrees in international relations?

[EmbraceUnity]

Well that was certainly entertaining, aside from Rol being a colossal prick. Did both of you guys graduate with degrees in international relations?

I am a student of all the social sciences. Irrelevantly, my degree was in Economics.

[EmbraceUnity]

Well that was certainly entertaining, aside from Rol being a colossal prick. Did both of you guys graduate with degrees in international relations?

Oh and for the record, I don't think you're insane. I think you are a dangerous moral nihilist, and perhaps worse.

[Rational Madman]

Well that was certainly entertaining, aside from Rol being a colossal prick. Did both of you guys graduate with degrees in international relations?

Grow up! Did you seriously expect that your positions would be showered with praise, or that they wouldn't provoke a furious response? Indeed, I suspect that you're adopting provocative positions only for the sake of being provocative. However, I strongly encourage an undaunted pursuit of controversy in academia, but most don't sulk, or become incredulous when their radical ideas are poorly received.

Edited by Rol82, 27 October 2010 - 01:00 PM.

[Rational Madman]

Well that was certainly entertaining, aside from Rol being a colossal prick. Did both of you guys graduate with degrees in international relations?

Majors of history, international relations, and international studies as an undergrad, and history and international relations as a graduate student.

[Rational Madman]

Are you assuming national socialism and socialism are two ends of the same coin because both contain the word socialist?

No, not at all. I laid out a basic underlying reason why I admire these leaders, and it has been transformed in so many ways, picked apart, and argued from the most stereotypical preconceived notions, that I can't even think of where to begin to respond. One of the worst I must say coming from our nice self-professed Jewish friend here Rol82. Understandably, there is an enormous outlash against Israel, and Zionism today, and perhaps to Jews they see this as a new birth of anti-semitism, but coming from a culture that is fundamentally rooted in, and emphasizes it's own superiority, I can find it within myself to forgive him for thinking the way that he does. I sometimes wonder what it's like to be Jewish, and to always look at people as if they hate you because of your race. That certainly can't be healthy.

Yes, there is indeed an "outlash" against Israel and Zionism in general, but it's a hysterical response that's not warranted, and has a basis in tribalism, injured pride, hysteria, bigotry, and intellectual laziness. And I don't think there is much of a distinction between Jewish national pride, and the pride of the inhabitants of other nation-states, whom speak in strikingly similar and glowing terms when making reference to their indigenous accomplishments. So you're making a gross and appalling generalization that probably stems from the facile and pseudo-scientific works of race theorists, who continue to have an infectious legacy on the school curriculum of certain nation states---which I suspect has played a role in influencing your warped mind.

Although my mother comes from a French-Jewish family in Lyon, we're indistinguishable from the average Americans, and we've never had to contend with idiots wondering about the "distinctive" Jewish nose, jaw, or other inanities. Indeed, since I was raised in an atheist and culturally Jewish/French/Irish household, have been rather balanced with my advocacy of Zionism, speak Hebrew only in the presence of my mother's family, and have not had the misfortune of residing in a decidedly backward community, I have never really been bothered with instances of covert or overt anti-Semitism---which is an experience shared by a majority Jewish-Americans. So my heritage has not placed my mental or physical health in peril, but gee, I really appreciate the concern.

The historical memory of anti-Semitism, is of course, unshakable, though. So I have little patience for Hitler admirers, because I consider such a sentiment to be an intellectually illegitimate position. But a Jewish heritage isn't requisite for outrage in this regard. Rather, one has to be in touch with their humanity, and possess the capacity to understand that whatever questionable gains attributable to Nazi rule are far outweighed by a deeply affecting world war and systematic extermination that led to the deaths of nearly 30 million people, and which has lead to a preponderance of sound minds to the inescapable conclusion that it would unconscionable to carelessly accentuate or celebrate such dubious accomplishments. This is not to mention the countless crimes that your other revered leaders have committed against cherished norms, laws, and humanity in general. All of which leads me to the firm opinion that your thoughts represent a most putrid manifestation of the worst forms of ignorance, and constitute not only an affront to decency and millions of victims, but to humanity as a whole. And although you may hold yourself in high esteem for some reason that's beyond my comprehension, no one is impressed by your contemptible attempt to be a "clever" and "independent" thinker. Rather than possessing a liberated mind, you're simply regurgitating transparent propaganda designed for the consumption of deluded masses. But at least the behavior of these targets can be rationalized by war, economic depression, and national humiliation of great exception. Which begs the question, what exactly is your excuse? Indeed, the explanation of moral nihilism would be far too generous for your case. Rather, I can't help but think that you're at most sociopathic, and at the very least, socially retarded and irretrievably ignorant.

Edited by Rol82, 30 October 2010 - 04:47 PM.

[chris w]

You're making a gross and appalling generalization that probably stems from the facile and pseudo-scientific works of race theorists, who continue to have an infectious legacy on the school curriculum of certain nation states---which I suspect has played a role in influencing your warped mind.

Can you expound on that Rol ? Which states and which theorists do you have in mind ? I was pretty sure that racialist studies have been sent to the intelectual catacombs all over the Western world ( if you count out single accidents like that Watson quote from a few years ago ) which lets the likes of our friend here consider themselves to be a sort of dissidents liberated from the thought prison of the PC Big Brother.

[RighteousReason]

I'm thinking George Washington or Thomas Jefferson

Edited by RighteousReason, 30 October 2010 - 04:02 PM.

[Rational Madman]

You're making a gross and appalling generalization that probably stems from the facile and pseudo-scientific works of race theorists, who continue to have an infectious legacy on the school curriculum of certain nation states---which I suspect has played a role in influencing your warped mind.

Can you expound on that Rol ? Which states and which theorists do you have in mind ? I was pretty sure that racialist studies have been sent to the intelectual catacombs all over the Western world ( if you count out single accidents like that Watson quote from a few years ago ) which lets the likes of our friend here consider themselves to be a sort of dissidents liberated from the thought prison of the PC Big Brother.

Well, at the time of writing, I was enjoying a bottle of burgundy---which explains my vitriol. And as for the prevalence of anti-Semitic racial theory, you'll find crude manifestations of it in the sanctioned textbooks of some Middle Eastern states, sometimes in the university setting, in state sponsored propaganda----e.g. the recent 30+ chapter Protocols of the Elders of Zion miniseries on state television in Egypt, or as a part of broader public discourse in such states. Which seems to have its roots in the anti-Semitic literature found in the newly unified Germany, but I had nothing specific in mind. I just found the theme of Jewish supremacy to be striking and unmistakable, and because the poster in question had alluded to a Persian heritage, I simply assumed he was a child of revolutionary Iran. At the time, I thought he was also making reference to trite beliefs about certain distinctive racial characteristics, but I imagine the wine drove me to that conclusion. However, I still take offense with his false generalization, and only partially regret the strength of my words. Anyway, in the West, you're quite right, the scholarship is an exceedingly decomposed corpse, and seems to have only briefly peaked in the 1920s. Contemporarily, I imagine the worst forms of this scholarship can be found in the Palestinian Territories and Saudi Arabia.

Edited by Rol82, 30 October 2010 - 09:07 PM.

[ChromodynamicGirl]

Ludwig von Mises. Because he'd resign, and I don't have a country.

[Rational Madman]

I'm thinking George Washington or Thomas Jefferson

Why?