Sunday 28 April 2019

Mr. Fish: Draw Your Weapon! (Jan. 13, 2017)

|TD ORIGINALS

Draw Your Weapon!

Detail from the cover of "The Realist Cartoons." (Fantagraphics)
“The Realist Cartoons”
When Aristotle said “The gods too are fond of a joke,” he was commenting on the inauspicious similarity between gods and mortals. “Most people enjoy amusement and jesting more than they should … [A] jest is a kind of mockery, and lawgivers forbid some kinds of mockery—perhaps they ought to have forbidden some kinds of jesting,” he added.
The Realist Cartoons
Purchase in the Truthdig Bazaar
While the 20th century Greek classicist and literary critic C. A. Trypanis wrote that “comedy is the last of the great species of poetry Greece gave to the world,” many famous Greek philosophers considered humor morally corrosive and antithetical to sound reasoning. Plato believed that comedy, because of the anarchistic mood it promoted and inspired, needed to be controlled by the state. He went so far as to characterize humor as a malicious vice debilitating to rational self-control. “We shall enjoin that such representations be left to slaves or hired aliens,” he wrote, “and that they receive no serious consideration whatsoever.”
Nearly 2,500 years later and with several hundred decades of evidence to support an opposing point of view, it is now undeniable that Plato and Aristotle were wrong. There is no greater exemplar of sound reasoning—and no greater filter of politics, religion and the media—than humor.
It is arguable, given the cartoons and cartoonists so lavishly celebrated in Fantagraphics’ new release, “The Realist Cartoons,” that without humor we would not have such a precise tool with which to ridicule—nor the incentive to deviate from—the myopic mainstream narrative that would have us believe that the government, or at least the party with which we choose to identify, is consistently maintained by wise and benign stewards of justice. Humor also shows us that morality is measurable by how well we surrender our natural curiosity about how the world works to unimaginative bureaucrats tasked with telling us precisely how it should work.
Satire, particularly in the form of cartooning, has the power to reshape our comprehension of absolutely everything in pursuit of a surprising punchline offered in contempt of conventional deduction. Humor upgrades the dexterity of our thinking and convinces us of the subjectivity of truth and of our need to interact with one another using means beyond the political, religious and cultural contrivances on offer from the more traditional modes of perception, reflection and motivation.
In sharper terms: It turns out that, yes, bullshit is, in fact, fertilizer.
Paul Krassner began publishing his satirical magazine, The Realist, in 1958 and stopped in 2001, finally upstaged by real world events whose tragedy and absurdity trumped any and all satirical contrivances. After all, it was during that year on September 11 when the United States was attacked by 19 men with box cutters who ended up killing nearly 3,000 people. The date of the attack also happened to be the 126th anniversary of the initial publication of the very first newspaper comic strip in the United States, Professor Tigwissel’s Burglar Alarm. It was published by the New York Daily Graphic newspaper, whose offices had been located some 5,000 feet away from the site of the World Trade Center.
Appropriately, the strip depicted a self-aggrandized egomaniac who attempts to protect himself from the threat of a home invasion by stockpiling excessive firearms and weaponry and installing a foolproof security system designed to prevent a surprise attack. In the comic strip, the firepower and security system don’t work and Professor Tigwissel is attacked, but he arrogantly claims success afterward. He promises to patent his device to perpetuate the notion that we are best protected by the machinery of our paranoia and a weaponized mistrust of the world rather than a less hysterical adherence to truth, justice, humanitarianism and mutual cooperation. Such was the premonitory power of the cartoonist in 1875, and such was the sickening plunge of real life into the realm of gruesome fantasy many years later that rendered the satire of The Realist no longer allegorical, but literal—literalism being to allegory what a real fire is to a crowded theater.
The demise of The Realist, which is now being called the “Charlie Hebdo of American satire,” and which writer Terry Southern referred to in the 1960s as “the first American publication to really tell the truth,” also was due to the ever-increasing corporatization of American democracy and the blatant commodification of artistic free expression by unimaginative businessmen and their marketing departments.
Specifically, where there once existed a well-informed anti-authoritarian audience for satire, Americans became passive consumers of inconsequential burlesque masquerading as satire. People assumed corporate-sponsored jokes that merely used political personalities and circumstances as fodder the same way that slapstick used seltzer bottles and baggy pants were somehow the same thing as sharp and unforgiving criticism by uncompromising freelancers for the deeper purpose of revealing political and social injustices and commenting on them in a way that engenders more psychic pain than physiological pleasure. The idea became that humorists in search of laughter alone over frank and honest outrage are not satirists for one simple reason: Mirth cripples rage, and rage is necessary for the beating back of political, cultural and religious bullshit in service of change.
In Krassner’s freewheeling and illuminating foreword in Fantagraphics’ “The Realist Cartoons,” we learn of his hilarious beginnings with MAD magazine; his being deemed the father of the underground press (he demanded a paternity test); and his support of, fellowship with and advocacy for the greatest satirists, comedians, social critics and freethinkers of the mid-20th century. We also learn why the infamous Disneyland Memorial Orgy cartoon by Wally Wood and the Fuck Communism poster created by Krassner and John Francis Putnam are as important to the protection and promotion of our civil liberties as sit-down strikes, bra-burnings, boycotts and street demonstrations. (The proceeds from the poster helped a young Robert Scheer travel to Southeast Asia in 1964 to report on a little known conflict brewing in a faraway land called Vietnam.) All this heady stuff is made more grounding and eloquent by the size of Krassner’s heart and his desire to rescue us from drowning, not by throwing us a life preserver but by teaching us how to swim.
I teach a course at the University of Pennsylvania about the history of art as commentary. I rely heavily on the cartoons of The Realist, specifically because of the magazine’s long history battling censorship and charges of indecency. Each semester I assign a paper designed to show how the concept of obscenity is a socialized construct rather than an innate reaction to an external phenomenon. For the assignment, I ask the students to search for a piece of art that is personally offensive to them and then to defend its right to exist. After the papers are turned in, I ask the students to tell me about the experience of searching for offensive art, and each semester they tell me that the task was nearly impossible when they searched alone because nothing was truly offensive to them. Only when they looked for images with other people around did they feel shock or shame. The exercise is analogous to reading, writing or saying a dirty word while alone versus engaging with so-called obscene language in a public space. The former inspires no reaction whatsoever and the latter causes real and genuine discomfort, proving that obscenity, like patriotism, typically requires a herd mentality in order to be conjured.
I explain to my students that it is in that private space, in that state of aloneness, that most artists and satirists conceive their work, which is why some artwork can appear vulgar in its honesty or obscene beyond its intention when viewed in public. Put bluntly, you are more likely to pick your nose or scratch your ass if you are alone than if you are in public, and it is with that clarity of purpose and egoless satiation of a dilemma that artists enunciate their undiluted utility most succinctly. And that is why art as a language has great potential to enlighten, because it operates with fewer restrictions and fearlessly uses the blade of honesty more than many methods that may be more publically sanctioned.
A number of cartoonists who regularly produced work for The Realist also cartooned for The New Yorker, The Saturday Evening Post and other mainstream publications. But, according to cartoonist Mort Gerberg, Krassner’s magazine was the only periodical in America for which they could draw the cartoons they really wanted to produce. It was the only publication that permitted them the rare grace of maintaining their artistic integrity without compromise.
More than simply a collection of cartoons, “The Realist Cartoons” is an instruction manual for those wishing to learn how to speak bravely and frankly about race, sex, war, peace, abortion, doomsday, environmentalism, free speech, civil rights, homosexuality, human rights, human wrongs, love, hate and obscenity—to learn, that is, by exquisite example.
While I think this book is essential for anybody whose appreciation and knowledge of the form is already established, I also offer it as contrary proof to those who dismiss editorial and political cartooning as a pointless feat of oversimplification. There are certainly examples of cartoonists who dumb down political discourse, just as there are writers who commit the same violation, as well as other kinds of artists and public intellectuals who dumb down the entirety of our cultural acumen with the ideas they promulgate. Rather than look to the whole profession, it would be more instructive to look to the individual artist or thinker—and the circumstances that produced the commentary being offered—to assess whether participation in a dialogue is additive or subtractive.
It should not be overlooked that a great deal — some might argueall — political discourse is a very deliberate dumbing down of humanitarian discourse. (Recognizing the need to reverse our negative impact on the environment, for example, is made perverse by the political notion that nothing can be done to save the ecosystem until a solution is devised that doesn’t impact the business sector.) And while I might agree that the majority of cartoonists published over the past 300 years could legitimately be accused of simplifying political conversation, I argue that, by and large, they are not doing it for the purpose of dumbing down discourse, but rather for the purpose of introducing clarity, common sense and sympathy into the national political dialogue.
Cartoonists, when they succeed, make politics accessible and understandable and, quite frankly, usable to a large portion of the public who, because of race, education level, income inequality or any number of reasons, would have no easy way to decode and decipher how and why the world functions and dysfunctions as it does. When one considers the incredible roster of cartoonists who appeared in The Realist — cartoonists such as R. Crumb, Art Spiegelman, Richard Guindon, S. Clay Wilson, Skip Williamson, Wally Wood, Bhob Stewart, Mort Gerberg, Sam Gross, Falcon and Nicole Hollander — it is relevant to add that a cartoonist, in addition to making politics accessible and understandable, is also useful in making radicalized ideas of dissent and civic and social engagement accessible, understandable and, in a word, hip.
For obvious reasons, the timing for such an inspiring collection of razor-sharp dissent and gut-busting dick (and dickless) jokes couldn’t be more perfect.
Mr. Fish
Cartoonist
Mr. Fish, also known as Dwayne Booth, is a cartoonist who primarily creates for Truthdig.com and Harpers.com. Mr. Fish's work has also appeared nationally in The Los Angeles Times, The Village Voice, Vanity…
Mr. Fish

More abuse and ridicule from the lynch mob (Apr. 28, 2019)

  1. So Where is the Swedish Warrant?
    by CRAIG MURRAY, Apr. 27, 2019
    If the Swedish allegations against Julian Assange were genuine and not simply a ruse to arrest him for extradition to the United States, where is the arrest warrant now from Sweden and what are the charges?
    Only the more minor allegation has passed the statute of limitations deadline. The major allegation, equivalent to rape, is still well within limits. Sweden has had seven years to complete the investigation and prepare the case. It is over two years since they interviewed Julian Assange in the Ecuadorean Embassy. They have had years and years to collect all the evidence and prepare the charges.
    So where, Swedish prosecutors, are your charges? Where is your arrest warrant?
    Julian Assange has never been charged with anything in Sweden. He was merely “wanted for questioning”, a fact the MSM repeatedly failed to make clear. It is now undeniably plain that there was never the slightest intention of charging him with anything in Sweden. All those Blairite MPs who seek to dodge the glaring issue of freedom of the media to publish whistleblower material revealing government crimes, by hiding behind trumped-up sexual allegations, are left looking pretty stupid.
    What is the point of demanding Assange be extradited to Sweden when there is no extradition request from Sweden? What is the point in demanding he face justice in Sweden when there are no charges? Where are the charges from Sweden?
    The answer to that is silence.
    Sweden was always a fit-up designed to get Assange to the USA. And now they don’t need it, so Sweden has quietly gone away. All the false left who were taken in by the security services playing upon a feminist mantra should take a very hard look at themselves. ….

    Read more….
    • Welcome to another Morrissey rape culture special.  
      Sweden was always a fit-up designed to get Assange to the USA.
      We have to assume you endorse that offensive claim, given that you troubled yourself to post it here.  You now need to support it, in two ways:
      1. Demonstrate that the two women complainants made false complaints and were participants in a criminal conspiracy (hence this being another Morrissey "rape culture" special).
      2. Come up with a plausible explanation for why the US government couldn't request Assange's extradition from the UK seven years ago and instead needed him extradited to Sweden first, but now can simply request extradition from the UK  (This one's not rape culture, just the usual Morrissey nutbar conspiracy theory).
      • greywarshark2.1.1
        The amount of stuff written about Assange may soon match the size of the Wikileaks release.
      • Morrissey2.1.2
        Smearing is no argument. That won't deter the likes of you, of course.
        • Psycho Milt2.1.2.1
          In other words, no you can't support your claim.
          • Morrissey2.1.2.1.1
            You're the one who has to support your sleazy allegations.
            • Psycho Milt2.1.2.1.1.1
              I was the one who posted comment 2?  Best go back for another look, it's got your name on it.  Comment 2 makes a bold claim with nothing to support it, hence the 2.x comments underneath it asking for the poster of that claim to support it with evidence.  If you need to have this stuff explained to you, maybe you should just leave your computer switched off.
              • Morrissey
                No, it was posted yesterday by Craig Murray, one of the most credible and respected independent commentators in Britain. 
                • Leaving aside for a moment the comical notion that Craig Murray is one of the most respected commentators in Britain (not least because you're making an implied argument from authority and we've been over that ground so many times before),  Craig Murray didn't post that assertion here, you did.  
                  Unless you were just dropping some random spam on the thread because you don't have voluntary control over your actions, you posted that claim here as an endorsement of it.  That means it's effectively your claim on this thread.  If you can't support it, just say so.   

                  • Morrissey
                    "Comical". Craig Murray is “comical”. Coming from a Russiagate truther, that really is comical.
                    • You're free to hold whatever opinions of me you like.  At issue is whether you can offer anything to support the claim you posted in comment 2.  I note that the answer is still "No."
                • mauÄ«
                  Morrissey, 100% absolutely correct. Thank you.
      • Brigid2.1.3
        "You now need to…
        1. Demonstrate that  etc
        2. Come up with a plausible explanation etc"
        And if Morrisey doesn't, will he get lines?
        What a bossy bitches you are Psycho.
        • greywarshark2.1.3.1
          Perhaps you should leave it to PM and Morrissey to argue about and hold your own thoughts in abeyance Brigid.  
        • Psycho Milt2.1.3.2
          Any of us is free to demand that people making bold and unlikely assertions provide some supporting evidence for them.  There's no penalty for failure to comply, beyond the embarrassment of having been exposed as a bullshitter – assuming one feels embarrassment at such exposure, that is. I think Morrissey's impervious to it.
          • mauÄ«2.1.3.2.1
            "that people making bold and unlikely assertions… "
            That is only you at this point. Anyone with some nous long ago worked out this was about journalism, not rape culture. Hence why any decent independent journo has dismissed your talking point.
            • Psycho Milt2.1.3.2.1.1
              In that case, any decent independent journo would be able to substantiate the claim "Sweden was always a fit-up designed to get Assange to the USA."  Where is the support for this assertion?
    • francesca2.2
      Morrissey 
      This is a long one but its a serious essay and the most comprehensive I've read so far

      • Morrissey2.2.1
        Thanks very much, Francesca.
      • Drowsy M. Kram2.2.2
        Thanks francesca; insightful links within links within links.
        "Take my loathing of Assange, for example. I feel like I can’t even write a column condemning his arrest and extradition without gratuitously mocking or insulting the man. When I try to, I feel this sudden fear of being denounced as a “Trump-loving Putin-Nazi,” and a “Kremlin-sponsored rape apologist,” and unfriended by all my Facebook friends. Worse, I get this sickening feeling that unless I qualify my unqualified support for freedom of press, and transparency, and so on, with some sort of vicious, vindictive remark about the state of Assange’s body odor, and how he’s probably got cooties, or has pooped his pants, or some other childish and sadistic taunt, I can kiss any chance I might have had of getting published in a respectable publication goodbye."
        C. J. Hopkins (15 April, 2019)  [“If you do not appreciate Mr. Hopkins’ work and would like to write him an abusive email, please feel free to contact him directly.“]
      • RedLogix2.2.3
        Thank you francesca for that link. An admirable piece, well written, meticulously argued and above all … correct in it's conclusions. 
        Of course, the real point here, which the advocates of this line are pretending to miss and energetically trying to disappear from everyone’s line of sight, is that Sweden is no more interested in prosecuting Assange for his alleged sexual offense than the UK is for his bail jumping. The sex allegation from Sweden, like the bail jumping allegation in the UK, is just a doorway to his extradition to the United States.
        • Psycho Milt2.2.3.1
          The sex allegation from Sweden … is just a doorway to his extradition to the United States.
          I keep seeing this asserted as an article of faith, with no supporting evidence for the assertion.  Is there anything, other than that some people fervently believe it?
          • RedLogix2.2.3.1.1
            with no supporting evidence for the assertion. 
            The indictment is, however, a snare and a delusion. It is surprisingly spare and seems to have been written with a particular purpose in mind — to extradite Assange from England. Once he is here, he will be hit, no doubt, with multiple charges.
            Under the U.S.-U.K. extradition treaty, one cannot be extradited from the United Kingdom if the extradition is for “political purposes.” This explains why the indictment does not contain any charges alleging that Assange conspired with the Russians to impact the 2016 presidential election. It may also explain why the indictment focuses on hacking government computers rather than on leaking stolen government information, in as much as leaking could be characterized as being done for political purposes.
            When Assange arrives in the United States through extradition, as many expect he will, the government will then be able to indict him for his participation in that election. It is not out of the question that the government will come up with additional charges against Assange.
            U.S. Justice Department officials would not confirm that the U.S. agreed to take any sentence off the table. But they pointedly noted that the charge the U.S unsealed against Assange does not represent a capital offense and carries a maximum of five years in prison.
            The Justice Department has 60 days from the time of the request for extradition to add any charges and would not comment on future charges.
            We cannot know what the US Justice Dept plans to do, but we can know for certain what they have not ruled out. 
            Besides a 'verbal' commitment from the Trump govt would have to be worth less than the paper it was not written on.
            • Psycho Milt2.2.3.1.1.1
              The indictment is, however, a snare and a delusion. It is surprisingly spare and seems to have been written with a particular purpose in mind — to extradite Assange from England. Once he is here, he will be hit, no doubt, with multiple charges.
              Again, this is opinion.  All of these opinions assert that the Swedish request to extradite Assange was made on behalf of the USA, with no basis other than that the author firmly believes it.  
              • RedLogix
                The USG is not going to signal in advance any charges that carry the death penalty or imply 'political reasons'.  Otherwise extradition to the USA will likely fail legally in the UK and quite possibly Sweden as well.  Demanding the production of impossible evidence is a logical fallacy akin to demanding one perfect piece of evidence to support climate change.
                What I can rely on is the preponderance of evidence, the reasonable balance of probabilities given what they've already done to Manning (and would do to Snowden if they could) … and the indisputable fact that the Justice Dept has unsealed one charge already. An act that only makes sense if they intend to extradite when the opportunity avails itself.
                • Sure, a reasonable person wouldn't put any duplicity past the US government.  However, the claim that the Swedish complaints were a conspiracy on behalf of the US government is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.  And any evidence presented has a severe uphill struggle ahead of it, against the fact that the US could just have requested Assange's extradition from the UK back then, just like it has now.  
            • Andre2.2.3.1.1.2
              The Justice Department has 60 days from the time of the request for extradition to add any charges and would not comment on future charges.
              According to the doctrine of specialty protection, once he's extradited he can only be tried on the charges in the extradition paperwork. Or if the US really really wants to add more charges, the rules say they have to get approved by the same UK courts that approved the extradition.
              If Assange ends up going to Sweden before winding up in the US, then he's got the extra protection that both the UK and Sweden have to agree to what he gets charged with.
              Of course, wannabe Dictator Donny might just slap on the extra charges after they get their hands on him and say to the UK and/or Sweden "waddaya gonna do abouddit?".
              There's that irony that the Tinyfingers Tyrant that Assange was so keen and active in helping elect is much more likely to just blow off international norms and obligations than Hillary would have been. Let alone that Obama and Holder decided way back in 2013 that trying to prosecute Assange would have a real and seriously chilling effect on real journalism, so the national interest was best served by not prosecuting. The so-called "New York Times" problem. Hillary would most likely have respected and gone along with that prior assessment.
              • RedLogix
                A legal process that will be dragged out for years. The USG doesn't need to get to a conviction as long as they have Assange in prison somewhere.  
                The entire game has been a cynical abuse of legal process from the outset. What makes you think anything will change once they have their hands on him? Read this story from another whistle-blower and let us know what you think his chances are:
                The government will invoke something in Julian’s case called CIPA – the Classified Information Protection Act. That means that the court must do everything possible to “protect” classified information from being revealed, even to the jury. The first thing that’s done in a CIPA trial is that the courtroom is sealed. The only people allowed inside are the defendant and the defendant’s attorneys, the prosecutors, the bailiff, the clerk, and the judge. The jury also would be there in the event of a jury trial, but it gets a little more complicated in that case. The bailiff will lock the courtroom doors and put tape around them, and he’ll cover the windows with plastic or canvas, all so that nobody outside can hear anything.
                This is another round of that cowardly game where liberal pundits pretend to believe in the professed objectives of the government so they can claim to be abetting its actions in innocent good faith, and when it all turns to shit they can say: “We didn’t know that was gonna happen!”
                • Andre
                  The entire game has been a cynical abuse of legal process from the outset. 
                  Yeah, it might look that way if you don't attach any significance to the allegations Assange scarpered from Sweden the same day his lawyers learned he was about to be arrested, nor to the way he scarpered to the Ecuadorean Embassy  when he learned he lost his fight not to be extradited to Sweden.
                  Note that while all this was going on in 2010 through 2012, the doctrine of specialty protection would made him safer from the US if he had been extradited back to Sweden from the UK. Because then both the UK and Sweden would have to OK him getting sent to the US, rather than just the UK. According to some pieces I've seen, extraditing him to Sweden from the UK would also give him recourse to an EU court to fight a further extradition to the US, which he wouldn't have in a direct UK to US extradition.
                  • RedLogix
                    If Assange had fled to the Ecuadorian Embassy to escape Swedish justice, then logically he would have left that Embassy when the Swedish investigation was dropped and no charges laid. But of course that was never the reason why he sought asylum; it was always about escaping American injustice.
                    And please stop pretending the Americans will be satisfied with a minor 'hacking' charge that carries a five year (out in three) sentence. That just insults everyone's intelligence.
                    • Andre
                      And please stop pretending the Americans will be satisfied with a minor 'hacking' charge that carries a five year (out in three) sentence. That just insults everyone's intelligence.
                      Please link to where I have made any claim that might be interpreted like that.
                      Misrepresenting someone else's position like that does you no credit.
                    • RedLogix
                      Precisely where you say this:
                      Or if the US really really wants to add more charges, the rules say they have to get approved by the same UK courts that approved the extradition.
                    • Andre
                      That's a statement of what the rules require. It's not expressing an opinion that the Drumpf administration will be satisfied with just the one charge that has so far been unsealed.
                    • RedLogix
                      If you don't want to be misrepresented, be clear on what you mean. Can I take it that you now accept the USG will likely lay more charges once they have their hands on him, regardless of any 'specialty protection'?
                      Lets be real here, the USG doesn't give a shit about how long this process takes; as long as they have Assange in a prison somewhere, they have the outcome they want. 
                    • Andre
                      I have no doubt the likes of Barr and the loofah-faced shitgibbon would like to nail Assange on a huge array of charges. On any useful facts, and completely fabricated too if they think they can get away with it. For the express purpose of getting convictions to set precedents expanding dictatorial presidential powers. Assange sitting in a UK or Swedish prison is useless for that.
                      From that point of view, time is of the essence for them. They will be well aware that Obama and his admin decided in 2013 that they weren't going to try to prosecute Assange. (edit: Assange should have been aware of that in 2013 toohttps://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/julian-assange-unlikely-to-face-us-charges-over-publishing-classified-documents/2013/11/25/dd27decc-55f1-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html?utm_term=.7ac6ab87cd23 sorry about the messy link added in). And that the next Dem prez may be inclined to take the same view. So their opportunity to get the convictions and set the precedents might be just the next 21 months. 
                      But the point of getting convictions to set precedents is one aspect where specialty protection might play a role. Because if specialty protection provisions are violated, those are solid grounds for appealing a conviction. Because correct judicial processes were not followed. By the time an appeal rolls through, there may be a new prez and AG not inclined to fight the appeal and uphold the conviction. And if a conviction is overturned on appeal, then it's not a precedent.
                    • RedLogix
                      So their opportunity to get the convictions and set the precedents might be just the next 21 months. 
                      There's a big assumption right there; it assumes a sympathetic Democrat will be elected. If you were Assange I doubt very much you'd bet you life on that.
                      And even less likely that you'd bet on a fair hearing in a secret trial held in an East Virginia 'espionage court' that has never acquitted a defendant in all of it's history.
                      The only reason why we're talking about Assange all these years later has nothing to do with Sweden or the UK … it's absolutely been all about the USG's desire to make an example of Assange, to punish him for exposing their own illegal behaviour.
                      We abrogate our personal right to violent defense and retribution to the nation state. We have a legal system, police, courts and prisons to defend us within the state, and a military system to act outside of it. These systems are legally created and empowered to commit violence on our collective behalf. In an ideal world there would be no criminals, no aggressor states and we could disband them, but for the time being we are stuck with this morally ambiguous compromise. We may personally abhor violence as much as we like, but collectively we cannot abandon it. We justify this by placing rules and conventions on these systems; we require they act within the law, lest we become no better than the criminals, terrorists and invaders we pursue.
                      Yet the crucial irony is that Assange is being punished by the USG for exposing it's own illegal behaviour.  You are pirouetting on a very thin patch of legal ice indeed, if you imagine the same govt will give one tiny shit what you or I think when they do finally get their hands on him.
                • Andre
                  That Polemicist piece is certainly a polemic. But I don't find it very credible when it misrepresents things like how the Swedish system works by trying to make a big deal out of the fact Assange hadn't been charged.
  2. The Chairman3
    While elections aren't generally based upon one policy, CGT was a big policy that Labour spent many years building up support for.
    Its potential to produce a strong revenue stream is not easily overlooked Nor is its potential to enable the Government to do more good.
    Therefore, to throw it all away without a bat of an eyelid, how much damage to the party do you think Jacinda has caused?
    Will their be a drop in support for Labour in the next poll?
    This nationwide Horizon Research Poll – taken between February 28 and March 15 – found 44 per cent of New Zealand adults supported introducing a capital gains tax and 35 per cent opposed it.
    A further 16 per cent are neutral on the new tax, while 6 per cent did not know.
    Polling by political leaning showed 60% of Labour voters supported it.
  3. cleangreen4
    Morrissey,
    Thanks for the Swedish stuff as we were suspicious of them, and now it is laid bare they were complicit.
    Ignore Psyhco-Milt he is off his rocker today.
    • Morrissey4.1
      Thanks, cleangreen. I don't think he's off his rocker; it's hard to admit for anyone to admit one has been completely wrong. He has to come to terms with it. 
      Poor fellow backed Hillary and her mad Russiagate conspiracy too.
    • Ignore Psyhco-Milt he is off his rocker today.
      I've refrained from publicly drawing a fairly obvious conclusion from some the stuff you post here – could the same courtesy perhaps be extended?