|
response is to.......". But I couldn't think of anything I have a kneejerk response to. I probably do have my blind spots, stupidities and robotic reactions, but, of course, I can't see them. I used to think I had a kneejerk response to First Amendment issues--which I was proud of. My only absolute. Then I got to thinking about the war profiteering corporate news monopolies, and rightwing preachers. Would I shut them down if I could? You bet. --although it's not so much their fascist views, warmongering, brainwashing and shilling for the Bush Junta that so much offends me, as their inordinate money power to shovel their tripe down the throats of everyone, and make the good, progressive American majority, that believes in justice, lawfulness, truth and good government, feel powerless before the rightwing MINORITY. So I wouldn't deny them free speech. I would just take their trumpets away and bust their monopolies.
I'm pretty kneejerky on free speech.
How to avoid being kneejerky (except where it is warranted, as with free speech)? Don't watch TV news (unless you have a very strong critical mind). Seek a lot of differing sources of info. When you are exposed to an opinion or assertion of any kind, let it bounce around in your mind freely for a time; consider it from all angles. To be a good critical thinker (not kneejerk), you don't need to be ever uncertain about what you think, or what is true, but you do need the ability to keep an open mind--and thus your opinions will be better informed, and more solid--once you are able to form them--than those of others, who think only superficially, or depend on others for their views.
That's the theory anyway. Keep an open mind but not forever. (And sometimes it doesn't take long to come to your own conclusions--especially if you are experienced at critical thinking, and stay well informed.)
Take this meme of the corporate news monopolies that Chavez is "increasingly authoritarian." My first hit on Chavez (based on what information I had) was that he was not. But I know that ANY politician can get a big head, be tempted by power, etc. So--even though I had suspicions about this oft-repeated phrase (which was never attributed to anyone--it always is preceded by "his critics say....", and was being echoed by all of these US news monopolies), I sought out all articles on potential authoritarianism by Chavez.
Can people in Venezuela criticize him without retaliation? Yes, the media there vilify him freely, on a 24/7 basis. No repression of the press. What about this provision in the Venezuelan Constitution that makes it unlawful to slander the government? Never been used. Yeah, it's there--but so are a lot of bad US laws. The V. Constitution was written by many hands. It has this one questionable provision. But Chavez has never invoked it--even when the corporate media in Venezuela openly supported the military coup!
Was he elected in free and fair elections? Yes (unanimous opinion of the OAS, the Carter Center and EU groups, who heavily monitored Venezuela elections). What had he done about the violent military coup against him in 2002? He forgave most of the participants (whom he personally determined had been misinformed), and prosecuted only two perps (who were in jail--no death penalty in Venezuela--until someone, likely Bush CIA--recently engineered a jail break). Do people there genuinely like him? Yes, he's hugely popular in Venezuela, and has good relations with other So. American governments. They recently made Venezuela a full member of Mercosur (regional trade and cooperation group), and South America will be supporting Venezuela's bid for a seat on the UN Security Council next year.
Is he an extremist? Not at all. He's pursuing a mixed, capitalist/socialist economy, with a strong social justice component (much like many European countries). His government recently stopped a proposal by the leftist mayor of Caracas for confiscating two country clubs/golf courses for low cost housing, because the V. Constitution protects private property!
After extensive reading (and also discussions with someone who had visited Venezuela recently), no evidence of authoritarianism. Zero. Zilch. Where did this meme come from? I tracked it to a rightwing Catholic Cardinal, who spent his career in the Vatican finance office, and was ousted from that office in the fascist banking scandals of the 1980s. An old guy who regularly rants against Chavez, to the embarrassment of the more moderate and liberal elements of the Venezuelan church. Is this who AP, the NYT, the WSJ, WaPo and all the rest are consulting about Hugo Chavez? A corrupt, old Opus Dei Cardinal? Looks like it. He's the one who said it--that Chavez is "increasingly authoritarian"--but they never quote the source. And they probably also talked to John (death squad) Negroponte.
So now--because I kept an open mind (--didn't have a kneejerk response that all leftists are good)--I have plenty of ammunition to argue with those who call Chavez a "dictator." I was willing to believe otherwise, if there was sufficient evidence. There was NO evidence. None! Chavez likes the spotlight, and is a bit full of himself (what politician isn't?). But that's the worst that can be said of him. And that's he's too moderate. (Really--the vast poor population of Caracas are living in shacks and other miserable dwellings that regularly slide off the hills in heavy rains. Confiscation of golf courses--used by the rich--on a emergency basis seems quite reasonable to me.)
And any politician who reads Noam Chomsky and recommends his books to the UN can't be all bad. Turns out Chavez is not bad at all. He's a pretty decent guy, and may be a great leader, on the order of Simon Bolivar himself.
I remember doing my little open-mindedness exercise on Bush's assertion that we are in a "war on terror" and need to torture and kill Muslims who are out to destroy us, and even need to sacrifice our Constitution to that end, because we are a superior civilization and must triumph, for the sake of humanity. Americans have become soft, too peaceable and vulnerable. We need to wake up to the danger to western civilization, and focus our energies on defending it. Etc. Etc. (Bush never speaks this articulately, but this is what he is trying to say.) I let all this have some air in my mind every once in a while. Of course, it falls apart very quickly. (Really, it dissolved into goo back when Bush told Americans that what they could do about 9/11 was to go back to shopping.) But it does help your critical thinking skills, to be able to look at all sides--and it also clues you into how demagogues hook people--into what the hooks are. One hook into me was the inferior status of women in Muslim societies. But, with a larger view--and more wide ranging information--I begin to see WHY what appear to me to be repressive societies are so popular among the Muslim masses. My first clue was the Shia community reaction to the brutal US invasion. In the midst of all the chaos and looting, it was the poor Shia communities that functioned the best. They protected hospitals from looters; got water to people; patrolled the streets; prevented hooliganism and rape. Community cohesion. Brotherly cooperation.
These are societies that have been under severe attack by the west for some time, and exploited and impoverished by both the west and by the rich sultans who collude with the west. Islam is the glue that holds the Muslim poor together in these severe circumstances. Iran, for instance--the most potentially progressive country among Israel's neighbors--was thrown back into a sort of medieval refuge, under the mullahs, only AFTER the US/Israel had destroyed Iran's democracy in 1954 and inflicted the Iranian people with 25 years of torture and oppression under the horrible Shah of Iran. To THEM, fundamentalist Islam and the mullahs are PROGRESS--an essential step back toward high civilization (for which the Iranians--Persians--are famous, historically.) They need cohesion now; decent government (as opposed to western impositions, torture and exploitation); fairness, equity; community strength; family ties and loyalties; education, and all the fundamental things needed to REBUILD a civilization, and put it on the long road back to higher accomplishments. There are no Saudi princes (or anything comparable) in Iran. It is a MUCH fairer society than Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE--the Bush Junta's allies! Its government is much more reflective of the will of the people than any of the Bushites' Arab allies. And if the truth be known, it has a lot more in common with Israel than either side would be willing to admit. (Lord, I wish they could admit it--find the common ground--and cooperate in throwing the Bush Cartel out of the Middle East. Wouldn't that be something!*)
-----
*(I am a kneejerk defender of Israel's potentially great contribution to a cultural renaissance in the Middle East, and thus of Israel's survival. I am against anything that endangers that potential--including the Bushites' ill intentions, which are a great danger to Israel, and the stupidities and militarism of the rightwing Israeli government, which has ended up with the greatly despised Bush Junta as their only ally. May Allah protect Israel! I mean that sincerely, with no irony. The Muslim poor need Israel's more enlightened views about democracy and women's rights. Israel needs to be at peace with its neighbors, and needs to act on Judaism's requirement of social justice, and begin considering the welfare of all Middle Eastern peoples in its policies and choice of allies. Well, I guess it's a combination of kneejerk defender of Israel--or of Israel's potential--and open-mindedness about the path to Israel's survival.)
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
