Global

There is a long history of anti-war and peace activism. Much of this activism has focused on ending a particular war. Some of this activism has been directed at ending a particular aspect of war, such as the use of a type of weapon. Some of it has aimed to prevent a type of war, such as 'aggressive war' or nuclear war. For those activists who regard war as the scourge of human existence, however, 'the holy grail' has always been much deeper: to end war.

There is an important reason why those of us in the last category have not, so far, succeeded. In essence, this is because, whatever their merits, the analyses and strategies we have been using have been inadequate. This is, of course, only a friendly criticism of our efforts, including my own. I am also not suggesting that the task will be easy, even with a sound analysis and comprehensive strategy. But it will be far more likely.

To be honest, I don’t think I can write about this year’s Ghostbusters reboot with any objectivity. But let’s just admit up front that objectivity in media reviews isn’t even a thing that exists, despite what Gamergate seems to think. You would think they would understand, since what I will generously call The MRA Community flooded the internet with negative reviews before the movie even opened.

They hated it for daring to have an all-woman cast—actress Melissa McCarthy and SNL cast members Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones. They hated that these women showed up in publicity photos not in clothes that came from bags labeled “Sexy Ghost Hunter” from a Halloween store but in frumpy jumpsuits. They hated that they were expected to relate to these new Ghostbusters not as sexy lamps but as people.

They hated it because it wasn’tfor them.

And that’s why I loved it so much that objectivity isn’t even on the table.

hat’s the money quote that was widely reported as what Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump said that day about Russia and Hillary Clinton’s emails. It is hard to read those sentences as anything but cynical joking, but most of the media, the empty-headed commentariat, and Democratic shills all made a fundamentally bad-faith effort to inflate the joke into something sinister to serve their various agendas.

The last time a Clinton tried to get into the White House, his campaign motto was "It's the economy, stupid!"

If you engage with peace organizations, you will very quickly be told repeatedly that nobody gives a damn about distant mass murder, and that consequently a smart organizer will talk to them about something local, such as the local impact of the financial burden of war, or perhaps the militarization of the police, or local recruitment, or local environmental damage from military bases, etc., but mostly the financial cost.

The reasoning behind all such thinking is that people are often busy, overworked, overstressed, concerned with their day-to-day struggles, etc., and so, while some of them might occasionally also take a mild interest in the affairs of others in distant corners of the globe, virtually everyone can be appealed to using local community concerns and, in particular, economic concerns related to their own needs and greed.

The evidence that this line of thinking misses something includes the following:

A Statement from Advancement Project

WASHINGTON – In a landmark ruling issued today, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned North Carolina H.B. 589, a monster voter suppression law with sweeping implications for voters. Presented with clear evidence that provisions of the measure would disproportionately burden voters of color, the three-judge panel struck down the law, finding that it violated the Voting Rights Act, the United States Constitution and that it was enacted with discriminatory intent. The court stated that it “cannot ignore the record of evidence that, because of race, the legislature enacted one of the largest restrictions of the franchise in modern North Carolina History.” Advancement Project, a national multi-racial civil rights organization among the groups that brought suit challenging the law, released the following statement:

The level of hatred and hostility towards Hillary Clinton is staggering. This is not just “nattering nabobs of negativity”: what is occurring now is more like verifiable vitriolic vehemence that is unprecedented in my lifetime. I think back to the hatred for Lyndon Johnson for perpetuating the Vietnam War or for Nixon and Kissinger for bombing Cambodia, or even the antipathy and contempt for George Bush II for his grudge matches in the Middle East coupled with the anger towards Cheney and Halliburton for thinly veiled profiteering in the Foreign Policy arena: none of these add up put together to the level of hostility towards the Democratic nominee, despite the smooth words of the soothsayers, which have no effect on those recalcitrant citizens of whom I speak now.

These were instructions passed around during the last night of the Wells Fargo Arena Anti-Russia Don't-Say-TPP Call-It-Debt-Free-College-Not-Free-College Democratic Party Extravaganza. Noise Makers were deployed. Lights could be switched off on people as needed. Delegates were prevented from walking out. And chants like "Black Lives Matter" and "Love Is Love" were joined in by the corporatists.

However, if you chanted "Ban Fracking Now," they would chant "Hillary" back at you, as if having Hillary as their beloved leader was better than banning fracking. Also if you chanted "Stop TPP" or "Walk the Walk" you'd be greeted by screams of "Hillary!"

But what if you shouted "No More War"? Wouldn't they join in and try to own that one? Don't Christmas decorations even today still sometimes say "Peace on Earth"? Didn't Tim Kaine pretend in his speech that Woodrow Wilson was a peace maker? Doesn't the Pentagon claim that it kills people for peace? Wouldn't trying to shout down opposition to war be a step too far even for a pro-fracking, pro-corporate-trade, cult of personality?

ormer Bill Clinton cabinet member Perry perceives a danger that none of this year’s presidential wannabes have paid much if any attention to. The most recent candidate to make nuclear arms a central issue was Congressman Dennis Kucinich in 2008. President Obama has played both sides of the nuclear dilemma: rounding up and securing nuclear materials around the world, but also modernizing and miniaturizing American nuclear weapons to make them more “usable.” These days, no one in leadership – or aspiring to leadership – seems committed to actually making the world any safer from nuclear catastrophe.