Writings on the wall

Food prices have soared around the world, up 40% since mid 2007. There are 660 million people, equivalent to half the population of China, living on less than $2 per day. These people already spend such a large percentage of their income on food that the increase means they are either starving or in great danger of starving.

We’re already seeing the effects of this, in these poorest nations:

Food riots have rocked Haiti and impoverished Burkina Faso, gripped by a nationwide strike, is the latest African nation to face unrest over the increasing cost of basic foods. Dozens have died in other riots in Africa.

Africa, of course, is hardest hit

Forty people died during price riots in Cameroon in February. There have also been deadly troubles in Ivory Coast and Mauritania and other violent demonstrations in Senegal. Only threats from the government headed off a general strike in Egypt on Sunday.

but Asia will not be immune

Bangladesh and the Philippines, where the poor currently spend around 70 percent of their income simply on food, will be among the worst hit.

There are three main factors contributing to this situation:

1. Climate change and local droughts are partly to blame. African deserts are expanding, other countries including Australia and Khazakstan are affected by drought, and storms have damaged crops in India and Bangladesh. The poorest one sixth of the world’s people are also by and large located in regions where water shortages and ecological changes will bite deepest.
2. Meanwhile a growing middle class in China are demanding, and paying for, more meat in their diet. Each extra cow uses land and water which could otherwise grow ten times that number of calories in the form of grain.
3. In this growing crisis biofuels may be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. The UN’s special rapporteur on the right to fuel, Jean Ziegler, called them “a crime against humanity”.

The world is distracted by the Iraq war, the threat of terrorism, and the price of oil, but political stability is critically dependent upon food security - and that is hard enough for all sorts of reasons related to distribution, quite apart from these fundamental production problems.

discriminate |disˈkriməˌnāt|

1 recognize a distinction; differentiate : babies can discriminate between different facial expressions of emotion. See note at distinguish .

• [ trans. ] perceive or constitute the difference in or between : bats can discriminate a difference in echo delay of between 69 and 98 millionths of a second | features that discriminate this species from other gastropods.

2 make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, sex, or age : existing employment policies discriminate against women.

A short aside: Discrimination (in the first definition above) is the basis of analysis, and analysis is the basis of inference. That, in turn, is the mechanism by which we turn the basic reification of perception from a catalogue of ideas into a coherent view of the world. It feeds back into itself: the way we discriminate depends on our existing understanding, which creates interpretation reinforcing that discrimination and therefore that understanding.

Lately, in personal relationships, in the media, in politics, and online I’ve been coming across a certain attitude which has been bringing me down. The best way I can explain is by giving some examples from around here, but it could be from anywhere and by anyone.

• Anyone who says that Islam is a religion of peace is as evil as those who carry out the bombings and murders!
• We mustn’t forget that Mohammed WAS a paedophile; and a mass-murderer.
• but that is clearly beyond your ham-handed writing skills
• Same old nonsense. My time is too precious.
• but underneath the veil of lies they are scheming and multiplying faster than any other people group, in an effort to overtake the world.

This is not about whether I agree or disagree with any particular statement: actually it’s exactly the opposite. This way of talking and this way of thinking is everywhere just now. Well, it’s probably always been this way but some days I seem to come across it over and over, and it gets depressing.

Language is for communication, obviously, but the type of language and the type of thinking behind the language fundamentally affects the outcome of that communication. There are types of language which are designed to engage the listener’s emotion, and types designed to engage reason. Or both! The key word here is engage. It’s an essential part of being human and it brings people together because it works by showing people what they have in common. Wittgenstein or no, we trust that the feelings produced by the world in another are the same as the feelings produced in our own hearts. Exploring that shared experience is what makes life worthwhile, one way or another.

So what about the examples above? They play on fear, which puts up barriers between people, or else they directly push people away by attempting to make them feel bad. Perhaps it’s the election which is putting it all over the headlines. All around me, at the moment, I’m seeing divisions between people.

The problem is, I’m responding in precisely the wrong way. In my own life and especially here on Newsvine I’ve been arguing. I’ve been pointing out with logic and sometimes with ridicule exactly why I disagree with one thing or another. Naturally I think I’m right but by thinking that I’ve badly missed the point. Statements like the ones I’m talking about are not about right and wrong, because they’re not designed for engagement. Constructive language is a type of sharing, and the statements above are not about that - they’re weapons designed to separate people. That’s not because of the sentiments expressed. Naturally I’ve chosen examples I find particularly objectionable but please don’t let that distract you from the point I’m making. Politicians, for example, will often say things with that same intent of separation but in a much more subtle way.

It’s a seductive mindset. I’ve noticed myself falling into it more and more these last couple of weeks. I want to show someone they’re wrong. I want people to see that anyone holding that point of view is stupid. Is that helping anyone change their mind or is it just adding to the discrimination in the world - in the second sense of the word above? If you’ll forgive me a party political example, Obama’s “race” speech was beautiful and moving precisely because it cut through the attempts by the press to divide people and engender fear and mistrust, not by more of the same tactics but by reaching beyond that discrimination in both directions to show us why what we have in common is more important than what separates us.

Look the people in my personal life, and on television, and making those statements above on Newsvine are not bad people. We disagree! No one’s going to change my mind by being mean, so what am I afraid of? It’s not the end of the world that there are things, even important things, which we feel differently about. It’s not exactly a matter of tolerance, even. It’s about keeping things in perspective: in the end, one way or another, we’re all in this together.

Update

Discrimination is about differences, and it’s an essential part of reasoning. But if that’s all there is life is grey and flat. The juice is in realising that the differences don’t matter. Love is about not discriminating, and while discrimination is the basis of language, love is the basis of communication. So. My resolve is to give up responding to fighting words with discrimination and analysis, and to respond instead with love. Bear with me, this is going to take a little practice.

Tags: communication , language , love , politics

I do think it’s hilarious just how scared the conservatives are of Obama. I don’t think they’re scared of him because he’s black, or because he might beat McCain. I think they’re scared of him because he’s got principles. Genuinely.

And for people whose principles are slogans designed to provide cover for selfishness, entitlement, and laziness that one thing is terrifying.

Tags: politics

Why?

I’ve argued in favour of Nader in the past. The logic goes like this:

1. The US political system is broken. The Democrats and the Republicans have things sown up between them so long as there is not preferential voting. They do not need to represent the wishes of the American people, they just need to make sure they get more votes than the other party. In the case of the Republicans this usually seems to mean convincing the electorate (against all the evidence) that they’re the “party of fiscal responsibility”, or that ignorance is strength, or most of all that war is peace.

   The Democrats, who in another country would be a party of the centre-left, chase the Republicans over to the right in an effort to poach their voters. They get in bed with big business and try to be “neocon-lite”. After all, they have nothing to lose. The voters are picking between bad and worse and the Democrats bet they won’t choose “worse”.

   In a country where five corporations control the majority of the media, it’s not easy to rock the boat. This by itself would drag the Democrats to the right, but in countries where representative democracy is a little more democratic, they’d nevertheless have to keep the left on side simply to prevent minor parties eroding their support base. In the US no such incentive exists. The main erosion of support is to voters so disaffected they stay home.

2. There’s actually no solution to this. Citizens can lobby the Democrats to change their policies, but it’s in the interests of the party to pay lip service to social needs while keeping the media and the corporations as friendly as possible. Getting the media offside could result in truly disastrous press bias. The corporations are not one monolith, but just the same party funding is the basis of any election and every congressional constituency is vulnerable if there is a perception that jobs are at risk. Corporate capitalism is all about manipulating influence to gain competitive advantage. Elections depend on money. It’s a natural match.

3. Or rather, there are two possible solutions and neither is very likely. The first is represented by Nader and the second is prevented by Nader, so I’ll come to it under why not?.

   Nader can’t win. He’s up against the electoral system, the media barons, the corporations, and the Democratic party itself. What he can do is take votes away from the Democratic party. If he does this effectively it’s because he’s been able to gain support for his vision of a non-corporatist, socially compassionate, ecologically sustainable America.

   The cost is Republican presidency, in the short term. In the long term, if he does it well, he forces the Democrats to adopt many of his policies to stop the rot. Now there’s a chance this prevents the Democrats from winning office. Perhaps the power of the media is such that a “green Democrat” is unelectable. But the voters have the final say, so long as Diebold doesn’t become too common and Jeb keeps his fingers out of the Supreme Court. In any case nothing is possible if the average voter doesn’t start looking for a little truth beyond the propaganda machine.

   So I could imagine a situation where the Democrats were forced to really become a center-left party instead of right-centrist the way they are now. But it would take time and it would rely on the Republicans disgracing themselves while the Democrats rebuilt. I think we can always rely on the Republicans to disgrace themselves, I’m just not so sure we can rely on the public to notice.

In a nutshell that’s my pro-Nader argument. We have to keep the Democrats honest, and it may be worth the short term pain in order to do so.

Why not?

This is easier. The Democratic party can reform itself from within.

There has always been the possibility that good men and women would reach office on a Democratic ticket and push against the tide of money men and strategists to create policies which meant something. By doing so they could draw socially conscious caring people in to the party and displace the time servers and the vested interests. A revitalised party would make some headway against the media and Washington’s corporate corruption.

Obama is no lefty. He doesn’t even have the politics of Kucinich. But he does have the vision and the charisma to begin a new direction. I also think he hides his true agenda under a bushel, so as to avoid scaring people. He could make a difference.

I want to give Obama a chance, and I want to do so with a united progressive voice, not splitting it with Nader. I’d love to see Nader campaigning, but campainging against the ills of the Republican mindset rather than campaigning against Obama. [By the way if it were Clinton I’d have a quite different view. I think she represents the worst of the corporatists in progressive clothing who have so damaged the Dems].

So I’m a Nader supporter, but I’m saying don’t do this, Ralph.

Tags: elections , green , nader , presidency , united states

Newspapers in Denmark have recently reprinted the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad which caused controversy and violent protest in 2005 when they were published in Jyllands-Posten. This came about after the arrest on Tuesday of three people on charges of plotting to kill the creator of the cartoon, Kurt Wesergaard. One of the three was later released, but two - both Tunisian citizens who had lived in Denmark for many years - were deported. The newspapers reprinting the cartoon said that they chose to do so in order to take a stand against self-censorship. In other words they wished to show that intimidation could not succeed in silencing them.

This highlights a complex ethical situation in regard of human rights. Hate speech is illegal in much of Europe and in fact in much of the world, and yet free speech is an essential part of any democracy. Are those two things compatible? Where is the border between them?

Certainly I believe I have the right to say what I want about my culture’s religion, Christianity. I might even make fun of it, simply for my own amusement, but I would not do that if I thought it would cause serious offence. That’s simple courtesy. And some people are more likely to be hurt than others. If I meet your deeply religious grandmother I’m no more going to say something mean about Christ than I am going to tell her that her hat is ugly. I don’t think this constitutes any limitation on my freedom of speech.

Legislating against hate speech is something fraught with difficulty, however, because you are really making a law against intent. A swastika in a historian’s book is quite different than one painted on a synagogue, or found (reversed) on the facade of a Hindu temple. In fact we do legislate intent all the time; it is the difference between manslaughter and murder, for example. When the intent is to intimidate, harass, or incite violence against a particular group then it becomes, in many places, illegal.

So, the original publication of a cartoon Muhammad with a turban which looked like a bomb deeply offended a large number of Muslims around the world. Perhaps Islamic religious leaders are partly to blame for inciting the violence which followed, causing around a hundred deaths. For that reason it was discourteous and probably also unwise. Was the publication necessary to advance free speech? I don’t personally see how. Was it intended to intimidate or incite violence against the Muslim population? I’m not sure, but it can’t have helped.

Now, when a possible plot is discovered against the cartoonist, newspapers react to what they see as an attempt to intimidate them into restricting what they will publish. They show their defiance by once again provoking violence. Is this an effective blow for freedom of the press? What does it really achieve? What are the costs in violent reprisals and in increasing racial tensions in Europe?

Personally I’m strongly against any legal limits on freedom of speech. I think the laws which already exist to prohibit threatening behaviour, incitement to violence, and so on should be enough. But although there should be no legal sanction, I think that individuals or media which choose to say things which are offensive, provocative, or likely to increase divisions and hatred within the community are acting in a very unethical way.

Using free speech to cause harm is something which should only be done if there’s a very good reason. There should be no other way. Abusing this most necessary privilege endangers this most basic of our human rights.

Update:

Please take a look at Gideon’s comment here, and the contrast between these cartoons and Rushdie’s book on the one hand and Piss Christ on the other. When I wrote this I was trying to think of good examples to bring a range of worthwhile and non-worthwhile free speech cases to the table, but wasn’t able to do so.