Sigh...
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Monday, January 21, 2008
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.
Friday, January 18, 2008
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 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.
Monday, January 07, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
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
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
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
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:
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."
Monday, December 31, 2007
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
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
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, December 21, 2007
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:
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)
Monday, December 10, 2007
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... 
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
They'll never stop lying, ever...
Faiz Shakir on how General Petraeus has altered the latest National Intelligence Estimate to downplay the level of violence in Iraq.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Friday, July 13, 2007
Thursday, July 12, 2007
What can congress do? Something crazy!
They won't, but what could they do when a president improperly grants relief to a convicted subordinate? Ian Samuel suggests this solution, admitting of its implausibility in the current system:
The remedy for improperly pardoning one's own convicted subordinates to cover up one's own ongoing criminal conspiracies is already in the Constitution. We do not need a new amendment. The remedy is impeachment and conviction. The House of Representatives should impeach both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for their role in this entire conspiracy to obstruct justice. A simple majority in the House of Representatives would be sufficient for that. The Senate poses a somewhat more difficult problem, because it can be expected that the Republicans (either as parties to, or in furtherance of, the same conspiracy to obstruct justice) will not vote to convict. The remedy for this is also in the Constitution; it is Article I, Section 5.And to anyone who suggests this is a stretch, even an elaboration of the original intent of I:5, well, is your objection that our leaders shouldn't creatively interpret the law for their own purposes? Is your solution, then, to Presidential and Vice Presidential "creativity" to look the other way, or to find a more legitimate way of holding the executive accountable? My question for you is: If impeachment proceedings should not begin now, what, precisely and exactly please, should happen? If nothing can happen...is the admission that there's nothing we can do about it an admission that the system is broken?
The Senate is perfectly free to determine the "Qualifications of its own Members," and the Democrats could thus refuse to seat the Republicans if they refused to convict. (The Republican Senators could be re-seated after conviction, if they agreed to be bound by its result.) President Pelosi would then presumably direct the Justice Department to initiate ordinary criminal prosecution of both Bush and Cheney, for their roles in the conspiracy. Think it's radical? It is--but not unprecedented. Our Constitution's guarantee of the "equal protection of the laws," the Fourteenth Amendment, was ratified 139 years ago this Monday, in exactly that
fashion. Some things are worth fighting for, and the rule of law is one of them. I doubt very much that Congressional Democrats will do these things, but I don't doubt whether they should.
4th of July
The reason I didn't post these earlier is that I was trying to block out parts of our Independence Day... We were selling cotton candy and drinks to benefit the childrens' museum, of which Andrea was just elected board president. Scortching hot. Next to us, and I mean literally next to, was the Stage of Extremely Bad Musical Acts who nonetheless should so very *%&# clearly be given the opportunity to shine, their ten to fifteen to fifty seven minutes of fame singing off-key and so very, very, very out of context. More importantly, it seemed, they should be given that opportunity right frigging next to us. In fact, the guy who did the sound came up to us, still fairly early in the day, and said "Oh man, do you folks have to be here all day, next to them? Damn, I feel sorry for you. Hee hee hee..." It was like "Little Miss Sunshine" on acid, not that I'd know, and it was also like a David Lynch movie. Indeed, the sounds of talentlessness (most commonly in the form of off-key "Let Freedom Ring" covers, although yes, someone covered "Proud to be an American"--dammit, that's my song--and passed out flags to wave ONLY during the chorus.) forced us all in and out of consciousness just like Henry in Eraserhead, even though we sold a crapload of cotton candy, enjoyed delicious polish dogs, watched our aspiring artist-children, and nearly lost Andrew twice in the midst of thousands of people...thousands of hot, sweaty, patriotic human bodies...because freedom, after all, isn't free.
Thanks to other members of the WCM board, there was much handling of snakes and spinning of the candy cotton...
Not yet two, Abigail paints and draws for a significant portion of every day. We set up huge canvases for kids (of all ages) to express themselves. Nobody took advantage of the free space for any political slogans, electing instead to paint anti-republican jokes on port-a-potties (see below)...
Although undoubtedly talented and creative, Andrew isn't quite as much of an art junkie as his sister, but he's capable of wearing the proverbial smock...
And they say cowboys have no sense of humor...well, I guess they don't actually say that.
Not yet two, Abigail paints and draws for a significant portion of every day. We set up huge canvases for kids (of all ages) to express themselves. Nobody took advantage of the free space for any political slogans, electing instead to paint anti-republican jokes on port-a-potties (see below)...
Although undoubtedly talented and creative, Andrew isn't quite as much of an art junkie as his sister, but he's capable of wearing the proverbial smock...
And they say cowboys have no sense of humor...well, I guess they don't actually say that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
