emptywheel

My academic work looked at (among other things) the possibilities of 2nd world countries (those reasonably developed countries that can either thrive or fail through trade with the rest of the world) to exercise real sovereignty. One of the problems for these countries--I looked at the Czech lands and Argentina--is that they were always triangulated by larger powers. It was too easy to replace one region with another. For example, Latin America had a relationship with Europe that suffered after 1989, because Europe traded preferentially with the former communist states. You can even argue that Central and Eastern Europe provided some of the materials that Latin America would come to supply after Conquest.

There have been efforts on the part of these nations, heretofore unsuccessful, to band together to prevent this kind of triangulation. In the 70s, non-metropolitan countries tried to increase their influence with the non-aligned nations. But some of the areas in which they operated, such as UNESCO, were simply undermined by the US, thereby undermining the stregnth of the movement.

The latest version of this is the alliance that brought down the Cancun trade talks, the G21 (actually the number fluctuates depending on the issue you're discussing). Now, I'm not saying that what happened at Cancun is a good thing. It would be better to have one organization overseeing fairer trade, than to have the kind of bilateral agreements the Bush Administration is currently pursuing.

But an alliance between these countries, in particular between India and Brazil, could be powerful.

And the effort has continued--however lessened--after Cancun.

Right now, PNAC is most concerned about the next threat to its power coming from the European block (thus the engagement but simultaneous restructuring of NATO) or from China (thus the interest in bases in East Asia).

They have not apparently given much consideration to India, nor to the possibility that you will have an alliance between the larger developing nations with access to technology.

What intrigues me about a Brazilian-Indian alliance (although the article focuses on Brazil and Argentina) is that

you've got a huge chunk of population

you've got a mix of rural and industrial production that can, within itself, act as a powerful trade block

with India, you've got the genuine transfer of technological information, if not (yet) the investment

again, with India, you've got a reasonably large army, with the bomb

you've got strategic distribution in key areas

It's way too early to know how this will come out. But I find it intriguing. And I find that having two democracies--however dysfunctional--as the potential successors to the US empire rather comforting.

This is rich.

The recently ousted president of Bolivia, who tried to privatize one of the poorest countries in the world (even after previous riots had proven that Bolivian peasants will not be cowed), is trying to shift the blame for his failure to the usual suspects.

First, he blames narco-traffickers and terrorists, no doubt trying to follow Columbia President Uribe's example of naming all his opponents terrorists so that Bush has to fund him:

My departure was the product of a conspiracy, of sedition by armed groups, 'narco-syndicalist' groups, terrorist groups and cartels who created a confrontational situation, leaving me no way out but to resign.

Then, he goes on to blame the recently rehabilitated Colonel Gaddafi:

Well, it's very difficult to be specific, because, you know, these things only come to light through other countries' intelligence reports. Bolivia doesn't have channels of this kind. But it's interesting to note that Evo Morales received a peace prize in Libya awarded by (Colonel) Gaddafi.

Now, Morales is one of the indigenous leaders of the riots that led to the President's overthrow. He has ties to coca growers, which of course has earned him little favor from the Bush Administration.

But really. Colonel Gaddafi has just now gotten back into Washington's not-so-evil-graces. He is not about to do anything to jeapordize that, particularly not by sponsoring terrorism. And if he were going to sponsor terrorism in Latin America, I'm guessing Venezuela would make a much more likely candidate. Or Columbia through Venezuela.

One way or another, this is another example of the state of rhetoric, when all a leader (or former leader, in this case) has to do to appeal to Washington is to call it terrorism.

Just to give credit where it is due, the democrats in Maryland are moving to double double double check the machines the state has purchased. The article suggests that the Dems may not get the review they really want, due to time considerations:

To that end, Hollinger and Hixson asked the legislative agency to examine the process used to select the firm to conduct the review of the Diebold system and the Johns Hopkins report and to report on "the professional credentials and organizational composition of SAIC to ensure that the SAIC analysis was objective, balanced, impartial, and free of outside influence or other conflicts."

And then it continues:

Karl S. Aro, executive director of the Department of Legislative Services, said that his agency would respond to the request, but he noted that the deadline set for his report -- Jan. 12, near the start of the legislative session -- might be too close.

"We will look at it," Aro said. "We'll see exactly what they're asking us to do."

But at least they're going to try. I kind of suspect that, if this voting machine thing is going to hit the fan before the presidential election, it will do so in Ohio or Maryland.

I haven't read the book, but as I understand it Zell Miller has pissed off quite a few people with his "National Party No More."

In it, he complains that the Democratic Party is moving too far to the left, even claiming the moderates running for President are too far to the left:

"But Lord, those current presidential candidates in my party!" Miller writes. "They are good, smart and able folks but if I decide to follow any of them down their road, I'd have to keep my left turn signal blinking."

But the thing that really pissed people off (and that I think offers a bit of worthwhile insight) is his complaint about "The Groups":

Miller calls them "the Groups" - with a capital G - including labor, the National Organization for Women, gays, gun-control advocates and environmentalists. He says he quit going to Tuesday caucuses of Senate Democrats because they were dominated by "the Groups."

Now, frankly, I'm a woman who has had enough gay friends bashed to see the need for gay rights, who walks in the woods with her dog every day, and who stopped going to a local pub because of a scare during hunting season. I'm as much Democratic "Group" as they come. And one of the reasons I will always support democrats--even if I won't register with the party (see below)--is because I believe in the importance of supporting these groups.

But Miller's complaint is important insofar as it attests to an important perception that weakens the Democratic party. There are just too many people who support all of the Democrat's policy positions, but oppose the party, to ignore the complaint.

The easy (and I think incorrect) answer is to repackage Democratic issues in a more universal language. We could actually do that pretty easily. For example (and I'll return to this at some point), universal health care can easily be packaged as a benefit for the American business community. After all, if the government provides health care, then US businesses will be better able to compete with British businesses. At the very least, helping out with health care would stimulate the formation of small businesses, which is where all the growth is, anyway.

But I think the universal approach is the wrong idea, if for no other reason than the fact that the Republican party, because of its fundraising advantage, will have the best access to the universalizing media. Like Fox News Channel. Or TV in general.

That says to me, that any universalist message that you are trying to get out (which, logically, you would use a universalist medium for), you will not be able to compete very well. (I'll blog more on this in the near future. It's really where this blog should be going.)

However, I think the "group" nature of the democratic party lends itself to the micromedia out there. And mircomedia--particularly the Internet--are media that the Dems can easily take the advantage in, precisely because their message is inherently modular.

What I think the Democratic party ought to be doing is building a networking organization that allows them to multiply the identities each Democrat has with the party, thereby making them a more intelligent, but no less committed supporter.

Well. That's a start, I guess. Of course, the trick is really working out how that networked relationship building can happen. But I can come back and do that another time.

I've had it with the questionnaires I get from the DNC.

In general, I'm a big sucker for polls. Unlike most folks I know, I've never been called for jury duty; but unlike most folks, too, I often get called to do polls. And I love it. When I get the Dem polls, I'm glad my vote is counted. When I get the nasty Republican push polls, I try to fuck with their brain, and (I think) I usually succeed. And when the consumer goods companies call and I tell them I use co-op mayonnaise, I'm sure I fuck with their brains.

But the written polls that the parties send out? They drive me crazy.

I actually prefer the republican ones. They are constructed with a good deal more intellectual honesty than the democratic ones. For example, I just answered one where I was given a choice whether or not I approved of Bush's handling of Iraq. Had it been a democratic poll, I'm sure I'd have gotten three choices, all of which amounted to support for Clinton or whomever was in office. So at least for the republicans, I was able to express my dissatisfaction. And then lie and say I was a republican so they at least thought twice before they threw out my results.

But the democratic ones do only two things for me. First, the construction of the questions demonstrates to me how ossified the party is. These are not questions that admit the possibility of new, creative solutions. They are simply the regurgitated party line that does not seem to change, even as the party loses its base.

The other thing these things do is insult my intelligence. The questions are bad enough. But then these things come sent in a fake overnight envelope. The most recent ones have had Terry McAuliffe's address written in fake handwritten letters on the return address. And to make it worse, they have these fake smudges, as if to prove that the fake handwriting is real. Of course, I've gotten two of them now, which, if I were stupid enough to believe that Terry McAuliffe was writing me personally, would lead me to ask why the DNC keeps leaving their mail out in the rain. As it is, I simply ask whether the party thinks I'm that stupid.

Luckily, Michigan has one of the least restrictive laws about voting in primaries. So I can state I'm a democrat, without having to mentally endorse the fake handwritten survey envelopes. But I sure wish the democrats would stop insulting the intelligence of their database.

We pay too little for water.

I say that as I look at my bill for the period that includes my summer landscaping project. Every day for several weeks, I dumped water into my new "native prairie" for several hours at a time. I fully expected the water price to be significant, something akin to the other investment that I had made in the project, over $1000.

My bill for the previous quarter, in which I did a normal level of laundry, dishwashing, and (for me and Derek) showering, was $17. My water bill for this quarter, in which I did all that normal cleaning plus the landscaping, was $39.

So I paid $22 for the privilege of dumping water into the ground for days at a time, over a time period of three months. About the cost of 4 car washes, which only spray water for about one minute.

I wouldn't be so indignant about this, except that I realize how it, like the gas subsidies in this country, makes a wasteful lifestyle more palatable to money-conscious consumers. It makes the ridiculous green lawn habit fiscally possible. It makes it a lot easier for people to pressure their neighbors to have the perfect lawn, when in fact this means they are pressuring you to do something that has a net drain on their community.

I may return to this topic again, to talk more about the value and joys of native species, which (if you haven't already guessed) will use much less water over the long term. Suffice it to say, for now, just: "earthworm."

No one remembers this probably. But right before the Iraq war started (in that eerie week where Bush was issuing final offers), a farmer drove his tractor onto the mall claiming to have explosives in it.

Here's a story about that farmer on trial. (He was convicted and stands to do four to six years time.)

The whole story is rather pathetic. But I was fascinated while it was happening, and am a little haunted by this guy's testimony.

You see, the whole reason he pulled the stunt was to bring attention to the plight of Persian Gulf I's veterans, to the dangers of toxic pesticides, and to the government mistreatment of tobacco farmers. He had some legitimate (and short-sighted but understandable) issues. And he felt that the only way he could lobby for those issues was to threaten Washington DC.

I was fascinated, first of all, because this guy was using what is basically a terrorist tactic to draw attention to legitimate political issues. He was doing so at a moment--right before we went to war with Iraq, ostensibly in the name of terrorism--when the whole country was fired up about the danger of terrorism. But this attempt managed to look only pathetic.

I think this story is a really sad testimony to the degree to which average folks feel they cannot be heard anymore. Here's part of his court testimony:

I tried to do the right thing, like we were raised as kids, you know, go up and talk to your congressmen. . . . Everybody just blew me off," Watson told Harasek. "I said, 'Damn, these people up here in Washington, D.C., need a damn wake-up call. . . .

And the best wake-up call he could think of was to threaten people with explosives.

It is by now a truism that there is a abyss between Washington insiders and the rest of America. But when someone feels the need to threaten (or pretend) to threaten the nation's capital because he feels he has no legitimate recourse, we've got a problem.