Discontented Soul

No, I’m not a totally “politcal animal” — I DO have other interests, such as linguistics history, and reading and/or watching science-fiction and fantasy. However I will admit that I do tend to interpret these enthusiasms within their social context through a broadly “Marxist perspective. One of my favourite TV shows was the Stargate-SG1 series. I was discomfited when it ended but pleased to see a follow-up series.
However, I’m growing increasingly uncomfortable with “Stargate-Atlantis” for several reasons:-
1) There was some complexity in “SG-1.” The villains of the piece, the Go’auld, were set up as the identities behind all the gods and goddesses in human history. Thus we aficionados of mythology and religion could see, for example, the Egyptians Ra and Hathor, the Greek Poseidon, the Hindu Nirriti and the Japanese Amaterasu. There was even an internal opposition — the Tok’Ra. The Go’auld had slaves who turned rebellious — the Jaffar — and, of course, there was Humanity. The baddies in “Atlantis,” on the other hand, are at present one dimensional — Intergalactic Vampires — so I assume that we must rely on the possibility of conflict with other humans such as the Genii. Perhaps this reflects Dubya’s “Ye’re either with us or agin us,” black-and-white view of the world.
2) The series shows a pronounced anti-Canadian bias (McKay is somewhat self-centred and “morally ambivalent,” but manages to do “the right thing” — in the view of the US members of the hierarchy — at the end) which might be thought to reflect recent disagreements between the US and Canada over Iraq.
3) “SG-1” at times evinced insufferable US-flag-waving jingoism, but the edges were somewhat softened by O’Neill’s tongue-in-cheek witticisms and the banter between the team members. “Atlantis” on the other hand boasts in Major Sheppard a protagonist who shows the blend of wide-eyed innocence (a la Jimmy Stewart) and hardened machismo (a la John Wayne) that Americans expect in their fictional heroes — and presidents.
4) In the episode screened here in Australia last week — Hot Zone — Sheppard orders one Sgt Bates to override the orders of Dr Weir, who is in fact the Chief Executive of Atlantis. Yet Weir does not demote Sheppard to the ranks for mutiny — I would have; Lincoln did, on several occasions — but merely tells him not to do it again. Does anyone else find the idea of a military person overriding the head of the civilian government — and suffering no worse punishment than a slap over the wrist — as disturbing as I do? Does it reflect an increasing militarization of US society?

Withdrawal on the Agenda
by Tom Engelhardt
Published on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 by TomDispatch.com

Republican Congressman Walter B. Jones (famed for insisting that the Congressional cafeteria re-label French fries as "freedom fries" on its menu), a man who represents North Carolina's 3rd Congressional District, home to the Marine's Camp LeJeune, voted enthusiastically for the Iraq War, but recently changed his mind. Last week, he became one of four congressional sponsors of a resolution calling for a timetable for withdrawal. "Do we want to be there 20 years, 30 years?" he said at a Capitol Hill news conference. "That's why this resolution is so important: We need to take a fresh look at where we are and where we're going."...

Click here to read Tom's 2003 piece 'The Time of Withdrawal'.

Bush's imperial project has succeeded by learning the chief lesson of Watergate - muzzle the press
by Sidney Blumenthal
Published on Thursday, June 9, 2005 by the Guardian/UK

...Nixon's grand plan was to concentrate executive power in an imperial presidency, politicize the bureaucracy and crush its independence, and invoke national security to wage partisan warfare. He intended to "reconstitute the Republican party", staging a "purge" to foster "a new majority", as his aide William Safire wrote in his memoir. Nixon himself declared in his own memoir that to achieve his ends the "institutions" of government had to be "reformed, replaced or circumvented. In my second term I was prepared to adopt whichever of these three methods - or whichever combination of them - was necessary."
But now George Bush is building a leviathan beyond Nixon's imagining. The Bush presidency is the highest stage of Nixonism. The commander-in-chief has declared himself by executive order above international law, the CIA is being purged, the justice department deploying its resources to break down the wall of separation between church and state, the Environmental Protection Agency being ordered to suppress scientific studies and the Pentagon subsuming intelligence and diplomacy, leaving the US with blunt military force as its chief foreign policy...

© 2005 Guardian Newspapers, Ltd.

This weekend, foreign ministers and ambassadors of 34 nations of the western hemisphere met in Ft Lauderdale, Florida at the 35th meeting of the Organization of American States. The meeting occurs during a time of major shifts in the relationship of the US with Latin America, particularly the erosion of US domination in the region due to a growing resentment of US double standards on democracy, and the growing rejection of the "Washington Consensus" economic model of corporate globalization in the region.
The core agenda of the OAS is promoting democracy, and strengthening the Democratic Charter of the OAS was high on the agenda of the organization this weekend. Unfortunately, the US is still attempting to impose the outdated ideology that democracy and free trade are two sides of the same coin. During Condoleezza Rice's recent tour of Latin America, the Secretary of State espoused the "twin pillars of democracy and free trade," failing to read the signs in the region that the model of corporate globalization is becoming increasingly unpopular. Latin Americans are turning away from this model of "free trade", increasingly electing governments that represent the needs of the majority, and looking towards alternative models to jump-start their economies and address economic inequality.
But the US still conditions its support of Latin American leadership on those leaders' support of the US economic model. Those that follow a different path are often subject to the criticism of being "undemocratic."...