‘No Construction Without Deconstruction’

(cross-posted at the Paper Tiger)

ESWN has translated the infamous Chapter 6 of a recently banned Chinese novella, “Serve the People.” The Guardian summarizes it thusly:  

Set in 1967 – at the peak of the Mao cult during the Cultural Revolution – the novel tells the story of the bored wife of a military commander who takes advantage of her husband’s absence to seduce a young peasant soldier. As a signal that the orderly’s services are desired in the bedroom, she leaves the slogan Serve the People on the kitchen table.

“Serve the People” is one of Mao’s best known sayings (through the Cultural Revolution, Premier Zhou Enlai wore only one small Mao button, with this slogan on it), so we are already entering dangerous territory here…

After three days and nights together (the Commander is elsewhere, probably chairing a struggle session or something), the two lovers are exhausted and spent, unsure of their feelings, irritated with each other. The wife, Liu Lian, puts a plaster statue of Mao underneath soldier Wu’s uniform, and when he starts to dress, the statue breaks. Liu threatens to call the Security Detail; Wu has committed the ultimate Cultural Revolution sin – he’s defaced an image of the Great Helmsman.

This is all a ruse to reignite Wu’s passion, and it works, in spades. Soon the two engage in a literal orgy of lovemaking and smashing Mao memorabilia, ripping up his posters, pissing on his epigrams, each declaring to be the bigger counter-revolutionary who loves the other more:

He found four copies of books by Chairman Mao, ripped the books up, urinated on them and then threw them into the wastebasket in the toilet.

She took out all the chopsticks that had the highest directive printed on them, broke them and threw them into the garbage bin.

He took all the MSG bottles that had Chairman Mao heads printed on them, poured the contents into a bowl and put grey ashes into the bottles instead.

I don’t know how all of this comes across if you aren’t familiar with recent Chinese history, but I found it shocking, albeit from a distance (after all, it’s not my history), and pretty damn funny. I think the humor is intentional, and I also think the author has some pretty serious intentions. During the Cultural Revolution, there was nothing more important, at least in one’s public conduct, than loyalty to the Great Helmsman. Placing love, or at least passion above that loyalty, smashing the icons that embody it, is an embrace of individualism over the bonds of the state and of the community, a piss in the eye of both Mao worship and Confucian fealty.

The novella may be banned but is apparently readily available on the internet.

Thanks to ESNW for providing the translation and links – do check out his site. There are a multitude of great posts and links, as usual…

Shocked? I’m Not

As former secretary of state Colin L. Powell worked into the night in a New York hotel room, on the eve of his February 2003 presentation to the U.N. Security Council, CIA officers sent urgent e-mails and cables describing grave doubts about a key charge he was going to make.

On the telephone that night, a senior intelligence officer warned then-CIA Director George J. Tenet that he lacked confidence in the principal source of the assertion that Saddam Hussein’s scientists were developing deadly agents in mobile laboratories.

Former CIA director George J. Tenet, left, did not pass on to former secretary of state Colin L. Powell doubts relayed to him by a senior intelligence officer.

“Mr. Tenet replied with words to the effect of ‘yeah, yeah’ and that he was ‘exhausted,’ ” according to testimony quoted yesterday in the report of President Bush’s commission on the intelligence failures leading up to his decision to invade Iraq in March 2003.

Tenet told the commission he did not recall that part of the conversation. He relayed no such concerns to Powell, who made the germ- warfare charge a centerpiece of his presentation the next day.

That was one among many examples — cited over 692 pages in the report — of fruitless dissent on the accuracy of claims against Iraq. Up until the days before U.S. troops entered Iraqi territory that March, the intelligence community was inundated with evidence that undermined virtually all charges it had made against Iraq, the report said.

Washington Post: Free Registration

I’m going to sleep. Post snarky outrage of the (duh) variety below.

Open Thread

“If he’s—the inference is that somehow he thinks slavery is a—is a noble institution I would—I would strongly reject that assumption—that John Ashcroft is a open-minded, inclusive person.”

—Bush, on NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw, Jan. 14, 2001

What he said.

5 GI’s and 32 pounds of cocaine

Five U.S Army soldiers are under investigation for allegedly trying to smuggle 32 pounds of cocaine out of Colombia aboard a U.S. military aircraft, American officials said Thursday.

This is while

The United States has provided more than $3 billion in aid over the past four years to help Colombia battle Marxist rebels and drug trafficking that fuels the 40-year-old insurgency.

(1)
Well, I guess many things could be said about this. This always happens. This never happens. They should have gotten CIA clearance before trying to leave the country.

Of course, I don’t know what it means, if it has to mean anything. But I have never been a fan of Plan Colombia. I think it is disgraceful that we have military and private contractors in Colombia spraying the countryside with poisons to eradicate the coca plant. The poisons do not discriminate, they’ll kill anything that’s growing, get into the ground water, into other crops. They don’t target only coke plants.

I wonder how often this happens, how often a group of soldiers gets the idea to smuggle a payload out. I wonder how many contractors do. They are less regulated than the military, they could have more room to do this.

Or this could be another group of bad apples. Never happened before, will never happen again.

‘Emergency oil plan’ required in view of coming shortages

Financial Times

The report circulated to governments (…) suggests dramatic measures, such as reducing motorway speed limits by 25 per cent, shortening the working week, imposing driving bans on certain days, providing free public transport and promoting car pooling schemes.

And who’s saying this? Lefties? Envirofreaks? Eurowhiners?

Nope, it’s…

The International Energy Agency, the energy watchdog for industrialised countries created after the oil crisis of the 1970s.

IEA to call for an emergency oil plan

Oil importing countries should implement emergency oil saving policies if supplies fall by as little as 1m-2m barrels a day, the International Energy Agency will warn next month.

The figure is much lower than the official trigger of 7 per cent of global oil supply equivalent to 6m b/d agreed in the treaty that founded the energy watchdog for industrialised countries after the oil crisis of the 1970s. A fall in supply of just 1m-2m b/d would be equivalent to the disruptions during the 2003 Iraq war or the 2002 oil industry strike in Venezuela.

A warning to set up “demand restraint policies” in the transport sector, such as driving bans or shorter working weeks, is contained in a study to be published next month during the annual IEA meeting of energy ministers.

It comes as oil is trading at more than $55 a barrel and highlights the agency’s concern about the possibility of a supply shock, the economic impact of high oil prices, and the need to focus on conserving energy rather than simply encouraging higher production.

The report marks a departure in IEA policy, as it says demand restraint measures, until now confined to times of crisis, “may be attractive during extended periods of high oil prices to relieve demand pressure”.

THEY ARE OFFICIALLY PANICKING.

What this means is the following:

  • a temporary drop of only 1-2% in oil production at any time, for any cause can have dramtic consequences for the oil market, because it is so stretched.
  • supply side policies (à la drilling in Alaska) are not sufficient. Production is still increasing, but this is barely enough to cope with rapidly increasing demand, and there now is no spare capacity.
  • above 50$/bbl prices have not reduced demand; they have not even slowed growth of the demand.
  • the official cheerleader of the oil markets, the EIA, which has always been saying that production capacities were sufficient, is finally admitting the obvious: they are not, and arguing for pretty radical steps.

Price increases are not enough to balance the market when demand is so unelastic – unless they are truly of earth shattering proportions (see this previous diary which suggested that prices needed to be multiplied by 10 or 15 to have an effect on demand of another unelastic commodity), so administrative measures are going to be required.

Rationing. Get ready for it. Really soon.

And no, I am not being needlessly dramatic. Everybody has been surprised by the surge in oil demand in the past 2 years, and there simply isn’t the requisite production capacity. As I have written previously, but it bears repeating, the oil majors are not investing because they have no access to the reserves in the most attractive places (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mexico), and the national oil companies are not investing because their governments are busily spending the windfall. Production capacity simply cannot cope.

This is not directly peak oil, but it is a kind of “political peak oil”, which is the first sign of the actual physical peak oil.

Someone Close to Halliburton Employee Speaks

You’ve probably seen my diary: Halliburton Employee Gang-Beaten by Baghdad Co-Workers. (It’s in the Recommended List at the moment.)

Anni, who is close to Ron, would like to speak to us, and answer your questions about how Ron is doing, and what happened to him.  Some questions, this person may not be able to answer.

The Lebanonization of Iraq?

Just a brief one…cross posted to A Magnificent Wreckage

This isn’t good news:

The rumors spread quickly last month around the central Baghdad neighborhood of Sab’ah Nisan that Salem Khudair’s nephew had insulted the name of Imam Hussein, one of the most important historical figures in the Shiite branch of Islam. It fell to Khudair, the eldest son of a family from the Sunni branch, to meet with local Shiites and explain that his 26-year-old nephew had said no such thing.

A day later Khudair’s family received a note insulting them as Sunni Muslims, calling them sons of whores. On March 27, Khudair was kidnapped.

What came next has become typical for Iraq as sectarian tension and violence rise. Khudair’s family formed an armed group of more than 20 relatives and neighbors who are demanding Khudair’s release and vowing to kill those responsible.

“If something happened to my brother, no Shiite would be safe,” said Khudair’s brother, Sameer, who’s convinced that Shiite militia members are behind the kidnapping.

The political instability in Iraq and the ethnic divides behind it are pushing Iraqis toward gang-like violence that many worry could start a slide toward civil war.

link

I’ve observed rather frequently lately that the “insurgency” in Iraq is becoming more and more an intra-Iraqi conflict.  What we have regarded as a weakness of the Iraqi insurgency, its disparate and disunified nature, may ultimately result in an Iraq far more dangerous and unstable than an Iraq under assault by a single unified command.  This disparate nature reflects the underlying sectarian and tribal differences that have riven Iraq since foreign powers decided to cobble together a multitude of Levantine wilayets into a highly unstable nation state.

Terri Schiavo, Who Learned What

This private family decision is most often made, not by families and doctors and spiritual advisors, but by insurance companies and hospital accounting offices.

This is the place where I am supposed to insert the obligatory exhortation to get your Living Will, hot, fresh, new, improved!

But I am going to make all the lawyers mad and tell you an unpopular truth.
If you are in the US, unless you are very wealthy, or have an exceptionally good and ridiculously expensive health insurance contract, or a cluster of fans willing to pass the plate and dig deep for you, it is unlikely that your family members will find themselves struggling over the heart-wrenching question of how long you should be tube fed.

The question before the courts was a simple one to which there were no easy answers: What would Terri Schiavo want? Would she want to continue living indefinitely as she was, or would she want to die?

At the time of her accident, Terri was a 20 something, from all accounts an ordinary young woman. With all due respect to those who loved her, who have praised her charm, her friendly nature, and all her excellent qualities, the only truly remarkable thing about her life is that she apparently suffered from bulimia, which in the American culture, is not really that remarkable.

Almost from birth, young girls are conditioned to base their self-esteem on their physical appearance, specifically how closely they are able to conform to the popular western standard of beauty, which is for the most part, tall, thin, and blonde.

Terri was a very pretty woman, but she would never be fashion-model tall, thanks to her Mediterranean heritage, she looked funny as a bottle blonde, and was a naturally plump woman who in order to be thin, had to throw up most of what she ate.

While many women live longer with bulimia than Terri did, none of them enjoy good health, for obvious reasons. Michael Schiavo has said that he and Terri were attempting to conceive a child, and one of the bad things bulimia can do to a woman’s body is interfere with the normal function of her reproductive system.

It appears that Terri sought medical help regarding her failure to conceive a child, and the doctors did not diagnose her bulimia, after her collapse, her husband sued the doctors, and received a settlement.

By all accounts, it was after the settlement that tensions between Michael and Terri’s parents emerged. According to the report of the Guardian ad litem appointed by the courts, it was then that Michael’s view toward Terri’s condition changed.

Was all this because both sides wanted the money? We may never know, and it will never be our business. That was not the question before the courts, though it is worth noting that the judge did appoint the guardian because he acknowledged that the settlement appeared to be a factor clouding the interests of both parties.

To return to that simple question with no easy answers, what the court did have to decide, how likely is it that Terri would have expressed her wishes regarding tube feeing to her husband, or to his relatives?

She was, remember, an ordinary twenty-something, for whom  a spat with her husband over the cost of a visit to the hairstylist constituted a large enough trauma for her to cry when she told her friend about it.

Is it reasonable for us to suppose that she spent a lot of time reflecting on medical eventualities?

It is not, and neither Michael nor his relatives have said that she did. They cite remarks she made on a couple of occasions, while watching a TV show where one of the characters had a serious illness. Casual, spontaneous comments of the sort made by lots of people, comments that may or may not indicate the speakers considered and thoughtful position on the subject.

As one critic of the court’s decision put it, these comments were on the order of young people who, on seeing an older person they perceive to be unattractive, declare that they hope they die young. If I ever get that fat, shoot me.

That’s a valid point. And it leaves Michael with the argument that yeah but Terri really meant it, she wouldn’t want this, and his relatives can only say, no she would not want this, not Terri.

And what can her parents say? Oh yes she would. Terri would want to live. And how come she only said this to you and your relatives, huh? Terri just loved life.

Judge Greer was not asked to decide whether Terri’s life was worth living. His role did not include resolving the differences between the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo.  He was charged with deciding whether she would want to live as she had lived since 1990. And decide he did, whether you agree with his decision or not.

So did the system work? This question goes beyond the knee-jerk reactions from supporters of both camps. The fact that by this time, there were supporters of both camps would suggest that perhaps the system could be looked at.

This was a family matter. Tragic enough that it should end up in court, beyond indecency that it ended up all over TV screens and monitors and was in the mouths of millions is a big red flag that something is terribly wrong.

We may not be able to opine on Terri Schiavo’s wishes regarding what medical treatment she would want in what circumstance, but it is a reasonable assumption that neither Terri nor anyone else would wish their medical condition to become the subject of a media circus, complete with videos of them in their hospital bed broadcast over the airwaves 24-7 and insinuations of darker suspicions.

More things that are none of our business: If Terri and Michael were “having problems” or not. Terri would certainly not be the first young woman to marry her first beau in haste and repent at leisure, nor would the couple be the first to find that marriage has its rocky patches during that first 50 years or so.

If the Schindlers, however, had even the slightest inkling that Michael might have ever, even once, raised his hand to their daughter, the fact that for two years after her collapse, he lived with them, and cared for her with them as a family team, and from all accounts was for all practical purposes loved as their son, never mentioning these terrible allegations until fifteen years later, when the rift between them has become so heated, so acrimonious that they do not even speak to each other, cannot even be present together in Terri’s room, and court filings are flying like a swarm of gnats in the Florida sun, raises some provocative questions, to say the least.

For his part, since the Schindlers had apparently decided that the whole sad, ugly story was to be played out on the public stage, Michael did not make good choices in his public relations strategy, considering that his “enemy” had now grown beyond Ma & Pa Schindler and the kids, but now included a veritable army of religious “activists,” politicians, all of whom tend to be strongly traditional and socially conservative.

Not that viewers were evenly split along party lines, or even “left” and “right.”

And let us be clear, viewers is the correct term in this case. Even with everything from Terri’s medical records to court documents to up close and personal interviews with all the players, two things never changed: Terri’s condition, and the fact that the entire matter is none of our business.

Yet no one in the US could avoid it. For two weeks, US media covered the story as extensively, as continuously, as it did the death of Princess Diana, who was, at least, a public figure.

Terri Schiavo was not a public figure, on the contrary, regardless of whose “side” they were on, everyone who ever said so much as hello to her (and just about everyone who fell into that category has been interviewed) agrees that Terri was a private person, a shy woman who did not seek the spotlight, who preferred to live a quiet life, spending her time with close friends and family.

And the viewers raged at each other, as angry and as hostile as the two principal enemies. Opportunities to discuss serious questions raised by the situation were discarded in favor of sign-painting, political grandstanding, name calling and hair pulling. And each “side” developed a fan base, which bloomed into full-fledged cults, each of whom believed that their American idol could do no wrong, that the other cult’s idol was Satan incarnate, many of the same people who were accustomed to calm urging of nuance in the matter of the grisliest of American foreign policies now gave no quarter, brooked no questions, while their rivals, who had no problem with for example, the Futile Care law in Texas, and had lots of problems with even the suggestion that the US might consider following the example of every other industrialized nation on earth and providing even basic health care.

All who knew her agree that she was a happy woman, kind, and loving.

We cannot begin to imagine her agony were she aware of the roiling hatred between the people she loved and trusted most, her disgust to be the center of a national mudfight that has turned neighbor against neighbor, brother against brother, with a passion that the invasion and occupation of two countries, all the long laundry list of US atrocities could not do.

Those larger questions, like how to come to grips with the fact that we may not agree with another person’s choice regarding what level of life they would want to live, are questions that the American public is not only not ready to make, they are not even ready to talk about it.

On the day that Terri died, 40 thousand children around the world died of starvation. And a handful of rich Americans made a lot more money.

While there may be a reluctance to discuss questions of life and death as it pertains to affluent Americans with medical problems, when it comes to distributing death to the not-so-affluent in far off lands, that same level of tortured conflict is not evident.

As US news networks talk about legacies and what have we learned, few Americans have even an inkling of the lesson they have imparted to the rest of the world.

Zimbabwe elections – the background (Part I of II)

Voting booths in Zimbabwe have closed following what observers call ‘a peaceful poll,’ reports the BBC. Yet the context of today’s parliamentary election could not be more dramatic. President Robert Mugabe has lately shut off humanitarian aid to his starving population, declaring that only members of his own party, the ZANU-PF, will have access to food. And this is just one of his many foul ploys to gain an absolute majority in Parliament, giving him full control over an already lawless country sinking deeper into misery and violence every day.

Below is Part I of an attempt to outline the background of this drama.

Following the conquest of its territory led by British financier Cecil Rhodes, the entity now known as Zimbabwe was established in 1890 as a commercial venture owned and run by his British South Africa Company. In 1923 the white settlers were offered a choice between annexation and self-government within the British Empire, choosing the latter. ZimbabweBetween 1925 and 1980, ‘Rhodesia’ enjoyed the somewhat paradoxical status of an autonomous colony with its own parliament, laws, and police. More than in the London-run colonies, however, the black majority was surpressed and utterly denied participation, causing no small amount of tension with the British Colonial Office.

From 1953 to 1963, Rhodesia formed a union with North Rhodesia (now Zambia) and Nyasaland (now Malawi). This decade saw a massive confiscation of land on behalf of white farmers, which, combined with the winds of independence by now sweeping the continent, provoked the 1961 founding of the Zimbabwean African People’s Union (ZAPU). Two years later it was followed by a splinter group, the Zimbabwean African National Union (ZANU). Both were banned.

The white minority also wanted full independence from Britain, but on its own terms – this meaning continuation of the apartheid system. As Britain made independence conditional upon the abolition of the latter, Prime Minister Ian Smith issued what would be known as the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in 1965. This was rejected both by the Brits and the international community. The UN imposed economic sanctions on Rhodesia, which became an international pariah state.

Listen to PM Ian Smith announcing unilateral independence on radio (Real Player). From the BBC series The Story of Africa.


Government garden party, 1966, Salisbury (now Harare). Photo: Marion Kaplan.

Pressure intensified during the 1970s, and not least from within. The ZANU, led by the Marxist Robert Mugabe, was based upon the Shona people, representing 75% of the population. Perhaps because of its leader’s ideological hue, it received military aid from China. The ZAPU, led by Joshua Nkomo, had its base in the Ndebele people of the South-East, representing 20% of the population. Through effective guerrilla struggle, the two movements forced the Smith regime to accept majority rule ‘in principle’ by 1976. Further negotiations led to independence in 1980.

It was settled that land reform would only take place by agreement and in return for compensation at market price, paid by the British government. Whites were encouraged to stay; the new coalition government stressed reconciliation and included all ethnic groups. Mugabe, whose ZANU won 57 of 89 contested seats in Parliament, took office as Prime Minister while Nkomo became Minister of the Interior. All appeared to be well.

However, that illusion was shattered already the next year as Mugabe accused ZAPU of plotting a coup, firing Nkomo. When ZAPU supporters launched a local revolt in response, Mugabe unleashed a feared army brigade upon the ethnic Ndebele, slaugthering thousands in an act of genocide that his followers have described, chillingly, as Gukurahundi – ‘the rain washing away the chaff.’

This occurred in the mid-80s and allowed Mugabe to strengthen his grip on power after his 1985 reelection. In 1987 the ZAPU was absorbed into the ZANU, renamed ZANU-PF, ushering in a de facto one-party system. That same year, he assumed the title of Executive President with additional powers. Robert MugabeA final ominous event of 1987 was the expiry of the treatise which, based upon the so-called willing seller/willing buyer principle, outlawed farmland confiscation.

Ever since taking power, Mugabe had continued the Smith regime’s economic interventionism. Yet he had shied away from land reform, hesitant to meddle with the 6-7000 white farmers whose estates, located on the most fertile land, yielded most of the national exports. Instead he quite successfully bettered the living conditions of the rural blacks in other ways: building schools, creating infrastructure, and supporting small-scale black farmers, boosting their productivity. Infant mortality dropped and the proportion of children attending school sky-rocketed from 20% in 1980 to 80% in -88. Economic growth was a respectable 3.2%.

But alas, this was not to last: Toward the end of the decade, the World Bank and the IMF, worried about Zimbabwe’s mounting national debt, saw fit to demand a ‘structural adjustment program’ of economic liberalization. Combined with severe drought, this sent Zimbabwe spinning into a spiral of negative growth, hyper-inflation, and rampant unemployment, worsening throughout the 1990s. Increasingly, outright starvation made itself felt on the countryside, undermining Mugabe’s popularity. In 1997 he decided that, rather than drowning in this wave of discontent, he would try to ride it.

Part II to follow.

Austin Kossacks unite! April 2, 2pm, Scholz’s

I just joined Booman, and this is my first post here. Another Kossack/Booperson suggested I post this announcement from dKos here too. I hope that some of you Austinites out there can join us on Saturday. The forecast is for absolutely perfect weather–just right for an afternoon at Scholz’s.

Crossposted at Daily Kos on Monday:

Yes, that’s right. At 2 p.m. this coming Saturday afternoon, Kossacks of Austin TX will meet in person at Scholz Beer Garden–outdoors of course. I’ll have a sign/card on the table with some mention of “Kos” on it so we can find each other. And if you have a digital camera, please bring it! I would like to post a brief diary with photos on dKos [and Booman Trib] afterwards.

I’m looking forward to meeting y’all. Let’s start plotting and help Mindmouth get some respect for Texas!

(As proof that Texas is (almost) a whole other country, bagpipers start playing at 5 p.m. at Scholz’s. If we stay that long, we’ll probably be ready for them…)