The Political Spectrum

To most people, if you imagine a horizontal line on a sheet of paper, Communists would be on the extreme left and the Nazis on the extreme right with all others in between, but a few years ago I read an article which suggested that instead of a straight line, a circle would be better, a clock face. At the twelve o'clock position would be the centrists, the Liberals in Canada, Democrats in the United States. But not all Liberals and Democrats are the same. So I would put left-leaning Liberals between 11 and 12 o'clock, and right leaning ones between 12 and 1. Continuing on the right, we could put "Red Tories" between 1 and 2. These are people who are fiscally conservative but socially progressive. Then we place the traditional conservatives between 2 and 4, giving them more room because there are more of them. The "neo-cons" would be placed between 4 and 5. The term "neo-con" (new conservative) has been used derisively to describe the likes of Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld and all that crowd, along with Stephen Harper and members of the former Reform party in Canada. The dictionary describes "neo-conservative" as a former liberal who has changed his mind, but I'm not aware of any of the foregoing having been liberal at any time. Which leaves me a bit confused on the subject, but let it pass. Beyond 5 o'clock we find the crazies, race baiters, religious nut-cakes, Arian Nation, then the fascists and Nazis. At 6 o'clock would be Adolf Hitler.

Now for the left side of the clock. As there are not as many groupings here, we'll have to spread them out. Between 11 and 9 we can put social democrats (NDP in Canda). These are both fiscally and socially progressive, believing in a co-operative society. Between 9 and 7 are socialists, with communists closer to 6 o'clock. At 6:00 would be Joe Stalin, but guess who is already there. How do you do, Herr Hitler.

That is the whole idea of this clock paradigm - there is precious little difference between the two extremes, Communism and Naziism.

The further you get from the top of the clock, the more you see doctrine and ideology shaping policy. From the social democrats on down on the left, from the traditional conservatives on down on the right, solutions come from the book, their own bibles, in contrast to the liberals who tend to look upon situations without preconseptions.

So we get out our dictionary again and look up "liberal". "Favorable to progress or reform. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas: free from bigotry." So says Webster. These are my kind of people, although I am somewhat of a Red Tory.

The Afghan situation gets worse by the day. Yesterday a man and a woman were executed on the street for "immoral acts". Today a group of 300 women protesting the recent law forbidding women to refuse their husbands and to leave the house without his permission, were pelted with stones by men and women, shouting "death to the slaves of the Christians". So, at the risk of being tiresome, please tell me once again why our soldiers are fighting and dying for these savages and religious retards. We're trying to drag them into the 21st century, but first maybe we should be coaxing them into the 17th, then the 18th and take it from there. Our own Christians behaved this way in the Middle Ages, so Islam is merely 800 years behind. They'll catch up. Just be patient.

An advocate for women's rights was shot as she got out of her car in Kandahar. The murderers drove off on motorcycles. The Taliban took credit for the incident. Credit? This underscores my previous posting.

The Taliban are clearly telling us that they will have no truck with us telling them what to do. Their way of life is founded on female subjugation and we can like it or lump it. They will fight against all odds and die for the cause. What are we to make of it?

For my part, I would like to see them all in the deepest part of hell, and these murderers hung by the heels and used for target practice, but my anger and that of millions of others will not avail to that end.

Do the men of the Taliban really want their own daughters to be illiterate and become virtual slaves to husbands who are free to roam? Do they base this philosophy on religious belief? After all, it was Eve who cajoled Adam to partake of the Forbidden Fruit despite God's warning. So women are unworthy and must suffer? And what Fruit was that? It was from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Obviously, ignorance is bliss. And don't forget, God made women smaller and physically weaker than men, so isn't the conclusion obvious? Don't get me started on religion.

Until quite recently, Catholic women, at the altar, vowed to obey their husbands. Can we therefore pretend to look down our noses at the Taliban? Why do we have the need for women's lib organizations in our own culture? Look to the beam in thine own eye.

So again, what do we do about Afghanistan? Fight on, see our soldiers bleed and die? Give it up as useless and leave, let them live in their misery? I don't have a simple answer. If you do, then step up to the plate and let me hear it.

Our soldiers are being killed in Afganistan. We are there to defeat the Taliban and, if I understand correctly, to set up some form of democracy. We are told that the government of Hamid Karzai was democratically elected. Oh?

Fast forward. Television footage of the last few days has shown us scenes of a man and a woman being flogged in public. A law has been passed by both houses of parliament that allows, in Shia communities, marital rape and bars a woman from leaving the house without her husband's permission. This law may be rescinded under Western pressure, but nonetheless, what does it tell us? We have here a culture which has endured for countless generations, and we're trying to change it in the space of a few years? Several nations are now wondering out loud whether our democratizing efforts are worth the bloodshed, and whether the effort should be abandoned as hopeless.

As to the insurgents and the Taliban, they seem to be winning, at least for now. Maybe the extra 30,000 Obama troops will make a difference. But the Taliban has been defeated before and they've come back, and I submit that they will continue coming back again and again, like bad weeds. We can defeat an army but not an inbred mindset. These people willingly die for the cause. When those on our side die for a cause, we call them saints and heroes and erect statues.

On another tack, what is this business of "training" the Afghans and the Iraqis to look after themselves? We've been hearing this for years but the training never seems to take hold. There is something condescending in this idea. These people have to be trained? Are they that backward and obtuse? I don't think so, maybe it's the other way around.

It would be all too easy to say the hell with it, let's pull out and leave them to their own devices, but I would favour something close to it.

Consumerism

At the G20 economic summit in London recently, a lady protester carrying a placard was interviewed. She said that she was tired of being looked upon as a consumer. That struck a chord with me.

A few years back, I abandoned my subscription to Consumer Reports magazine for much the same reason. Although it is an excellent publication, it does help to perpetuate the idea that we are first and foremost consumers. There's more to life than that.

See here the dictionary entry for "consume":

1.

to destroy or expend by use; use up.
2.
to eat or drink up; devour.
3.
to destroy, as by decomposition or burning: Fire consumed the forest.
4.
to spend (money, time, etc.) wastefully.
5.
to absorb; engross: consumed with curiosity.
6.
to undergo destruction; waste away.
7.
to use or use up consumer goods.

So that's it? Note the word "destroy". Critics point out that rampant consumerism is destroying our way of life and our planet. The main purpose of the media is to serve this consumerist god. The medium is the message indeed.