Manchester bomb

It was ten years ago today that the IRA exploded a 3,300lb bomb in the centre of Manchester. Pictures below show the destruction in Corporation Street and the way the street looks now after several years’ rebuilding. 200 people were injured as police tried to evacuate the area. I was several miles away at the time but still heard the explosion. The truck containing the bomb was parked just by the postbox which nevertheless survived intact (well, they are made of cast iron).

Despite the devastation, most people now agree that the IRA did the city a favour by forcing large-scale rebuilding of an area spoiled by the bad retail architecture of the 1960s. The city would have changed over time anyway, it always has (and, indeed, still is); the bomb acted as a catalyst that forced the pace of that change.

bomb1.jpg

bomb2.jpg

Nineteen Eighty-Four

1984.jpg

WAR IS PEACE
Nineteen Eighty-Four, 1949

“I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we’re really talking about peace.” George W. Bush, June 18, 2002

George Orwell’s classic novel was published fifty-seven years ago today. There’s little reason to remind anyone of its prescience or the ubiquity of the neologisms Orwell invented; examples like the one above are all too easy to find in the current political landscape. That prescience can also be seen in his essay ‘Politics and the English Language‘ written in 1946, which shows how much his mind was engaged with the use of language and its relationship to politics shortly before he began writing the novel. The extract below is especially pertinent and worth bearing in mind whenever you hear a politician talking.

In certain kinds of writing, particularly in art criticism and literary criticism, it is normal to come across long passages which are almost completely lacking in meaning. Words like romantic, plastic, values, human, dead, sentimental, natural, vitality, as used in art criticism, are strictly meaningless in the sense that they not only do not point to any discoverable object, but are hardly ever expected to do so by the reader. When one critic writes, “The outstanding feature of Mr. Xs work is its living quality,” while another writes, “The immediately striking thing about Mr. X’s work is its peculiar deadness,” the reader accepts this as a simple difference of opinion. If words like black and white were involved, instead of the jargon words dead and living, he would see at once that language was being used in an improper way.

Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except insofar as it signifies “something not desirable.” The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice, have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning.

Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like Marshal Petain was a true patriot, The Soviet Press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality.

25 Years

aids_ribbon.jpg

This month marks the 25th anniversary of the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, generally estimated to be responsible for the deaths of 25 million people worldwide. Today, with dismally ignorant timing, George Bush reconfirmed his intention to write minority discrimination into the American Constitution:

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Next week, the United States Senate will begin debate on a constitutional amendment that defines marriage in the United States as the union of a man and woman. On Monday, I will meet with a coalition of community leaders, constitutional scholars, family and civic organizations, and religious leaders. They’re Republicans, Democrats, and independents who’ve come together to support this amendment. Today, I want to explain why I support the Marriage Protection Amendment, and why I’m urging Congress to pass it and send it to the states for ratification.

Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious, and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.

The conjunction of these two events is as depressing as it is inevitable given the current occupants of the White House. Following the President’s logic, Great Britain and other countries that now recognise unions for gay couples should be collapsing into sinks of anarchy and moral squalor. America’s claims to be the “home of freedom” collapse in the face of this kind of drivel. This is only gesture politics, of course, intended to throw a bone to bigots in the Republican heartlands, but it’s a despicable gesture all the same, made to appease the home-grown Taliban while Bush’s popularity continues to fall. Intolerance of this kind is deeply-ingrained in the Republican Party and previous Republican administrations. During this AIDS anniversary it’s worth remembering how criminally the Reagan administration responded to a national crisis:

Reagan’s AIDS Legacy
Silence equals death
Allen White
Tuesday, June 8, 2004

As America remembers the life of Ronald Reagan, it must never forget his shameful abdication of leadership in the fight against AIDS. History may ultimately judge his presidency by the thousands who have and will die of AIDS.

Following discovery of the first cases in 1981, it soon became clear a national health crisis was developing. But President Reagan’s response was “halting and ineffective,” according to his biographer Lou Cannon. Those infected initially with this mysterious disease—all gay men—found themselves targeted with an unprecedented level of mean-spirited hostility.

A significant source of Reagan’s support came from the newly identified religious right and the Moral Majority, a political-action group founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell. AIDS became the tool, and gay men the target, for the politics of fear, hate and discrimination. Falwell said “AIDS is the wrath of God upon homosexuals.” Reagan’s communications director Pat Buchanan argued that AIDS is “nature’s revenge on gay men.”

With each passing month, death and suffering increased at a frightening rate. Scientists, researchers and health care professionals at every level expressed the need for funding. The response of the Reagan administration was indifference.

By Feb. 1, 1983, 1,025 AIDS cases were reported, and at least 394 had died in the United States. Reagan said nothing. On April 23, 1984, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced 4,177 reported cases in America and 1,807 deaths. In San Francisco, the health department reported more than 500 cases. Again, Reagan said nothing. That same year, 1984, the Democratic National Convention convened in San Francisco. Hoping to focus attention on the need for AIDS research, education and treatment, more than 100,000 sympathizers marched from the Castro to Moscone Center.

With each diagnosis, the pain and suffering spread across America. Everyone seemed to now know someone infected with AIDS. At a White House state dinner, first lady Nancy Reagan expressed concern for a guest showing signs of significant weight loss. On July 25, 1985, the American Hospital in Paris announced that Rock Hudson had AIDS.

With AIDS finally out of the closet, activists such as Paul Boneberg, who in 1984 started Mobilization Against AIDS in San Francisco, begged President Reagan to say something now that he, like thousands of Americans, knew a person with AIDS. Writing in the Washington Post in late 1985, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, stated: “It is surprising that the president could remain silent as 6,000 Americans died, that he could fail to acknowledge the epidemic’s existence. Perhaps his staff felt he had to, since many of his New Right supporters have raised money by campaigning against homosexuals.”

Reagan would ultimately address the issue of AIDS while president. His remarks came May 31, 1987 (near the end of his second term), at the Third International Conference on AIDS in Washington. When he spoke, 36,058 Americans had been diagnosed with AIDS and 20,849 had died. The disease had spread to 113 countries, with more than 50,000 cases.

As millions eulogize Reagan this week, the tragedy lies in what he might have done. Today, the World Health Organization estimates that more than 40 million people are living with HIV worldwide. An estimated 5 million people were newly infected and 3 million people died of AIDS in 2003 alone.

Reagan could have chosen to end the homophobic rhetoric that flowed from so many in his administration. Dr. C. Everett Koop, Reagan’s surgeon general, has said that because of “intradepartmental politics” he was cut out of all AIDS discussions for the first five years of the Reagan administration. The reason, he explained, was “because transmission of AIDS was understood to be primarily in the homosexual population and in those who abused intravenous drugs.” The president’s advisers, Koop said, “took the stand, ‘They are only getting what they justly deserve.’ ”

How profoundly different might have been the outcome if his leadership had generated compassion rather than hostility. “In the history of the AIDS epidemic, President Reagan’s legacy is one of silence,” Michael Cover, former associate executive director for public affairs at Whitman-Walker Clinic, the groundbreaking AIDS health-care organization in Washington. in 2003. “It is the silence of tens of thousands who died alone and unacknowledged, stigmatized by our government under his administration.”

Revisionist history about Reagan must be rejected. Researchers, historians and AIDS experts who know the truth must not remain silent. Too many have died for that.

San Francisco Chronicle. Allen White is a San Francisco writer.

Given the equally criminal and incompetent actions of the Bush administration elsewhere, there’s no evidence that Bush junior or Bush senior would have behaved any differently. My contempt for these wretches knows no bounds. I’ll leave the final words to Dr Hunter S Thompson (RIP):

We have become a Nazi monster in the eyes of the whole world, a nation of bullies and bastards who would rather kill than live peacefully. We are not just Whores for power and oil, but killer whores with hate and fear in our hearts. We are human scum, and that is how history will judge us.

No redeeming social value. Just whores. Get out of our way, or we’ll kill you. Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

They are the same ones who wanted to have Muhammad Ali locked up for refusing to kill gooks. They speak for all that is cruel and stupid and vicious in the American character. They are the racists and hate mongers among us; they are the Ku Klux Klan. I piss down the throats of these Nazis.

And I am too old to worry about whether they like it or not. Fuck them.

Kingdom of Fear : Loathsome Secrets of a Star-Crossed Child in the Final Days of the American Century

Jay on the radio

Later today, boys and girls…

Jay Babcock’s interview with Godsmack (a big band in America, apparently…) about the use of their music in ads for the US military caused quite a stir earlier this month after the band had a hissy fit and put the phone down on him. I posted the interview here and the Arthur magazine page below has over 200 comments discussing the whole business. So far the debate has generated more heat than light so the radio discussion is most welcome.

ARTHUR ON “AIRAMERICARADIO” NETWORK, WEDNESDAY MAY 31.
Thanks to the efforts of PressHere’s Chloe Walsh, Arthur editor Jay Babcock will be guest on national progressive radio network AirAmericaRadio’s ‘The Marc Maron Show’ on Wednesday, May 31. He’ll be discussing the ARTHUR VS GODSMACK kerfuffle and also Arthur’s forthcoming “So Much Fire to Roast Human Flesh” CD (curated by JOSEPHINE FOSTER) which will **benefit ANTI-MILITARY RECRUITING campaigns**.

It’s going to be AWESOME.

• Info on the show:
www.airamericaradio.com/maron/

• AirAmerica radio network stations:
www.airamericaradio.com/stations

• Listeners on the internet can stream live at
www.airamericaradio.com

• Alternatively you can stream starting at 11p.m. PST from the Los Angeles Air America Radio affiliate KTLK 1150-AM’s website at www.ktlkam1150.com/pages/streaming.html

• Transcript of the original Arthur v Godsmack interview (May 1, 2006), with Introduction, Afterword and Footnotes: www.arthurmag.com/magpie/?p=1244

• Howie Klein commentary at The Huffington Post (May 8, 2006):
www.huffingtonpost.com/howie-klein/not-all-rock-stars-are-li_b_20648.html

• New York Daily News on Arthur vs Godsmack (May 10, 2006):
www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/416382p-351810c.html

• CNN Headline News’s ‘Showbiz Tonight’ interviews Godsmack on controversy – transcript (May 11, 2006):
transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0605/11/sbt.01.html

• Streaming audio of Arthur vs Godsmack interview (May 1, 2006) (courtesy Apollo Audio and Bobby Tamkin):
www.apolloaudio.com/lt.asp?name=AA32

• MP3 of the Arthur vs Godsmack interview (May 1, 2006) (courtesy Crooksandliars.com and Bobby Tamkin):
movies.crooksandliars.com/arthurvsgodsmack.mp3

Irrepressible.info

irrepressible.jpg

Irrepressible

Adj. 1) Impossible to repress or control.

Chat rooms monitored. Blogs deleted. Websites blocked. Search engines restricted. People imprisoned for simply posting and sharing information.

The Internet is a new frontier in the struggle for human rights. Governments – with the help of some of the biggest IT companies in the world – are cracking down on freedom of expression.

Amnesty International, with the support of The Observer, is launching a campaign to show that online or offline the human voice and human rights are impossible to repress.

Find out more about this campaign