Into the Wild

Chris McCandless left society in the early 1990's, ostensibly in protest of its modern dimensions. The resonance of his story, now over a decade old, persists because while many people identify in contemporary society a broad range of deficiencies, few modify their lives boldly enough to register the full depth of their objections. That McCandless was successful in this regard is doubtless a significant part of what has drawn audiences -- including those that documented his life -- into a sympathetic reading of his account.

McCandless's grievances with modern society were never articulated coherently so much as communicated through his lifestyle. To the extent that he employed a principled critique, he mostly derived it from naturalist writings of the 19th century, or moral philosophers from the same period, such as Tolstoy. Many of these writers extolled simple living in pastoral settings as a means of preserving independence against the dominant institutions of their time -- organized religion and the state, namely. These entities were viewed as unduly coercive at best, actively immoral at worst. The solution prescribed by these writers involved disengagement from mainstream society for the moral health of the individual and clearer discernment of "truth," though usually as a precondition for some alternate, sustainable kind of engagement with the world (as opposed to permanent seclusion).

It is possible to imagine a different outcome for McCandless had his rebellion been informed by different, or at least more varied, intellectual traditions. In one respect, this has to do with intrinsic limitations of 19th century naturalism as applied to late 20th century US society. Opportunities to "live off the land" are not what they may have been in Thoreau's day, when small farming was still a viable enterprise, and land, especially in remote regions, could be had for cheap (at least for those permitted to own it). This is why McCandless was more likely to wind up wandering a state park than anything else: they offer the greatest space for the least commitment, and are less prohibitive than private lands. However, that they also attract people invariably contributed to greater risk-taking in the pursuit of a "genuine" exchange with nature. Such risks would have been less necessary in the 1800's, when "the wild" could not yet be classified as a commodity, and therefore required no exotic undertaking to experience it.

Another consideration when evaluating the role naturalism played in the ultimate fate of McCandless is what drew him to it in the first place. While it is possible he was predisposed to a heightened appreciation for nature, the evidence suggests that McCandless's break with convention drew greater inspiration from his anger at forms of authority which were inducing distress in his personal life. Salient among these was his parents' unsolicited overtures to help administrate his post-graduate development, coupled with the homogenized, materialistic values that such an arrangement implied. McCandless responded to these pressures mainly through evasion, his flight from his family and their lifestyle probably being one of the most destructive options available to him, at least judged by its consequences for others -- arguably for himself, as well.

It is plausible that the fundamental reconciliation which McCandless sought in his wanderings had more to do with knowing how to engage with authority satisfactorily than objecting to modern life per se. Never living past his early 20's, he had not learned how to creatively respond to that which aggrieved him in a way that might also reinforce the relationships he valued. There is no clearer example of this than the equal treatment he dispensed toward his parents, whom he discounted, and his sister, whom he adored. Arguing that this was a necessity is only true under the assumption that McCandless couldn't have stood up to his parents openly, and then proceeded with his plans accordingly. But his reading of nature as a viable alternative to the problems inherent in human relationships created a disincentive to learn how to constructively address them. A different exposure might have led him to become a union organizer or poverty campaigner, civil rights activist and so on -- i.e., someone who confronts social ills without boycotting society. He also might have challenged his parents' presumptions about the kind of person he was meant to become. It will remain an open question what the outcome of such an approach could have been.

White House champions progressive taxation

While the Bush veto on expanded children's healthcare continues to stand unscathed, it is interesting to learn of the underlying motivations behind the White House position. I'm not referring here to the philosophical uneasiness among modern-day conservatives in using public money for public purposes -- what our president in this case calls "socialized medicine" -- though this reason is well known. It appears there may be some "compassionate conservatism" at play as well: The White House has opposed the means of funding the proposal, which would involve higher taxes on tobacco. Their reasoning? The taxation would be regressive, because poor people smoke in greater numbers than the affluent; as such, it would be an unfair burden for them to bear. Doubtless this is good news for poor smokers everywhere -- just so long as they don't smoke those cigs beneath any of our nation's bridges.

Ahmadinejad in NY

Iran's president spoke at Columbia University today, opening a sluice chute of supposed "controversy" over whether the event should be allowed to happen. My own feeling is that it is better to be speaking than bombing or shooting at each other; perhaps this is why the neo-conservatives who favor war with Iran are so upset with the event, as it does not directly further their cause. It is why they try so hard to generate controversy around the mere fact that he has come here to speak, since he is a figure they want to demonize.

An awful lot of the accusations employed against Ahmadinejad as a justification for war have little substance behind them. For one thing, the president is the highest elected official in the Iranian system, with powers that are limited to some domestic areas, not international affairs. He does not have control over the Iranian military, for example. This calls into question the relevance of what Ahmadinejad has to say about international concerns, Israel included, since he has no real authority on the subject; it also leaves accusations of "dictatorship" open to question, since Iran's president is at least directly elected (unlike the religious clerics who make the central decisions affecting the country) . These are things the neo-cons and other right-wingers invariably omit when they beat their drums for war.

It's also interesting to learn that Ahmadinejad was denied a visit to ground zero when Iran (along with many other countries) expressed sympathy with the US after 9/11, and the Iranian people held candlelight vigils for the victims.

Here is a transcript of the Columbia talk.

Nationalism and Culture

Just as "the will of God" has always been the will of the priests who transmitted it and interpreted it to the people, so "the will of the nation" could only be the will of those who happened to have the reigns of public power in their hands and were, consequently, in a position to transmit and interpret "the common will" in their own way. This phenomenon need not necessarily be traced to inherent hypocrisy. Much more reasonably can we in this instance speak of "deceived deceivers"; for the more deeply the enunciators of the national will are convinced of the sacredness of their mission, the more disastrous are the results springing from their inherent honesty. There is deep significance in Sorel's remark: "Robespierre took his part seriously, but his part was an artificial one."

-- Rudolf Rocker

On Politics

What's interesting about people's attitudes towards politics is that the same people who love things like The Matrix will take the blue pill when it comes to the "matrix" that surrounds them daily.

Who needs Al Qaeda when we can destroy our own infrastructure through the combined powers of war spending and neglect?

FT/Harris Poll: Public rejects "globalization"

Much hand-wringing must be underway in corporate PR offices around the world: Apparently, people are not happy with the way companies do business, nor do they trust or admire their executives, according to a recent poll.

According to the prevailing analysis, such attitudes are regrettable insofar as they leave the average citizen vulnerable to the "rhetoric" of "populist politicians." Such inversions of reality are common in instances where business has provoked the wrath of the general population: Unable to acknowledge any contradiction between private enrichment and social health, it is the political system which must be blamed. However, if democratic representation has any value, it is an odd argument which complains that politicians might abuse their constituents by adopting their position.

Letters from Iwo Jima

Most acclaimed war films already deal with the insanity and suffering of war; Letters from Iwo Jima tries to do it without seeming to know very much about the Japanese particulars that should carry the film -- thus offering viewers little more than a change of uniform. The subjects might as well have been Portugese; Eastwood never goes deeper than universal themes of familial ties and loyalty to country, saying nothing about what Japan was fighting for in a geopolitical sense, or how this narrative played itself out in the mind of the average Japanese soldier in periods of adversity -- all the more so in moments of despair.

A more masterful interpretation might have focused on the noble myths perpetuated by the Japanese state which persuaded decent people to commit great evil -- precisely by engendering in them the notion that it was good. This is also a universal feature of war, though wouldn't it have been fascinating to learn how it unfolded in a particular historical context -- such as the allied assault on Iwo Jima, from the perspective of the Japanese? Instead, we are treated to a string of Japanese-themed stereotypes, which, while probably true and relevant to the occasion, are nonetheless a little too familiar to American audiences to be the whole explanation here: The Japanese are duty-bound and subservient to authority -- hence the trouble they find themselves in at Iwo Jima.

For reasons like this, the screenwriting convinced me only of the author's familiarity with Japanese custom, not the historical specifics of the chosen setting (to say nothing of the political realities). Any kind of scholarship of the Japanese during WWII would have been welcomed in the development of this story; it might have taught many an interesting lesson about the varied dynamics at play in this unique setting, and lent authenticity to an otherwise banal approach.

"Reasoning" from the Scriptures

Into my possession has been delivered a item of great personal interest: an official Jehovah's Witness guide to doctrine and proselytization entitled Reasoning from the Scriptures. Already a fan of such underappreciated discards as The Watchtower and Awake! as found on any metro-Philly public transportation line, this was a welcome development. As with business and government publications, it is one thing to read what is written for general consumption and another to read what is written for people operating within a given institution.

I have always been impressed with the amount of research Witnesses bring to their publications. Not surprisingly, this is often scriptural in nature, but frequently extends to include the work of contemporary scholarship. General interest items such as those featured in Awake! regularly cite mainstream scientific and other expert sources, often with no obvious religious agenda.

Reasoning from the Scriptures is persuasively written and generously supported from a wide range of external sources. The text is organized by subject, and there are many -- everything from birthdays to government to sex. A section on evolution quotes text from Darwin and draws on scientific findings relating to the fossil record. Another chapter devoted to the "cross" consults the original Greek word, stauros, which has traditionally meant a stake or "upright pole," and suggests that today's popular symbol is not accurate in relation to the crucifixion of Christ (or anyone else in that period). This was news to me and of particular historical interest.

To its credit, Reasoning often concerns itself with basic questions of accuracy like these, doubtless fitting for a publication designed to bolster engagement with skeptical audiences. It opens with an introduction on usage, including How To Respond to Potential Conversation Stoppers, which includes sample dialogue. In all cases, the tone is respectful: for example, nowhere is it suggested that pressure or manipulation be employed to gain or keep an audience. Its motivating ethos seems to be that some people are more receptive to new information than others; what's important is communicating that information well when it is welcomed. This was an issue I was very curious about regarding Jehovah's Witnesses prior to reading this text, since their eccentricities are prone to confusion with the eccentricity of other not-well understood religious groups.

My only real grievance with the publication is the same one I maintain towards the religion as a whole, and this primarily relates to its distribution of concerns. For example, it is unconscionable to me in a Christian guidebook, apparently "comprehensive" in subject matter, that "poverty" somehow goes unmentioned. In this respect, Witnesses seem to place a heightened emphasis on some biblically-prescribed activities and concerns to the apparent exclusion of others. In itself, this is probably to be expected; for my part, I would tend to pay more attention to something like the Sermon on the Mount -- e.g., how my behavior affects others right now -- rather than worrying about the implications of Armageddon, which I don't think is very well understood by anyone, to put it mildly.

Witnesses seem centrally concerned with the role that preaching played in the life of Jesus, and to that end I think they do an admirable job. Unfortunately, until they start talking more about the responsibilities we have towards one another as articulated in the Gospel vs. the end of the world and getting some real estate in heaven, it will be hard for me to relate to their basic mission.

Some notes on Donnie Davies's "The Bible Says": Why it is fake, why it is funny.

Watch this video and permit me to register my feelings on...

Why it is fake:

Apparently the authenticity of this video and its author has sparked some debate on the "internets." My hypothesis is that it is fake, for the following reasons. None of these stand as conclusive proof of fakery, though, so beware.

1. He's not playing the guitar. I understand that's not necessary (indeed, common) in music videos, but the fact that Donnie Davies neither strums in anything resembling a plausible rhythm, nor appears capable of forming chords should warrant an explanation.

2. He's wearing an unbuttoned pink shirt, is purposelessly mustachioed, and in "other ways" completes the perfect parody of himself.

3. The lyrics are rife with double entendres: "Read the bible/you'll be sure/to enter heaven/there's no backdoor"; "Righteous man/get on your knees***/there lies no virtue/in sodomy"; "Jesus, my saviour, is the only man for me"

4. Inexplicably poor songwriting, even by the standards of Christian fundamentalism: After singing "God Hates Fags" three times in the refrain, it was thought necessary to add, "If you're a fag, [God] hates you too" though this qualification imparts no new information.

5. Donnie Davies' website -- for instance, his program CHOPS: "Changing Homosexuals into Ordinary People" (see http://www.lovegodsway.org/C.H.O.P.S.) -- features no credible contact info or external reference for verification purposes.

Why it is funny:

My wife tells me it isn't, but that's only because she hasn't paid enough attention to THIS:

1. The expression on Donnie Davies' face when he sings "sodomy."

Amen,

Ryan

Support for Bush

It's at an all time low, and descending. At this point any support -- even an athletic support -- would go a long way towards helping the president's cause in Iraq.

Foley

So far, all that's been proven is that Foley is gay and he sent lurid emails to a kid. Somehow, this seems to be enough to warrant abstaining from voting for the members of the entire republican party. ... Torture, Constitutional challenges, the Iraq War, and the 9/11 commission report are all issues that have gone on for years...and somehow Foley is the biggest news to come out.

Often neither party benefits from discussing relevant policy issues because their positions are too unpopular with the public, and changing positions would threaten the support of their financiers. So they appeal to voters through non-policy considerations like "character" or "values" -- whether you actually earned your war medals, and so on. It seems a lot of energy goes into this by the mutual consent of both parties, as a way of concealing what they actually stand for: They're more comfortable playing a game of character assassination with each other than talking about their policies in public. Unless people organize around issues that concern them and force their representatives to respond, this kind of thing seems to be the status quo of political campaigns.

Just as an example, initiatives that enjoy the overwhelming support of the public -- like universal healthcare -- will never gain any traction in either party unless politicians feel they can afford to support it -- meaning the public is so mobilized on the issue they constitute a sufficient counterweight to the political influence and financial backing of the HMO's, insurance industry, pharmaceuticals and other private interests that directly profit from the current healthcare mess.

To the Financial Times:

Jacob Weisberg's defense of Bush administration policy leading up to the current Arab-Israeli crisis seems ill-timed ("One bout for which Bush is not to blame," July 20). Whether the US could have done something differently to prevent the conflict seems far less important than what it might do now to stop it: for example, supporting a ceasefire instead of obstructing it. Pressuring Israel to end its campaign in southern Lebanon might save hundreds of innocent lives; by the FT's own numbers ("Lebanon has worst day as 58 die in raids", July 20) this remains true regardless of how Hizbollah responds. In defense of the most vulnerable, all sides must be called upon to stop; but this will not realistically happen while the US and Israel stand in the way.

Evangelicals in San Francisco

The evangelicals message is not a loving, accepting one (dripping with irony that they do it in Jesus' name), but have you seen some of the signs that the gay counter-protesters had or heard any of their chants?

This story seems typical of the "culture clash" variety, where the fact that people with different views enter into conflict and "do the darndest things" is hyped as if some sort of real transgression occurred, or evidence that one side (i.e., the one you already disagree with) was somehow out of bounds. Yes, people behave badly, say mean things, and are perhaps not as tolerant of each other as they should be; but since none of these things are illegal or unconstitutional, there isn't much of a story here other than the fact that gays don't mix with evangelicals. Go figure.

SFGate.com

The American Iraq Debate

Iraqis favor a greater UN role in resolving the situation as it stands, and I think probably just about everyone else in the world does too, including most Americans -- or at least they would if it were presented to them as an option. The problem is that it hasn't: American intellectuals have done a masterful job framing the Iraq question as a debate between themselves, with plenty of soul-searching on and heated exchanges over what to do now, as though their near-total failure thusfar has only earned them greater authority on the future of the nation. But the question shouldn't be left to the Americans to decide, at least not exclusively, as Iraq is not their country.

Clemency for the CCP

Unlike the Soviet Union, the Chinese Communist Party has brokered deals with the West permitting access to markets and resources still under heavy regulation by the central government. This has generated large revenues for the negotiating parties -- the CCP, Chinese industrialists, and foreign investors -- but has left questions about democracy and human rights for the population-at-large unanswered.

The Iraq/Wife-beating Analogy

With regard to [the] wife-beating analogy, it's funny because I've also thought this in the same terms, though I would frame it differently as I think it can be broken down into much simpler issues:

If someone is beating their wife, should the already-established community norms for dealing with this sort of thing--i.e., calling the police--be used; or should the most heavily-armed neighbor (who coincidentally believes he has the best ideas about how to run a household) independently decide to take the law into his own hands and "liberate" the woman from her husband by force because, in his opinion, the police aren't effective?

After all, who is going to say the neighborhood isn't better off without the wife-beater?

Cultivating the "Business-friendly" Environment

Guy de Jonquières in today's Financial Times

Business-friendly autocrats promise several things that managers and investors prize highly -- above all, stability. A western investment banker bent on expanding in China told me recently that his greatest worry about the country was not its shaky financial system, rampant corruption or risk of an economic downturn: it was the uncertainty that would ensue if the Communist party lost power.

In Indonesia, one of businesses' biggest complaints after the overthrow of the Suharto dictatorship in 1998 was that ... they were no longer sure who to bribe or how much to pay.

More Republifun: On Hamas

The more likely long term result of an Hamas government is the utter destruction of the Palestinian people. Israel has the means to prevent its own destruction and will severely punish an enemy that so flagrantly boasts about destroying Israel.

I'm encouraged that you recognize the fundamental power deficit enjoyed by the Palestinian people vis-a-vis the Israeli state. You object to the Hamas program because, in your view, it advocates the destruction of Israel. Whether or not this is an accurate summary of their position, I certainly agree with you that it is wrong. However, even if it were true--again, your central concern here--you acknowledge that the chances of this happening are unlikely. Again, I agree. Much more likely, as you point out, is the continued destruction of the Palestinian people at the hands of their much more powerful occupiers, who, in fact, are already in the position of managing their destruction. Surely you agree that actual crimes take precedent over hypothetical ones which have little to no chance of success, as you have said. Then it follows that a moral response is to turn one's attention to those being destroyed, rather than monitoring their reactions for impolite rhetoric which you can then hold up as further justification for their destruction.

NeoCons Admit Being Wrong on Iraq, But Who Needs Convincing?

Andrew Sullivan in 2003.

Andrew Sullivan now.

(Andrew has learned a "tough lesson," though "tougher for those tens of thousands of dead, innocent Iraqis and several thousand killed and injured American soldiers." Too bad he didn't think of that earlier: it doesn't exactly take a fortune-teller to predict that modern warfare in urban areas will produce thousands of innocent casualties of precisely the sort of folk he claimed to be "liberating"; though perhaps not being there, nor being Iraqi, old man Sullivan felt comfortable he was making the correct decision for them. Thanks, Andy, for being such a trusty friend to your newfound corpsely companions.)

More melancholy musings at The Independent (via The Angry Arab News Service).

It Would Be Neat If You Were Smart

It kills me that in much American analysis of Iraq, no matter how critical, the neo-con objective of spreading goodness throughout the world is somehow taken at face value. Criticism invariably turns to how "freedom," etc., can most effectively be doled out, particularly in terms of dollar costs (though American lives are important too); or can goodness can be spread to others at all: How many columns has Tom Friedman written pleading with Iraqis that they might stand up and make our occupation successful? (I don't know myself: I don't consider paying the New York Times money for what was previously free an especially attractive deal for "younger people" such as myself, though I have heard NYT staff make the pitch.) Now that we've destroyed their infrastructure and invited destabilization into the society, Tom Friedman wants to know why the Iraqis haven't taken their lack of water and electricity and run with it.

There is nothing "neo-" about being baldly interventionist, nor is there anything "neo-" about casting it in humanistic terms; these must be among the most ubiquitous conventions in all of human history--right up there with sex and pooping. Yet anyone who argues that their motivation for copulation is "Wilsonian idealism," or that the "meal of freedom will produce no waste" when one's buttocks are deployed over Baghdad, will be rightly deemed suspect without very compelling evidence, or at least a doctor's note--two things American commentators seem content to do without.

Chomsky's Vacation

Noam Chomsky has often commented that he is "waiting for the world to go away" before he can [insert carefree recreational activity here]. I have interpreted this to mean "death will be a welcome reprieve from having to debate people like Bill Bennett and Alan Dershowitz," though I could be wrong. It may simply underscore that Christopher Hitchens is a jackass, as everything that Chomsky says implicitly does.

Ports and other Foreign Ownership

from Nouriel Roubini's Blog

The current political saga and debate about the purchase by a Dubai-based company of the management of six US ports misses the most crucial point: with a US current account deficit running towards $900b this year and probably above one trillion $ next year, in a matter of a few years foreigners may end up owning most of the U.S. capital stocks: ports, factories, corporations, land, real estate and even our national parks. This is basic accounting: if you run a current account deficit (import more than export, spend more than your income, save less than you invest) you need to borrow from the rest of the world to finance such excess of spending (on private and public consumption and investment) over your national income.

White House on Abu Ghraib: "We took kinky gay sex to the enemy, so it wouldn't happen here."

Also in the headlines:

Bay-area BDSM enthusiasts "scared straight."

Blowback: Brokeback Mountain; "How could it happen here?"

Freedom of the Press Secretaries


Scott McClellan on torture at Abu Ghraib

That's the difference between the United States and some countries in the world that systematically engage in torture. When we find abuses or atrocities like that, we show the world that people are held to account; we show the world that we take these matters seriously, and we take steps to prevent that from happening ever again.

McClellan later explained that because Al Qaeda are "trained to provide false information," he feared the outsourcing of the press secretary position to terrorists.

Guess who's back?

Reflection

It seems to me that when somebody demonstrates a consistent inability to handle firearms responsibly, you take their guns away.

Below: US-Iraq relations, 2003-present.

Freedom of Provocation

It's not hard to understand the anger felt by many Muslims these days. If somebody published a series of cartoons depicting myself as being independently wealthy, socially magnanimous and great in the sack, you can well be sure a firebomb or two would be lobbed from the ex-girlfriend camp.

A Friend in War

from The New York Times

The president did not use the National Guard speech to defend the surveillance program undertaken by the National Security Agency since he took office. But he did defend his general anti-terrorist policies in several ways.

He said, for example, that his "aggressive strategy of bringing the war to the terrorists" had not cost the United States international support but, rather, had enhanced America's standing. A shining example is Pakistan, he said.

"A little over four years ago, Pakistan was only one of three countries in the world that recognized the Taliban regime in Afghanistan," Mr. Bush said. "Today, Pakistan forces are risking their lives in the hunt for Al Qaeda."

...Mr. Bush praised President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan for remaining a United States ally despite threats on his life.

Here President Musharraf is shown with some of the decorations bestowed on him by President Bush for risking his life in the hunt for Al Qaeda.

A Second Treatise on Public Transport

I would like to relate now the case of J.R. Boyd v. The Chickenheads* On His Bus Every Damnable Morning and Afternoon During His Commute While He Is Trying Read the Newspaper. This case is still pending, as the act of exasperation which brings it to trial has yet to be acted out.

*see definition 8; all other definitions would be an ironic twist of fate

Film Review | Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room

Total sausage party, dude. Women have a long way to go in the workplace if they can't even score a few high-profile indictments in corporate bankruptcies of this scale. Unfortunately, the only gals making it to executive offices at this company were outsourced from the local gentlemen's club. Have to give the filmmakers credit in this regard: Although they could not find actual strippers from that era, they do give ample time to actresses aspiring to portray strippers in several dramatic reenactments. While I still can't completely explain what transpired at the company, my impression is that it involved an awful lot of "making shit up"--or, "hypothetical value projections," as they refer to the cutting-edge accounting system of their design, which somehow (read: deregulation) earned SEC approval. "Slanted" and full of commentary from people whose two cents may well suffer the same inflationary pox as Enron's former stock (the participants are not identified often or in any particular detail), the basic narrative of the company is nevertheless compelling and worthwhile -- not to mention timely, as former execs Lay and Skilling finally go to trial.

Celebrity Role Models

They say celebrity marriages don't last, but Woody Allen and his adopted daughter have been going strong for very close to a decade now.

Great Expectations

If death is anything like sleeping more than 11 hours without back pain, I should be very grateful for it.

Sunscreen for the Soul

I have never been a skin-cancer enthusiast, but I also do not appreciate fluorescent lighting, nor the spectrum of employed persons who seem to thrive under them. For this reason I much prefer working out of doors, so long as those doors do not belong to a recalcitrant Arab population, and "working out" does not entail breaking them down as a means of introduction.

Some Elementary Remarks on Public Transportation

Public transportation is a fine, fine thing. It is cheaper than driving, though money means little when one subsequently expires from the bird flu. This brings us to the primary drawback of public transportation: the public. Their propensity to serve as a vector of transmission has few rivals, though abstinence-only education can't be helping, nor several people I dated in the late 90's. Of course, it has been said that an American flu pandemic is a long way off, with at least a layover or two inbetween. In the meantime, antibacterial soaps are helping us prepare for the worst by helping the worst be prepared, so that we might end it all a lot sooner than our student loans had hoped. Still, there is saliency in the presidential observation that we are "addicted" to oil, particularly when it comes from someone so well-versed on the topic.

Does torture count as an "evil" we should "never surrender to"?

State of the Union: Impeachment 2006?

Wiretapping without a warrant is something we can all get excited about. For the White House, it's exciting because it helps to wage the war on terra. For Americans, it's exciting because it helps to reclaim a sense of indignation about what is wrong with America without having to look oneself in the mirror, particularly after getting the whole Iraq invasion/WMD thing wrong. For myself, it's exciting because that's just the sort of combination that impeachments are made of! After all, when's the last time you heard of anyone getting impeached for launching an illegal war of aggression? What we really needed was an executive branch that snubs its nose at sharing authority with others and affronts our theoretical conceptions of constitutional power! Maybe Bush's greatest crime will be what has always been his greatest asset: his natural lack of pretense.

On Humility

It is never easy to admit one is wrong, particularly when the opposite is manifestly the case. What, then, is the president's excuse?

"Modern Alienation" on a Budget

Most Americans have ensared themselves in a web of alienation by default, through a heightened emphasis on material goods and embrace of a rampant commercial culture. For my part, I've found not speaking to people accomplishes the same thing, and at a fraction of the cost.

Holiday Levity

The US leaves repressive totalitarian governments alone untill they start messing with other countries and violating the soveriegn rights of other nations.

The US supports repressive totalitarian governments so long as there is money to made, period. Any time a government--any government--interferes with this, efforts are made to "correct" it. This could mean diplomatic or economic coercion--or straight military intervention, in cases where a pretext can be employed to support it. "Democracy" does not enter into the equation, except as a an obstacle to be avoided, since ordinary people in large numbers have shown a historic incapacity to put the needs of private enterprise ahead of their own. In this respect, strong-arm dictators are much easier to enter into "constructive" dialogue with than any diffuse population.

You do not understand why we try to impose Democracy on others untill you live in one of these totalitarian countries. When your door gets kicked down in the middle of the night you really apprieciate freedom.

In that case why not "impose democracy" in China instead of celebrating their lack of basic freedom as an "opportunity" to make money? Contrary to popular mythology, "democracy" is not the inevitable result of economic growth. For reasons that should not be hard to discern, Western elites like to believe that as their profit margins increase under any given circumstance, so does the general wonderfulness of life on planet earth for everyone else. Since they own the media, this is the message that they choose to repeat again and again for our benefit.

The American business community does not care about "democracy"--after all, they are the ones who own the country, fund political campaigns, staff the executive, and in other ways preclude it here at home. They care about making money. So long as Hussein, Noriega, and other tyrants help us make money, they are our good friends. As soon as they become the least bit disobedient or disruptive to our interests, they are replaced. This is history of American foreign policy in a nutshell--easily verifiable should anyone bother looking at the (not secret) documentary record.

Shared Laughs w/ a Republican

Speaking of people dying, socialism and communism did wonders for the poor in the 20th century. Famine killed 20 million in Russia and 30 million in China because of a lack of private industry and competition.

"Socialism" coming out of Stalin's mouth had about as much authenticity as "Democracy" coming out of Bush's. Or do you take it as an article of faith that everything that comes out of a dictator's mouth is the Gospel truth? Every system of power employs a noble purpose to justify its rule. And the fact is, "socialism" is a purpose that has wide appeal in most of the world. The fact that many systems continue to exploit it as a concept--e.g., China--tells us zero about how the system is actually run.

Sort of like "capitalism" here, as you've already pointed out--capitalism with a huge public sector which interferes with markets on behalf of investors, subsidizes the wealthy, precludes competition, etc. The reason you can't "get rid of the inefficient government" is because "the capitalists" rely on it for survival. Good luck trying to raise that issue at the Republican convention.

Hugo Chavez and "21st Century Socialism"

I'm all for popular sovereignty and economic independence, but my impression is that demagoguery and the personalization of issues only undermines the full realization of these goals; it does not complement them. The emphasis should be on what Venezuelans, etc., are doing to create a viable alternative to neoliberalism--not on what their self-involved figureheads tell them they should be doing.

It may be that Chavez's policies--like Castro's--are widely supported by his constituency. The question in my mind is the degree to which these policies have been developed through popular participation vs. a top-down sort of authoritarianism with little meaningful input from the average citizen. Even if the outcome is the same, I do not believe the two enjoy equal justification.

Intelligent Design?
by Noam Chomsky

from ZNet

An old-fashioned conservative would believe in the value of Enlightenment ideals — rationality, critical analysis, freedom of speech, freedom of inquiry — and would try to adapt them to a modern society. The Founding Fathers, children of the Enlightenment, championed those ideals and took pains to create a Constitution that espoused religious freedom yet separated church and state. The United States, despite the occasional messianism of its leaders, isn’t a theocracy.

In our time, the Bush administration’s hostility to scientific inquiry puts the world at risk. Environmental catastrophe, whether you think the world has been developing only since Genesis or for eons, is far too serious to ignore. In preparation for the G8 summit this past summer, the scientific academies of all G8 nations (including the US National Academy of Sciences), joined by those of China, India and Brazil, called on the leaders of the rich countries to take urgent action to head off global warming.

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify prompt action," their statement said. "It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions."

In its lead editorial, The Financial Times endorsed this "clarion call," while observing: "There is, however, one holdout, and unfortunately it is to be found in the White House where George W. Bush insists we still do not know enough about this literally world-changing phenomenon."

Toward a Community Standard

..."[O]ur critics are correct in some of their observations. Specifically, our [health] coverage is expensive for low-income families, and Wal-Mart has a significant percentage of associates and their children on public assistance..."

-- Susan Chambers, Wal-Mart executive vice president for benefits

Hilarious

from The Financial Times

According to what many in financial circles will regard a heretical piece of research by Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein, materialistic goals may even cause dissatisfaction with life and mental disorders such as paranoia.

...Explaining the benefits of experiences over possessions, he said they tended to be unique, whereas a house or a car is likely to become the norm very quickly.

from A Tiny Revolution

US Plans for a Post-Castro Cuba

from The Financial Times

US planning for Cuba's “transition” after the demise of Fidel Castro has entered a new stage, with a special office for reconstruction inside the US State Department preparing for the “day after”, when Washington will try to back a democratic government in Havana.

The inter-agency effort, which also involves the Defense Department, recognises that the Cuba transition may not go peacefully and that the US may have to launch a nation-building exercise.

...Officials say the US would not “accept” a handover of power from Mr Castro, who is 79, to his brother Raul, aged 74. While it is not clear what the US position means, Mr McCarry stressed the US would not “impose” its help.

On Economic Growth

from Foreign Affairs

Among the developed countries, the United States has been doing well in the growth sweepstakes -- or so you might assume if you focused exclusively on GDP. GDP statistics, however, can be very misleading. They do not really measure how well the country is doing or how much better off its citizens are becoming.

No one would look at just a firm's revenues to assess how well it was doing. Far more relevant is the balance sheet, which shows assets and liabilities. That is also true for a country. Argentina grew rapidly in the early 1990s, mainly as a result of a huge consumption binge financed by international borrowing. But that growth was not sustainable and was not sustained. Similarly, the United States has been borrowing heavily from abroad, at the rate of $2 billion a day. It would be one thing if this were being spent on high-productivity investment. In fact, it has been used to finance increases in consumption and massive tax cuts for upper-income Americans.

Consider the following thought experiment: If you could choose which country to live in but would be assigned an income randomly from within that country's income distribution, would you choose the country with the highest GDP per capita? No. More relevant to that decision is median income (the income level that 50 percent of the population is below and 50 percent is above). As the income distribution becomes increasingly skewed, with an increasing share of the wealth and income in the hands of those at the top, the median falls further and further below the mean. That is why, even as per capita GDP has been increasing in the United States, U.S. median household income has actually been falling.

There are other reasons why someone might not want to look at just per capita GDP. He might worry about his security. What happens if he gets ill? If he loses his job? What happens when he retires? He might worry about crime. He might worry about the quality of his children's schooling. How do his children fare in competition with those who can afford the best schooling that money can buy or with those in countries such as Singapore that offer a first-rate public education? He might worry about the environment. Are there government regulations prohibiting arsenic in the water?

When viewed through these lenses, the United States does not look as good. There are some dimensions in which it is outpacing others -- for instance, it boasts five to ten times the per capita prison population of other advanced industrialized countries and more working hours per week. It also has less job security, worse unemployment insurance, and fewer people covered by health insurance.

To be sure, the American dream still attracts millions from around the world. But some of that attraction may be based on a lingering myth of upward mobility in the United States and an underappreciation of the difficulties that confront the poor. And although there is still no comparing the U.S. standard of living and that of poor countries, these are not the laurels on which one wants to rest.

"Workers Win on Gulf Coast Pay Cuts"

from Working Families e-Activist Network, AFL-CIO

Faced with massive public outrage, President George W. Bush is restoring wages he cut for the construction workers who will rebuild the hurricane-damaged Gulf Coast.

Right after Hurricane Katrina hit, President Bush signed an executive order allowing federal contractors to pay substandard wages to construction workers who will rebuild the Gulf Coast—workers who already had lost so much and were struggling to rebuild their lives and their communities.

But you and other working family activists made the difference. You sent more than 350,000 messages to Congress and the White House—and it worked: 37 House Republicans urged the White House to reverse the suspension, and Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) led unanimous opposition by Democrats to the president’s suspension.

We won. Gulf Coast workers won. President Bush is lifting his pay cut as of Nov. 8.

Now he must reinstate affirmative action requirements for contractors in the Gulf and end his attempts to slash programs for working families while adding new tax breaks for the rich—we’ll keep working on that and, of course, ask you to do your part.

You are a powerful force for working families. Thank you for restoring decent pay for Gulf Coast workers.

PUP Where We Belong

via LabourStart UK

http://www.worksmart.org.uk/downloads/pupwherewebelong.php

Wal-Mart Proposes Raising the Minimum Wage

from The Wall Street Journal

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Chief Executive Lee Scott, whose company has become synonymous with low prices and, critics say, low pay, called on Congress to consider raising the minimum wage.

In a speech to Wal-Mart directors and executives, Mr. Scott unveiled a series of initiatives designed to present a kinder, gentler face for the world's biggest retailer, which has come under stepped-up criticism for everything from its wages and benefits to its impact on small businesses.

Mr. Scott also discussed a new health-care package with lower premiums for Wal-Mart workers, and he touted the retailer's efforts to cut pollution.

Whether it is jobs, health care, product sourcing or environmental impact, "it is clear to me that in order to build a 21st century company, we need to view these same issues in a different light," Mr. Scott said in his speech yesterday. He added that he has spent the better part of last year exploring ways to use the company's heft and resources to have a more positive impact on society.

The proposal to lift minimum wage is particularly likely to raise eyebrows. Though Wal-Mart pays above the current $5.15 an hour minimum wage -- the average hourly wage among its 1.3 million U.S. workers is just under $10 an hour -- some of its smaller competitors don't pay as much. As a result, a boost in the minimum wage could pressure the profitability of Wal-Mart competitors.

"This makes it look like they're doing something for labor, but with little cost to themselves," says Lawrence Katz, professor of economics at Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

But Mr. Scott, noting that minimum wage hasn't changed in almost a decade, described Wal-Mart's core customer base as finding it increasingly difficult to afford basic necessities between paychecks.

"We simply believe it is time for Congress to take a look at the minimum wage and other legislation that can help working families," he said.

Mr. Scott delivered his speech on the eve of the company's annual two-day conference for analysts at its Bentonville, Ark., headquarters. Analysts likely will want to know how the company plans to achieve some of these goals while containing costs and jump- starting sales.

In energy-saving moves that will save Wal-Mart money, Mr. Scott said the company plans to increase the fuel efficiency of its truck fleet -- among the largest in the country -- by 25% in the next three years. It also will invest a total of $500 million annually exploring technological advances to reduce greenhouse gases 20% during the next seven years and sharing its findings with others, including competitors.

In addition, Wal-Mart said it will show preference to factories in China that participate in a "green company program" it is helping to design and to suppliers who address their own contribution to global warming.

"Wal-Mart now sees the need to raise environmental standards and that is promising, but will they adapt tough voluntary standards and press suppliers to do the same?" said Fred Krupp, president of the New York-based Environmental Defense, a large environmental group active in global-warming issues.

Mr. Krupp added: "If they do, it could be very big."

Critics also have taken Wal-Mart to task for its health benefits; less than half its workers are enrolled in a company-offered health plan, partially because of the cost of the premiums.

Mr. Scott elaborated on a new health-plan option for financially strapped workers. It costs approximately $23 a month for an individual, about $17 less than the cheapest previous plan. But workers will be covered for three visits to the doctor and three generic prescriptions under the new plan before a $1,000 deductible kicks in.

The previous plan required the deductible payment to be met first.

"They are simply repackaging an old bad policy and calling it a fairer plan," said Paul Blank, campaign director of WakeUpWalMart.com, an activist campaign run by the United Food and Commercial Workers.

Philly transit strike: Don't ignore union's argument

After reading many concerned letters to the Metro regarding a possible strike by SEPTA workers, it occurred to me that I was basically ignorant of the union's position on the matter. So I went to their website, located at www.twulocal234.com. According to the union's president, Jeffery Brooks--and contrary to SEPTA claims--his members have paid for health care all along, not only in terms of copays for hospital, doctor, and prescription privileges, but also by accepting reduced salary compensation (and numerous other concessions) in exchange for a strong health care plan. This paints a very different picture than the one commonly held of greedy bus drivers holding the city hostage because they think they are "better" than everyone else--a caricature that can be maintained only when we ignore their side of argument.

There is a dimension to the pro-life position which seems attractive to people because it puts them in a position of judgment over others, as if this alone is a solution.

One Party Removed from Totalitarianism

from A Tiny Revolution

I used to joke that the Soviet Union collapsed because they only had one communist party. They'd still be around if they'd been smart enough to have two communist parties that were exactly alike on every issue except abortion.

Pentagon Leaders Express Doubt over Iraq Occupation

from The Wall Street Journal

In a major shift, many American civilian and military leaders have concluded that the insurgency can only be defeated politically. The best way to take some steam out of the insurgency and boost the growth of a credible home-grown government is to begin withdrawing troops, these officials argue. To be sure, they don't want a precipitous withdrawal, but they think a lower profile over time would ease some problems.

The large American military presence in Iraq "feeds the notion of occupation" and "extends the amount of time that it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant," Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told Congress last week. Gen. John Abizaid, a fluent speaker of Arabic and the top American commander in the Middle East, said at the same hearing that it was vital for the U.S. to gradually "reduce our military footprint" in the region. "We must make clear to the people of the region that we have no designs on their territory and resources," he added.

Confronting Racism

It seems to me that those of us who are concerned with addressing racism in our society should begin by listening to the grievances of those who are most affected by it, and work to ensure that their opinions about what might help the situation are taken seriously. All too often I find the discussion turns to the preoccupations of white people over how things should be done, who should pay for what and under what conditions, objections to minority leadership, and large quantities of time and energy devoted to examining any inconveniences that may befall whites in pursuing such concerns. In other words, racism plays heavily in the efforts to address racism. This is why I think it's important to defer some authority to minority groups in coming up with the solutions that can best help them, with everyone else playing a supporting role.

Communists reemerge in Afghanistan, this time with US support?

from Boston.com (via Angry Arab)

Peter Dimitroff, the country director of the National Democratic Institute, a leading, mostly US-funded NGO, ''appreciates the irony in his organization's support for former communist groups. ''We support all registered parties, but we support some in a deeper fashion. We like groups that get together on the basis of ideas not ethnicity or geographical background. That is why we are supporting groups like the communists with US money, which is kind of funny . . . They are good guys and well organized. They are the closest to a professional political party you can get."

In the traditionalist and highly conservative Afghan political context, the former communists are openly ''women-friendly," fielding a sizeable number of female candidates. Given the party's gender equity policy, it is hardly surprising that some of the leading women on the political scene have a communist affiliation. And the female quota -- which stipulates that 25 percent of the parliamentary seats will have to be filled by women even though they make up only 10 percent of the candidates' pool -- will undoubtedly boost not only female but also communist representation in parliament.

Race and Katrina, cont.

I noticed the posting from Sept. 6th. It's been my feeling that the failings (at least in regards to dealing with post-Katrina) were class motivated rather then race motivated. I recognize that the majoritty of the poor are black, or hispanic. (And boy did they lose out, since there were no spanish language warnings issued at all.) Still my thoughts are that it's because they are poor not because of their race that they were ignored and left to die. I'm not ignoring the fact that racism caused poverty for minorities in the south and elsewhere, I just think that poverty is the bigger problem since the expectation was, "Issue the warning and people will evacuate themselves."

I agree with your observations; I simply presume that racism has an intrinsic class dimension; after all, you can't really talk about one without implying the other.

I don't believe the motivation behind the Katrina response-failure was anything other than a concerted lack of motivation. I think that's where racism played a central role: it was a situation where the people who suffered and died were predominantly poor and non-white, while those with the authority to help them were predominantly neither. As such, the outcome should not be entirely surprising. I don't think it needs to presuppose any conscious dislike for the poor or minorities. These groups simply have no voice in the executive branch as it is currently administered; subsequently their needs--in this case their lives--do not constitute a high priority unless some compelling political reason (e.g., scandal) can justify it.