The Alice In Wonderland World of Declining Capitalism

Just a quick note to say that ex-CEOs are now calling for financial regulation...much like retired generals criticizing Bush's Iraq policy. This article is typical:

Ex-Salomon CEO Gutfreund Calls for More Financial Regulation
By Rhonda Schaffler and Alex Lange
Jan. 29 (Bloomberg) -- John H. Gutfreund, chief executive officer of Salomon Brothers during the 1980s, called for greater regulation of the financial industry in the U.S. and abroad in the wake of a $7.2 billion loss a French bank blamed on a rogue trader. Gutfreund said writedowns at major banks because of poor risk management may be more frequent than most people think. He made the comments today in an interview with Bloomberg TV. Gutfreund resigned from Salomon in 1991 after regulators said traders at the firm had rigged U.S. Treasury bond auctions. Societe Generale SA last week reported a 4.9 billion-euro ($7.2 billion) loss it attributed to unauthorized bets on stock futures made by Jerome Kerviel.``I think the SocGen problem could be rather widespread,'' said Gutfreund, 78. ``I don't think that the management in the financial institutions understands all the other vehicles that are being created.'' The ex-banker, who is now president of Gutfreund & Co. Inc. and a senior adviser at Collins Stewart Co. in New York, bemoaned the rise of hedge funds. He called them ``the unregulated tip of the market,'' and said they could make for a ``treacherous and a horrible storm. ''Hedge funds globally lost an average 3 percent this month through Jan. 25, according to the HFRX Index, a daily estimate of fund performance voluntarily reported by managers and calculated by Chicago-based Hedge Fund Research Inc. ``There are global institutions that should be paying attention and probably do,'' Gutfreund said. ``The U.S. influence has been for `no regulation, do whatever you can get away with.'''

Stupor Tuesday

One subscriber to the Left Business Observer listserve opines today:

C'mon everybody in the U.S. Go out and vote. For Obama, of course. Then keep doing whatever you're doing to advance socialism in the world.

But if Patrick Martin is right, voting for Obama is a step backward for a socialist movement; he describes the corporate-driven Obama campaign as a preemptive attack against such a movement. Even if Obama or his real supporters don't cast it that way, the long-term effects of the corporate support is tantamount to a buyout.

The Obama campaign is not the vehicle of a leftward movement in the United States—as proclaimed by liberal groups such as MoveOn.org and publications like
The Nation. It is a preemptive attack by the ruling class against such a movement. Its function is to delude the American people and divert their growing opposition to war, economic crisis and attacks on democratic rights back into the dead-end of the Democratic Party.

So how about it, my friends (like ECram) who consider themselves socialists but are voting for Obama?

--Is it because, in this instance, the symbolic overwhelms the materiality of politics?
--Is it because the struggle for welfare capitalism IS a progressive cause, and is part of the overall struggle for socialism?
--Is it because you are afraid of a McCain or Romney presidency?
--All of the above? Am I missing something more nuanced?

And in the meantime, everyone think counterfactually with me for a moment: Imagine under what conditions a 40 year-old black steelworker could be a major party candidate for President...

"Shared Sacrifice"-- a soldier's contribution to the Iraq debate and more...

I first met Gary Barkley last summer, a good friend of a good friend, whom I knew had been in correspondence with some people while still in Mosul. When Gary returned, like so many thousands of other soldiers, he enthusiastically began speaking out against the war, as well as the U.S.'s "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy of drumming open homosexuals from the military. Gary gave an informative and passionate presentation at the Wyoming Debate Cooperative (needless to say, both Iraq and activism are hotly debated topics), and through that lecture and a couple of nights at the bar, I got to know his intellect, energy, and sense of humor.

From his web site:

Former First Lieutenant Gary Barkley returned from a year-long tour in Iraq where he served as a Civil Affairs officer with the 403rd Civil Affairs Battalion. Even though Gary had resigned his commission in the US Army in 2001, when he was recalled to active duty in 2005 for service in Operation Iraqi Freedom, he answered his Nation’s call without hesitation. During his tour, Gary served as Operations Officer of the Ninewa Provincial Reconstruction Team in Mosul, Iraq.

Now Gary's book is out: Shared Sacrifice is an enthusiastic and very critical treatment of the Iraq war and what I read to be the phenomena and motiff of conservativist militarism in general: A theocratic, superstitious, and rich-white-guy militarism that excludes gays, privileges theological and ideological whiteness and heteronormativity, and has made an utter mess of the world, particularly Iraq and Afghanistan.

Even before I review this book (which I hope to do in the next few weeks), you should buy it and read it. Gary's political and military perspective is unique and may not be yours or mine. What I find most compelling is his concern for the military itself, a community he clearly loves, although he laments its colonization and consolodation by the religious right. I predict we will hear more from this type of activist and it's important to have discussions with them: Like Obama, Gary doesn't want to smash the state or capital. He wants liberalism (in the classical and contemporary senses) to live up to its promises. This is a question worth asking and a conversation to be had. We could do much worse than listen to an intelligent and articulate Iraq war vet begin that discussion. Plus, DADT is just wrong and stupid, and Gary argues that better than I do.

I also plan to publish some exerpts from my interview with Gary last year...all in good time...but read the book!

GOD - APPLY DIRECTLY TO FOREHEAD!

Over at Science Blogs, GrrlScientist has posted what she calls the "top fifty atheist t-shirt and bumper sticker aphorisms," but I don't think they are exclusively "atheist." I can say with confidence that Unitarians, Universalists, and other nonfundamentalists can laugh at them too, and I daresay even a few more religious types, if they can truly laugh at themselves. Some of my favorites:

Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers

Honk If Your Religious Beliefs Make You An Asshole

Intelligent Design Makes My Monkey Cry

There's A REASON Why Atheists Don't Fly Planes Into Buildings

"Worship Me or I Will Torture You Forever. Have a Nice Day."­ God.

People Who Don't Want Their Beliefs Laughed at Shouldn't Have Such Funny Beliefs

Threatening Children With Hell Is FUN!

GOD - APPLY DIRECTLY TO FOREHEAD!

God Doesn't Exist. So, I Guess That Means No One Loves You.

Science: It Works, Bitches.

I Gave Up Superstitious Mumbo Jumbo For Lent

My Flying Monkey Can Beat Up Your Guardian Angel

Every Time You Play With Yourself, God Kills a Kitten

Praying Is Politically Correct Schizophrenia

I Was An Atheist Until The Hindus Convinced Me That I Was God

The Spanish Inquisition: The Original Faith-based Initiative

If we were made in his image, when why aren't humans invisible too?

JESUS SAVES....You From Thinking For Yourself

Every Time You See a Rainbow, God is Having Gay Sex

I Went to Public School in Kansas and All I Got Was This Lousy T-shirt and a Poor Understanding of the Scientific Method.

The Family That Prays Together is Brainwashing the Children

No Gods. No Mullets.

got your surge right here

The news that the Worst President Ever just pulled another signing statement, this one concerning the permanence of U.S. bases in Iraq, coincides with widespread bursting of balloons in the "surge is working" mad tea party.

To continue the literary references: One needn’t wear a flag lapel to spot a naked emperor, nor does the Left’s resentment over years of dishonesty and narrow-mindedness on the part of the Bush administration render it somehow blind to obvious facts. For columnist Michael Shank, calling Iraq secure is not only inaccurate, but dishonest. He accuses the Pentagon and war apologists of manipulating numbers, for example the number of refugees returning to Iraq, without factoring in long-term trends, such as how those refugees will be absorbed. The entire “surge” rhetorical enterprise has emphasized largely meaningless numbers stripped of their context. Meanwhile, Bush's plan to negotiate a status of forces agreement before he leaves office, an agreement which will keep troops there permanently (or force his successor in the White House to break the agreement) has drawn protests and condemnations from across the Untied States.

There are several reasons to doubt the administration’s claims of increased stability in Iraq, and instead see a naked emperor, regardless of one’s political affiliation. First, the “stability” in question doesn’t even exist. The twin bombs that struck Baghdad at the end of the week (the worst attack in months) were not only symbols of order unrestored, but also of the chaotic hold on partisanship and division in Iraq: Their targets, the Ghazil pet market and the New Baghdad pet market, both on the east side of the Tigris River, were each popular with both Shiites and Sunnis.

So civilians continue to be targeted, and U.S. troops continue to die as well. The regularity of these deaths outpaces the small, localized improvements that war apologists continually and stubbornly cite as signs of improvement. Although the four-month drop in U.S. casualties may have seemed like an improvement, US casualties are up again, with 38 service members killed in January.

Moreover, whatever artificial “stability” the US can advertise is a desperately assembled house of cards and cash. That stability is partly --in a huge part, actually-- the result of the U.S. literally buying the loyalty of Sunni militias; the U.S. has paid out $120 million so far. However, "responsibility for paying these forces is supposed to pass to the Shia-dominated Iraqi regime this summer, and it is by no means certain that it will follow suit." As a result, Improvements in security are fragile at best. Recent rocket attacks in Basra--an area considered recently and relatively stable--prove that so-called improvements there are largely a matter of interpretation.

In order to pad claims of stability, Bush has authorized the drawdown (which he promptly delayed) of troops now that the “surge” is allegedly “working.” However, the Army and Marines say that there are no soldiers available to replace the ones who are withdrawing. Weapons flow is another fly in the ointment. Corruption and bribery, as well as outright theft, continues to put weapons meant for Iraq security in the hands of terrorists.

Third and finally, the long-term political situation has obviously not improved, not even a little. As Senator Bob Casey pointed out in a speech on the Senate floor the day after the President's State of the Union address, Bush promised the same things a year ago that he is promising now: "Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas." That hasn't happened.

The recent news of the alarming increase in military suicide rates associated with serving in Iraq suggests a slightly different interpretation of “stability,” and also that there might be a relationship between the futile effort to increase stability in Iraq at a cost of the personal stability of the Americans who are being asked to go there. Such human pain is always a sobering remedy for the illusions of naked emperors.

we miss you

Sigh...

Bill O'Reilly: the Stephen Glass of cable news pundits

I realize we've become deadened and desensitized to this. In fact, many people will view my bringing the thing to light more irritating than the thing itself. The thing is Bill O'Reilly's denial of the existence of homeless veterans. First he said there weren't any, then he said there were very, very few.

The moral significance of this threatens to eclipse the epistemological controversy, but in some ways they are the same question. Alternet and Brave New Films blogger DJK

talked to over a dozen homeless vets, some who had served as far back as the Korean War, and showed them the clips of BOR denying or dismissing their existence. The reactions to the clips were quite similar -- a shaking of the head in disbelief, a derisive chuckle or snort, and a deep sigh when the videos were over. Some of the veterans couldn't believe that anyone could be so clueless and naïve, while others wondered why BOR hadn't bothered to do any research before making such a dubious claim. Twice.

Someone should ask Fox News whether they believe the existence or number of homeless veterans in America is a flexible, fluid, negotiable matter of opinion, and whether their vanguard talking heads are allowed to say whatever they want on their shows regardless of fact-checking standards employed by other news (and news-opinion) media.

my brave anti-whaling stand (yes, controversial I realize...whaling bad, yeah...)

As the international press has been obsessed with the story of Australian-based protesters being held on a Japanese whaling ship, an odd story appeared: A whaling video game--yes, you get to hunt whales and package and sell their meat--popular in, of all places, Australia, where environmental activists and government officials have fallen all over themselves about Japan's whale hunting. In the game (Harpooned if you're interested), players even have to avoid protest ships. The game's defenders say it's a protest game and that the response to it has been overwhelmingly positive and appropriate. People get it. Whaling is just wrong. Japan’s recent whale hunt near Australia is particularly and insidiously wrong, because of the defiant way they are conducting it.

The first reason to be concerned about the Japanese whale hunt is that whales are sentient, intelligent beings. "Scientists recently found that whales have specialized brain cells previously found only in humans and the great apes. Called spindle neurons, these brain cells are involved in processing emotions and social interactions." Their sentience is an emerging scientific consensus, but has been a phenomenological and spiritual consensus for centuries.

If you need other reasons to oppose the harvesting of giant, beautiful, articulate, intelligent beings, such reasons are plentiful. The International Whaling Commission instituted a ban on commercial whaling two decades ago. Norway, Japan and Iceland "exploit loopholes in the ban to continue slaughtering whales using harpoons and explosives." If these seem like brutal methods it's because little has changed in the brutality of whaling in the last 20 years. In other words, the hunt is a clumsy attempt to sidestep international law, and the international community isn’t buying it. Japan argues that there is a loophole, essentially: the international ban on whaling allows hunts for scientific research, and was passed at a time when whales had to be killed for research, before non-lethal techniques were developed for subduing and studying whales. As long as Japan does some kind of research on the mammals, they can harvest the bodies. And they have—killing almost ten thousand whales in the last twenty years.

Last week, an Australian Federal Court ruled on an injunction requested by the Humane Society, enforcing Australia’s “whale sanctuary.” The ruling, unfortunately, cannot be enforced unless Japan is caught in those waters, but its symbolic value should be obvious: It is a legal ruling against what Japan is doing, as well as a fundamental rejection of their only defense for it.

In the meantime, ties between Tokyo and Canberra are becoming increasingly strained as Japanese whalers ignore and argue about the ban and Australia is compelled to try to enforce it. Japan has said previously it would ignore an injunction in the case if it were granted. In general, Japan has been arrogant and heavy-handed in its response to protests. While the ship, Yushin Maru, was sailing off the coast of Cape Town, two Greenpeace activists boarded it, an event Japan surely should have anticipated. Whether or not the allegations that Japanese sailors assaulted or tied up the protesters are true, the incident displays the same kind of arrogance on Japan’s part as their authoritative pronouncements in the media that they are not violating international law.

And even if Japan's connection to its ancient whale consumption is not more show than truth, the government of Japan is openly flauting the moratorium by feeding whale meat to its schoolchildren. Which, by the way, brings us to our final point against whaling, in general: Whale meat is just bad for you. In addition to being really fatty, "...whales are particularly vulnerable to environmental contaminants, including organochlorines—such as polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs), dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and dioxin—and heavy metals, such as methylmercury." Yum.

One wonders if Japan really believes they are fooling anyone. Their interpretation of international law only proves that the law is hopelessly out of date; their behavior has sparked what appears to be an international incident, and they are marketing cans of meat from a sentient being to their children. It’s almost as if Japan is being more morbidly ironic than the whaling video game that’s all the rage in Australia these days.

the chest-thumping of political independence

I don't like to criticize my own kind. There's something about spending my precious intellectual resources (including time--I'm writing this at 6AM so I can get some writing in before the kids wake up) on criticism of those whom, fundamentally at least, I agree with that just seems counterproductive in the "discursive economy" if you will--or the political economy of discourse (that's it). But this is pretty important. Over the next election year, we'll once again see a new round of chest-thumping from socialist political parties about the necessity of building a political movement outside the Two Parties.tm

It is necessary. Of that I have no doubt. But it's the chest-thumping that bugs. It manifests itself whenever we fiercely independent, uniquely enlightened, gee aren't we cool socialists dismiss the sentiments behind support for, say, John Edwards or even Green candidates. Let's not fool ourselves: For those who don't methodically and faithfully (I'll explain that if you want) put class conflict first as our analytical and sociological, as well as political postulate, President John Edwards would be fundamentally different from, and better than, any of his predecessors. Now, the fact that we can see Edwards easily slipping into compromise, being manipulated and overhandled, watering down his progressive politics to a thin nothingness of what they are now, or even being "pornographied" by scandal, is important, and speaks to something I find very satisfying about our political method.

But we must be on guard against sounding like we are squaking and boasting about our political independence, ourselves watering down the political differences between sections of the Democratic party, and worse, failing to acknowledge the feelings and intentions behind support for the most palitable of those candidates, especially for people struggling to get by in their lives, who don't have the privilege of critical reflection we've managed to imperfectly forge for ourselves.

Understanding those differences in political perspective is critical to be able to truly say that a worker's movement has no interests apart from those of workers.

None of this is to excuse the equivalent chest-thuming on the part of our left-Democrat friends who blame Nader for 2000, and accuse us of not caring about the short-term benefits (or overwhelming Bush-avoidance) of electing Democrats now. But I'll confine this moment of self-reflection to our chest-thumping, not theirs.

I'm guilty of it myself. It's laziness, really: Instead of carefully analyzing the conditions that shape bourgeois politics, and explain the legitimate needs on the part of workers who cast their lot with the bourgeois left, I revert to cynicism and doctrine to dismiss those choices. Such cynicism is counterproductive in the extreme, because it tells people who aren't socialists that they should give up altogether. That kind of forced choice runs counter to my own experience--seing people mull over joining a socialist organization for weeks or months, before joining and becoming incredible activists and leaders for years. It's a shame, too, because election years are important opportunities for political discussion.

So if I do it, readers can call me out on it. Let me make my position clear: I understand the choice to support a progressive Democratic candidate, or even a weakly progressive one as an alternative to, say, the worst president in history. I've said that before, last time a little over three years ago in reference to Kerry, Nader, and Cobb, and even went so far as to say it was "smart" to vote for Kerry in states where it would make a difference. Kerry would have made a horrible President, btw, but I can understand where I was coming from. It just...seemed...possible...to...escape...Bush...! In my defense (see, I have to defend myself against my own chest-thumping) I also pledged to stand by fellow Cobb supporters in those "key" states if they decided to vote Green. But I understood why Kerry. We need to understand that why. One of the things that keeps great people away from our politics is our smarminess.

Just some things to think about...I don't pretend to know an immediate way around the dilemma that inspires such conflict, but we can certainly be more thoughtful and engaging about it.

no comment

XXX [4:01 P.M.]: that's what happens when you abandon class as an explanatory postulate.

ZZZ [4:01 P.M.]: oh, matt, you and your Marxism

XXX[4:02 P.M.]: that's exactly what an apologist for capital would say

ZZZ[4:02 P.M.]: and that's exactly what a dogmatic marxist would say to reinforce his ideology.

XXX [4:03 P.M.]: which is exactly what a bourgeois faux radical pomo person would say, conveniently reappropriating the trappings of marxism without the substance (and commitment)

ZZZ [4:05 P.M.]: And to continue to reappropirate his fantasy, the Marxist continues to construct fantastical spectres out of criticism against the rigidity and failure of a Marxist interpretation, only to continue to define the world in terms of an out moded view.

XXX [4:07 P.M.]: word

intellectual honesty at its best--no, that's not sarcasm

It's certainly hard not to respect this move, even if it seems somewhat paradoxical. Earlier on this blog I have said I understood the thinking behind those who voted for Kerry. I understand this thinking even more. Although I don't think Edwards is more than a sliver of an answer to the real causes of poverty, inequality and the corporatocracy, I understand that, for some, a sliver makes a difference. And what both Nader and Edwards say about HClinton is spot-on. Nader doesn't criticize Obama in this speech, though. It would have been simple enough to just say: Edwards supports universal health care. Obama doesn't. At this point in time, that's as good a litmus test for progressives as any. (I put opponents of UHC on the same political plane as environmentalists place global warming deniers...)

By the way, what's with a national progressives conference booing Nader? In my opinion, the myth that "Nader cost Gore the Election" is one of those keep-believing-in-it-for-myriad-reasons-even-though-it's-absurd myths that a person could spend a great deal of time analyzing and refuting and Gorebots and Democrat pansies would just keep repeating anyway...The article at Politico.com similarly, uncritically repeats the assumption.

But enough of that. Like I said, it's hard not to respect, and even kind of smile at, this move:

Nader throws support to Edwards
By: David Paul Kuhn
Dec 31, 2007 08:18 PM EST
MUSCATINE, Iowa — Ralph Nader unleashed on Hillary Rodham Clinton Monday - criticizing her for being soft on defense spending and a chum of big business - and expressed his strong support for John Edwards.
In an 11th hour effort to encourage liberal Iowans to "recognize" Edwards by "giving him a victory," the activist and former presidential contender said in an interview that Clinton will "pander to corporate interest groups" if elected. Nader specifically accused Clinton of failing to challenge military spending because "she is a woman who doesn't want to be labeled as soft on defense and she doesn't want to be shown as taking on big business." As Clinton campaigned through a snowstorm in southeast Iowa, pledging to "bring about the changes we need," Nader accused the Democratic senator from New York of using empty rhetoric. "[Clinton] has not led the way against the avalanche of military contracting, corporate crime, fraud and abuse," he said. "We want to inform the people of Iowa about Hillary Clinton because all the focus is on, do they have the experience and do they have the personal charisma, and can they cross the aisle" Nader said. "The issue is corporate power and who controls our political system and it's not who has experience for six years or two years," he said, alluding to an ongoing debate over experience between Clinton and freshman Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). "She has experience in the Senate, and what that experience has meant is going soft on cracking down on corporate crime, fraud, and abuse, soft on cutting tens of millions in corporate subsidies," he continued. The Clinton campaign declined to comment on Nader's criticism. Nader, a four-time presidential candidate, called Edwards a Democratic "glimmer of hope." He has long criticized Democrats as indistinguishable from Republicans, chiding both parties as slaves to corporate financing and interests. It was Nader who famously - or infamously to many Democrats - siphoned off enough liberal votes from Al Gore in 2000 to hand New Hampshire and Florida, and as a result, the presidency, to George W. Bush. Since 2004, however, Nader has been increasingly controversial within the political left. He was booed at a national conference of progressives earlier this year. But he remains a popular figure among some liberals. Activists are particularly influential in the Iowa caucuses, if only because participation asks hours of voters' time. Only a small portion of Iowa Democrats caucused in 2004. Clinton is currently locked in a heated three-way race with Obama and Edwards in Iowa, the first contest of the presidential primaries.On Monday, Nader also issued a public statement criticizing Clinton as a "corporate Democrat," echoing the exact words Edwards uses to challenge Clinton. Nader said he has watched Edwards from afar and sees his more pugilistic brand of populism as an encouraging sign."It's the only time I've heard a Democrat talk that way in a long time," Nader said, acknowledging what was, for him, a rare moment of praise for a Democratic leader. "Iowa should decide which candidate stands for us," he added. "Edwards is at least highlighting day after day that the issue is who controls our country, big business or the people."

Memo

To: Former members of X-tal
From: Long time listener

I don't know how often you hear this from people or whether you find it embarassing, lame, irrelevant to the concerns of your status quos, whatever.

But this afternoon, as I often do, I put on Everything Crash and began going through my normal routine of paperwork, writing, etc. And then "Easily Impressed" came on, and my brain just stopped everything and listened to it all the way through...and again. Then did the same with "Pacemaker." I probably listened to those two songs over and over for a good 20-25 minutes. Let them really get deep into my mind.

And I just wanted to let you know, you got it. You really got it. I'm happy to see the continuing, growing interest in your stuff, because you really went somewhere musically and politically few dared to go. Well done, and thanks. --mjs

Christmas 2007 : "cast out our fears and open eyes, o give us voice today!"

Most years I can write up a brief Christmas message for my friends, full of a little personal insight and a fair amount of polemic. This year it's been harder. It's been a challenging one on almost every level, happy mostly (as the past six years have been) but with challenges to nearly every level of my life and consciousness...and tough times for many friends and family. I'll be thinking of a few of those people, sending them happy and constructive vibes during my two-week "break," talking to people who need conversation, and spending a lot of time reflecting on my own limits. And, of course, playing with the children.

Long story short, I can't find anything profound to say for Christmas this year. But Stephen Leah, a progressive Christian activist, wrote this updated hymn that I found very moving--even as someone who's tried to be equally critical of the violence on both sides of the Israeli occupation, to the point of pissing off my friends--and not just accurate, but poetically accurate. I don't agree with the theology of the guy giving the sermon where the Leah hymn appears, but the hymn itself is simple, unapologetic, and makes me shiver a bit.

O Little Town of Bethlehem
Imprisoned you now lie.
Above thy deep and silent grief,
Surveillance drones now fly.
And through thy old streets standeth,
A huge illegal Wall.
The hopes and dreams that peace will come
Are dashed in this year’s Fall.
O morning stars together,
Look down upon this crime.
The people sing to God the King
But justice, who can find?
Yes, Christ was born of Mary,
God’s love remains supreme.
But mortals sleep as children weep,
Their pain is never seen.
How silently, how silently,
The world and Church protests.
As checkpoints grow and towns confined,
As settlers steal and rest.
No ear may hear the outcry,
As Israel’s Wall is built.
While meek souls muse, Apartheid rules -
We speak or share in guilt.
O Holy Child of Bethlehem,
Give strength to us,
we pray.
Cast out our fears and open eyes.
O give us voice today!
We stand against injustice,
The Occupation must end.
May justice rule our Lord’s birthplace,
May now Christ’s peace descend.

Maybe this Christmas, Christians in the U.S. could think about what agents of the Israeli government are doing to Christians as well as Muslims in Palestine. It's time for a mass demand that violence, brutality and misleadership stop there, and everywhere. And the next time you hear a Christian in the United States assume that the default position on Israeli occupation is uncritical support, do some homework and challenge them on that. (And I'll include my obligatory but important acknowledgement that Palestinian leadership is cynical and exploitative, and unconditional support for either side in this conflict is not the answer). Peace on earth, good will to all. Yeah, that's what I was looking to say...something like that. Happy holidays everybody.

Orgasms, Peace, and Population Control: Err…that’s a yes on the first two and a no on the third, y’all…

I’m very happy to see the second annual Global Orgasm for Peace is tomorrow/actually today for those of us here in the U.S. I’m a fan of orgasms and peace, and despite how some stuffy old lefties might feel about it, I think there’s a clear, if not always enunciable, relationship between the two. It’s not merely that sexuality is energy; it’s that even the possibility, the memory, and the anticipation of sexual joy generates happiness in those who experience it. It’s a universal happiness—at least for the sexually emancipated—and is both literally and metaphorically life-affirming. For a small time commitment, a whole lot of people will be bringing on (or is that bringing off?) sexual joy for peace. Even linking the two rhetorically is a healthy, progressive act with no real disadvantages.

But this part of the announcement upset me greatly:

“Remember, over-population (6.8 billion people and counting) is a major cause of ‘peak everything’, so please don’t make more babies in the Global-O.”

With that single, out-of-place sentence, BaringWitness.org turned their advocacy of unbridled joy into bridled partisanship. The problems of “overpopulation” are really the problems of imperialism and class inequality, and the invocation of overpopulation without any prior acknowledgement of classism or imperialism is a tired and dangerous discourse indeed.

Others explain it better than I could: Steve Rosenthal has a fine piece elucidating the fascist nature of overpopulation science (tied to sociobiology and a fixed view of human nature) in the context of Africa. More sweeping commentaries address the way in which population discourse is used to obscure the role of capital and class inequality in either enforcing an artificial scarcity or ignoring real scarcity (see, for example, Louis Proyect). Population control isn’t progressive. Repeating unreflective causal assertions about population is not pro-peace. In fact, it’s a pointless and potentially dangerous distraction.

Not to mention, it’s a serious downer. What if a baby is made during this all-important moment of collective bliss? That could be a very special baby. Who is BaringWitness.org to tell me, or anybody, not to make a baby while participating in a worldwide collective sex act for peace, for crying out loud?

Finally: If anything, progressives need to make more babies. Nuff said.

I’m open to discuss any of these arguments, but all I am saying is the little self-righteous warning was neither necessary nor desirable, it’s in poor taste and if it does indeed reflect a dominant ideological outlook in the people responsible for the Global-O, then it’s time for them to re-think this or turn the project over to somebody else. I’ll close with some vintage Fred Engels:

it is absurd to talk of overpopulation so long as "there is 'enough waste land in the valley of the Mississippi for the whole population of Europe to be transplanted there"; so long as no more than one third of the earth can be considered cultivated, and so long as the production of this third itself can be raised six fold and more by the application of improvements already known.

Seriously, though: We should all participate in the Global Orgasm for Peace tonight/tomorrow. There’s simply no downside to it. It will lift our spirits and has the potential to make us aware of a fundamental, deep and ineffable connection between the individual erotic and the universal imperative of love. Happy orgasming. Remember: Solstice Day - December 22, at 06:08 Universal Time (GMT)

Père Lachaise Cemetery, Paris

We visited the cemetery during our last full day in Paris, last Wednesday.

Paris is a site of multiple perspectives, multiple struggling forces, a plurality of currents sometimes cooperating and sometimes competing. This is fully reflected in the Père Lachaise. The cemetery seemed to me to be a site of free expression, within the boundaries of acceptable communication about the dead (and such boundaries are relatively loose and negotiable) and political struggle. Royalty being royal, military heroes glorifying their sacrifices, communists and socialists (graves piled with flowers) displaying the symbols of revolution for a better life, Holocaust victims and survivors... As in other parts of Paris, the self-reflection and contradictory nature of the French state, and French civil society, was apparent in the very design of things, in the the way the materials were themselves arranged, from the stone work and symbols to the layout of the whole place to the management of the many trees and bushes growing in it. This feeling is difficult to describe in writing, but maybe the photos will help make sense of it.

A vast, town-sized cemetery with neighborhoods of graves along twisting cobblestone paths, separated (regimented, like much of Paris's attempt to regulate the chaotic) by "divisions."

I'm standing next to the Communards' Wall, where the leaders of the Paris Commune were executed. I was overwhelmed by the understated nature of that memorial, as well as the fact that it wasn't mentioned in any of the "official" tourist literature on or in Paris. I knew what I was looking for only because I had read extensively about the Commune a couple of years earlier. A very important site, in a cemetery likely shared by some of the Communards' executioners.

The communal grave of many activists, most famously Paul Lefargue and Laura Marx Lefargue, married best friends who took their own lives together when they felt they were growing too old to do any more good...Paul wrote a wonderful pamphlet entitled "The Right to Be Lazy," and Laura, of course, was the most Marxist of Marx's daughters.

Various symbols, from the socialist Prometheus to a Rodan-like sculpture by a lesser-known sculptor.

Jim Morrison's grave after the removal of the famous bust that was always getting vandalized and stolen. I'm not a Morrison fan, btw...and even suggested to Andrea that a great punk cover would be a picture of one or both of us flipping off the grave. But we had come all that way, why not see it...

This cat was the only live animal I saw personally at the cemetery, and it seemed to me to be very determined and purposive in sitting in that particular location.

Memorials of the Shoah in general, and specific Holocaust survivors and victims, were especially disturbing, underscoring a kind of rebellion against the holiness of cemeteries...