Thomas Friedman is a Raging Fucktard

A raging, monumental fucktard. I first became acquainted with Friedman in my capacity as a shelver at a library where I worked. I liked to read reactionary books while on the clock, because I was less likely to lose the track of the argument if interrupted than with serious books. I remember reading one of his books (the World is Flat, maybe?) and coming across the phrase "I thought the Second Intifada was a dumb idea." I closed the book, secure in my knowledge that this man could not possibly have anything useful to say.

Yet here we are, years later, and his pie-hole still flaps. Once more, Friedman has turned his gaze to the Palestinians. As is his wont, he has employed an asinine metaphor to explain the situation to us.

The fighting, death and destruction in Gaza is painful to watch. But it’s all too familiar. It’s the latest version of the longest-running play in the modern Middle East, which, if I were to give it a title, would be called: “Who owns this hotel? Can the Jews have a room? And shouldn’t we blow up the bar and replace it with a mosque?”

650 Palestinians are dead, and Friedman is playing Max Bialystock.

That is, Gaza is a mini-version of three great struggles that have been playing out since 1948: 1) Who is going to be the regional superpower — Egypt? Saudi Arabia? Iran? 2) Should there be a Jewish state in the Middle East and, if so, on what Palestinian terms? And 3) Who is going to dominate Arab society — Islamists who are intolerant of other faiths and want to choke off modernity or modernists who want to embrace the future, with an Arab-Muslim face? Let’s look at each.

The great struggle for hegemony over the middle east hasn't been between Egypt and Saudi Arabia. It's been between the United States, France, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union. The 1956 Suez War? England, France, and Israel against the United States. 1967? The US vs. the Soviet Union. The struggle for national self-determination in mideastern countries has, in the twentieth centuries, been waged in the context of imperialism. Egypt's rise under Nasser was less about Egyptian hegemony than Arab nationalism and anticolonialism. Erasing the history of colonialism in the Middle East allows Friedman to construct a ridiculous mythology in the rest of the column.

WHO OWNS THIS HOTEL? The struggle for hegemony over the modern Arab world is as old as Nasser’s Egypt. But what is new today is that non-Arab Iran is now making a bid for primacy — challenging Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Iran has deftly used military aid to both Hamas and Hezbollah to create a rocket-armed force on Israel’s northern and western borders. This enables Tehran to stop and start the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at will and to paint itself as the true protector of the Palestinians, as opposed to the weak Arab regimes.

This first sentence is a typical Friedmanism. It is either nonsensical or utterly banal. The struggle for control over "the modern Arab world" was going on long before Nasser arrived on the scene. What was the Balfour Declaration but a means by which the British sought to assert their dominance over the Levant? Dating the struggle to Nasser simply allows Friedman to forget that hegemony requires a hegemon. On the other hand, one could be charitable and say that Nasser signaled the rise of the modern Arab world. In this case, Friedman is simply being banal and saying that the struggle over the modern Arab world started when the modern Arab world did.

“The Gaza that Israel left in 2005 was bordering Egypt. The Gaza that Israel just came back to is now bordering Iran,” said Mamoun Fandy, director of Middle East programs at the International Institute of Strategic Studies. “Iran has become the ultimate confrontation state. I am not sure we can talk just about ‘Arab-Israeli peace’ or the ‘Arab peace initiative’ anymore. We may be looking at an ‘Iranian initiative.’ ” In short, the whole notion of Arab-Israeli peacemaking likely will have to change.

Another typically Friedmanesque attack on rational thought. The man can barely contain his boundless euphoria every time he is allowed to utter something to the effect that "everything has changed!!!!!" In this case, it's a rather bizarre assertion. Iran has pointedly remained quiet on Israel's slaughter in Gaza. In fact, Lebanese politicians are saying that Iran has pledged that Hezbollah will not interfere.

CAN THE JEWS HAVE A ROOM HERE? Hamas rejects any recognition of Israel. By contrast, the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority, which controls the West Bank, has recognized Israel — and vice versa. If you believe, as I do, that the only stable solution is a two-state one, with the Palestinians getting all of the West Bank, Gaza and Arab sectors of East Jerusalem, then you have to hope for the weakening of Hamas.

"Hamas rejects any recognition of Israel." Or is it the other way around? After all, as Avi Shlaim reminds us, it was Israel that rejected recognition of a Hamas-Fatah unity government in March of 2007. Moreover, what does recognition actually mean? Jonathan Cook argued lucidly in 2006 that recognition is a trap. Israel refuses to determine its borders, so recognition of the Israeli state means recognizing the territorial claims of a nebulous entity bent on seizing control of as much of the West Bank as possible. It means, in effect, abandoning those parts of the West Bank currently under Israeli control. So while avoiding "recognition," Hamas has repeatedly signalled its willingness to agree to peace within the pre-1967 borders.

Why? Because nothing has damaged Palestinians more than the Hamas death-cult strategy of turning Palestinian youths into suicide bombers. Because nothing would set back a peace deal more than if Hamas’s call to replace Israel with an Islamic state became the Palestinian negotiating position. And because Hamas’s attacks on towns in southern Israel is destroying a two-state solution, even more than Israel’s disastrous and reckless West Bank settlements.

Here we have nothing more than a paragraph of mythology. Death cult? As lenin points out in his excellent book, when you construct a subject as totally irrational, it means you don't have to aim very high in your explanations of its actions. And if Israel really wanted to stop the rockets, all they would have to do is agree to another ceasefire.

Israel has proved that it can and will uproot settlements, as it did in Gaza. Hamas’s rocket attacks pose an irreversible threat. They say to Israel: “From Gaza, we can hit southern Israel. If we get the West Bank, we can rocket, and thereby close, Israel’s international airport — anytime, any day, from now to eternity.” How many Israelis will risk relinquishing the West Bank, given this new threat?

Hamas has proven that it can and will stop rocket attacks, even in the context of a ceasefire whose agreements Israel refuses to honor. This talk of the West Bank is also bizarre. Given that, in the context of a ceasefire, virtually no rockets were launched from Gaza (those that were launched came from groups like Islamic Jihad, which Hamas has tried to stop), a similar approach would seem to be apt for the West Bank.

SHOULDN’T WE BLOW UP THE BAR AND REPLACE IT WITH A MOSQUE? Hamas’s overthrow of the more secular Fatah organization in Gaza in 2007 is part of a regionwide civil war between Islamists and modernists. In the week that Israel has been slicing through Gaza, Islamist suicide bombers have killed almost 100 Iraqis — first, a group of tribal sheikhs in Yusufiya, who were working on reconciliation between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, and, second, mostly women and children gathered at a Shiite shrine. These unprovoked mass murders have not stirred a single protest in Europe or the Middle East.

This last sentence is one of the worst Friedman has ever penned. What on God's green earth does he expect a European protest against suicide bombing would accomplish? Who is the target of such an action? Global protests against Israel's slaughter have clear targets; they encourage whatever country they are in to side with Palestinian self-determination in the "international community." Suicide bombers don't exactly look for legitimacy the way Israel does. Basically, Friedman is wagging his finger at Europeans and asking them why they are not as ineffectually self-righteous as he.

Gaza today is basically ground zero for all three of these struggles, said Martin Indyk, the former Clinton administration’s Middle East adviser whose incisive new book, “Innocent Abroad: An Intimate Account of American Diplomacy in the Middle East,” was just published. “This tiny little piece of land, Gaza, has the potential to blow all of these issues wide open and present a huge problem for Barack Obama on Day 1.”

Just one thing here. The provenance of Indyk's book title is Mark Twain's 1869 travelogue "Innocents Abroad" (clearly Indyk is a very creative man). "Innocents" was a fairly typical American travelogue of the nineteenth century, when the "holy land" became an object of wild fascination among Americans. However, Twain would soon became a principled anti-imperialist, who wrote scathingly about American and European efforts to dominate the globe. That the work of a sterling anti-imperialist such as Twain can be appropriated by an imperialist like Indyk is just gross.

Obama’s great potential for America, noted Indyk, is also a great threat to Islamist radicals — because his narrative holds tremendous appeal for Arabs. For eight years Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda have been surfing on a wave of anti-U.S. anger generated by George W. Bush. And that wave has greatly expanded their base.

No doubt, Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran are hoping that they can use the Gaza conflict to turn Obama into Bush. They know Barack Hussein Obama must be (am)Bushed — to keep America and its Arab allies on the defensive. Obama has to keep his eye on the prize. His goal — America’s goal — has to be a settlement in Gaza that eliminates the threat of Hamas rockets and opens Gaza economically to the world, under credible international supervision. That’s what will serve U.S. interests, moderate the three great struggles and earn him respect.

Dear god, when will it end?! Here, thankfully. Friedman concludes his piece on the typical imperial liberal note that they brought this on themselves. Friedman's tone is different, however, in that he apparently believes that Arab leaders enjoy being bombed by bellicose Westerners, since it allows them to stoke anti-Western feelings among "the masses." It's worth noting, in passing, the perversity of Friedman blaming Bush for hatred of the West, when he was an enthusiastic cheerleader for virtually all of Bush's major initiatives in the region.

Friedman is a clown, a court jester in the imperial thrown room. He deserved this.

Abortion in an Anti-Choice Culture

The New York Times has an interesting article today on the growing use of ulcer medications to induce abortion. The article, which focuses on Dominican women in Washington Heights, is tinged with liberal racism, explaining that Dominican culture is socially conservative and pro-life. Two responses. First, American culture is socially conservative and pro-life (Knocked Up, anyone?). Particularizing this pathology to Dominican culture is absurd in a country that can barely say the word abortion on television. Second, it's worth questioning just how "socially conservative" Dominican culture actually is when women can walk into a pharmacy, say they need to bring down their period, and pharmacists will know they are asking for abortificants. This sounds to me like a widespread understanding and acceptance, on a subterranean level, of the practice of abortion. Maybe Dominican culture is actually complicated and can't simply be described as socially conservative?

This kind of essentialism aside, the article highlights a number of important facts. The first is that even in a culture which officially disproves of abortion and stigmatizes those that seek it, women will continue to terminate their pregnancies. It also shows that the stigmatization and criminalization of abortion hurts women, who, when denied safe medical care, will use other means, even at the risk of substantial self-injury. Finally, the article shows how abortion is a positive experience in many women's lives. The caption of the photo on the first page speaks directly to this - “It’s cheap but dangerous. Certain people are more delicate than others. But afterwards, I felt relief.” While liberals go on about reducing the number of abortions and how it's sad and tragic, they ignore the fact that for millions of women every year, an abortion is a victory in the struggle for control of their bodies.

Calling All Americans

" hypocrisy, the only evil that walks invisible, except to God alone." - John Milton

Who in the Western world, who in America, is ready to take to the streets to protest the rampant Islamophobia propagated by America's opinion-makers?

It's finals, so I don't have time to go through this article in detail. I'd just like to point out the bizarreness of the comparison with the Catholic church. The pedophile scandal in the church implicated members of the Catholic hierarchy all the way up to the Vatican. There was a church-wide effort to protect offending priests and keep their crimes from the media. The John Jay report found that 4% of all US Catholic priests had been accused of such improper conduct. In other words, the pedophilia scandal was a church wide problem.

Nothing remotely similar can be said about "Islamism" or whatever other stupid moniker pundits want to use. There is no conspiracy of imams to protect terrorists, and nothing even approaching 4% of Muslim religious leaders have participated in or encouraged terrorism.

In short, it's a comparison that makes no sense, except in the heads of racist blowhards like Friedman who think that finger wagging is the most appropriate response to something as horrible as what happened in Mumbai.

No Donny, These Men Are Nihilists. There's Nothing to be Afraid Of.

Nihilists are running our country! Won't someone think of the children?

Ruling Class Media Turns Against the Republicans

Finally! Though it's been evident for about two years now that there's been a major shift of ruling class support away from the Republicans (who've fouled things up not a little for the American Empire), I've been quite disappointed so far this election cycle with the timidity of ruling class attacks on the conservatives. Remember Mark Foley in 2006? Why haven't the institutions of ruling opinion begun trotting out the skeleton's in the Republican closet yet this time around? While I don't have an answer for that, I think it is has finally begun.

CNN has regularly been carrying "Fact Check" segments where it subjects McCain campaign claims about Obama to empirical verification, where they typically come up quite thin. The latest regards Obama and gun control.

McCain's campaign hasn't helped itself by going on the attack against the ruling class media, calling the New York Times "a pro-Obama organization that every day attacks Sen. McCain, attacks Gov. Palin, and excuses Sen. Obama.” The irony here is that there is a rational kernel to McCain and co's conspiracy theories of the liberal media. The media's owners have made a real shift to the Democrats, and the Republicans are finally beginning to pay.

The New York Times and the End of White Guilt

Having just moved to Newark, New Jersey, I recently found myself confronted at a newsstand with this week's New York Times magazine's Profound Quandary: "Is Obama the End of Black Politics?" Since Obama secured the nomination, this kind of article has been appearing in every pesudo-intellectual magazine in the country.

I loathe these writings with an intensity I find hard to describe. What makes them such, vile, foetid pools of intellectual sewage is the barely contained celebratory air over the supposed death of the "Civil Rights Generation"-style politics (i.e. holding America responsible for its racism) present in every one of them. The NYT piece is merely the culmination of an underground party that's been going on in White Middlebrow America for the last few months, the invitation to which reads "The Guilt is Over!" (The card, it should be noted, is signed by Barack himself.)

The piece itself is unremarkable in its banalities. Lots of quotes from conservative Black mayors, like Newark's own Cory Booker, exalting their own supposed novelty and relevance. A profound ignorance of the history of Black politics (seemingly a job requirement for being hired by the NYT). And of course, a great deal of feigned chin-scratching over "what this all means now."

One item that jumped out at me from the article was author Matt Bai's tortured attempt to demonstrate Black economic progress. In a classic case of the proof disproving itself, Bai writes "According to an analysis by Pew’s Economic Mobility Project, almost 37 percent of black families fell into one of the three top income quintiles in 2005, compared with 23 percent in 1973." First of all, who ever uses a category as utterly arbitrary, and confusing, as "top three economic quintiles" unless they are trying to pull a fast one? I can picture Bai at his desk, working late into the night, trying desperately to find some articulation of the statistics that can make Black economic progress seem impressive. Second, and most importantly, the stat, while appearing to suggest something like a twofold growth in Black income parity, actually reveals the tremendous gap that still exists. The top three economic quintiles should represent 60% of the population. Yet Bai's example shows that Black folks constitute almost half of the proportion they should of these brackets. Hardly something to celebrate.

Glenn Ford of the Black Agenda Report does an excellent job taking apart the specific logic of Bai's article, so I'll point readers there for more. In closing, I just want to note the article's denkverbot on any of the actual issues facing Black America today. The Black Gulag isn't mentioned. The mortage companies' swindling is no where to be found. Likewise for Katrina. And Black poverty is whitewashed. These issues are the real reason that, when I walk down 125th street in Harlem, I see street vendor after vendor selling shirts juxtaposing Dr. King and Obama. Black America doesn't celebrate Obama because they think he's going to leave Civil Rights politics behind, but because they hope he will complete them.

Obama and Black Fathers: Targets of Opportunity

There is no rhetorical maneuver in American politics that comes more naturally than blaming Black men for the problems of society. The foundation of the republic upon the slavocracy in the South and that regime's rationalization of the brutality of slavery with the alleged indolence of Africans, the use of tropes of Black irresponsibility to motivate the overthrow of reconstruction, the segregation and race riots fed by myths of Black sexual depravity, and the shadow of the Black criminal constantly projected onto the white imagination today have given those who would scapegoat African Americans an incredible arsenal of oratorical tactics. The latest politician to wield this arsenal? Barack Obama.

Obama's now-famous Father's Day speech, as Glen Ford points out, falls into his now familiar routine of throwing Black folks under the bus in order to prove his allegiance to corporate America. First Reverend Jeremiah Wright, then Obama's entire Trinity United Church of Christ, and now fully half the Black race finds itself slandered in the interests of passing the test of political correctness for the ruling class. In African American history, there is an old and developed discourse of "lifting as we climb": that is, Black folks who manage to achieve prosperity in spite of racism have a duty to help those of the race who are not so fortunate. Obama is not so much lifting as he climbs as tossing Black America onto a mound from which he can climb to the presidency.

Indeed, the cynicism of the Father's Day speech was so naked that even the New York Times reporter felt compelled to comment "While Mr. Obama’s remarks were directed at a black, churchgoing audience, his campaign hopes they resonate among white social conservatives in a race where these voters may be up for grabs." (Note: the Times removed this passage from the version of the article accessible from its website.)

The irony of all this is that in performing the useful service of legitimizing racism for the ruling class, Obama is lending a helping hand to the McCain campaign, which will most certainly employ every trick in the book to demonize Obama as "the Black candidate." While the right wing certainly has no lack for racist lunacy, in this election cycle it has undoubtedly been the Democrats (led first by the Clinton campaign, and now by Barack) who have done the most to resuscitate racism on the campaign trail. To prove his worthiness of being head of the "committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie," Obama must debase himself by providing the slings and arrows of his opposition. Such is the lot of the Black Bourgeoisie.

To round out the critique of Obama's speech, Michael Eric Dyson has written a wonderful article in which he debunks the main propositions put forward by the candidate of "change." Dyson points out several relevant details. First, Black fathers are much more likely than those of other races to maintain contact with children from a former relationship. Second, the reason said fathers often leave such relationships is not, as Obama suggests, some lack of "manhood," but a real and devastating despair over being unable to provide for their families due to the lack of economic opportunities afforded to African Americans. As Dyson puts it, "these men needs jobs, not jabs." Finally, the reference to Black men as "boys" is belittling in the extreme, reminiscent of the rhetoric of racist Southerners in the early twentieth century. If Obama continues in this direction, it will be an open question as to how long he can maintain the mantle of "change" and avoid the company, in Black opinion, of Condoleeza Rice and Clarence Thomas.

*UPDATE*
Keeanga Yamahtta-Taylor from Socialist Worker and Ishmael Reed both have excellent articles thoroughly debunking Obama's speech.

Michael Yates on Paul Krugman and Race

Great polemic against Krugman's ridiculous claims of a color blind nation.