The Mail & Guardian Classroom

I often find myself wondering whether the Mail & Guardian could possible get any lower. Then I read the next edition of their 'news'paper, and see that they have been digging.

This week they have run an article headlined 'How to boycott Bush' which teaches frustrated readers (who are unable to vote in the US election) how they can help hurt George Bush, by boycotting companies that sponsor the Republican party.

It's apparently a neat little concept that comes from Michael Moore - a man who is dead against citizens carrying guns, but doesn't mind dictators carrying WMD's.

A recent survey revealed that more and more people are boycotting companies that behave unethically. George W Bush tops the list of brands that have sparked consumers' ire. Leo Benedictus and John Hooper offer a guide to help people boycott George W Bush. Why? Kyoto, farm subsidies, Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, the death penalty, anti-abortion legisiation, restricting stem-cell research, pro-Israeli bias, snubbing the International Criminal Court, unfair tax breaks, complicity in corporate corruption, rejection of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty...

So they run through a list of contentious issues, providing no detail on the issues, include a pro-Israel bias amongst the list of items that are 'unethical', and expect to get the buy in from their readers? Surely only the Liberal Loony Leftists (LLL) could read on from there?

I particularly love how Kyoto is mentioned at the top of the list. A treaty that allows China and India to pollute as much as they want but forces the USA to dial back. I'm betting that even if the Democrats to oust Bush the USA will still not sign the Kyoto treaty.

As for 'the death penalty' - shouldn't we then boycott every Islamic state that carries out the most barbaric forms of the death penalty? Do the M&G even know about Iran, Saudi Arabia et al?

They treat issues like Iraq and Afghanistan as if it is a known fact that the countries are worse off after US liberation action. Perhaps the M&G preferred life in Afghanistan when Taliban dissenters where routinely and publicly executed on Afghanistan's main football field. Now that the goal posts are used to hold up a football net rather than the lifeless bodies of dissenters, M&G appears to be quite ruffled.

The LLL M&G reader
(Cartoons from Cox & Forkum)

Comments

[call a spade a spade]

Actually, the Guardian was critical of the Taliban at the time when they were a quasi-darling of the West. The Guardian and reporters list Fisk were warning the US and Europe about the Taliban. They warned about the dangers of intervening in the affairs of foreign countries, but I recall the right ridiculing them. But, I bet you that not too many so-called freedom loving conservatives took much notice then. After all, the so-called patriots dare not speak against official State policies. When the Taliban works for us, the right remains silent. WHen the Taliban becomes our official enemy (which in fact it always was), all bets are off. THe same with Papadopoulos in Greece, Hussein in Iraq, Noreiga in Panama, etc etc. You see the same thing with Israel. THe US took virtually no notice of Israel until 67. Prior to that, the US didnt give a rats ass about the Holocaust, Israel etc. (and for the record, it was people like Chomsky that talked about the Holocaust). For empires, there are no permanent allies. Just permanent interests.

[Cynic]

call a spade a spade

" (and for the record, it was people like Chomsky that talked about the Holocaust)"

Why not take a look at the latest post on diary of an anti-chomskyite.
http://antichomsky.blogspot.com/2004/07/political-economy-of-holocaust-denial.html

"Chomsky's association with Holocaust denial is rarely mentioned in the American press (its much more commonly cited in France, where the scandal originated), and represents one of the ugliest points in Chomsky's career. "

"Faurisson was one of France's most outspoken and prominent deniers of the Holocaust, and Chomsky's support for him, and in particular the language of the petition he signed, caused an uproar."

Interesting.

[Steve]

I have read only one Chomsky book "What uncle Sam really wants." I was not convinced. I believe he was wrong in claiming that the US wants to turn E.Europe into a new third world. I dont enjoy reading about revolutionary thinkers blaming the problems in E.Europe on US when Europe's problems are definitely (to me) of their own making. Furthermore, i dont believe that his prophecies have born fruition. I believe that E.Europe is in a position entirely predictable from the forties and cold war, considering what turmoil and tragedy they endured.

As for Chmosky, somone who defends a man who claims that the Jews started WW2 and were never gassed in the chambers forfeits his right to ever be taken seriously.

Chomsky has a pattern of flip flopping on matters. He has been on record as calling himself the leading opponent for years of the campaign for divestment from Israel and of the campaign of academic boycotts. Yet he signed a petition calling for universities to divest from and boycott Israel!

[call a spade a spade]

First of all, it is interesting that you comment on Chomsky, rather than the essence of my post: the Guardian, Fisk, etc were HIGHLY critical of thugs and murderous like the Taliban at the time when the "right" was silent. You did not address the issue of why it is that the right, conservatives, and patriots support official state policies. The reference to Chomsky was in that light. Pre 1967, the "official" American Jewish organisations hardly mentioned the Holocaust. The US establishment didnt give a rats ass about the near destruction Jews. And, Jewish elites went along with this. WHatever you may say about Chomsky (and the anti-Chomsky blog hardly warrants discussion, as Chomsky himself has addressed the issues, and has given a consistent answer), he and other Jews and non-Jews on the "left" were discussion issues that were effectively taboo. To their credit, these people have not been cowards. They took on the role of States in supporting fascism, they took on the forces of racism, etc. By all means criticise the Guardian, Chomsky and whatever. BUt, I would like to see you guys criticism official allies, and not just the official enemies.

P.S. WHat Uncle Sam Really Wants is a Q&A book. These are largely worthless. Read Chomsky's own scholarly books. And notice how Chomsky' entire works is to be dismissed on the basis of, wait for it - anti-semitism. Standard fall back position from which to attack any that is critical of Israel. Its a marvellous world of anti-intelligence.