bureaucracybusters

Posts Tagged ‘Vladimir Lenin’

THE ALLURE OF CENSORSHIP

In History, Politics, Social commentary on August 16, 2012 at 1:15 am

Apparently the executives at the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (MUNI) feel that some ideas are so controversial they must be censored.

To do otherwise would violate their commitment to Political Correctness.

Recently, a new ad began appearing on a number of MUNI buses: ”In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad.”

The ads were purchased by the American Freedom Defense Initiative, a conservative, pro-Israel group.

Predictably, the ads have sparked controversy–not everyone agrees with their message.  Which is entirely the right of those who support Arab causes or simply do not support Israel.

But MUNI isn’t content to accept that there can be two sides to every argument.

What’s important to this agency’s executives is that no one’s feelings be offended in any way.

“[San Francisco] has a long history of tolerance for all, and while we honor a person’s right to self-expression, there are times when we must say ‘enough,’” said Tom Nolan, chairman of MUNI’s Board of Directors.

“The recent ad has no value in facilitating constructive dialogue or advancing the cause of peace and justice.

“While this ad is protected under the First Amendment, our ad policy and our contractual obligations, we condemn the use of any language that belittles, demeans or disparages others. Going forward, we will review our policies with regards to ads on the Muni system.”

And to show how truly repentant they are, MUNI’s executives have offered to donate all the proceeds from the ad campaign to the San Francisco Human Rights Commission.

MUNI hadn’t wanted to run the ads.  But its executives felt they had no thoice.

On July 20, a federal judge in Manhattan ruled that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority violated the First Amendment rights of a pro-Israel group by rejecting an ad the group wanted to place on city buses.

If MUNI had rejected the ads, there was the very real chance that the American Freedom Defense Initiative would file a similar–and likely successful–lawsuit against the cash-strapped transportation agency.

What’s lost in all this is the whole idea of the free exchange of ideas, even those that are controversial.

The answer to the pro-Israel ads should not be a blanket of censorship.  On the contrary: Those who disagree with their message should be free to run their own counter-ads.

The truth is that nearly everyone has the desire to play censor in some instance.

  • Feminist groups want to censor ads, books, movies, TV shows and comedy skits they feel “demean women.”
  • Blacks want to censor materials they believe are racist–including such classics of American literature as Huckleberry Finn.
  • In the early 1970s, Italians objected to the use of “Mafia” and “Cosa Nostra” in Justice Department press releases.  The producers of “The Godfather” agreed to delete such terms from the movie–after protests by no less than members of the Joseph Columbo Mafia family.
  • Criticism of Israel–no matter how valid it might be–is viewed by many Jews as evidence of anti-Semitism.
  • Meanwhile, members of Islamic organizations–including terrorist ones–complain about “anti-Muslim” statements carried in the media.
  • Hispanics–especially Cubans–bristled at the making of “Scarface,” for its portrayal of rampant drug-dealing in Miami and Central America.
  • Fascists believe that any criticism of their leaders–such as Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini and Rush Limbaugh–should be censored.
  • Those who believe in Communism utterly reject any criticism of its various leaders–such as Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin and Nikita Khrushchev.

The First Amendment wasn’t created to defend the publication of popular ideas.  It was enshrined in the Bill of Rights–the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution–to showcase the importance. of giving unpopular views a chance to be heard.

Those who embrace censorship should closely examine its effects on societies that practice it.

  • During the centuries of the “Holy Inquisition,” anyone who openly declared that the Earth revolved around the sun risked death at the stake.  (The Catholic Church claimed that Earth–and thus Man–stood at the center of the universe.)
  • Throughout the 74 years of the Soviet Union, crime statistics weren’t published–because, officially, there couldn’t be crime in the “workers’ paradise.”
  • In Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, people have been condemned to death for “blasphemy,” which can mean virtually whatever the accuser wants it to mean.

For a democratic society, the only acceptable response to attempted censorship is that offered by President John F. Kennedy:

“We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values.  For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”

REAGAN GETS LENIN’S FUNERAL

In Bureaucracy, History, Politics on February 6, 2011 at 10:16 am

It’s February 6, 2011–and Ronald Reagan, if he were alive today, would be 100 years old.

Publishers have rushed to put out worshipful tributes to his eight years as President. Network political programs such as “This Week” and “Meet the Press” have assembled surviving members of his administration to re-live the “glory days” of Reagan’s–and their–time in power.

The implication is clear: Once upon a time, America had a courageous, decisive leader who single-handedly vanquished Communism, restored fiscal integrity to Washington, and brought prosperity to all Americans.

This farcical nonsense is intended to win support from those who didn’t live through the Reagan years—and those who slept through them.

The Republican party, of course, has done the most to create and promote this “cult of Reagan.” And it has done so for the same reason the Communist party of the Soviet Union created and fostered the “cult of Lenin.”

Bureaucracies always strive for legitimacy, to convince the public:

(1) “We have a right to be doing whatever we’re doing,” and

(2) “You should trust us and do whatever we want you to do.”

And one of the most effective ways to do this is to create a heroic cult-figure who not only personifies but humanizes the organization.

No two men could have been more different than Vladimir Lenin and Ronald Reagan. Lenin created the Soviet Union in 1917 and became its first in a series of absolute dictators. Reagan spent his life fighting Communism, most notably as President.

So it’s ironic that both men, in death, got essentially the same funeral–and for the same reason: To sanctify and legitimize their respective organizations–and the authority of their potential successors.

Lenin died in 1924 and was immediately succeeded by Joseph Stalin. Stalin knew that, despite Communism’s official athiestic stance, most Russians remained loyal to the Russian Orthodox Church.

(Stalin, as a teenager, had attended the Tiflis Theological Seminary in Georgia, whose monks thought he might become an outstanding priest.)

So in giving Lenin’s funeral oration, Stalin used the language of religion to confer sainthood upon a militant athiest–and upon his successor, Stalin himself.

The speech was deliberately crafted to resemble a litany: “In leaving us, Comrade Lenin ordained us to guard the unity of our party. We vow to thee, Comrade Lenin, that we shall honorably fulfill this, thy commandment….” The phrase, “We vow to thee, Comrade Lenin,” was repeated throughout the memorial service.

Stalin and his fellow Communists immediately launched the “cult of Lenin,” depicting him as a fatherly, all-wise leader whose genius could only be bestowed upon his closest disciples. Lenin’s extensive political writings were treated as divine writ, and were used to justify everything Stalin and his own successors wanted to do.

A classic example: Although Lenin died 20 years before the American creation of the atomic bomb, Lenin was hailed by the Soviets as the “father” of “Soviet nuclear physics.”

Similarly, the Republican party wasted no time turning its own former leader, Ronald Reagan, into a modern-day saint of mythical proportions. They have done so for the same reason that Stalin deliberately forged a cult around the dead Lenin—to create a “holy” figure of whom other Republicans can claim to be true disciples.

Contrary to the lies constantly churned out by the Republican party, the truth is considerably more brutal:

(1) Reagan was only one of a series of Presidents who held the line against the Soviet Union.

(2) His budgets were just as stained with red ink as those of all previous Presidents.

(3) His “trickle-down” Reganomics brought prosperity to only the wealthiest one-percent of Americans, proving that “a rising tide lifted some yachts.”

(4) By drastically shrinking the tax-base, bloating the defense budget and destroying programs to benefit the poor and middle-class, Reagan produced a $1 trillion deficit—which only the Clinton Administration turned around.

(5) Reagan created an irresponsible economic model. His onetime rival for the Presidency, George H.W. Bush, rightly called it “voodoo economics”: We can borrow and spend, pay for wars and massive bailouts, stimulus programs, pork, and national health care. We can cut taxes all while adding three trillion more dollars to the national debt. Let our grandchildren pay the tab.

(6) Reagan’s success proved that Americans would rather believe sweet-seeming fictions than brutal truths. During the 1984 Presidential race, his Democratic opponent, Walter Mondale, openly told the public: Your taxes are going to be raised no matter which of us wins the White House. Reagan denied any such thing–and won the election. Then he raised taxes.

(7) Far from standing up to terrorists, Reagan actually sold them our most sophisticated missiles in a weak-kneed exchange for American hostages. Then he appeared on television and brazenly lied that any such “arms-for-hostages” deal had ever taken place. And as soon as those hostages in question were released, Iranian-supported terrorists seized others for new leverage.

(8) Recklessly gambling with the lives of American servicemen, Reagan sent Marines to Beirut to demonstrate America’s “presence” during the Lebanese civil war. On October 23, 1983, a suicide bomber detonated a truckful of explosives at a U.S. Marine barracks located at Beirut International Airport.

The result: 241 U.S. Marines were killed and more than 100 others wounded. The organization Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the bombing. Reagan vowed that this would not “drive America out of Lebanon.” But he quickly reversed his policy and evacuated the remaining military forces from the country.

Then, seeking a way to divert American attention from the tragic fiasco, Reagan quickly sent troops to Grenada–to prove that no postage-stamp-sized country could prevail against American might.

The “cult of Lenin” died when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. The “cult of Reagan” continues to flourish, and will do so for as long as the Republican party finds voters willing to believe in it.

REAGAN GETS LENIN’S FUNERAL

In Bureaucracy, Politics, Social commentary on May 9, 2010 at 12:19 pm

Organizations always strive for legitimacy, to convince the public:

(1) “We have a right to be doing whatever we’re doing,” and

(2) “You should trust us and do whatever we want you to do.”

And one of the most effective ways to do this is to create a heroic cult-figure who not only personifies but humanizes the organization.

No two men could have been more different than Vladimir Lenin and Ronald Reagan. Lenin created the Soviet Union in 1917 and became its first in a series of absolute dictators. Reagan spent his life fighting Communism, most notably as President.

So it’s ironic that both men, in death, got essentially the same funeral–and for the same reason: To sanctify and legitimize their respective organizations–and the authority of their potential successors.

Lenin died in 1924 and was immediately succeeded by Joseph Stalin. Stalin knew that, despite Communism’s official athiestic stance, most Russians remained loyal to the Russian Orthodox Church.

(Stalin himself, as a teenager, had attended the Tiflis Theological Seminary in Georgia, whose monks thought he might become an outstanding priest.)

So in giving Lenin’s funeral oration, Stalin used the language of religion to confer sainthood upon a militant athiest–and upon his successor, Stalin himself.

The speech was deliberately crafted to resemble a litany: “In leaving us, Comrade Lenin ordained us to guard the unity of our party. We vow to thee, Comrade Lenin, that we shall honorably fulfill this, thy commandment….” The phrase, “We vow to thee, Comrade Lenin,” was repeated throughout the memorial service.

Stalin and his fellow Communists immediately launched the “cult of Lenin,” depicting him as a fatherly, all-wise leader whose genius could only be bestowed upon his closest disciples. Lenin’s extensive political writings were treated as divine writ, and were used to justify everything Stalin and his own successors wanted to do.

A classic example: Although Lenin died 20 years before the American creation of the atomic bomb, Lenin was hailed by the Soviets as the “father” of “Soviet nuclear physics.”

Similarly, the Republican party has wasted no time turning its own former leader, Ronald Reagan, into a modern-day saint of mythical proportions. They have done so for the same reason that Stalin deliberately forged a cult around the dead Lenin—to create a “holy” figure of whom other Republicans can claim to be true disciples.

Through such a cult, they can “prove” that, once upon a time, America had a courageous, decisive leader who single-handedly vanquished Communism, restored fiscal integrity to Washington, and brought prosperity to all Americans.

These deliberate fictions conveniently ignore a series of ugly truths:

(1) Reagan was only one of a series of Presidents who held the line against the Soviet Union;

(2) His budgets were just as stained with red ink as those of all previous Presidents;

(3) His “trickle-down” Reganomics brought prosperity to only the wealthiest one-percent of Americans, proving that “a rising tide lifted some yachts”;

(4) By drastically shrinking the tax-base, bloating the defense budget and destroying programs to benefit the poor and middle-class, Reagan produced a $1 trillion deficit—which only the Clinton Administration turned around; and

(5) Far from standing up to terrorists, Reagan actually sold them our most sophisticated missiles in a weak-kneed exchange for American hostages. Then he appeared on television and brazenly lied that any such “arms-for-hostages” deal had ever taken place. And as soon as those hostages in question were released, Iranian-supported terrorists seized others for new leverage.

The “cult of Lenin” died when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. The “cult of Reagan” continues to flourish, and will undoubtedly do so for as long as the Republican party finds voters willing to believe in it.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 49 other followers

%d bloggers like this: