Author: poemless

Crossposted from the European Tribune.

Tribune correspondent charged as spy in Sudan

Paul Salopek, a two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning foreign correspondent for the Chicago Tribune, was charged with espionage and two other criminal counts in a Sudanese court Saturday, three weeks after he was detained by pro-government forces in the war-torn province of Darfur.

Salopek, 44, who was on a freelance assignment for National Geographic magazine, was arrested with two Chadian citizens, his interpreter and driver. If convicted, they could be imprisoned for years.

He entered the country without a valid visa.  Which is not a good thing.  But it’s not proof of espionage either.  

The charges come amid increasing signs that diplomatic efforts to resolve the continuing crisis in Darfur may be foundering. Assistant U.S. Secretary of State Jendayi Frazer, who has called the situation in Darfur dire, is leading a mission to Khartoum this week that she hopes will persuade the Sudanese government to accept an expanded United Nations peacekeeping force in the region.

A spokesman for the State Department said the agency had no immediate statement on the case.

Aides said Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who is traveling through Africa, has been in close contact with diplomats working on Salopek’s case. Obama is scheduled to travel next weekend to an area near the Chad-Sudan border.

Diplomats say it is difficult to get a clear read on the case and its possible outcome. The presiding judge in Salopek’s case on Aug. 14 sentenced Slovenian writer and activist Tomo Kriznar to two years in prison on charges of spying and publishing false information. Kriznar admitted entering the country without a visa but denied the spying charge. His attorneys are appealing.

Earlier this month, the same judge ordered the deportation of a 22-year-old American college student who had been detained in Darfur.

Salopek’s arrest is one more case in an international trend of charges against journalists. A Beijing court on Friday dismissed a state secrets charge against a researcher for The New York Times but sentenced him to three years in prison on a lesser, unrelated fraud charge.

Salopek reported from Sudan for a 2003 National Geographic story titled “Shattered Sudan: Drilling for Oil, Hoping for Peace.” Sources said Sudanese authorities have singled out that story in their case against Salopek, in part because he described entering rebel-held territory in southern Sudan without official permission.

Salopek’s most recent work for the Tribune was a July 30 special section called A tank of gas, a world of trouble.”  Based on Salopek’s reporting from four continents, the report documented the United States’ addiction to oil.

To be honest, this type of thing, journalists being charged with spying or some wrong doing by hostile foreign governments, is of marginal concern to me, as it seems to be par for the course.  And there are just sooooo many things to be outraged about these days; there is only enough energy for so many issues.  

But there are several factors which make this incident more curious to me than your average persecution of journalists stories.

1. The special article he wrote, “A tank of gas, a world of trouble,” was some of the best journalism I have ever seen in my short life.  And was the topic of some discussion at European Tribune.  For those who have not read it, it traces the oil in a tank of gas being put into a suburban SUV back to where it originated, and along the way juxtaposing the lives of individuals and the socio-economic situations in the regions at every point along the way, from oil barons to people who work the night shift at the gas station, from Nigeria and Iraq and Venezuela to New Orleans and the vast empty American Heartland.  And the way all these people’s lives are affected by the oil industry.  If you have not read it yet, I HIGHLY recommend it.  It reads like a novel.

2. In the U.S. and over at ET there has been increasing discussion about sending troops to Darfur.  I recently wrote that it’s easier to ignore Darfur than Lebanon, in part because the situation in Darfur doesn’t have a great affect on the outside world.  So I was wrong.  I’m sure these types of things are not new in Darfur (a vaguely remember some retribution -kidnapping?- committed against some NGO’s last year.)   I’m not suggesting this will result in intervention, but the government seems to be egging us on.  One more excuse is one more step in that direction.

3. Tin Foil Hat time!  I’m not presenting this as anything but the product of my own imagination.  But when I read Salopek’s article in the Tribune, I immediately thought, “How did they let him get away with this?”  I think that just speaks to the level of self-censorship, the tight grip corporate interests, and the generally poor quality of “journalism” in America media today  So if I were writing a movie I think I’d have some side plot where the big oil people are in collusion with the Sudanese gov’t to put this man away.  I haven’t seen Syriana.  Maybe I should and get this silliness out of my system.

Lastly, if you are like me, you think: “What can I do?”  I would say just read that article and recommend it to all your friends and family.  I suppose if you are really jonesing to help this guy, you could contact Senators Obama and Durbin with your concern.  But they do seem to be on top of this. Also, here’s the link to Reporters without Borders. 

It’s always about oil, isn’t it?

Cross-posted from European Tribune.

I’m just going to get this out of the way now.

I. Don’t. Care.

It’s true.  Maybe it is outrage fatigue.  But I don’t think so.  I read a nice diary on kos with all the historical maps.  I didn’t care.  Maybe war just drains me.  But I don’t think so.  I still have the energy to go to protests and vigils and write my reps.  It might be that it’s so far away from my reality.  But I don’t think so.  I mean, I’m just a little obsessed with what goes on in Russia.  Might be that I’m an anti-Semite.  But I don’t think so.  My boyfriend is Jewish.

I don’t care who is right and who is wrong because there is nothing in the world to justify what has happened this week.

 
There is a neighborhood in Chicago called Rogers Park.  Walk down streets like Devon Avenue and you won’t hear any English spoken.  You will hear Russian, Urdu, Hindi, Hebrew, Arabic…  You’ll see mosques and temples and churches.  It is the most vibrant neighborhood in the city, and Jews live next door to Palestinians who live across the street from Pakistanis whose children play with Hindus.  These are not well-off, highly educated, totally assimilated people.  They are mostly just off the proverbial boat.  But they seem to realize they are all in it together.  People from all over come to study this neighborhood because it defies all the laws of the universe.  People.  Getting along.  

Look,

We’ve all been wronged.

We’ve all had loved ones ripped from our lives.  

We’d all like to live wherever we want to.

We all want to live without worrying about being bombed.  

We all have a loved one who has endured genocide, racism or oppression.

We all believe we are right.

Those of us who believe that our being right gives us permission to sacrifice another person’s child are evil.  

End of story.  Don’t care where you live, where you worship, what happened to your people a 100 years ago.  Don’t care.  I don’t have any interest in your grievances.  

We all have choices in life.  We can educate, or promote ignorance.  Reach out, or build walls.  Live together or annihilate.  Accept humility or prove our might.  Be decent or be ugly.  

~Anyone who tells you they have no choice but to drop a bomb is lying to you.  

~Anyone who tells you god wants them to have your home is lying to you.  

~Anyone who tells you they are incapable of living with someone of a certain race or religion is lying to you.

~Anyone who tells you that the only path to peace is war is lying to you.  

I’m rather sick of watching people die because of these lies.  Darfur, Chechnya, Iraq, Palestine, etc, etc…  I don’t know what to do about it.  But the first thing I am going to do is stop being afraid to call out the liars.  Label me an anti-Semite, anti-Muslim, anti-Russian, anti-American.  I Don’t Care.  Then I’m going to raise my standards.  If the Jews, Muslims, Christians and Hindus down the freaking street can live in peace, the rest of the world has no fucking excuse.  None.  

That’s why I don’t care who did what first or who was where why.  Because these have become discussions that serve only one purpose, to undermine peace and strip us of our shared humanity.  The world is on fire because it is easier to live in the past than build a future.  Because it is easier to find our differences than our commonalities.  Because it is easier to appear civilized by forcing other people to live like animals than by cultivating our own minds and souls.  Because it is easier to kill someone than negotiate.

Tell me what you are doing to build a better future, to celebrate our shared humanity, to cultivate your higher sensitivities, to challenge your current way of seeing the world, and I will happily listen.  But why is there war?  I Don’t Care.  There is no reason valid enough for me to waste my time listening to it.  

Maybe I’ll wake up tomorrow and feel differently.  But that’s not the point.

The point is that there are children who won’t wake up tomorrow, or ever again.  

Cross posted from European Tribune.  Because it’s Americans who need to read this.

In my “when everyone votes for a dictatorship” diary, someone pointed me to an article by Stephen Cohen in The Nation.  I stopped reading The Nation after we did not renew our subscription during our post-election depression.  One can only take complaining about Bush and sweatshops for so long before one gets the point already.  So, it is with great relief that I see they’ve pulled themselves back from the brink of insignificance and have published something not just important, but necessary.

I have my qualms with people like Stephen Cohen for reasons stated elsewhere.  But My God if I thought that personally delivering this article to each member of Congress would make an inch of difference, I’d do it myself right now.  

Here’s an excerpt for the sake of bloggyness even though you’ll only truly appreciate it if you read the whole article:

Since the early 1990s Washington has simultaneously conducted, under Democrats and Republicans, two fundamentally different policies toward post-Soviet Russia–one decorative and outwardly reassuring, the other real and exceedingly reckless. The decorative policy, which has been taken at face value in the United States, at least until recently, professes to have replaced America’s previous cold war intentions with a generous relationship of “strategic partnership and friendship.” The public image of this approach has featured happy-talk meetings between American and Russian presidents, first “Bill and Boris” (Clinton and Yeltsin), then “George and Vladimir.”

The real US policy has been very different–a relentless, winner-take-all exploitation of Russia’s post-1991 weakness. Accompanied by broken American promises, condescending lectures and demands for unilateral concessions, it has been even more aggressive and uncompromising than was Washington’s approach to Soviet Communist Russia. Consider its defining elements as they have unfolded–with fulsome support in both American political parties, influential newspapers and policy think tanks–since the early 1990s:

~A growing military encirclement of Russia, on and near its borders, by US and NATO bases, which are already ensconced or being planned in at least half the fourteen other former Soviet republics, from the Baltics and Ukraine to Georgia, Azerbaijan and the new states of Central Asia…

~A tacit (and closely related) US denial that Russia has any legitimate national interests outside its own territory, even in ethnically akin or contiguous former republics such as Ukraine, Belarus and Georgia…

~Even more, a presumption that Russia does not have full sovereignty within its own borders, as expressed by constant US interventions in Moscow’s internal affairs since 1992.

That interventionary impulse has now grown even into suggestions that Putin be overthrown by the kind of US-backed “color revolutions” carried out since 2003 in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, and attempted this year in Belarus…

~Underpinning these components of the real US policy are familiar cold war double standards condemning Moscow for doing what Washington does–such as seeking allies and military bases in former Soviet republics, using its assets (oil and gas in Russia’s case) as aid to friendly governments and regulating foreign money in its political life…

~Finally, the United States is attempting, by exploiting Russia’s weakness, to acquire the nuclear superiority it could not achieve during the Soviet era.

I do have some complaints about the article which have more to do with tone and framing than the facts.  “Poor,” “savaged,” “tormented” Russia?  Uhg.  But I’ve given up expecting any better.  I do, however, find his premise that we should change our tune on Russia to prevent them from going ballistic on us to be a bit rich.  The repeated meme of “unstable, hair-trigger alert” is rather unfair, given the way Russia’s been practicing diligent self-control while we’ve been bombing the shit out of any country who even looks at us the wrong way…  But I get Cohen’s intent.  One can’t expect this Administration to acknowledge their idiocy or show sincere empathy, but they seem a bit obsessed with the possibility of people turning their WMD’s, existent or not, on us.  So it makes sense to play to that tune.  Still, a bit intellectually dishonest, Stephen.  What the world needs now is surely NOT more scaremongering.  

Anyway, I highly recommend reading the whole shebang, as it provides in detailed examples the myriad of ways America has forced Russia to bend over and take it for the past 15 years, and suggests an alternative, or at least a complimentary analysis to Mark Ames’ recent opus.  Completely different tones.  Completely different reasoning.  But it’s not clear that they are both not equally right.  

Most of Cohen’s observations have already been discussed at ET ad infinitum.  Demanding Russia acts in our best interests, not respecting their sovereignty, blaming Russia for the chaos we helped create, accepting their help and accommodations while not returning the favor, and what Cohen terms, the “anti-Russia fatwa” in Washington and the American media.  All of which have only encouraged the very behavior Washington should want to prevent, like increased nationalism, militarization, re-alignment of powers (Iran, China, Venezuela…)

What is fascinating, and terrifying, about Cohen’s analysis is that while America is now in Cold War mode -He maintains Russia’s refusing to play this game.  So far.  But not forever…- is that, unlike the old Cold War, there is no negotiation & cooperation, no détente, which keeps this one from becoming an actual war.  We’re calling it a Cold War, but who’s preventing it from getting hot?  Forget the Administration, they think war -the kill thousands of people and take over their countries kind- is a good thing.  Congress?  They are all on board with the Admin.  The Media?  Same.  The Public?  In the olden days groups opposed to nuclear proliferation played a large role in the “anti-Cold War” lobby.  Where are those groups today?  Largely dismantled.  And the intellectuals who spoke out against the Cold War in the past?  While Commies used to infest our halls of learning, Neo-Cons are the new vermin.  They’re no help.  Basically, there is no visible dissent.  (I guess Professor Cohen doesn’t read European Tribune, ahem…)  

He’s calling for an American version of Gorbachev to step forward and put an end to this insanity.  

Good.  Fucking.  Luck.  (Is this what problem solving in America has come to?  Waiting for Prince Charming?)

But, sign me up for the dissent lobby, Steve.  I want to enlist.

I admit to liking this article very much because it echoes what I’ve been saying all along.  So Colman’s probably bothered.  But events have unfolded this week which make me being right of rather little consequence:

4 Russian diplomats were brutally executed in Iraq, where, as the occupying power, the United States of America is expected to maintain order and rule of law.

President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday ordered Russia’s secret services to find and kill those who kidnapped four Russian Embassy employees in Iraq and then executed them, the Kremlin announced.

The bluntness of the statement reflected the deep shock and anger – much of it directed at the United States – that has unfolded in Russia after the kidnapping on June 3 in an attack that killed a fifth Russian. The Foreign Ministry confirmed the execution of the hostages Monday, following the release of a short video that showed the beheading of one of the men and the shooting of another. The video showed a head placed on a body, though it was unclear whether it was the same man shown being beheaded. The fate of the other hostages was not shown.

“The president gave instructions to the Russian special services to take all measures for finding and destroying the criminals who committed this atrocity,” the Kremlin said, according to the official Russian Information Agency.

…

The United States, along with many other countries, has denounced the killings of the embassy workers – including a third secretary, a maintenance worker, driver and a cook – as an act of terror. American military commanders in Iraq pledged to help find the hostages and, after their deaths, to help find those who killed them. But far from finding common cause over the killings, many Russian officials, clerics, politicians and commentators have blamed the deaths on the United States and the failure of the U.S.-led forces to provide security.

On Wednesday, the lower house of Parliament voted to adopt a statement referring to the “occupying countries” in Iraq, blaming them for the deaths.

“We believe they could have prevented the tragedy,” the statement said.

and this:

At the United Nations, Russia ran into a roadblock Wednesday in an appeal to the Security Council to condemn the diplomats’ killings, Reuters reported.

The United States and Britain objected to parts of a draft Russian statement, arguing it amounted to a slap at the U.S.-led forces.

I knew we were in bad shape, but our forces aren’t even equipped to handle a slap?

This talk of hunting people down and killing them smacks of posturing.  Tough guy talk.  Is Russia really going to send their special forces into the hell-hole we’ve created over there and find the bad guys?  Who knows.  You can never tell with those sneaky Russians.  (Troops: Mow down Boris, but please don’t shoot Natasha.  She’s my namesake!  And so cool!)  

Now.  Back to reality.  Given the context of Cohen’s artice, Putin’s response to this outrageous incident seems closer to that of a well-trained puppy than a nuke-wielding enemy of democracy.  Who could forgive him cutting out the nice-guy act now?  Think about it:  

Cold War.  Russia is occupying some unstable Central Asian nation.  They’ve totally fucked everything up but are assuring us it’s like totally safe to conduct governmental business there.  Extremist militants in said Soviet nation chop off the heads of American diplomats and send us the tape.

Huh.

“Hair-trigger”?  I’m going with “Goddamned Fucking Gentleman” (how to you say that in Russian?) until the day Putin takes Bush out behind the shed, as they say around here.  

::

p.s. If anyone asks, tell the cafeteria lady at Gitmo that I’d prefer the baked potato to the rice pilaf.  With sour cream, please.  

Cross posted from EuroTribune.  I don’t think I’ve ever posted a diary here on Booman before.  But I thought this might be of interest to people here.  Mostly, you know, I’m aware of Booman Tribune’s desire to claim a space a bit to the left of DailyKos.  And, well, this is pretty far left.  So I thought you might like some envelope-pushing around here.  Curious to see the response, anyway.

Frequently asked questions:

Is Chavez a Dictator, or does he respect Democracy?  

Is Putin an Autocrat or Strong Leader?  

Is the US a Representative Democracy or a Plutocracy?  

Is Nationalism always Fascism?  

Can Co-ops be Capitalist?  

Can Socialism and a Free Market co-exist?

I’m an expert in neither political science nor economics, and don’t want to survey in one blog entry what academics will spend their entire lives trying to wrap their brains around. Not unless someone’s offering me tenure.

But I have the unsettling feeling that we’ve entered a chapter in history when the dictionary is failing us.  Words have lost their meaning.  And we are confused – not just by the insanity we read in the news, but by our own inability to express just what’s insane about it.  First I though it was just me, in the throes of shock, having witnessed my own dear country’s tail spin into despotism.  Then I read that diary about our brains and was reminded once again that when you have a square and life hands you a circle, it might just be that what you’ve been calling a square is, in fact, not one at all.

So I’d like to take a step back and shine a light on some things we’ve been taking for granted, which have been the foundations for our positions on all issues, and suggest that they are just ill formed ideas (the nerve, I know…) and that any solutions will require radically altering our way of describing the world.  I’m not advocating “re-framing” but putting these words into the museums where they belong.  
Catalogue of works slated for the Natural History Exhibit:

Democracy:  literally, rule by the people (from the Greek demos, “people,” and kratos, “rule”). The methods by which this rule is exercised, and indeed the composition of “the people” are central to various definitions of democracy, but useful contrasts can be made with oligarchies and autocracies, where political authority is highly concentrated and not subject to meaningful control by the people.

Used in a sentence:

“Iraq’s young democracy still faces determined enemies,” Bush said. “Defeating these enemies will require sacrifice and continued patience — the kind of patience the good people of Hungary displayed after 1956.”

Capitalism: economic system based on the production of commodities for sale, exchange, and profit; and private ownership of the means of production.  Contemporary capitalism is often described as the free market economy or free enterprise economy, with reference to the distribution of income largely through the operation of markets.

Used in a sentence:

“The Kremlin hopes the increasingly aggressive consolidation of the industry at home will make the export trade a cornerstone of its system of state capitalism before the post-Soviet decline that has plagued production becomes irreversible.”

Free Market: a market where price is determined by the unregulated interchange of supply and demand. … According to a more philosophical definition, a free market is a market where trades are morally voluntary and therefore free from the interference of force and fraud. … Hence, with government force limited to a defensive role, government itself does not initiate force in the marketplace and the free market is preserved.

Used in a sentence:

“Free-market drives cheat’s ‘coursework-to-order’ cost as low as £2.70”

Socialism: a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control. As an economic system, socialism is usually associated with state or collective ownership of the means of production. This control, according to socialists, may be either direct, exercised through popular collectives such as workers’ councils, or it may be indirect, exercised on behalf of the people by the state.

Used in a sentence:

“Former congressman and star quarterback Jack Kemp once said that “…a distinction should be made that football is democratic, capitalist, whereas soccer is a European socialist sport,”

Communism: a political ideology that seeks to establish a future classless, stateless social organization based upon common ownership of the means of production. It can be classified as a branch of the broader socialist movement. Communism also refers to a variety of political movements which claim the establishment of such a social organization as their ultimate goal.

Early forms of human social organization have been described as “primitive communism.” However, communism as a political goal generally is a conjectured form of future social organization which has never been implemented.

Used in a sentence:

“And, of course, as Hannah Arendt taught us long ago, if something is the same as fascism (as many things are these days) then it’s also the same as Communism.”

Authoritarian: a form of government characterized by strict obedience to the authority of the state, which often maintains and enforces social control through the use of oppressive measures.

In an authoritarian state, citizens are subject to state authority in many aspects of their lives, including many that other political philosophies would see as matters of personal choice. There are various degrees of authoritarianism; even very democratic and liberal states will show authoritarianism to some extent, for example in areas of national security.

Used in a sentence:

“It breaks my heart to say it because they are the party I was brought up on, but Labour have become the most totalitarian, authoritarian government in history,”

Dictatorship: absolute rule by a leadership (usually one dictator) unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state.

Used in a sentence:

“US former Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Roger Noriega declared Thursday in Santo Domingo that Venezuela is heading for dictatorship… According to Noriega, President Hugo Chávez has … turned state bodies, including the army, into political agencies, Efe reported.”

Nationalism: a form of identity that holds that (ethnically or culturally defined) nations are the “fundamental units” for human social life, and makes certain cultural and political claims based upon that belief; in particular, the claim that the nation is “the only legitimate basis for the state”, and that “each nation is entitled to its own state.” Nationalism also refers to the specific ideologies of various nationalist movements, which make cultural and political claims on behalf of specific nations.

Used in a sentence:

“Andy Byrne of John S. Herold Inc. describes Anadarko’s move as “acknowledging that international rents on oil production are rising.” That’s a sober way of saying that producers have got to be terrified of the rampant nationalism that is threatening property rights around the world.”

Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Used in a sentence:

“While Communism and Nazism posed threats through control of powerful states, the blogofascist menace is, like its Islamofascist counterpart, more of a loose network of highly motivated individuals.”

:::

As you can clearly see, these models are quite wide open to interpretation.  So much so that they’ve lost their meaning.  Less subjectively, not one appears to be a comprehensive ideology and thus they must learn to co-exist to varying degrees, depending on the preferences of the leaders or their constituents and practicality.  Meaning?  No holy grails in here.  No laws governing the Universe, no sacred cows, no perfect ideal.

I do not have new words to replace those which have failed us.  We can talk about “Social Democrats” and “Democratic Libertarians” and “Free-Market Liberals.”  Hell, you can also call yourselves “National Socialists” and “Neo-Communists” (I just made that up, sure there’s some angsty teen out there who’ll embrace it.)  These remind me of the infinite sects of Christianity.  You’ll be hard-pressed to find a human who doesn’t believe it’s wrong to let people starve to death.  You’ll also be hard pressed to find 2 people who are in complete agreement about how to create a world without starvation.  

Like religions, political ideologies are systems of belief (if you share everything, everyone will be fed; if you have elections, the people will have their voices heard; if you do the right thing you, will go to heaven) and no one has yet accounted for every variable.  No physicist, no yogi, no political scientist nor economist.  The only people who have come close are the atheist and anarchist who at least acknowledge the lies we tell ourselves, but who have, alas, yet to propose a viable system of anything of their own.  

I’ll let someone else come up with the new ideal paradigm.

But I do think that we need to question the usage of the terms in the artillery of the media and politicians and ideologues.  As every time we hear “WMD’s” we need to demand proof, every time we hear “Democracy” we need to do the same.  WMD’s?  Where?  Democracy?  For/By whom?  

We also need to publicly acknowledge the inefficiency of all these terms and of the systems they refer to.  Acknowledge, honestly, that our frustration comes from our own unwillingness or inability to step outside the box in which we were shipped to this world and not from the stubbornness of the circle which refuses to be a square.

And we must stop endorsing or dismissing any nation, leader or system on the basis of our visceral response to the name given to their style of governance, and begin assessing their merit based on the prosperity, safety and dignity of their people and their respect for that of peoples not under their rule.  Is Bush a Dictator?  Is Europe Socialist?  Is Putin running a Democracy?  Is Chavez a Commie?  Yes and No.  So what?  What does it prove or accomplish?   Nada, folks.  ничего.

Are the people of America or Europe or Russia or Venezuela allowed to live in prosperity, safety and dignity?  Do the actions of their leaders respect the prosperity, safety and dignity of the people of France, Nigeria, Iran?  Now we can begin to talk about problems and solutions.  

Terms like Democracy and Dictatorship, Capitalism and Communism are absolutes which work well when trying to win hearts and minds, when creating mythology and covering your ass for committing atrocities.  I myself have warm fuzzy responses to the ideas of Democracy and Communism (and one day I will create a utopia in which we will have both, and I will rule it with an iron fist, forcing everyone to vote in every election, shop at co-ops and save the whales.)   But in the daily work of protecting human rights, feeding & educating people, creating opportunity and maintaining civil society, there seems to be a direct, inverse, relationship between the faith placed in these ideas and their odds of success.  

Mind you, I am not advocating some kind of moral relativism (ok, a little, but much less than we currently see in our governments.)  I’m not advocating for dictatorships.  I’m just saying that “dictator” rather loses its rabid bite when the people keep electing one.  And democracy, that shining city on the hill, fades in attraction when you find out its inhabitants are dying for lack of healthcare…