Thatcher's Poland

My mistake was not waiting to light my cigarette until after I'd passed the pawn shop. The lombard, as they call them here, opened only a few months ago but it's quickly become a favorite hangout for young and old alike. Bizarrely, you're just as likely to see a group of old fogies as a gang of kids ogling the phones in the window, dreaming of the day when they can afford to light up the screens with the slide of a fingertip to signal to the those around them they are worthy while sending and receiving signals from around the world.

As I hit the corner of the main drag, I suddenly remembered I needed cash. Lucky every other building is now a bank while the majority of those in between are oft-time ironically named cheque cashing joints like Happy Credit, mortgage brokers and aptly named kantors (foreign exchange) such as Joker Kantor, so cash was flowing free and easy. Well, apparently not for buddy who was on me like a fly on shit as I waited for the bank machine.

- "Daj mi papierosa" (Give me a cigarette) Came the predictable plea.
- "Jest moj ostatni" (It's my last) I tried to parry.
- "Give me cigarette"
Fuck. Something about my amazing (!?) accent had given me away making me both a prey and a mark.
- "Cigarette!" He barked.
My smoke was now the focus of both our attentions as I raised it to my lips and dropped it to my side. A couple of quick drags and I hand him the butt but he still doesn't budge.
- "One, two beer. How much?" Guess he's thirsty, too. After all it's almost noon.
- "I dunno, depends which" I answer, giving him a shoulder slap to his right shoulder while dodging to my right and slide into the bank machine as the previous customer walks out.

Cash in hand, smoke accoster nowhere in sight, I continued my walk towards first the train and then my work station beyond. As the flow of traffic peppered with the odd late model Porsche and communist era Polski Fiat 126p whizzed by I pass the Golden Arches just in time to see a herd of diabetic fat kids stream out the door, miraculously avoiding the two drunks splayed on the pavement leaning against each other for support as they dream of their next drink. Next up is the wheelchair beggar at his post just past the rail yard and in front of the trade center on the corner where I turn toward the university. Fortunately I'm shielded from his view as I pass by a gaggle of home decor/gardening/fashion enthusiasts clutching their conference bags filled with soon-to-be landfill waste and don't have to respond to his plea for the zloty (cash) he'd need to survive the next 24 hours.

Turning onto the bridge I walked past the newly completed portion of the train station, already covered in grime thanks to the pollution along with the road work and construction of the monstrous mall and even more ginormous parking garage that will be attached to the new Poznan train terminal. Wired gates control traffic at the end the bridge where the roadworks are most intense. Cars jockey for position from all sides as I emerged onto the zebra crossing with my usual contempt for motorized traffic. My second confrontation of the day comes when a car creeps up to my knee and we lock eyes, I point to the crossing and he starts yelling through his windscreen. Flipping him the bird I've already had two opportunities to fight and I haven't been out of the flat for 20 minutes.

That's when I found out Margaret Thatcher had died. I didn't have to wait to read about it in the obituaries or the newspaper, the words accompanied the beep that lit up my cellphone (fortunately I'm still holding onto my decade old Nokia brick and haven't yet needed to join the gawkers in front of the lombard).

"Ding dong, the witch is dead!"

Having come from a British friend that's all that was needed to convey the news. The fraction of a second it took for the impulse to smile to travel from my brain was long enough to allow the guilt for having such a feeling to arrest the curl of my lips before they'd even crinkled. I had to stop and look around. Here I was in Poland about to walk into university to teach a group of students whose parents most likely believe the Iron Lady was at least in part to thank for causing Communist USSR to crumble. The knowledge was more likely than not passed to their offspring subconsciously, like the information transmission of DNA, the kids probably don't even know what they, well, know. The terms Thatcher's Britain and Thatcher's child took no time to enter the lexicon and then the OED, and now standing on the corner with a Beyonce for H&M billboard to my left commanding women to buy her swimsuit or suffer social ostracism, if one's different, one's bound to be lonely, and a Szybcy i Wsciekli 6 (Fast & the Furious 6) billboard to my right reminding me of Thatcher's possibly apocryphal quote "[a] man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself as a failure", I couldn't help wonder how much this was Thatcher's Poland.

"Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past"
- Orwell, 1984

Upon noticing a book carried by one of my first Polish private students with Ronald Reagan on the cover, I was informed that Saint Ronnie along with John Paul II and Margaret Thatcher were his heroes: the holy trinity of freedom, a triptych of Maggie, Ronnie and JP2 on the mantelpiece of every good home. It's one of those things everyone here just knows just as I knew at that moment that Thatcher's passing wasn't going to go quietly; an information war every bit as deadly as the shooting kind she loved so much was already under way to remake her legacy, reframe the perspective and retard the rest of us.

Had she been a man, Margaret Thatcher could easily have been called Iron Balls as she had conviction in her beliefs if she had anything. Instead, thanks to her power to make most shrink around her, she was ironically given the nickname she came to love by the system she loathed. Accusing her of trying to revive the cold war, the Soviet Army newspaper Krasnaja Zvezda (Red Star) dubbed the then leader of the opposition železnaja dama (the Iron Lady) in January of 1976.

Seems as with everything else about Lady Thatcher, measuring the impact of her role in the fall of the Soviet Union is too subjective to measure, a hagiographic effort at best. Sure, after meeting Mikhail Gorbachev in 1984 she declared "We can do business together" and shortly thereafter the official party policy of glasnost was adopted in the USSR. However a near identical phrase "I think they can do business together" had been uttered in February of the same year by the American Senate Majority Leader Howard H Baker Jr. in reference to Reagan's potential meeting with the then Soviet leader Konstantin Chernenko.

Her bold assertions that there was no alternative nor any such thing as society, delivered in a tone both boring and boring, made her seem so decisive and divisive but when examined in context become wishy-washy and banal. Should we celebrate the life or death of a lady who may have had a hand in bringing about a Brave New World order by bringing down the (iron) curtain on our 1984 future? How does one shed a tear for a woman who had no qualms about ordering the death of hundreds of 'Argies' sailing away from a fight, not only allowed the US to station nuclear tipped cruise missiles on British soil to up the Cold War ante but also to use British bases for bombing raids on Libya, and above all, taught us to be selfish and that the pain of others isn't our problem?

But did she help save the Poles and the rest from communism? Unanswerable and doubtful but Poland's neoliberal lackey foreign minister Radek Sikorski eulogized her as a "fearless champion of liberty". We can guess how the Argentinians feel about how she saved the Malvinas. Barack Obama trotted out the obligatory praise saying she was "one of the great champions of freedom and liberty". Why don't we ask a Chilean if she helped or hurt their struggle against her buddy Pinochet by thanking him for "bringing democracy to Chile" by murdering the people's elected representative. I'm sure the tens of thousands murdered, hundreds of thousands tortured and million plus forced to flee Chile under his dictatorship would disagree.

The Economist magazine, bringing the tru to Minitru and where 2+2=5, eulogized "[t]he essence of Thatcherism was to oppose the status quo and bet on freedom", thus doing their part to ensure her support of the South African apartheid regime is lost down the memory hole. Not only did she once refer to Nelson Mandela's ANC as a "typical terrorist organization" while her spokesman said it was "cloud-cuckoo land for anyone to believe" they could run the country, she somehow worked the doublethink trick of projecting opposition to the racist regime while befriending then Premier P.W. Botha. She celebrated her friendship with Indonesia's General Suharto calling hime "one of our very best and most valuable friends" for having killed 500,000 suspected Communists in Indonesia before moving on to invade East Timor in 1975 to massacre around 250,000 men, women and children on the island. Her government helped arm Saddam Hussein, lent a hand to Pol Pot and hailed General Mohammed Zia ul-Haq's work in Pakistan that laid the groundwork for the Islamic radicalization of a whole generation.

Perhaps the greatest paradox of the woman was just that, she was a woman. In 1970, a week after becoming Secretary of State for Education and Science, she was asked if she would she like to become the first woman Prime Minister. "No," she answered emphatically, "there will not be a woman Prime Minister in my lifetime—the male population is too prejudiced." Of the movement and activists which possibly did more to change the 20th century than any other and opened the door to 10 Downing to her, she reportedly told an adviser, "[t]he feminists hate me, don’t they? And I don’t blame them. For I hate feminism. It is poison." In 1982 she said "The battle for women's rights has largely been won" which explains why she never felt the need to speak out against domestic violence, rape, sexual abuse or harassment or how women earned about 60 cents to the dollar of men's wages. She gave the appearance of smashing the glass ceiling while in fact pulling up the ladder, famously promoting only a single woman to a cabinet position preferring instead to surround herself with vegetables. Is it sexist of me to wonder how a mother of two could also become Maggie Thatcher the milk-snatcher by taking away kids' milk? Despite her portrayal as a greengrocer's daughter who had to fight to the top, she seems to have been a daddy's girl who married well which allowed her the luxury to study and hire a nanny.

Apologists rose to Thatcher's defense to claim her actions were a product of the times, the ends justified the means and of course, war is peace. Her sales pitch to a roomful of Saudis, "I'll have one of those!" while stroking a gleaming missile, to seal the $80 billion Al Yamamah arms deal wasn't meant for public consumption as 'batting for Britain' really involved billions in black money to bribe Saudi princes and add to the bottom line of BAE. Poles have learned Thatcher's buddy system well, er, well, the politicians at least, lining up to sacrifice lives and zloty to the alter of American military hegemony. Polish may have recently become England's second language but Polish politicians speak Anglo-Saxon ass-kissing as good as any lapdog. Most Poles are oblivious to the fact they ranked number four on the 'coalition of the willing' casualty countdown and just last month saw their 39th soldier killed in Afghanistan, while four more stand trial for war crimes committed there. Meanwhile the billions to be spent on a useless missile shield that the majority of the people don't want will piss off the Russians and definitely won't end up in the pockets of the locals.

"Non-stop distractions of the most fascinating nature...are deliberately used as instruments of policy, for the purpose of preventing people from paying too much attention to the realities of the social and political situation."
- Aldous Huxley, Brave New World

Thanks to doublethink, the lady wasn't for turning and probably believed in what she was doing but the real trick was to convince not just the people but her own party of the myth that Thatcherism was good for 'ordinary' people and would emancipate the working classes. Attila the Hen found an ally in Rupert Murdoch; she helped him consolidate his media power while he helped her spread the gospel and get reelected twice. The two protestant 'outsiders' who attended Oxford railed against the establishment which they became a part of by helping each other; he by having his tabloid the Sun shift its traditional support for Labour to Thatcher's Tories with a front page editorial arguing Thatcher’s election would be better for the working classes, she by allowing his acquisition of The Times and Sunday Times to avoid scrutiny by the competition authorities thanks to a deal struck during lunch at Chequers. While Thatcherism was tearing the heart out of the industrial heartland and looting the commons to hand it over to a tiny elite of 'wealth creators' who would free up the market and rain wealth on the land, Murdoch helped make sure there would be astonishingly little protest or consciousness by blaming the poor, promoting war and of course giving the people want they really wanted, more football.

The strength of ignorance is both easily built and desperately needed here in Poland. Caught so often on the wrong side of history and geography, convincing the Poles that there is no alternative to the current course has been an easy sell. Football, vodka and the Catholic Church allow the people to imagine they'll get to a better place as long as they keep their head down and work hard. Sure, they have the right complain and the array of choices seems as diverse as anywhere but the media landscape ensures the discourse never strays far off course. German companies like Axel Springer AG spew IngSoc, er, tabloid trash and EU propaganda with their version of the Sun, Fakt, alongside Dziennik and Newsweek Polska, American movies continually revise the past while TV portrays seemingly  possible present from the west or a poor simulation thereof and Radio Maryja spews xenophobic hate cloaked in the hope of redemption. The closest Poland comes to Murdoch is Adam Michnik, editor of the ofttimes leading national daily Gazeta Wyborca who somehow managed the trick of undergoing a conversion from a fearless dissident into a hack propagandist heralding the evils of Islamofascism and convincing women to go shopping on cobblestone streets wearing high heels (er, a forced reference to his paper's women's magazine Wysokie Obcasy - High Heels)

Maggie may or may not have been instrumental in delivering Poland and Eastern Europe from the Soviet Union but it was her amazing electoral success along with that of fellow cold war warrior Rotten Ronnie on the other side of the pond that sped the demise of democracy as we knew it. Yes, the unions they broke had too much influence on Labour and Democrat policy and no, it wasn't her or Raygun's fault those parties ran into the arms of Big Finance but there you are. Poland et al had the misfortune of gaining freedom just as the end of history arrived and democracy became nothing but a choice between  more or less measures of neocon and neoliberal, a lesser of two evil song and dance, a recipe repeated around the world from Ottawa to Warsaw. When asked about her greatest achievement, Thatcher simply replied, "New Labour" and Tony Blair. In Poland the answer would be the ruling Platforma Obywatelska (Civic Platform) and the likes of Oxford educated, husband of Washington Post hack Anne Applebaum, current foreign minister Radek Sikorski (not only did he write this drivel after Thather's death he called for a statue to be erected here in her honour, maybe right next to Reagan's in Warsaw!). Politics have become subordinate to markets and labour to capital, society now serves the economy instead of the other way around.

"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind."
- Adam Smith, An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations

It's this last point which is probably the most important connection between Thatcher and life here in Poland, freedom is slavery. Sparked by the Powell Memo in 1971 and lent an aura of intellectual legitimacy by the Chicago Boys, a new economic ideology was propagated through institutional sponsorship: America has the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute while the UK's versions include the Adam Smith Institute, the Institute of Economic Affairs and the Centre for Policy Studies founded in 1974 by Thatcher's mentor, Keith Joseph. Despite their benign sounding names, these are radical think tanks with almost nothing to do with the likes of Adam Smith who understood something about Moral Sentiments and the dangers of private monopolies and everything to do with Hayek, Friedman and Rand and their belief in extreme individualism or social Darwinism. Nigel Lawsen, Thatcher's Chancellor of the Exchequer from '83 to '89 summarized their economic philosophy, "Economic planning was both impossible and unnecessary. . . . The price mechanism . . . was a much more efficient means of transmitting consumer wants and needs than the vast bureaucracies of Whitehall and the nationalized industries." Selfishness along with ostentation of power and status was in. Culture was ruled over by money, and the idea that those who win by making more of it do so because they are better was not just permitted but ordained.

Profit and capitalism were good while planning, government and taxes were bad. Conveniently this all worked together as in order to lower taxes, public spending had to be lowered which scaled back government by reducing public services, privatizing whatever was possible and deregulating the rest. Inconveniently most voters viewed the government as subsidizing essential public services, ensuring economic security and helping families in need. The trick therefore was to create a backlash against government waste, resentment against public subsidies to those who were less hard working than themselves and place the blame for inflation on greedy unions. Notice the success as the issue of benefit fraud, which costs the UK about £1.2 billion yearly is a far more emotive topic than tax avoidance, which costs about £70 billion a year. Voters also needed to be convinced that what was taken from the state was being given to them thus enhancing individual economic freedom and unshackling the wealth creators, allowing the wealth to trickle down on everyone. The only valid idealism was to destroy the state by, as Lawson continued, "elevating private actions above public direction and dismissing ‘social justice’ as both vague and arbitrary." Finding bad reasons for what one believes for other bad reasons - that's philosophy.

Thatcher was swept into power on a perfect storm of global inflation emanating from the US pushing up world prices, IMF imposed austerity in exchange for loans to support the value of sterling after Britain's 1976 foreign exchange crisis which made it impossible to finance the modernization of public industries as it would increase the PSBR (Public Sector Borrowing Requirement), and finally, well, strikes and weather, otherwise known as Britain's Winter of Discontent. Yes, a public sector strike during an unusually cold winter ground the country to a halt, literally, as roads went unsalted, hospital patients were denied treatment and garbage piled up in the streets. Labour, who had tied themselves to those striking unions, found themselves with their hands also tied behind their back. Thatcher picked and chose her battles with labour wisely and pursued a step-by-step program of trade union reform before ultimately crushing them in the '84-'85 coal miners' strike. There was indeed no alternative to the monetarist Thatcherism which created an employers' market by imposing chronic under-employment and shifting enterprise out of the unionized public sector to newly privatized, non-unionized enterprises; Marks and Spencer had triumphed over Marx and Engels.

Ironically, or perhaps just calculatingly mercenary, while destroying unions and solidarity at home she was lionized by Solidarność (Solidarity) in Poland, actually being mobbed by dockworkers in Gdynia when she visited in 1988. If you've gotten this far in reading it hopefully means you realize I understand there was a difference between unions in the UK and Poland, after all, in Poland the military used to shoot striking miners dead. Given the trade unions' role in the democratization of Poland it is curious that Poland today has among the lowest unionization rates in Europe as from 1982 until 2005 membership fell from 80% to below 14% (only  2.4% for employees under the age of 25). There are myriad of factors at play here, from the many mistakes made by the unions themselves, a massive shift of the workforce from traditional industries and sectors such as mining and steel, and the privatization of many formerly public, union dominated industries, but it was the pernicious effects of Thatcherism on human psychology that seem the greatest factors. The transformation of the full-employment ideals of post-WWII society to an economic system based on chronic un- and underemployment has made many afraid of forming or joining a union along with the societal appeal to the narrowest self-interest of individuals having gained the upper hand over the feeling of brotherhood and the desire to work for the collective good.

Thatcherism also slowly shifted the balance of power from labour to capital through tax and monetary policy, privatization and deregulation. She managed to destroy more than 2 million jobs in two years, an astonishing figure considering unemployment only breached 1 million in 1978 before reaching 3.5 million by 1983. Her monetarism lowered everyone's taxes a bit and 'simplified' the fiscal system by regressively shifting taxes away from wealth onto consumers via sales taxes, excise taxes and the value-added tax. With public institutions being starved by austerity, privatization was the only way to modernize. "Popular capitalism", spreading ownership as widely as possible, would serve the double purpose of making it difficult to re-nationalize in the future plus giving the public skin in the game, giving workers a stake in preserving the value of the shares they held in these enterprises. The discipline of the market would make British industry more competitive but its effect along with deregulation of the financial industry, the 'Right to Buy' scheme of 1980 and the 'Big Bang' of 1986 simply handed over complete control of the British economy to the square mile in the heart of London, the City.

Privatization, which started tentatively in her first term with British Aerospace and Cable & Wireless, had reached fever pitch by her second reelection: Jaguar, British Telecom, Britoil, British Gas, British Steel, British Petroleum, Rolls Royce, British Airways. Her fourth term (well, John Major's first) saw British Rail hit the auction block. By the time the Conservatives were voted out of office in 1997 by one of the largest margins in history it had become clear to the public that there were some side-effects to the medicine they were being forced to take. Prices hadn't declined along with productivity gains in some areas while they had jumped for essential services like water whose systems were breaking down or shifted against residential consumers in favor of large industrial users in the case of electricity. Services had been cut back, privatized companies were engaging in monopoly practices and to add insult to injury economic inequality had widened with the shrinkage in the industrial labor force and stagnating real wages while profits soared for the privatized companies and the City fleeced the government for underwriting fees and began gambling in earnest thanks to the newfound market freedom. Thatchers reply? "Let us glory in our inequality."

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
- H.L. Mencken, A Little Book in C Major

Pity the Poles for having gained their freedom at the height of Thatcherism, imagine how different the future would look had it been in, say, 1968? As it was, having been tried and tested by Thatcher's buddy Pinochet in Chile, the Chicago Boys idea of "Shock Therapy" came to Poland in the person of Leszek Balcerowicz in 1989 under the guidance of Harvard's Jeffery Sachs backed by the muscle of the IMF. Doubtless, drastic measures were called for to make the huge transition that was complicated by the fact Poland was an economic basket case, with debt of $40 billion and inflation running at 600%. Also doubtless, the Balcerowicz plan was a success when compared to the results achieved in some other Eastern bloc nations. Forgotten though is the doublethink trick achieved of forcing a now 'free' democratic nation to trade off part of the debts incurred by a totalitarian regime it had never voted for in return for selling off state assets at discount prices for the benefit of foreigners and those highly place communists who were quick enough to convert to the new religion. Who cares if it was completely undemocratic, Balcerowicz termed it "extraordinary politics" while Michnik warned that the common people or "rank and file...irrational hotheads [were] incapable of recognizing the limits and realities of the real world". Those in position to do so stripped all the assets they could, a $1 billion stabilization loan (aren't numbers from the olden days quaint?) was arranged, large blocks of shares of privatized assets were placed in the hands of banks and Poland was absorbed into the global slavery debt trap.

The only goal of the IMF/Sachs/Balcerowicz policies was to ensure payments continued to flow west on the $40 billion in illegitimate foreign hard currency debt (what would be called odious debt today). Much of that debt had been incurred in 1979 when rates in London and New York increased 300% under the policies of, you guessed it, Margaret Thatcher and US Fed Chairman Paul Volcker. By the end of '91, Polish unemployment had reached 2 million, industrial production was 66% of the '89 level at the end of '92 and as 1993 closed 2.8 million were unemployed and 50% of families with 3 or more children were living below the poverty line. Little wonder that elections held in September of 1993 saw the the pro-IMF government of Hanna Suchocka replaced by a raft of coalition parties with direct ties to the communist regime. Predictably, as inequality elsewhere surpasses levels unseen since the roaring '20s, the new grand bourgeoisie that has emerged here has combined old bureaucrats, new managers and a burgeoning entrepreneurial class; a situation reminiscent of Poland in the 1920s. Perhaps the best symbols of what Poland got in return for the misery, organized crime, and debt-based slavery brought by the 'reforms' are Galeria Mokotów (Mokotów Mall) in Warsaw and Stary Browar (Old Brewery). The former, a shopping center built in place of a demolished semiconductor factory, cuz, you know, who needs those in a modern economy when you can create another black hole to suck wealth out of the local economy, and the latter a mall built on bribery (Polish link) and murder involving the richest man in Poland.

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
- Anatole France, Le Lys Rouge (The Red Lilly)

Ah yes, the riches and glory promised to Poland are coming but as in the rest of the world more and more disproportionately to those at the top of the income scale. It would take a figure  stronger than Thatcher to convince Poles they are on the wrong course though as they are pumped through the indoctrination centers that are the education system. They emerge believing they have free will and as unquestioning of the free-market god as their forefathers were in the Catholic one unaware that one believes things because one has been conditioned to believe them; soma is simply Christianity without tears. The trains are slow, late and chaotic not because they're being sold off piecemeal on EU orders which is creating the disarray, but because it's not fully privatized like the UK's, who cares about their disastrous experience. The long waits at NFZ have nothing to do with it being underfunded, the public health care system isn't a blessing but a curse as promoting preventative medicine instead of the Americanized version of health for profit resulting in worse health outcomes and higher costs must be better as it's the path the Cameron government is choosing as they privatize the NHS by stealth. Oh, and don't worry Polish kids, it's only a matter of time until the course laid in leads to a completely privatized American-style college system of trillion dollar debt slavery before you've even entered the workforce. Just ask any 20-year-old Brit what it's like. 

Would the UK and Poland be much different if Thatcher had never been? Maybe not seeing as even the EU, the institution that most separates Maggie and Poland, has become nothing more than a glorified debt collector/pusher a fact not lost on most Poles as they become more disenchanted with the concept as their democracy ages just as Thatcher did. Even the Iron Lady, as she mentions in her autobiography, was caught off guard at how much she came to rely on the financial manipulators, how little she was able to control them and the scale of those bankers' greed; she convinced us to sell the family silver for the benefit of the rentiers who perceived the Thatchers and Friedmans as pawns, well-meaning promoters wrapping austerity economics in populist garb. Unfortunately, the deleterious social effects of the inequality caused by growing GDP through financialization of the economy, empowering those banks and other corporations to pursue profit without paying the price for wrongdoing and turning people into consumer zombies takes years to measure and decades to be felt. Trillions in wealth will continue to by siphoned out of the productive economy while we are forced to run faster and faster just to keep up and are convinced that our phone has somehow made us smarter. Yet while there is always time to get off the tracks before the train hits there's not much chance of heeding the warning the more we come to rely on those who profit from us being run over.

This Week in Wingnuttery

A new semi-regular feature for my 5's of regular readers: a quick(ish) rundown on the thought process of those on the right - as in opposite from left - side of the political spectrum. As today's internet has enabled users to coral the shotgun blast of information into their own RSS'd version of reality, it's good to take a minute and try to understand where the beliefs that the other side of reality get their information. The 24/7 news cycle that has been thrust upon us in the last couple of decade has evolved into something even more dangerous as the deluded right has an even greater capacity to isolate themselves from reality. As more and more pay walls go up, we'll increasingly need this kind of insight to understand how misinformation gets passed onto an unsuspecting public.

We'll start with the Wall Street Journal where March kicked off with:

Milton Friedman has been dead for more than three years. But his spirit was surely hovering protectively over Chile in the early morning hours of Saturday. Thanks largely to him, the country has endured a tragedy that elsewhere would have been an apocalypse.

I'll save you the trouble of reading the rest of the WSJ article. After rattling off a few stats about the power of the latest Chilean earthquake, the writer, one Bret Stephens, goes on to thank none other than Milton Friedman, Uncle Milt, for the low death count in Chile relative to Haiti who sustained a much more powerful earthquake. Why? Well, according to the deluded, it was thanks to the Chicago Boys that Chile adopted strict building regulations which resulted in their housing being built of bricks instead of straw. According to rightwing mythology all the concrete and rebar came thanks to the economic policies adopted by the Pinochet regime under the advice of Uncle Milt.

Without knowing the reactionary press victim's condition it would seem inexplicable that one could think the man partially responsible for the slaughter of thousands is in fact owed thanks because he made building codes stronger in Chile. Responses to this assertion should begin with reminding the nutter of Richard Nixon's response to the democratic election of Salvador Allende - "make the economy scream" (hard to read copy here, 8th line of the semi-legible scribble). This was Tricky Dick's order September 15, 1970 to his CIA director Richard Helm, launching the soft line campaign to undermine Allende which paralleled the hard line Pepsi fuelled military coup.

But I digress, read more here. Back to Friedman and Chilean building codes. Even if we ignore the fact that the Chilean seismic building code was adopted in 1972, the year before the CIA assassination of Allende, there's the matter of Uncle Milt's view on government legislated building codes. Hint: He didn't like them. In fact, Chile's earthquake had the curious effect of destroying a disproportionate amount of modern buildings and highway overpasses. So, if anything Friedman is to blame for much of the destruction as building code standards and enforcement degenerated after Pinochet took power. Whether you're building highway overpasses or entire economies with only private sector oversight, both tend to collapse when the big one hits.

Next up, McCarthyism is in again. Last week's 'news' cycle featured media stalwart whore Wolf Blitzer giving air time to Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol's view that lawyers who aided Guantanamo Bay prisoners legal defense are unpatriotic. They went even further, suggesting the Department of Justice be renamed the Department of Jihad (get it DOJ, J for Justice or Jihad, sigh). Of course this is nothing new for the likes of Kristol or Cheney, but it gets ugly when it spills over to the main stream of CNN. The Kristol's and Cheney's of the world need to be kept in their boxes, not given forums to create perceptions of American patriotism. The hubbub arose when Liz's Keep America Safe propaganda unit made this ad which instead of getting them tarred and feathered has even reached the floor of the Senate:



If you're a NY Post reader, you don't read that as a lawyer, John Adams defended British soldiers accused of brutal crimes committed during the Boston Massacre calling it "one of the most gallant, generous, manly, and disinterested actions of my whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country." Instead you get 9/11 scaremongering day in, day out. Oh, and they conveniently forget that the Bush/Cheney DOJ and Rudy Gulliani's firm also employed these same horrible types of people providing constitutional protection. Hat tip to Glen Greenwald, the timeline of events showed he was most prescient in his warning over watching how the media would play this story. Unfortunately, the (brain)damage is already done for readers of the Weekly Standard, they think witchhunts are a good thing, but don't hear about how 34 of America's 50 largest law firms represented detainees or filed amicus briefs on their behalf as Senator Grassley had to be reminded. Thanks to Wolf, while passively watching CNN many were exposed to the contamination. I hate Wolf Blitzer. Oh, and anyone named Cheney. There I said it.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Seeing as the Jim Bunning crusade to kill the unemployed is over, just one more shocker this week. Bunning may have had some success making people forget that the nation's debt problem is mostly due to Bush and Republican congress era unfunded wars and Medicare prescription drug benefits that came along with two of the biggest tax cuts for the rich in history (all of which he voted for). If people can be made to forget all that along with the fact that the bank bailout was mostly Bush's, they will also now believe Sarah Palin is smarter than Barack Obama. Yes, it was only Sean Hannity saying it, but remember Faux News controls the minds of many zombiefied conservative neanderthals you may run into. Sorry, I know it's painful, but you gotta get to just past the 2:00 minute mark:


Keep in mind that their definition of smart is obviously different than the traditional one. For them, smart means writing down answers to supposedly unscripted questions on your hand. You're smart when you can only name one of the founding fathers of your nation while claiming to revere their ideas. Yes, smart is calling single payer health care socialist and then admitting that your family used to slip across the Alaskan-Canadian border in order to receive some of that commie medicine. I don't even know what to say, no matter, Zirgar says it better here. Just remember how the Inca were proved right when American's are mulling over the Palin/Cheney vs. Obama/Biden decision come 2012.

The misinformation rolls around the planet with Tsunami-like destruction. Is there any wonder why Canadian officials support torturing brown people in Afghanistan? How the only way Obama can improve national security standing among much of the electorate is to kill more people in a country he's not at war with remote control indiscriminate killing toys. You have to remember the information that these poor creatures are fed with the goal of retarding society. Gnashing your teeth about illegal Israeli settlement construction will get you nowhere without remembering why the right hates brown people. In a world where America is destroying itself like 18th century Poland while I'm living in a 21st century Poland still trying to imitate the States, it's not only the language that's hard to translate. Having a dictionary can help you understand the words coming out of the right-wingnutter's mouth but you'll never comprehend the meaning oozing out of their mind without remembering they get most of their 'information' from Rupert Murdoch controlled sources. Wow, didn't even mention Rush Limbaugh once in the inaugural installment of wingnuttery. D'oh!

Sorry

Could it be that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad actually has a point? There's been a lot of talk about the fact that Barack Obama gave his first interview to a foreign network, an Arab network no less. Of course the American networks felt slighted, with some, OK, one, the FOX "network" going so far as pretending to not be able to pronounce Al-Arabiya (check it out here, was she being ignorant or condescending?). As expected the right's response is to scream about being weak in the face of the enemy - remember talking and exchanging ideas is a Republican weakness - but I want to focus on the comments made by everyone's favourite Persian leader.

In his first public address since Obama's inauguration and interview, Ahmadinejad said:
"Those who say they want to make change, this is the change they should make: they should apologise to the Iranian nation and try to make up for their dark background and the crimes they have committed against the Iranian nation."

Here's the thing: he's right. While Obama took the first step by reaching out his hand, much of the Muslim world still sees that hand as a clenched fist. How could they not when one considers some of the things that the US has done to Iran and other countries over the years, most of which many Americans themselves have no idea about. If one wants to get a small idea of the propaganda and censorship that forms the world view of many Americans, this is a quick and easy start. Ahmadinejad listed some of the grievances of his people that he wishes an apology for, beginning with American support for the 1953 coup that ousted the democratically elected government of Mohammed Mossadegh and installed Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, who ruled until he was ousted in the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Also on the list is the shooting down of an Iran Air Airbus A300 by the United States Navy’s missile cruiser Vincennes over the Persian Gulf in 1988, killing 290 people. American military commanders said at the time that the passenger plane had been mistaken for an F-14 fighter jet, and they defended the warship’s actions.

Find more videos like this on www.truveo.com.

Oh, and there was that little thing where the US backed Iraq and Saddam Hussein in the 1980's in the war against Iran leading to the deaths of over a million people. Of course over on FOX "news" (read story here), the only US 'crime' that is mentioned is trying to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. That's the only bad thing America has done, ever.

The truth is, without American intervention there would be no Ahmadinejads, Bin Ladens or Kim Jong-ils in this world and therefore not only owes the Iranian people, but the whole world a big sorry. Yes, the world also owes America a great big thank-you for all the good it's done as well. However, she must face up to the fact that much wrong has resulted from her actions. From genocide at home to Chile through Iraq, America has made it's share of errors (pretty good list here, CIA interventions here). The last eight years saw a dangerous shift in American foreign policy, specifically the pre-emptive war doctrine and increased support for Israel in their genocidal fight against the Palestinian people. The predictable result has been the increase in radicalism seen in the Muslim nations, making the world a much more dangerous place. Now there's news that the Obama administration is drafting a letter to the Iranian people in response to a letter of congratulations received after the election victory in November. What should the letter say? What tone should it strike? Should it be addressed directly to the people of Iran? All important questions, but I think one word would go a long way to healing the wounds: Sorry.

How to lose friends and influence

"Reputation, reputation, reputation! O I have lost my reputation! I have lost the immortal part of myself, and what remains is bestial."

- Shakespeare, Othello, Act 2 Sc. III

The Harvard University professor Joseph S. Nye Jr. first coined the term "soft power" back in 1990 to describe the ability of a political body, such as a state, to indirectly influence the behavior or interests of other political bodies through cultural or ideological means. It's now identified as the third form of power that nations can wield, with the other two being "hard power", military might, along with economic strength. Power is the ability to influence the behavior of others to get the outcomes one wants; you can coerce others by threatening them with a stick, you can induce them with payments, or you can simply attract or co-opt them. The year 1990 could be seen as a high water mark for the USA for all three forms of power: the symbolic defeat of communism with the fall of the Berlin Wall the previous year, the US and its allies were about to unleash the 'Desert Storm' invasion of Iraq and the poor deprived citizens of Moscow were finally able to order their first Big Mac. American hegemony was sealed, the new world order of American led globalization would usher in a new era of peace and prosperity. However, Russian bombers may soon be stationed in Cuba as naval battle groups are sent to Venezuela to perform joint exercises, while Chinese investors are exchanging ideas with Brazilian ethanol producers and Iran can sit tight in the knowledge that the security council will block any meaningful resolution against it at the UN. So, what's happened here?

While the US military hasn't been overwhelming in its performance in Iraq or Afghanistan, you can't deny that it is still the unquestionable hard power force in the world. The trouble is that the group of people who have come into power over the last 20 years or so have seen American military preeminence as a passport to do what they want. This view, that Charles Krauthammer has called “the new unilateralism" holds that the United States is so powerful that we can do as we wish and others have no choice but to follow. They have used that view as a way of applying American military power to all sorts of problems. As for soft power, well the current administration has finally come around in the past couple of years to admit that it is relevant. As recently as 2004, then US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld professed to not even understand the term soft power, claiming popularity was too ephemeral to be measured. When the actions of the current administration are combined with the popularly held view that they didn't even enter power democratically, the effects are easy to see in a growing tide of anti-Americanism. Oh oh, I'm feeling quite ranty, this could be a long post, bear with me.

That we have come to a point where outright purchases of private sector companies is not only proposed but accepted by many who claim to be defenders of free markets bodes ill for the future of American society - Ron Paul
The most important source of US power for the past century has been its financial weight. Now that the market roller coaster of the past week has resulted in what is essentially the nationalization of the financial industry, that era has officially ended. Time magazine went so far as the refer the the US as the United States of France. Although history may look back at these events as the turning point, the loss in economic power has been a long time coming. On October 26, 2000 you could buy a Euro with 82.52 US cents. While it has bounced off its low, the markets told the US about its confidence in the economy Monday as the Euro rose to US$1.4824 in afternoon trading, up from the $1.4470 on Friday. Meanwhile oil was up over $25 at one point, but settled for a $16.37 gain to end at US$120.92 and gold shot up $44.30 to settle at US$909 an ounce. In that fateful year of 1990, the US also moved from a negative to a positive current account balance as it managed to record its last positive figure in 1991, just shy of $3 billion. This essentially means that the US has been buying more goods (and services) from abroad than it is selling, with the flow of foreign funds into the US financing the difference. In other words, foreigners are purchasing such things as US Treasuries, shares in companies, and even firms or property. The deficit is precisely the amount foreigners must acquire in US denominated assets to keep the dollar from falling. Up to now, foreigners have been willing to finance the shortfall because of their belief in the American way. The past week not only has investment banking died, the American way could die with the proposed banking bailout package, result, goodbye dollar as the world's currency.

The typical knee-jerk reaction to the above problem has been to point the finger at China. Their currency is undervalued, or they aren't importing enough American products. However it's China that is winning the power war where it really matter as coincidentally they have the world's largest current account surplus, $370 billion. Hard power, they've definitely got that. Soft power we can start with the Olympics, where, although the shine was tainted a bit by the Tibet protests, still was an overwhelming success in the world's opinion. Beijing aggressively courts the governments of countries with diplomacy, trade deals, debt forgiveness, and aid packages. China's no questions asked policy is diametrically opposed to that of the US and the EU and has resulted in a spreading Chinese influence globally. Right now, your kids wear Chinese clothes and play with Chinese toys. It is not at all inconceivable that their kids will listen to Chinese pop and prefer Chinese movies. The inhabitants of southeast Asia are already doing so. At least there's always the lingua franca of English to fall back on, right? Wrong, the Chinese are working hard to change that in their favour too. In 2005, China's education ministry announced a new initiative to boost Chinese-language teaching in American universities and language institutes around the world. Beijing University, China's most prestigious, announced a visiting-scholars fund to encourage foreign PhDs to study in China. More than 110,000 overseas students from 178 countries studied in China in 2004. This figure marked a ten-year high, and an increase of over 40 percent from 2003. "There's a belief that to get ahead, it would behoove you to go to China, in the same way that ten years ago people said the same about the United States.

While the US has focused on using its military to secure influence, particularly in respect to oil, China has signed oil and gas exploration contracts around the world; with Brazil, Ecuador, Bolivia, Colombia, Venezuela and Cuba in the Americas; in the Central Asian states such as Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, and China's oil exploration interests extend to Burma, Vietnam, and Malaysia in southeast Asia; imports of crude oil also constitutes the bulk of China's imports from African states. The Chinese approach to foreign relations is officially termed "noninterference in domestic affairs." Unlike the hypocritical policies of the US, China doesn't mix business with politics and argue that such attempts by foreign nations to discuss democracy and human rights violate the rights of a sovereign country. While the US disregards international law in places like Iraq or Guantanamo while trying to twist other nations into following their vision of the world, China has its Tibet but doesn't force its ideals on others. As a result, examples of the growth in Chinese influence are not hard to find, even outside their traditional sphere of influence:

South America:
In Argentina, following their disastrous effects “neo-liberal” economic policies backed by Washington and the International Monetary Fund, “You cannot understand the miraculous Argentine recovery after the financial crisis of December 2001 without considering the boom in soy exports to China”. In Bolivia, China will invest $1.5 billion in the onshore oil and gas sector as well as showing interest in developing its largest tin mine, Huanuni. In Chile, China will set up a joint venture with the state copper company, Codelco. Meanwhile, a Chinese-led consortium bought oil and pipeline assets for $1.4 billion in Ecuador. The story is even bigger in Brazil and Venezuela. Farmers have been rushing to plant soy on the fringes of the Amazon rainforest in an attempt to satisfy China's voracious appetite. As for the ethanol politics in Brazil, maybe you can learn more here. It has also imported millions of tons of oil and iron ore from Brazil and has signed a deal to help construct a major natural gas pipeline. Finally in Chile, 2006 saw the Bachelet government sign a free trade deal with China in an effort to boost sales of copper, fruit, and fish oil. The Chilean president boasted of figures showing a $1.4 billion increase in trade between the two nations last year. “When Chile considers how to continue its development, Chile thinks big,” Bachelet remarked. “And to think big means to think China.”

Africa:
In Africa, where the game was once ideological, it has become purely financial. Che Guevara no longer stalks the Angolan countryside. Where once the government of China would build a 1,100-mile-long railway across Tanzania to support a communist brother, today it's all about profit. The continent sits on 90% of the world’s cobalt, 90% of its platinum, 50% of its gold, 98% of its chromium, 64% of its manganese and one-third of its uranium. It is rich in diamonds, has more oil reserves than North America, and has been estimated to hold 40% of the world’s potential hydroelectric power. Africa is now supplying a third of the oil fuelling China’s economic boom. Angola has overtaken Saudi Arabia as China’s largest supplier of oil. Trade hit $55 billion last year, up 40% from the year before. It is expected to top $100 billion in 2010. China has overtaken Britain as Africa’s third-largest business partner and is fast catching up with France. In Angola, which exported roughly 465,000 barrels of oil per day to China in the first six months of 2007, Beijing secured a major stake in future oil production in 2004 with a $2 billion package of loans and aid that includes funds for Chinese companies to build railroads, schools, roads, hospitals, bridges, and offices; lay a fiber-optic network; and train Angolan telecommunications workers. Sudan, with its vast oil reserves, is the number one recipient of Chinese investment, and sells some two-thirds of its oil to Beijing, while receiving arms in return. Whether rebuilding the infrastructure in Addis Ababa, or building a railway line linking Khartoum to the Red Sea, the common theme across the continent seems to be that China offers "no-strings" aid, a marked contrast to Western donors who impose conditions on aid and tie trade sweeteners to human rights issues. Robert Mugabe said, “We have turned east, where the sun rises, and given our backs to the West, where the sun sets." OK, it's Mugabe, but even a respected leader like President Festus Mogae of Botswana, who may run the best-managed country in Africa said, "China treats us as equals, while the West treats us as former subjects,” he has said. “That is the reality. I prefer the attitude of China to that of the West.”

Of course China also continues to sell arms to Sudan, among other African countries. In the period from 2003 to 2006, China's arms sales to Africa made up 15.4 percent ($500 million) of all conventional arms transfers to the continent. Notable weapons sales include those to Sudan, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Burundi, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe. Beijing has also sent Chinese military trainers to help their African counterparts. Arms sales and military relationships help China gain important African allies in the United Nations, including Sudan, Zimbabwe, and Nigeria, for its political goals, including preventing Taiwanese independence and diverting attention from its own human rights record. The Congressional Research Service reports that China views these sales as a means of "enhancing its status as an international political power, and increasing its ability to obtain access to significant natural resources, especially oil" (PDF). Africa registered 5.8 percent economic growth in 2007, its highest level ever, in part because of Chinese investment. Experts say the roads, bridges, and dams built by Chinese firms are low cost, good quality, and completed in a fraction of the time such projects usually take in Africa. China also contributes peacekeepers to UN missions across Africa, including Liberia and Darfur. It has cancelled $10 billion in bilateral debt from African countries, sends doctors to treat Africans across the continent, and hosts thousands of African workers and students in Chinese universities and training centers.

Iran:
Again, here the Chinese are winning the game based on what were once American rules. While the US threatens with the stick and carrot, China has won the game of influence. Where the US supported the Shah and paid the price, China doesn't meddle, it does business. Back in 2004 Sinopec group signed a $70 billion deal for Iranian oil and gas over the next 20 years. Annual bilateral trade has reached $20 billion. In September Chinese President Hu Jintao met with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a man the US refuses to talk to. Result, the blocking of American resolutions to punish the Iranian government for going forward with their nuclear program. "We mutually complement each other. They have industry and we have energy resources" said Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran's former representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency. China has no wish to see democracy flourish in the Middle East and has no problems dealing with the world's only theocracy.

Venezuela:
A category onto itself thanks to Hugo Chavez, his trip to China this week is what got me thinking about this post. While the US loathe him, they need him, well, his oil at least, as Venezuela is the 4th largest exporter of oil and 3rd largest exporter of gas products to their market, gobbling up about half of Venezuela's total exports...for now. After first stopping in America's other favourite nation, Cuba, Chavez arrived in Beijing while most world leaders were converging on New York, about which Chavez commented, "It's much more important to be in Beijing than in New York." It's too bad really, as you may recall his 2006 tirade against the US at the UN meeting in which he referred to Dubya as the devil. He hit the ground running in Beijing, announcing plans to build refineries and a fleet of oil tankers as part of a plan to double oil exports to China by 2010. On November 1st China will launch Venezuela's first satellite and according to Chavez will also be selling them a couple dozen fighter planes. Of course this follows Chavez' last trip to China a couple years ago when trade agreements were signed which Chavez referred to as the "Great Wall" against American hegemonism. In return China promised to back Venezuela's bid to join the UN security council (which eventually went to Panama), build houses for 20,000 people as a contribution towards Mr Chávez's policy of reducing homelessness, help build a fibre optic network, modernise a gold mine and develop railways and farm irrigation systems. After Beijing, Chavez plans on visiting Moscow, Belarus, Portugal and France.

So, what's my point? Take my adopted home country of Poland as an example. To a Pole, the US has always been the promised land, where an entrepreneur (a French word by the by) could start with nothing and wind up rich through hard work and business savvy. This vision has given the US a huge supply of soft power, influence. The bailout package now before Congress represents a serious threat to this ideal. The Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac bailouts already brought a nationalized housing market, AIG insurance, the last thing the beacon of free markets needs now is a socialized banking system. Capitalism will always have winners and losers. Just as war results in casualties (another problem the west can't seem to face), business involves bankruptcies. Instead of subsidizing corporations, the US needs to refocus its efforts on regaining its former position in the eyes of the world; China and to a lesser extent Russia are making huge inroads around the world. Even the head of the Pentagon, the hard power centre of the US, Secretary of Defence Robert Gates has argued for more funding for soft power activities. A trillion dollars can buy a lot of friends, why use it to reward failure and increase the power of the central banking system? Thomas Jefferson wrote: "The Central Bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the principles and form of our Constitution...if the American people allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

Skeletons in the Closet

“If you can't get rid of the skeleton in your closet, you'd best teach it to dance.”
- Shakespeare, Richard II

We all have one. Some deep, dark secret locked away out of view where no one will see it. Nations have dirty laundry hidden in a dark corner too, and like people, each has a different way of dealing with their past. Internationally, the need to seek justice, even retribution, for extreme acts of injustice has resulted in the Nuremberg Trials and other international war crime tribunals. On Friday, Poland's last communist leader, General Wojciech Jaruzelski, and seven other Soviet-era officials went on trial in Warsaw over the declaration of martial law more than a quarter of a century ago. The trial re-opens old wounds and will surely once again demonstrate how difficult it is to judge the wrongdoings committed under far different circumstances than we can understand today.

In the 90's, the Bulgarian Communist leader, Todor Zhivkov, was put on trial for embezzlement rather than political acts such as the imprisonment of thousands of his fellow citizens in camps where several perished and were allegedly tortured. Ramiz Alia, the former Communist leader of Albania, was tried and convicted of abuse of power. In Romania, Nicolae Ceausescu and his wife, Elena, were tried in just a few hours by the leaders of an uprising against them in December 1989. The couple was convicted of crimes against the people and summarily shot.

In Chile, a legal battle raged years as the government tried to bring former dictator Augusto Pinochet to justice for crimes his regime committed. Long after he stepped down from power he was shielded from prosecution for thousands of killings and "disappearances" by parliamentary immunity and an amnesty that the military had granted itself. It took a warrant issued by a Spanish judge for him to be arrested on Oct. 16,1998 in London. Pinochet died in prison awaiting trial but his case may have changed the world's perception about the worth of such a fight. He spent 17 months in detention in Britain as he fought extradition back to Chile on health grounds while the criminal cases against him jumped to hundreds. By the time Britain sent Pinochet back to Chile, the myth of his immunity had been shattered. For the last years of his life, Pinochet was dogged by his past. His immunity was stripped in six major cases, ranging from death squads and abductions to the hiding of millions of dollars abroad, and at the time of his death, he was under house arrest. One hundred and nine other agents of his regime have now been convicted of human rights crimes.

While a Spanish judge helped bring justice to the Chilean people, Spain has taken another course in dealing with their own dark past. After nearly 40 years of Franco and fascism during which time 200,000 people were killed in concentration camps, they simply changed the name of the fascist party to the Partido Popular (PP) and continued like nothing happened. Yes, Fraga Iribarne, Minister of the Interior in Franco's fascist regime (in charge of Spain's political police), founded the PP. The party, which has governed Spain for much of the time since Franco's death and led the nation into the 'coalition of the willing' in Iraq, believes that the Franco regime was good for Spain. The last Spanish president, Jose Maria Aznar was himself a member of Franco's fascist party and disobeyed the instructions of the U.N. Human Rights Agency to find the bodies of those who disappeared during the Franco regime (more than 30,000 people).

Over in Italy, we know that things aren't any better. The past isn't only being ignored, it's being repeated, as Berlusconi has formed coalition governments with fascist parties for much of the time since 1994. Mussolini era laws are even being dusted off for the first time in almost 80 years as Berlusconi tries to court the Catholic vote by prosecuting comedians. Here's the catch, maybe Mussolini wasn't so bad, as with all these 'bad' guys, history books are written by the victors: How can something that was praiseworthy at the time they did it, 10, 25, 50 years ago, suddenly become reprehensible now? With Mussolini, he went from hero:
If I had been an Italian I am sure I should have been whole-heartedly with you in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism... (Italy) has provided the necessary antidote to the Russian poison. Hereafter no great nation will be unprovided with an ultimate means of protection against the cancerous growth of Bolshevism. -Winston Churchill (1927)
... to zero, as he was guilty of the only crime that matters, he lost.

So, what of General Jaruzelski? In Poland, officials and police officers from Jaruzelski on down have been put on trial in connection with some 150 deaths -- from the shooting of 44 Gdansk shipyard workers in 1970 to the martial law crackdown against Solidarity. Not one has been convicted as General Jaruzelski has continuously proclaimed his innocence in the deaths. In 1996, a special parliamentary committee absolved him of responsibility for the 1981 killings. This time, prosecutors from the Institute of National Remembrance, a state body that investigates communist-era crimes have charged him and his fellow defendants with "communist crimes," violating the constitution and leading "an organized criminal group of a military nature having as its goal the carrying out of crimes that consisted of the deprivation of freedom through internment." His defence for declaring martial law is that he wanted to avoid a Soviet invasion in reprisal for the Solidarity uprising, as was witnessed in Prague and Budapest in response to similar anti-Soviet uprisings.

How will future generations deal with the wrongs they deem are being committed today? Will there be a witch hunt of those responsible for the illegal war in Iraq and violations of the Geneva Convention similar to the Nazi hunt following World War II? Preparations are already being made, making it possible that one day Cheney, Bush et al. will face a fate similar to that of Saddam Hussein. Who knows how future generations will look back at such human rights violations as Guantanamo Bay. People clearly feel the need for justice, but as Orwell stated, it's best "When tyrants are put to death, it should be by their own subjects; those who are punished by a foreign authority, like Napoleon, are simply made into martyrs and legends."