Politics


Václav Havel; A MAN amongst politicians.

Václav Havel died on December 18th.  He was an intellectual, an artist, dissident and despite his own misgivings a popular politician.  He was the last president of Czechoslovakia from 1989-1993 and the first president of the Czech Republic from 1993 to 2003.

His views regarding politics, the morality of man regardless of his station and situation and the ability of an individual to make change are legendary.

The following is a slightly trimmed down version of statements he made in 1998 as shared on project syndicate.

The following deserves a place in the mind of every American considering the upcoming presidential election, arguably the most important in the last 20 years, and the general state of the Republic as we find it today.

Prague, Czech Republic - Does an intellectual – by virtue of his efforts to get beneath the surface of things, to grasp relations, causes and effects, to recognise individual items as part of larger entities, and thus to derive a deeper awareness of and responsibility for the world – belong in politics?

Put that way, an impression is created that I consider it every intellectual’s duty to engage in politics. But that is nonsense. Politics also involves a number of special requirements that are relevant only to it. Some people meet these requirements; others don’t, regardless of whether they are intellectuals.

It is my profound conviction that the world requires – today more than ever – enlightened, thoughtful politicians who are bold and broad-minded enough to consider things that lie beyond the scope of their immediate influence in both space and time. We need politicians willing and able to rise above their own power interests, or the particular interests of their parties or states, and act in accordance with the fundamental interests of humanity today – that is, to behave the way everyone should behave, even though most may fail to do so.

Never before has politics been so dependent on the moment, on the fleeting moods of the public or the media. Never before have politicians been so impelled to pursue the short-lived and short-sighted. It often seems to me that the life of many politicians proceeds from the evening news on television one night, to the public-opinion poll the next morning, to their image on television the following evening. I am not sure whether the current era of mass media encourages the emergence and growth of politicians of the stature of, say, a Winston Churchill; I rather doubt it, though there can always be exceptions.

To sum up: The less our time favours politicians who engage in long-term thinking, the more such politicians are needed, and thus the more intellectuals – at least those meeting my definition – should be welcomed in politics. Such support could come from, among others, those who – for whatever reason – never enter politics themselves, but who agree with such politicians or at least share the ethos underlying their actions.

I hear objections: Politicians must be elected; people vote for those who think the way they do. If someone wants to make progress in politics, he must pay attention to the general condition of the human mind; he must respect the so-called “ordinary” voter’s point of view. A politician must, like it or not, be a mirror. He dare not be a herald of unpopular truths, acknowledgement of which, though perhaps in humanity’s interest, is not regarded by most of the electorate as being in its immediate interest, or may even be regarded as antagonistic to those interests.

I am convinced that the purpose of politics does not consist in fulfilling short-term wishes. A politician should also seek to win people over to his own ideas, even when unpopular. Politics must entail convincing voters that the politician recognises or comprehends some things better than they do, and that it is for this reason that they should vote for him. People can thus delegate to a politician certain issues that – for a variety of reasons – they do not sense themselves, or do not want to worry about, but which someone has to address on their behalf.

Of course, all seducers of the masses, potential tyrants or fanatics, have used this argument to make their case; the communists did the same when they declared themselves the most enlightened segment of the population, and, by virtue of this alleged enlightenment, arrogated to themselves the right to rule arbitrarily.

The true art of politics is the art of winning people’s support for a good cause, even when the pursuit of that cause may interfere with their particular momentary interests. This should happen without impeding any of the many ways in which we can check that the objective is a good cause, thereby ensuring that trusting citizens are not led to serve a lie and suffer disaster as a consequence, in an illusory search for future prosperity.

It must be said that there are intellectuals who possess a very special ability for committing this evil. They elevate their intellect above everyone else’s, and themselves above all human beings. They tell their fellow citizens that if they do not understand the brilliance of the intellectual project offered to them, it is because they are of dull mind, and have not yet risen to the heights inhabited by the project’s proponents. After all that we have gone through in the twentieth century, it is not very difficult to recognise how dangerous this intellectual – or, rather, quasi-intellectual - attitude can be. Let us remember how many intellectuals helped to create the various modern dictatorships!

A good politician should be able to explain without seeking to seduce; he should humbly look for the truth of this world without claiming to be its professional owner; and he should alert people to the good qualities in themselves, including a sense of the values and interests that transcend the personal, without taking on an air of superiority and imposing anything on his fellow humans. He should not yield to the dictate of public moods or of the mass media, while never hindering constant scrutiny of his actions.

In the realm of such politics, intellectuals should make their presence felt in one of two possible ways. They could – without finding it shameful or demeaning – accept a political office and use that position to do what they deem right, not just to hold on to power. Or they could be the ones who hold up a mirror to those in authority, making sure that the latter serve a good cause, and that they do not begin to use fine words as a cloak for evil deeds, as happened to so many intellectuals in politics in past centuries.

Hope is a state of mind, not of the world. Hope, in this deep and powerful sense, is not the same as joy that things are going well, or willingness to invest in enterprises that are obviously heading for success, but rather an ability to work for something because it is good.

Vaclav Havel 1936-2011

Read more from GaijinAss by Checking out:

Chong Corn Soup Cute vs Sexy Kick Boxing Jail
7 (Must Read) Books for Warriors Corn Soup Confessions Cute vs Sexy Kickboxing Realities 7 Scary Facts about Arrest in Japan

Hypocrisy, Cynicism, Lies and Shame

Barack Obama is recognised to be a person of acute intelligence, a legal scholar, careful with his choice of words. He deserves to be taken seriously — both what he says, and what he omits.

Noam Chomsky

As the very environment I inhabit continues to shake and rumble, and as both my future and that of Japan itself are as unsteady as the foundation of the building I live in, my eyes turn to the middle east and to America’s, and “The West’s”, misguided tramplings.

Cynicism

The definition of cynicism is as follows:

1. An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others

Libya, Bahrain, Occupied territories

 

The deputy national security advisor Dennis McDonough told the Washington Post,  “We don’t make decisions about questions like intervention based on consistency or precedent,” he said. “We make them on how we can best advance our interests in the region.”

This says volumes while explaining very little other than further illustrating that there is more going on in Libya besides “humanitarian intervention”.

It seems clear that the use of American military power was brought to bare on a sovereign foreign country, one with whom we have often collaborated, in order to “advance our interests in the region” under the smoke screen of a “humanitarian intervention”.

As discussed in this article the USA is quite picky in regards to which humanitarian interventions it wants to involve itself in.  Libya was seen as something worthwhile while the West bank, Bahrain and the Ivory Coast are not worth America’s time.

One can only be left at best confused yet more likely with a developing sense of cynicism spawned and easily maintained by the extensive menu of lies, cover ups, screw ups and bad policies that the American government insists on implementing and maintaining with genuine vigor.

But is it cynicism?

If the facts tell the truth and if one accepts very basic moral principles regarding what constitutes a moral/immoral action then perhaps it’s something other than cynicism.
When the president of the United states claims in no uncertain terms that a military action (bombing in Libya) is purely humanitarian yet his deputy national security advisor states it’s to “advance our interests in the region” than who is lying?  When we have clearly used force to aid in the ousting of a particular regime (Gaddafi) yet then claim that ”If we tried to overthrow Gaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter,” how can one trust anything that these people perpetuate and put forward?

According to the current US president, bombing is not using force.

 

"Thank god we didn't have to use Force!"

 

The double think is so prevalent the Obama administration should be paying George Orwell royalties.

 

Read  more in Hypocrisy, Cynicism, Lies and Shame 1 or check out 6 media “buzz” words and the (shocking) real meanings.

TP
Tweet MeJapan has a problem with children … it isn’t having any. Japan has the lowest birthrate in the world and they even have invented a word for it – ‘shoshika’, meaning a society without children. Young couples aren’t having babies because a number of factors one of which is money.   Raising a child is expensive in Japan.  The land of the rising sun even has a baby tax or birth penalty at the hospital because getting pregnant isn’t a sickness and so having a child is seen as elective procedure and the government refuses to cover it.

To encourage more children the ruling party DPJ introduced a child allowance of 13,000 Yen per child a month (Around $US150) until they graduate from junior high school. In another positive movement to encourage more children they were going to add an extra 7,000 yen for children under three years of age.

But under the cover of needing money for earthquake reconstruction the opposition party the LDP (the former ruling party of Japan for over 50 years) have stripped the extra funding for families from annual budget even though it had already passed the onto the next house.  This is the only time in Japanese history that a bill has passed onto the next house only to be withdrawn. Not happy with stripping money from families the LDP want to go a step further and kill the family allowance bill entirely.

So why does the LDP want to discourage families from having babies?  Their official reason is Japan is broke and can’t afford it but how can Japan afford to have less babies?   The falling birthrate is a real threat to Japan’s future!  To have a valid economy a nation has to have workers not just old people!  This type of shoot-your-self-in-the-foot action is so typical in Japan it shouldn’t be surprising yet that doesn’t make it any less infuriating.

Read more of Yosomono’s Japan insights in Elderly set to crush japan and The Iron Triangle falls

Hypocrisy, Cynicism, Lies and Shame

“In our country, the lie has become not just a moral category but a pillar of the State”

Alexander Solzhenitsyn

As the Middle East explodes and past great powers elsewhere in the world cringe as they look into their futures, the actions being undertaken by the governments of the west and its puppet mouth pieces are at the best shameful, yet more likely reprehensible and disgusting.

Hypocrisy

“Western Hypocrisy” is a term much bandied about across the global but no place is it so evident, front and center, than in the Middle East at this moment.

First it might be instructive to make clear the exact meaning of Hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy

the condition of a person pretending to be something he is not, especially in the area of morals or religion; a false presentation of belief or feeling.

This clearly defines the actions of the West as a whole and particularly those of the much fallen and lamentable President Obama.
When he was campaigning his platform was basically “Change, yes we can.”
The joke however was on us.   The “change” that he was referring to apparently had to do with making things even worse then they were already.
In a speech given to the American public via Television recently, the President said in no uncertain terms that the United States as a powerful nation (for how much longer one can only speculate; our observation not his) is duty bound to protect the lives of innocents and that we would not stand idly by and wait for the carnage to take place before acting.

“To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and more profoundly our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are.”

Well said Mr. President.

Now, we would like to know when the US plans to halt its massive foreign aid to Israel, an act that many agree, would be sufficient in stopping their blood-thirsty military expansion further into the occupied territories and their systematic, even genocidal approach to containing and extinguishing the Palestinian people.

In addition to stopping the direct foreign assistance the US gives to this wealthy industrial nation of 3 billion dollars a year, we would also like Obama to retract his request for an additional 3 billion dollars in foreign military financing for the country of Israel.

How can the USA have a responsibility to the innocents in Libya yet have no compulsion about the Israel military killing Palestinian childen with American weaponry?

At this moment, the hypocrisy of the west and particularly America knows no bounds.  We’re all patting ourselves on the back due to our regal “humanitarian intervention” in Libya, a country where as recently as 2006 the CIA flew its kidnap victims to for illegal confinement and torture,   yet in Bahrain a similar yet peaceful  revolt is receiving no such assistance.  In fact, the opposite is true.

The uprising in the small island kingdom of Bahrain is a bloody mess.  The King has invited in the military assistance of neighboring governments and has committed a series of international crimes in the violent suppression of the uprising for democratic change.  And we assume they mean real actual change, not the kind Obama sold silly Americans in the most successful ad-campaign of 2008.

"Hope....yes hope....you're feeling very drowsy....change....your eyes are so heavy....hope...."

The military has even taken over major hospitals in order to deny medical assistance to protesters that have been injured by police and military beating them or shooting them.

“This is the situation we’re facing,” explained Nabeel Rajab, President of the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights.

“We are not only facing a regime and neighbouring powers, but American influence as well. They either do not want to see change or only slight changes that do not give people real democracy because the monarchy might lose power. Everyone sees the US double standards very clearly now.

So it appears that the US is doing things not out of some high moral position from the “shining city on a hill” but yet again for some internal and elitist agenda devoid of moral obligation to humanity as a whole, or the general American public who absolutely do not want to be involved in yet another far away war with no end and no real purpose.

"No, seriously folks, my hypocrisy is THIS big."

Read more about Israel criminal aggression in 7 Reasons Israel is Wrong and more about American Imperialism in 6 media “Buzz” words and their (Shocking) real meanings 1

Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 719 other followers