Tuesday, November 30, 2004
American military torture prisoners at Guantánamo Bay: another 'example' of civilization to the world?
Prisoners in the USA base of Guantánamo Bay, Cuba (Afp picture, from the Corriere della Sera online)
The New York Times has disclosed that "the International Committee of the Red Cross has charged in confidential reports to the United States government that the American military has intentionally used psychological and sometimes physical coercion 'tantamount to torture' on prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba." After the tortures in Iraq in the prison of Abu Ghraib, is this another example of civilization, democracy and respect of human rights the USA gives to the world? It goes without saying people should 'thank' the Bush administration for such inhuman policies. Read the whole article here.
The Oedipal fixation of the priest
The mystical or religious propensity, which leads to to wearing a cassock, could likely be the result of early seduction in the early phases of childhood. The future priest (or nun) 'introjects' the seductive promise, the gaze of the mother, and in choosing to embrace the religious life, in devoting his or her life to God, unconsciously pursues the maternal phantasm, her smile, which will unconsciously coincide with the pursued divine beatitude. The afterworld becomes the place where the promised union will take place. The mystical-religious propensity allows maintaining the oedipal fixation, eluding the incest taboo through sublimation and differing the consumation of the perceived oedipal promise in a transfigured condition of enjoyment of the divine grace in a transcendent world. In the Catholic world, such an interpretation appears even more significant if one recalls the centrality of the cult of the Virgin Mary (obvious maternal representation, in whom the sexual nature is denied in an obsessive and suspicious way), the exaltation of feminine virtues of charity and devotion - compatible with phenomena of identification with the mother - and the use of quite feminine religious attire (gowns and laces). We can also remember that John Paul I (Albino Luciani) who was Pope for a short while just before John Paul II, stated that "God is mother". If we then remember the massive presence of homosexuals in the Catholic Church, the interpretation leaves nearly no doubts.
We can also remember that a German anthropologist, in the beginning of last century correlated the role of the priest to the presence in him of signs of queerness (psychosexual anomalies) which in the various communities were interpreted as a sign of distinction and of God's choice (August Horneffer, Der Priester: Seine Vergangenheit und seine Zukunft, Erster Band, Jena 1912. You can read an excerpt in English here.).
(c) Joe London
Monday, November 29, 2004
La disposizione mistica o religiosa, che porta alla scelta di vestire gli abiti talari, potrebbe essere il risultato di una situazione di seduzione nelle prime fasi dell'infanzia. Il futuro prete (o suora) introietta la promessa seduttiva, lo sguardo della madre, e nello scegliere la vita religiosa, nel dedicarsi a "Dio", inconsapevolmente persegue il fantasma materno. L'aldilà diventa il luogo ove il connubio promesso e mai realizzato in terra avrà luogo. La disposizione mistico-religiosa consente il mantenimento della fissazione edipica, l'elusione del tabù dell'incesto attraverso una dinamica di sublimazione, e il differimento della consumazione della promessa edipica trasfigurata nel godimento della grazia divina nel mondo trascendente. In ambito Cattolico, tale interpretazione appare anche più significativa se si ricordano la centralità della Vergine Maria (ovvia rappresentazione di tipo materno, nella quale la dimensione sessuale è negata in modo ossessivo e sospetto), l'esaltazione di virtù femminee di carità e dedizione, la cui emergenza è compatibile con fenomeni di identificazione, e l'uso di abiti talari femminei. Possiamo anche ricordare che Giovanni Paolo I (Albino Luciani) ebbe a dire che "Dio è madre". Se poi ricordiamo la massiva presenza omosessuale nella chiesa Cattolica, il cerchio interpretativo si chiude senza lasciare molti dubbi.
Possiamo anche ricordare che un antropologo tedesco, all'inizio del secolo scorso, correlò, fornendo vari esempi, il ruolo del prete alla presenza di componenti queer, interpretate nelle varie comunità come segno di distinzione e scelta divina (August Horneffer, Der Priester: Seine Vergangenheit und seine Zukunft, Erster Band, Jena 1912).
Scripta volant,
verpa manet
As leading members
of the bride of God,
would your queerness be
not apt, as well as
your solemn effeminacy?
And thus - maybe you wonder -
would God take any offence,
after all, if your Christian love
is slenderly more intense
for manly young brethern?
Benedictus fructus
gratia plenus,
ora et semper.
Verpa et irrumatio
in secula seculorum.
Ministers of duplicity,
your guise cedes
under the burden
of dignified ridicule:
your masquerade of sanctity,
of Christ wannabes,
your theatre of gravity,
and abnegation
the fluted-voiced prayers,
the pious palms and eyes raised
to stuccoed high ceilings
with histrionic skill,
your gloomy grimacing
at earthly joys,
while secretly rejoicing
in hypocritical pleasures.
Benedictus fructus
gratia plenus,
ora et semper.
Verpa et irrumatio
in secula seculorum.
The grotesque mounts by the minute,
the retching, the disgust.
If you had some dignity left
you would dismiss the theatre,
the vestments, the precious toys,
and the queerish ways,
and you would just
go,
away,
get lost in some purifying ocean,
at farthermost distance,
and relinquish
your viscous smirks
of anticipated immortality
awarded by feminine narcissism,
heal your unctousness,
cleanse you diseased touch.
Benedictus fructus
gratia plenus,
ora et semper.
Verpa et irrumatio
in secula seculorum.
Just go,
afflict us no longer
with your fabrications,
your millenary superstitions,
your mind polluting words,
your presumptions of truth
dispensed from proof,
origin of disease and dissociation.
Black-gowned filles
Fear blent with passion
unnamed has turned you
into trepid filles,
flaunting virtue
and modesty
with eyes askew
and demure demeanor,
blushing, virginal,
in black gowns and laces,
pouting prayers,
frowning wittingly
and parading griefs
of holy distinction
with ostentation,
chanting glories
with falsetto voices,
absorbed in liturgies
of loyalty and devotion,
passive and quiescent
under a foreign sense
to await the award
of seductive swindles,
forever immersed
in a play of fiction,
forever escaping
from yourselves.
Saturday, November 27, 2004
Frightened children often invent imaginary friends. In its childhood, humanity did the same.
And after all what is the idea of God, if not a camouflaged narcissistic play? As it often happens in many psychological events, it is sufficient to revert the famous biblical proposition to see the actual underlying truth: "And Man made God after his likeness".
The devout betrays the same self-indulgent smile that Narcissus had on his face when, glimpsing his reflection in a pool of water, he fell in love with his own image.
If, instead of religion, kids were brought up with music, painting, and literature. If, instead of being indoctrinated since birth with with fabrications meant to fill the gaps of ignorance and soothe the anguish for human finitude in ancient times, they were brought up to explore, with joy and curiosity, the endless worlds of fantasy that emerge from art and mythologies from different parts of the world, learn about the endless ways in which human nature has individuated itself, and encouraged to express themselves, without controlling gravitas and hovering perplexity from adults. If they were taught to learn from nature what is the actual position of the human species in the world, and of the perfect balance allowed by the existence of all living organisms. If they were taught to appreciate, without reservations or rejection, the beauty present in the world. If they were not insidiously told that some feelings, albeit not involving hate or aggression, rather the opposite, are not acceptable, on the grounds of dissociative and alienating theologies. If they were brought up to consider different cultures not as potentially endangering or inferior, but as opportunities to learn and understand more about reality. If they were taught that a hypothetical God would not have a soft spot, nor special plans, for one particular country. If trust, curiosity and acceptance were encouraged instead of acrid wariness and malice. If they were encouraged to always ask questions and to reject unsatisfactory answers. If they were taught the very simple lesson that happiness has less to do with having than with being...
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
What type of country are the USA becoming?
Just read this article from the NYT by Nicholas D. Kristof.
Excerpt:
Apocalypse (Almost) Now
Published: November 24, 2004
If America's secular liberals think they have it rough now, just wait till the Second Coming.
The "Left Behind" series, the best-selling novels for adults in the U.S., enthusiastically depict Jesus returning to slaughter everyone who is not a born-again Christian. The world's Hindus, Muslims, Jews and agnostics, along with many Catholics and Unitarians, are heaved into everlasting fire: "Jesus merely raised one hand a few inches and . . . they tumbled in, howling and screeching."
Gosh, what an uplifting scene!
If Saudi Arabians wrote an Islamic version of this series, we would furiously demand that sensible Muslims repudiate such hatemongering. We should hold ourselves to the same standard.
Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, the co-authors of the series, have both e-mailed me (after I wrote about the "Left Behind" series in July) to protest that their books do not "celebrate" the slaughter of non-Christians but simply present the painful reality of Scripture.
"We can't read it some other way just because it sounds exclusivistic and not currently politically correct," Mr. Jenkins said in an e-mail. "That's our crucible, an offensive and divisive message in an age of plurality and tolerance."
Silly me. I'd forgotten the passage in the Bible about how Jesus intends to roast everyone from the good Samaritan to Gandhi in everlasting fire, simply because they weren't born-again Christians.
[...]
Read the whole article here. Another article by the Nicholas D. Kristof, "Jesus and Jihad", appeared on the NYT on July 17th, 2004.
The "Left Behind" series has sold around 50,000,000 copies in the USA.
Potere al No Shopping (Power to No Shopping) (in Italian), interesting article on the book:
Culture Jam: How to Reverse America's Suicidal Consumer Binge--And Why We Must
by Lasn Kalle, also founder of www.adbusters.org
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
Last comment posted in the thread of the discussion on Enlightenment:
So, isn't the anguish that accompanies not knowing, and the associated awareness of one's ignorance, a drive to knowledge? And isn't religion - a lump of a priori thinking and superstition inherited from the past and forced, for the most part, on people since birth - a postiche set of notions, which tricks people into thinking that they know the most fundamental thing of all, that is the meaning of their life and of the universe? And aren't religious contrivances - cleverly exempted from evidence by virtue of their very equally contrived features - likely to paint a self-indulgent smile on the face of hordes of pious 'truth-seekers' who already think they possess the ultimate truth about life? And, by doing so, will the devout people not resemble the pavid walker who always shuns the path running along the brink of the precipice not to face its depth? Aren't religious fabrications - with their illegitimate status of truth - a hindrance to knowledge? Will they not lead people to avoid questions and anticipate unfounded answers?
I think we can clearly see how religion tends to either ignore, or twist and manipulate, evidence. Or to divert from the paths of research because of a priori thinking. It does not limit itself to stating the unfounded existence of a God (which would be already quite unacceptable from a gnoseological point of view), it draws all sorts of consequences from it. Of course it cannot claim anymore that the earth revolves around the sun. But a number of religious people blithely believe that the earth is 6000 years old (some studies are issued to tackle this aspect). It is also said that humans have a centrality on earth associated to eschatology, and all sorts of consequences are drawn related to psychology, sexuality, ethics, law and politics. The confusion between scientific studies and religion is also clear as regards the discourse on evolution vs. creationism or as regards ideas on the origin of the universe. All this has a tremendous impact on people's life and on education, and reinforces pregiudice, intolerance, disinclination to free and open research. The whole idea of Enlightenment and scientific research is based on the rejection of ungrounded assumptions, and yet - with religion - an enormous streak of a priori thinking and structured irrationality (or socially-accepted psychosis) is allowed in the most natural way, shaping people's mind into wrong habits.
Sunday, November 21, 2004
"Every morning when I wake up, I experience an exquisite joy — the joy of being Salvador Dalí — and I ask myself in rapture, ‘What wonderful things this Salvador Dalí is going to accomplish today?’" — Salvador Felipe Jacinto Dalí
For those who can read Italian, this is a must-read. A satirical text on the emergence of Christian activism in the USA, written by Michele Serra: "Dio ci salvi dai neocristiani". Absolutely hilarious.
Saturday, November 20, 2004
STD = sexually transmitted disease
CTD = culturally transmitted deity
I watched a photograph of a girl reflected on a mirror, and I came to thinking that mirrors are disquieting things. However faithfully they reflect an image, theirs is only 'a point of view' and the image is always only specular, in that they only reflect. Unless of course we talk about the painting by Magritte (see below). But even there the image of the mirror will never coincide with the original.
One could say that there is a tension between the person and the image reflected in the mirror. On the one hand, despite its reflecting, the mirror will never accomplish an identity with the person reflected, and will only produce an image tilted horizontally. On the other hand, however hard he tries, the person will never be able to coincide with his reflected image. An insurmontable barrier remains. A metaphor of our being ineluctably imprisoned in our own subjectivity.
Friday, November 19, 2004
Interesting debate on the values of Enlightenment as opposed to ideology and religion, here.
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
A country with death penalty cannot be considered civil
I read a comment of a well-know Italian journalist, Enzo Biagi, on the execution of Dominique Green in Texas on October 26th.
In my opinion the existence of death penalty in some of the nations of the world is a sign of savagery. No nation can claim to be civil if its laws allow killing a person as a result of the fallible judgment of other people. Death penalty has no reason to exist, and does not even provide deterrence against crimes. It is only a form of punishment provided to satisfy the most obscure and savage insticts of blood and vengeance. In states like Texas, mentally handicapped people and minors too have been executed. It is not unfrequent that innocent people are executed by mistake. Also, everybody knows that death penalty is more likely given to people who don't have sufficient economical means to pay for lawyers that can prove their innocence or obtain.a more favourable sentence. So, justice is equal for everybody?
I came across an online pro-death penalty forum. I could not help asking myself: what would happen if these eye-for-eye killing militants - often wielding a Bible - were directly involved in a mistakened sentence? What would happen if they, or one of their relatives, were involved in some criminal case and were sentenced to death erroneously?
Relationship between religion and state in Spain
An article appeared on the Italian newspaper Il Manifesto on the relatioships between Spanish Catholic hierarchies and State, which - as the article remarks - have more and more become conflictual.
As it is well known, Spanish prime minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has positions on marriage, family, divorce, same-sex unions, religion at school, that do not reflect Catholic orthodoxy. But Mr. Zapatero thinks, rightly, that his job is to provide a coherent set of laws for a modern society which is composed of people with different religious and non religious views.
For instance, Mr. Zapatero proposed legislation on same-sex unions and on removing religion from public schools (read an article here), which surely did not please the Catholic hierarchies, but his vision is that of serving the interests of all people, not the vision of one religion.
However, the article on Il Manifesto quotes the written declaration of a group of Spanish Catholic theologians ("Cristianismo y sociedad no confesional") which appears remarkably lucid and sensible. An evidence of the fact that some Catholic scholars don't have a worrying confusion between public laws and religious orthodoxy of which sectariarian hierarchies are imbued.
I have translated an interesting part of the declaration of the theologians into English:
"As Christians engaged in theologic research, followers of the theology of liberation, defenders of the spirit of the Vatican Council II, active in the dialogue amongst different religions and engaged intellectually in the 'laical' (secular) society in which we happen to live, we observe the position of the Catholic hierarchy with worry and disconcert. The Catholic hierarchy concedes modernity with clenched teeth, rejects the fundamental postulates on a non-religious ethics, appears insensitive to religious pluralism in our society, is driven by the obsession of imposing its moral code and its social 'cosmic vision', deemed as the only one true, and tends to possess the monopoly of ethics. Conversely, we believe that it is not up to the bishops to decide whether laws are constitutional or unconstitutional, and less than that should the bishops deny the State the capacity to legislate on certain issues regarding equality of all citizens."
The whole original Spanish text can be read here.
An Italian translation can be read here.
Monday, November 15, 2004
The disturbing idea of an esthetical responsibility in life
Relationships of any type, and life, are more similar to a work of art than we would be prepared to admit. This is indeed a disturbing notion, carefully ignored, dismissed or hidden, because if in every instant we compared our own life to a work of art, in most case the consequence would be of utter depression or unbearable disgust. In fact, there is nothing more depressing than a lousy work of art, or a pretentious one. A crippled, imperfect actualization, foreign to our most intimate measure of balance and harmony, extraneous to our own voice.
The responsibility that each one has in this respect, and the related efforts, commitments and battles, are often perceived as a burden. Thus people resort to the diligent execution of socially-accepted tasks of less import and moral difficulty, finding a minimal, if dull and pathetic, satisfaction in the monetary or social recognition deriving from such tasks. They trick themselves into thinking that they are performing a duty, and ironically they are evading a duty instead. A duty of sincerity, concentration and expression of themselves.
The idea of a duty external to a true necessity emerging from their being is embraced with relief: in such a way they can avoid the hardest task, that of being what they are, or what they can be. Social prestige, money, religion, all become excuses to put up a play of actions void of any necessity, hollow. A diversion, a vice replacing that which should be the most fundamental virtue of all: simply being what one is, simply do what one feels reflects one's nature.
Just observe how many people embody a socially-accepted idea of 'responsibility', and a 'socially-accepted' (even when presumably transgressive) idea of pleasure: they perform their tasks with the same mute, opaque, dull efficiency of slaves or well-trained animals, and you can nearly perceive that part of their energy is employed to push away the nagging sensation that they are deceiving themselves, the disturbing sensation of an esthetical nonsense, confusion or ugliness in what they do. You can nearly see their eyes squinching while they try to push away the awareness of their miserable escapisms. "I should not think this", they say to themselves, and they continue with their jobs, their amiable hobbies, the purchase of ever new toys and their daily onanism. At least they can avoid being themselves.
In some cases, this condition of alienation is reinforced with one of the most formidable pretexts for escaping from oneself: religion. They pray, obey, carry out rituals: in such a way not only can they flaunt piety (always well displayed), but they can justify their weakness with the higher purpose (excuse) of following the will of God. "I don't have to follow what I feel is right: I follow what others tell me is right". Handy. Incredible how many acts and delusions people devise to escape from themselves. Incredible the stubborn desire people have of being under a yoke. [14.11.04]
Sunday, November 14, 2004
The Middle Ages are resurrecting in the United States
Maureen Dowd has written an interesting column related to the issue of the appointment of conservative judges by the Bush administration. More and more, America is turning into a land of fundamentalist fools, particularly the Bush administration and its supporters. Maureen Dowd quotes some lines from a letter to president Bush by Bob Jones III, president of the college bearing the same name. What type of country is the United States actually becoming when Bob Jones III can write (stress is mine):
The media tells us that you have received the largest number of popular votes of any president in America's history. Congratulations!
In your re-election, God has graciously granted America—though she doesn't deserve it—a reprieve from the agenda of paganism. You have been given a mandate. We the people expect your voice to be like the clear and certain sound of a trumpet. Because you seek the Lord daily, we who know the Lord will follow that kind of voice eagerly.
Don't equivocate. Put your agenda on the front burner and let it boil. You owe the liberals nothing. They despise you because they despise your Christ. Honor the Lord, and He will honor you.
[...]
Undoubtedly, you will have opportunity to appoint many conservative judges and exercise forceful leadership with the Congress in passing legislation that is defined by biblical norm regarding the family, sexuality, sanctity of life, religious freedom, freedom of speech, and limited government. You have four years—a brief time only—to leave an imprint for righteousness upon this nation that brings with it the blessings of Almighty God.
What type of country is the USA becoming when it seems the political discourse is on the way to become more and more inextricably intertwined with theology?
Interesting how in a country where the constitution forbids any endorsement of religion, more and more politicians talk like ayatollahs. And churches and religious organizations - in the most candid way - relate to the state as if the state were meant to be their 'secular arm'.
And the US is supposed to be the lighthouse of civilization which should spread democracy in the world? What a joke! What a pathetic pretension. I mean, I don't see that much difference between Iran and USA anymore.
The Middle Ages are resurrecting in the United States. In increasing number, lowing hordes of fundamentalists demand the celebration of their idols and the integration of their sectarian ideas into the political agenda. These are times of ignorance and confusion.
Thursday, November 11, 2004
From the Corriere della Sera online
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
Interesting column of writer Antonio Tabucchi on Il Manifesto (in Italian, here and here):
Gli strateghi della Sinistra italiana sono già al lavoro per trarre lezione dalle presidenziali americane. Il primo ad esprimere la sua riflessione è Massimo D'Alema, che in un'intervista a Repubblica del 4 novembre sostiene che «dobbiamo sforzarci di comprendere la nuova destra», e che «con certe forme di radicalismo, che un tempo avremmo definito piccolo-borghese, non si va da nessuna parte». E qui c'è una tirata d'orecchie a Michael Moore, e l'invito di guardare al «centro» (o al «limbo») come possibile area di consenso onde pescare voti.
[...]
Ma ve lo immaginate il partito democratico americano che mette al bando intellettuali come Susan Sontag, Norman Mailer, Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore o tutti gli artisti dello spettacolo che hanno scoperto le carte di Bush, i suoi interessi nel petrolio, gli affari in comune della compagnia di suo padre con la famiglia Bin Laden, la buia e reazionaria ideologia di cui si è fatto portatore, insomma tutto ciò che uno sfidante non poteva includere nel suo programma elettorale né nei suoi dibattiti televisivi? Perché (e qui sta il nocciolo che mi pare non sia stato individuato da Massimo D'Alema allorché parla di una nuova destra da guardare con attenzione per capirla meglio), con Bush ha semplicemente vinto John Wayne, e la «nuova-destra» è solo l'invenzione di pochi consiglieri che circondano George Bush e che coagulano e raccolgono le idee e le istanze della pancia di un'America di destra che di nuovo ha molto poco, perché è una destra vecchia come il cucco. È la destra dell'intolleranza, del bigottismo, della ruralità, del cattolicesimo e del protestantesimo fondamentalisti: una destra che viene dritta dall'Ottocento, e basterebbe leggere i grandi scrittori americani per ritrovarvela spiccicata. È la destra del Velo nero del pastore di Hawthorne, del Billy Budd di Melville, della Bibbia presa alla lettera che soffocò Emily Dickinson, della rigidità puritana contro cui si alzò la poesia di Withman. Altro che «radicalismo piccolo-borghese»: in America hanno vinto le classi meno illuminate, le masse più incolte, insieme alla borghesia più ricca e più favorita dalle guerre di Bush. E alla citazione di Gramsci di cui D'Alema si serve («La chiave dell'egemonia sta nel capire le ragioni degli altri») si potrebbe opporre un'altra citazione di Gramsci che mi pare più appropriata alla situazione americana: cioè che «le masse sono un serbatoio di reazione», e concludere che le «ragioni degli altri», cioè di queste masse che hanno votato per Bush, le abbiamo capite fin troppo bene. Ma ho l'impressione che il panorama della nostra Europa non sia esattamente quello americano. Un tale «serbatoio reazionario», escluse delle macchie di leopardo come certi paesi nuovi membri (e attualmente il nostro), in Europa non lo vedo. A Bruxelles non si chiede che Dio benedica l'Europa, non si prevedono guerre di religione, e si rimandano a casa aspiranti commissari con idee da congresso di Vienna. Del resto Zapatero non ha vinto le elezioni per aver promesso al suo elettorato una politica vicina a quella di Aznar, ma una diametralmente opposta, che sta puntualmente mettendo in pratica.
Mi propongo quale «estremista» ed estremizzo il concetto che serpeggia in una certa sinistra, secondo il quale per vincere le elezioni si deve fare una politica tenera con la destra. Ma allora, perché non scavalcare con decisione a destra la cosiddetta «nuova destra»? La sinistra potrebbe vincere davvero e proporsi come «nuova-nuova destra». E starebbe proprio tranquilla: sarebbe al governo ma non la riconoscerebbe nessuno. (Antonio Tabucchi)
Monday, November 08, 2004
When democracy is warped by ignorance
Bob Herbert on the NYT points out the impact that ignorance has had on the recent presidential elections:
"I think a case could be made that ignorance played at least as big a role in the election's outcome as values. A recent survey by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland found that nearly 70 percent of President Bush's supporters believe the U.S. has come up with 'clear evidence' that Saddam Hussein was working closely with Al Qaeda. A third of the president's supporters believe weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. And more than a third believe that a substantial majority of world opinion supported the U.S.-led invasion.
This is scary. How do you make a rational political pitch to people who have put that part of their brain on hold? No wonder Bush won.
The survey, and an accompanying report, showed that there's a fair amount of cluelessness in the ranks of the values crowd. The report said, 'It is clear that supporters of the president are more likely to have misperceptions than those who oppose him.' "
It is well known that the above-reported assumptions of Bush's voters were proved as wrong. This should make people reflect. It is important to talk about values. And even when this is not done explicitly, one can say that policies are the result of a prevailing moral vision of reality. But the vision of reality must be based on objective facts. Realizing that the direction a country takes is determined by a vast mass of ignorants is not reassuring for a democracy.
I must say that I too was struck by the widespread ignorance emerging from polls. As I mentioned in other posts, a Newsweek's survey in September 2004 had shown that 42% of Americans still believed that Saddam was responsible of 9/11. These data are eloquent. One does not need to exercise a disproportionate amount of logic to conclude that false information certainly have an impact on people's votes. And to conclude that people who don't base their political decisions on facts simply become dull and malleable instruments in the hands of whomever aspires to have power. Ignorance reverts democracy. Ignorance allows the exploitation of people in their mere inert numerical weight as opposed to a situation in which consensus is the result of awareness of objective facts.
This to me shows that American media are in deep s*it. Unable to counteract the obscure forces that favour and exploit ignorance.
Friday, November 05, 2004
Away from the Enlightenment
Interesting column by Garry Wills, adjunct professor of history at Northwestern University, and author of "St. Augustine's Conversion."
The Day the Enlightenment Went Out
By GARRY WILLS
Published: November 4, 2004
Excerpt:
[...] Can a people that believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still be called an Enlightened nation?
America, the first real democracy in history, was a product of Enlightenment values - critical intelligence, tolerance, respect for evidence, a regard for the secular sciences. Though the founders differed on many things, they shared these values of what was then modernity. They addressed "a candid world," as they wrote in the Declaration of Independence, out of "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind." Respect for evidence seems not to pertain any more, when a poll taken just before the elections showed that 75 percent of Mr. Bush's supporters believe Iraq either worked closely with Al Qaeda or was directly involved in the attacks of 9/11.
The secular states of modern Europe do not understand the fundamentalism of the American electorate. It is not what they had experienced from this country in the past. In fact, we now resemble those nations less than we do our putative enemies.
Where else do we find fundamentalist zeal, a rage at secularity, religious intolerance, fear of and hatred for modernity? Not in France or Britain or Germany or Italy or Spain. We find it in the Muslim world, in Al Qaeda, in Saddam Hussein's Sunni loyalists. Americans wonder that the rest of the world thinks us so dangerous, so single-minded, so impervious to international appeals. They fear jihad, no matter whose zeal is being expressed.
It is often observed that enemies come to resemble each other. We torture the torturers, we call our God better than theirs - as one American general put it, in words that the president has not repudiated.
Read the whole article here.
Thursday, November 04, 2004
From Tony Pierce Blog, and interesting post.
Bush president again
George W. Bush is again president of the USA. Kerry recognized that there was not a statistical chance to win Ohio, and therefore the elections, so he conceded Bush's victory. It is of course a disappointment. There was hope that the majority would voice electorally a desire for American policies to change. But it has not been so. Bush has been able to convince the majority of American people that continuity was better than a new start. A slim majority however. The United States emerge as strongly divided.
This could be seen in a positive way. It is better to have a country strongly divided on some issues than compact and united in positions that are wrong. I guess it is an optimistic way to look at it.
Overall, George Bush was able to catalyze the vote of the traditional American, the church-goer, the American who believes in the traditional family. This can be historically acceptable in that every society expresses necessarily a prevalent vision.
But the possible danger is that of transforming some positions into a solid bulk of religiously-backed prejudice, intolerance, and ignorance, where religion dangerously blurs with politics, and there are signs of this already happening. The risk is that of ideology and religious faith claiming the right to impose their tenets over objectivity and science in education, sex issues, religious tolerance, laws regarding family and planned parenthood, and even foreign policy (arrogant and unfair policies, unilateralism). And this, too, is happening.
But Bush, hopefully, will not be able to completely ignore the issues raised by the half of American people who have not voted for him, and will not be able to continue on a solitary road of international isolation, unless he is completely irresponsible. And unless people let him do so by not remaining informed on issues, by not letting their voice be heard when necessary, by not getting involved.
Let's hope it is not a real goodnight
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
A curious front page
An Italian newspaper, Il Manifesto, announced Kerry's victory in their front page...!
They probably closed their offices last night and posted the next day paper's front page when it appeared that, based on the large number of voters and on some exit polls, Kerry was the winner. As we know, at least officially, there is not a winner yet.
Let's hope this front page is auspicious for a victory after the counts in Ohio and the results in Iowa and New Mexico.
I'd like to add that it appears strange to me that the electoral procedures in the USA should give way to theatrical days of recounting. If every citizen were automatically registered for voting in the town of residence (like in Europe), there would not be a mess of provisional or absentee ballots.
If, as it seems, Bush is confirmed for a second term, the patrimony of participation and hopes for a better America and for more peace and justice in the world will remain intact. These elections have catalyzed the passion of many, not only in America. Surely this remains, no matter the result.
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
I have spoken to some Americans today who don't know who to vote for yet !
If some people have doubts, just read here.
If you are American, remember to vote today.
