I've been in Canada for a few days now, and life here is good. The only slight negative is that we're not going to get cable TV so I can't watch the NBA playoffs. I guess I could go to a sports bar, but I don't want to sit there for 2 hours and pay $6 for mediocre beer. All food and beverage is pretty expensive here actually. I'm going to my advisers' house for dinner tonight; every free meal is going to be quite helpful.
Speaking of lurching around like a worthless jackass, this seems to be a perfect summary of what the Democratic Party is all about. The key passage:
I think its very mendacity is the secret of its success. Crucially, it claims to offer an alternative -- however half-hearted and feeble -- to the utter, absolute, complete and comprehensive lordship of plutocracy. As crucially, it actually does nothing of the kind.
It's fundamentally just a matter of algebra. This is a country designed -- very ably and successfully designed -- to be ruled by an oligarchy of wealth. Yet public consent to this arrangement requires representing it as a democracy. The gap between representation and reality requires some term to fill it up and make the equation come out right.
That's the structural need the Democratic Party fills, and that, I think, is the explanation for its longevity. We've always needed something like like that -- some democratic cloak for our oligarchic nakedness -- and presumably we always will, at least until something changes in a big way. It's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it. Some institution must be built, and staffed with people who either don't mind the dirt, or can convince themselves it's not dirt at all.
He also comments of where Saint Obama and the Clintons fit into that scheme.
I'm starting basically a full time job this week doing some kind of research (details TBD) in the lab, so I'm not really sure what my blogging output will be. Also I'm using stolen wireless internet right now, so I don't know what my access will be at home until our own connection is installed (hopefully tomorrow).
The move is approaching quickly. Saturday we pick up the truck and start loading, and Tuesday morning we hit the road. I won't miss Ohio, though tomorrow night we're seeing Flight of the Conchords in Columbus.
McCain, Clinton, Obama, they all support this. And I'm supposed to concern myself about the lesser evil? Read all the gory details: the gang rapes of young women, the mutilation of children, the crushed testicles of men, and then realize that this is a course of action that all three of those monsters agree on. How hopelessly wrong is it that we obsess over the tiny differences between them while this is what is going on in the world? Fuck the media, fuck the candidates, fuck all of their wars, and fuck their worthless ballots.
Most of these "heroes," however, are dupes. They think they are fighting for our freedoms when instead they are helping to destroy our freedoms. They think they are retaliating for 9/11 when instead they are paving the way for another terrorist attack. They think they are preventing terrorism when instead they are making terrorists. They think they went to Iraq to fight al-Qaeda when instead al-Qaeda came to Iraq because of them. They think they are protecting Israel when instead they are contributing to increased hatred of Israel. They think that our cause is just when instead it violates every just war principle ever formulated. They think they are fighting injustice when instead they are committing a crime against the Iraqi people. They think they are defending the United States when instead they are helping to destroy it.
I don't quite agree with all of that, but its basic thrust is a point that needs to be made. US soldiers aren't heroes. They are murderers with uniforms and medals.
I listened to about half an hour of NPR while I was home and was disgusted. 20 minutes of it was spent analyzing exactly how black Obama is, and how that mattered for his electability. The "issues" were mentioned once, as something that Obama would like to run on, but there was concern that "the media" wouldn't let him. Gee, NPR, I wonder how that would happen?
The other 10 minutes were spent on how crazy and polarizing Jeremiah Wright is and what damage he is doing to the Obama campaign. No examination of what he says, of course. (Not that I care if Obama gets elected. His denunciations of Wright, with various lies packaged in, are pathetic and reveal him for what he really is, not that it wasn't already obvious.) I had a recent conversation about Wright with one of my more open-minded family members, who lamented how "divisive" he is, and yet seemed quite unaware of what the man has actually said. Gee, NPR, I wonder how that would happen?
For typically excellent writing about Wright/Obama check out Floyd and Silber.
I might comment more on this in a "why I won't vote" post, but check out the conversation here and at the post it links to. Is this the best the opposition has to offer?
War with Iran seems inevitable, as I've said for a while now. I really feel like I want to be out of here before it happens. I don't exactly know why. My moving date is in 11 days, so... hooray I'll be in complete comfort in a slightly different wealthy nation before thousands of people are senselessly slaughtered! That's the boundless narcissism this blog was built upon.
I've just returned from a trip home to the Maryland area. I have a lot of blog reading to catch up on. Regular bloggage will resume here at some point. In the meantime, read about me here or here.
When we first adopted our boys, we did a lot of research and decided on a diet similar to what Hodgkins recommends. My understanding is that much of the cat food industry is basically based on the idea that cats are the same as dogs. They aren't. Dogs are omnivores; cats are obligate carnivores. Their systems aren't meant to ingest large amounts of grain, and health complications result. We're convinced the best diet for our cats would be a raw diet that includes organ meat and ground bone (good for dental health), but for now we use a high quality canned food that is mostly protein and fat. It is a bit more expensive than cheap dry food, but even by cold hard economic reasoning we figure in the long run it will save vet expenses.
It seems like most veterinarians don't know much about these dietary concerns, which isn't too surprising since they sell the mass-produced dry food in their lobbies. So you might never have even heard about this issue. Do some research and make good decisions for your cats!
update: Kira posted about our food decisions as we were going through it. That post was before we fully figured things out, and we've been using Innova Evo for a long time now. We're considering another switch in the near future.
The vast majority of the American people are victims of the elites who control us. We're crushed by economic and social policy that atomize and dehumanize us, and we're subject to massive propaganda campaigns that misinform us and make a clear understanding of the system almost impossible. A lot of political commentary, including much of my own I'm sure, tends to despair about the quality of a people who could let their nation reach its current state. "Americans are fat, stupid, arrogant, and apathetic." Maybe a lot of that is true, and if it is, it is true in large part because of the concerted efforts of a narrow but dominant segment of the population. Our freedom - to speak our minds, to organize ourselves, to spend our time as we choose, to work, to think, to make meaningful decisions about our own lives - is limited. Private and public tyrannies have extensive control over just about everything we do.
People under stress, captive people, often do stupid things, which doesn't excuse them, but it is important not to lose sight of the big picture. Remove those stresses, the shackles, and most of those problems go away and the recovery can begin.
I think this might push me over the edge towards rooting for Hillary over Obama. They're almost completely indistinguishable, but one might result in massively lower voter turn-out, which is the only realistic victory I can hope for.
"Aren't you afraid? The gods might send you down to some terrible hell for all the evil you've done."
"What evil?" He laughed. "What gods?"
"The gods who made us all."
"All?" he mocked. "Tell me, little bird, what kind of god makes a monster like the Imp, or a halfwit like Lady Tanda's daughter? If there are gods, they made sheep so wolves could eat mutton, and they made the weak for the strong to play with."
"True knights protect the weak."
He snorted. "There are no true knights, no more than there are gods. If you can't protect yourself, die and get out of the way of those who can. Sharp steel and strong arms rule the world, don't ever believe any different."
Sansa backed away from him. "You're awful."
"I'm honest. It's the world that is awful. Now fly away, little bird, I'm sick of you peeping at me."
Wordless, she fled. She was afraid of Sandor Clegane... and yet, some part of her wished that Ser Dontos had a little of the Hound's ferocity. There are gods, she told herself, and there are true knights too. All the stories can't be lies.
Katsu, Hattori, and Horus (from left to right). This was a pause in the middle of a massive three-way fight. Hattori is on his back because Katsu is about to pounce on him. Hattori will throw him off, and Katsu will retreat to the kitchen, strategically leaving Horus in between himself and Hattori. So Hattori will attack Horus, who will run frightened into the back room and hide under the bed.
He climbed up here today for the first time, and he's spent most of the day up there. For him to climb so high is a huge deal. He spent the first month mostly sneaking around the house in a low crouch when he dared leave his hiding spots, and we were so excited when he started to walk in an upright position. So now exploring vertical space seems like such a major breakthrough. If I were to walk further into that room, he'd definitely jump down and hide under the bed though.
The other day he came out to the main room and took a nap with me sitting a few feet away. That he's willing to lower his guard around us is big. He's started climbing that structure he's sleeping under here as well. Usually he gets near the top, then gets scared and runs away.
This picture was taken about a year ago. It is a nice contrast to the next one.
Hattori has lost a lot of weight, and Katsu has grown so much. But they still love looking out the windows and I spared you the sight of my ugly feet.
I haven't done a rambling bulleted blog post in a long time. Well I just enjoyed a delicious Bell's Hopslam and a heaping helping of stir-fried veggies and rice, and the full belly and 10% ABV IPA have inspired me.
I just got back from a 4 day trip to Canada to line up an apartment. We found one we both like, but now we're realizing that our application includes barely any income, no recent job history, no Canadian bank accounts or credit history, and my 3 convicted felonies. So we're hoping to somehow work all that out.
Canada is just a nicer place than this country. You notice this as soon as you cross the border. Their road signs are like "Hey pal, please drive safely! It makes everyone happy!" In the US the same sign is "ATTENTION INSIGNIFICANT PROLES: YOUR SPEED IS MONITORED BY RADAR AND AIRCRAFT. IMMEDIATE PRISON FOR VIOLATORS. WE WILL TASER YOUR GENITALS TOO." And everyone you talk to anywhere up there is friendly and soft-spoken. And all the women are beautiful (but virtuous) and the streets are paved with candy and diamonds.
I've been rather overwhelmed by emotions over the last couple weeks as the impending move is starting to feel more real. I'm very excited about it in lots of ways, but I'm conflicted because I somewhat feel like I'm running away from problems too. Maybe I'll dig more into that some other time. Or maybe it will be a later bullet.
I still can't quite believe how well this whole grad school thing worked out for me. I honestly still don't quite know how I got my advisers to accept me. And then this week they put us up in their home for our visit. These are people who a few months ago I just knew as legends in the field, and next thing I know I'm accepted to their lab and crashing at their place. And I didn't even know if I'd get into grad school anywhere. It is just very weird and hard to process.
The Lakers are so much better than it seems like they should be. And Denver isn't as good as people think they should be. Lakers in 5.
Horus has been making huge strides the last few weeks. He regularly hangs out around us, and loves playing with a lot of toys. He and Katsu play together very nicely, and Hattori is getting a lot better with shy Horus too. Horus is starting to climb and jump up above ground level more often (we have various cat-climbing things around), and he's even taken a couple naps in human-occupied beds. He still won't consent to be petted, but if you try to touch his head now he sometimes will swat at your hand with his claws retracted. So he's just giving you a playful high-five instead of shredding your hand. He does a lot of chattering to himself in his pathetic-sounding meow voice. Good times with feline #3.
I have to say something political right? Umm... Whatever. Fuck everyone.
There is an amazing sushi place about a 10 or 15 minute walk from the apartment we want. It is kind of expensive though. That's going to be a problem.
We'd have a dishwasher in that apartment. Holy shit that will be awesome. I estimate we spend an average of 20 to 30 minutes per day doing dishes now, so that will be a massive time savings. Not to mention we'll probably use a lot less water that way, which is only noteworthy for environmental reasons, as our rent will include water.
I just watched this 70 minute film, and I don't even know what to say. One thing that really shocked me was seeing television coverage of the early part of the Iraq invasion again. The glorification of the violence was sickening beyond my ability to express.
Bush: I supported the troops by lying to them. Wouldn't you do the same?
Hey, asshole, if you're so worried about morale, here's an idea. Don't fucking send them to invade and occupy a country that doesn't want them there. Don't extend their tours indefinitely. Don't send broken men back into battle and hide their wounded comrades in roach-infested shitboxes. Don't put them in situations where torturing and slaughtering innocent civilians is bound to happen. Don't blame their PTSD on preexisting condition and make them repay their signing bonuses. Bring them all home, and make sure their medical and psychiatric care is fully funded.
Nobody gets elected without proclaiming a belief in an imaginary sky daddy. This means they either have a fundamental inability to understand the world around them, or they're willing to lie to the nation they aspire to purportedly serve. These aren't qualities of someone I'd want leading an organization that controls the entire world by force. Every candidate sucks.
Of course I don't think anyone should be leading an organization that controls the entire world, so the real role religion plays in this "why I won't vote" story is illustrating what a farce elections and governments are. We claim to value separation of church and state, claim to value a system of government where there is no religious test for public office, yet make a mockery of that notion every election season.
I won't analyze here what role the population and the media gatekeepers each play in this hypocrisy. But the whole process is an elaborate ritual, with everyone playing their part, that accords religion far more respect than it deserves, thereby giving superstition far too great an influence in decisions that have profound impact on all of us. I won't play my part. I won't vote.
"Support the troops" is simple sounding phrase that encompasses multiple layers of complicated bullshit. Anyone bothering to read my thoughts on the matter knows that fascist warmongers conflate any criticism of war with criticism of soldiers. And criticism of soldiers is the ultimate sin, so the standard response is that the criticism is directed at the civilians at the top of government who are making the choices to go to war, and maybe at some of the top generals, but certainly no maligning of the average 19 year old marine is intended.
Well I say fuck that. Why should I support any of them? I know that a large portion of the US Armed forces came from poor backgrounds and saw the military as a way out of a shitty situation. I know they've been deceived and intimidated and subject to various other shit that renders them sympathetic figures, pawns of the really evil people. But what they're doing on a daily basis in Iraq is fucking wrong, no matter how much they believe they're somehow defending my freedom. I don't support that. If that means I don't support them, then so be it.
But there are some troops I do support. I support EhrenWatada, a commissioned Army officer who refused deployment to Iraq. He did so knowing he could face a court-martial and years in prison. His case is currently working through some complicated legal procedures.
I support Matthew Diaz, a Navy lawyer who illegally sent a list of names of Guantanamo detainees to a civil rights lawyer. He did it because he knew the the Bush administration's refusal to provide such a list to the Red Cross was a crime against humanity. He served 6 months in jail, emerging jobless and bankrupt. The Pentagon is actively seeking to have him disbarred.
So Watada and Diaz are some brave troops who are actually fighting for something worthwhile. There are others like them who deserve support and respect. The rest of the sheep in Iraq may be brave, but their actions are immoral and not worthy of my support. However, here's how I would like to see them supported. I'd like all of them to be brought home immediately. Every wounded soldier should receive excellent medical care, and every soldier should receive excellent psychiatric care. Lots of it.
And then every crime they committed against innocent civilians should be investigated. "I'm just following orders" is not a defense for war crimes. Every solider who took part in those crimes should be prosecuted, though I would hope for some leniency for the more sympathetic and contrite figures. And if people higher in the chain of command are willing to plea guilty in exchange for more leniency for those under their command, I'd support that too.
More evidence of the Bush administration's crimes comes to light every day it seems like, lately with this Yoo torture documents, and every day Congress fails to do a damn thing about any of it. Every member of Congress should be doing everything they can to initiate impeachment and criminal trials. If Obama or Hillary (or McCain) were such great fucking leaders, worthy of the powers they seek, they'd be leading that fucking charge. But of course they won't.
And you want to vote for one of them?
Oh, that's right, somehow it is bad strategy for Democrats to try to impeach, because it would be so fucking divisive, which could cost them the chance to take the reins. That's way more important.
Adspar I'd like to see a post on what the options are for people who, like yourself, have principled objections to the laws they are subjected to. I know you're moving to Canada (and believe me, I have a lot of respect for someone who's really willing to move rather than support a regime they don't agree with), but I have the suspicion (given your recent anarchist bent) that Canada won't really scratch your political itch (even though it will be much better). What does one do when there is no nation (or region for non-statists) where one can go to that is well-aligned with one's own political ideals?
I'll start off with a few links that do a better job of answering the question than I will:
Next I'll note that previous posts here have offered answers to the question. I've tagged some of them with "Raging Against the Machine" to make them easier to find. There are probably more posts in the archives that deserve that tag, so I'll add them as I come across them.
I really would recommend reading the material at all of those links, but here are my own thoughts on the matter without any quoting of those other people or my previous entries.
---
The first thing you need to do, after recognizing the set of problems we're confronted with, is to realize two key points. 1) You're going to be confronted with these problems in almost all aspects of life on a daily basis, and 2) that you aren't going to solve these problems. There's no magical catharsis here. So the way I see it, all anyone can do is make the best of things, which involves some combination of fight and flight. Some of my suggestions for each are below.
Fight (a.k.a. disrupt the system)
Learn as much as you can about these problems, and speak about what you learn to anyone who will listen (and some people who won't). Spread the message. Knowledge is power. Raise awareness. Educate. Advocate. Inspire. All that shit. It matters.
Call things what they really are. Up isn't down; black isn't white. Don't let words become meaningless. The US Military isn't fighting a war in Iraq; they're occupiers. America isn't a" democracy" in any meaningful sense. The Department of Defense doesn't defend; the Department of Education doesn't educate; the Homeland Security Department doesn't make us more secure; the Department of Justice doesn't provide justice. Intelligent design isn't science. There's nothing conservative about neo-conservatism, and there's nothing liberal about neo-liberalism. Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama aren't anti-war. John McCain isn't a straight-shooter. Public Relations is propaganda. The Bible is a work of fiction. Declaring "war" on an abstract noun or certain kinds of chemicals literally makes no sense. The President of the United States is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution, not the nation. NAFTA isn't a "Free" "Trade" "Agreement." Collateral damage means innocent people were slaughtered. Enhanced interrogation techniques means fucking torture. Call things what they really are. Words mean something, and have tremendous power. The lies stop at you.
Paper currency passes through your hands on a daily basis. It could look different when it leaves your possession. Lots of other people will see it. For example, should religious messages be legible on government-issued money?
There's an important day for the federal government coming up in 11 days. You probably don't want to risk large fines or imprisonment, but aren't few little innocent mistakes bound to happen in such a confusing process?
Minimize: driving, taxable income, electricity usage, non-essential purchases, paper trails, interaction with illegitimate authorities (including voting for them), processed food consumption, television, religion.
Flight (a.k.a. enjoy life responsibly)
You'll never find a perfect place, but you can move some place more in line with your ideals, a place where you can be more comfortable with the consequences of your daily decisions. Keep fighting when you get there.
Immerse yourself in an occupation or hobby (one that doesn't compromise your principles).
Have sex.
Buy as much of your food as possible from local and sustainable farms. Experiment with new recipes. Eat slowly.
Self-medicate.
Play sports. Go camping. Listen to music. Adopt a pet. Take a walk. Read a book. Join a club.
Keep in mind that flight is actually a fight strategy too. You're leading by example, demonstrating that people can be more happy and healthy outside of the fucked up system.
Perhaps the most important factor in my decision not to vote is that democracy is a sham in the United States. Business interests, not popular opinion, control the machinery of government, regardless of which button we push every four years (I'll leave a discussion of how votes literally don't even count for another entry). Elections are an elaborate charade providing the illusion of choice, but issues of public concern are carefully avoided. The policies enacted by our federal government are widely opposed by the public, and yet incumbents rarely lose congressional elections. As a result of the way campaigns are conducted, with the mind-melting techniques of the public relations industry, public awareness of the positions of candidates on issues is abysmally low, while voters increasingly cite "character" or "values" as the reason for their selections. (Here's what I think about the character and values of politicians.)
To quote Noam Chomsky's discussion of public opinion and public policy in his 2006 book Failed States:
A large majority of the public believe that the United States should accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the World Court, sign the Kyoto protocols, allow the United Nations to take the lead in international crisis, and rely on diplomatic and economic measures more than military ones in the "war on terror." Similar majorities believe the United States should resort to force only if there is "strong evidence that the country is in imminent danger of being attacked," thus rejecting the bipartisan consensus on "preemptive war" and adopting the rather conventional interpretation of the UN Charter reiterated by the UN's High-level Panel of December 2004 and the UN World Summit a year later. A small majority of the population even favors giving up Security Council vetoes, so that the United States would follow the UN's lead even if it is not the preference of the US state managers. On domestic issues, overwhelming majorities favor expansion of government programs: primarily health care (80 percent), but also funding for education and Social Security. Similar results on domestic issues have long been found in these studies conducted by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations (CCFR). As noted, other mainstream polls report that large majorities support guaranteed health care, even if it would raise taxes. Not only does the US government stand apart from the rest of the world on many crucial issues, but even from its own population.
I refuse to support this system and add to the illusion of its legitimacy. I won't vote.
I've long thought that the only appropriate approach to any election is for people to say what their positions are, what they'd be likely to do if they gain the position, and basically offer their services if the voters decide their approach is best. In other words, people could agree to serve if selected, but wouldn't be trying to win by doing what they think people want. The ideal scenario would be a member of a community reluctantly agreeing to submit himself for consideration at the urging of his peers who believe he'd be a great leader.
Think about every class election you ever saw in school. Did anyone run because they wanted to represent the student body and make sure that their interests were served? Did they genuinely believe that they had a unique and crucial ability to perform this task better than any of their competitors? Of course not. They ran because they were ambitious. They wanted to be popular, or to improve their college application, or make sure the prom could be how they wanted it to be, or whatever other benefits they'd reap. So they said things that they thought people would want to hear.
National elections are the same way, except the ones running are the most ambitious from a group of 300,000,000 instead of a group of 300. By my math that makes them a million times more ambitious. And they aren't competing to see who gets to pick the time of the pep rally; they're trying be the general manager of the largest empire, equipped with the most lethal machinery, in the history of civilization. To even get anywhere close to a position where they have even the slightest shot at running for president, they had to have contorted, conspired, compromised, cheated, lied, backtracked, betrayed, bought off, threatened, punished, and perverted themselves in ways I can't even imagine. And then repeated all of that again after breakfast until lunch. And then again until dinner, and after dinner until bed. And then keep it up continually over several decades. These are the kinds of people I'm supposed to support with my vote?
[V]oters are also right to feel that something is phony about democratic politics and that it's getting worse. Even a candidate who agrees with you on all important issues and always has—no dreaded flip-flops—is forced by the conventions of politics to be disingenuous about at least one core issue: why he or she is running.
Ladies and gentlemen, they are running because they are ambitious. No, really, they are. You probably suspected as much. And yet you would abandon any candidate who dared to admit this, or at least they all believe that you would...[T]he purest form of ambition is political ambition, because it represents a desire to rule over other people.
When you hear the presidential candidates carrying on about democracy and freedom, do you ever wonder what they would be saying if they had been born into societies with different values? What if Mitt Romney had come to adulthood in Nazi Germany? What if Hillary Clinton had gone to Moscow State University and married a promising young apparatchik? What if BarackObama had been born in Kenya, like his father, where even now people are slaughtering one another over a crooked election? Which of them would be the courageous dissidents, risking their lives for the values they talk about freely—in every sense—on the campaign trail? And which would be playing the universal human power game under the local rules, whatever they happened to be?
Without naming names, I believe that most of them would be playing the game. What motivates most politicians, especially those running for President, is closer to your classic will-to-power than to a deep desire to reform the health-care system.
Like most installments in this series, the ambition issue doesn't stand on its own as a make-or-break point in opposition of voting. It basically just falls into what will probably be a common category: why every candidate sucks. I'm extremely reluctant to support candidates who suck. The most viciously ambitious people usually suck a whole lot, and our system is designed to filter only the most supremely viciously ambitious people into contention for national office.
I'd like to write a series of posts reflecting on why I generally refuse to vote. This seems to be a controversial issue, so I hope people will join the conversation in the comments. I hope my arguments will be persuasive, but my writing style tends to reflect my primary goal of figuring out what is right. I'll try to be polite and considerate and whatnot, but I don't intend to shy away from indelicate truths.
I'll say up front that I'll be talking primarily about federal elections, mainly Presidential though Congressional should be basically the same. State and local elections are somewhat different, I'll note specifically if I'm including them in the discussion.
I'll credit the following for contributing greatly to my thoughts on this topic and various matters that will enter the discussion:
This of course is not to say that I agree with all of their views or that they'd agree with everything I'll say, just that they've been very influential to my thinking.
People who supported the invasion of Iraq were fatuous, bloodthirsty, ahistorical, immoral, politically naive, callous, unthinking, reprehensible morons--to the man. The proper attitude is contrition, silence, and contemplation.
I frequently think back on the multitude of profound failings that led to my supporting what I supported (albeit a disinterested and inactive support). Michael Shermer says that "smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons," which I suppose is part of the explanation. For some "weird things" that might even be comforting, allowing me to still think of myself as smart, and to shift the blame to my environment. I just adopted the views of my tribe without adequately examining them. No big deal. But this wasn't just some silly squabble about which sport is more exciting or whose imaginary friend is better. Real lives were at stake. I was not just callous, fatuous, naive (those charges I could live with); I was bloodthirsty and immoral. I remember thinking that war was exciting and that hunting down Saddam was, like, fucking awesome! If a few innocent people happened to get in the way, well, whatever.
Reprehensible isn't a strong enough word for what I was. I don't know if I'll ever get over that. And now expressing that feeling sounds like unforgivably pathetic whining compared to the pain of the families of over a million dead Iraqis and the unfathomable human suffering unleashed by an invasion that I cheered on. Woe is me with my wounded pride, my scarred ego, and my guilty conscience, right? I guess that's why my contemplation and contrition should be done in silence.
Since I've gotten started blogging about shit, I might as well keep going. Advance apologies for the prolonged analogy, but it serves a purpose.
I was recently chastised for being too critical of Obama and not sufficiently critical of McCain, thus supporting a McCain presidency. I thought I'd made my opinion of each candidate fairly clear, but let me clarify.
John McCain is a warmongering idiot who will say or do anything at all to increase his power, and is probably starting to become senile. Of the three remaining candidates, the thought of a McCain presidency is probably (but not certainly) the worst.
Barrack Obama is an elegant and charismatic speaker whose lofty rhetoric almost disguises the overwhelming similarities between him and McCain. Obama has demonstrated no principled objection to McCain-style warmongering, and has shown that he too will say or do anything at all to increase his power. He'll just do it more smoothly. Of the three remaining candidates, the thought of an Obama presidency is probably (but not certainly) the least offensive to me.
So that's my position on those guys. So, why the focus on Obama criticism? It is a function of the audience I'm addressing. In regards to my blog posts, I don't imagine that I need to convince many of my readers that McCain is a lunatic (though I've made that point repeatedly, just not very recently.) The same logic applies to personal communication. I just assume that this position is well established. John McCain the presidential candidate is a big steaming pile of shit.
Why criticize Obama so much if he seems to be the best of the viable candidates? Because he's still a terrible candidate! Obama the presidential candidate is a big steaming pile of shit, but with a slight sprinkle of deodorizing baking soda on top. This is a point that I believe needs to be made loudly and often, and the idea that this is de facto support for McCain can only come from a mind so beholden to power as to fail to recognize that an individual has more than two fixed choices on election day. I'm a fucking anarchist, not a fucking Republican. Yes, Republicans and I have a common interest in not wanting an Obama presidency. But Democrats have far more in common with Republicans than I do: both of them want huge steaming piles of shit in the most powerful office in the history of the world, but one of them prefers the huge steaming pile of shit that smells a slight bit less shitty. I don't want a pile of shit at all! And while I'll certainly get one, I'm not going to vote for one, and I'm not going to be shy about complaining how much it stinks.
This shitty post might serve as a good prequel to a series I'm thinking about writing on the topic of why I won't be voting. But I'll leave you with this last stinking nugget for today. If everyone who didn't want a steaming pile of shit refused to eat it, instead of eating the least stinky one, what would happen? Or conversely, what happens when people who don't want a pile of shit will continually eat shit anyway, if that is all they are offered? Is there any chance they'll be offered anything else?
It occurred to me today that I'd much rather be in a bidet culture than a toilet paper culture. I suppose that might be kind of elitist but they can't be that much more expensive than toilet paper, right? This thought is brought to you by a Chipotle chicken fajitas burrito with hot salsa.
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.
But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.
Check out this excellent piece by David Bromwich in the New York Review of Books about how the US Government and news media's use of obfuscatory language has helped keep our national conscience from acknowledging our violent crimes throughout the world.
"But analysts said it was clear that JPMorgan Chase was getting an extraordinary bargain, buying Bear Stearns at a tiny fraction of its market value just one week ago, and with the Fed shielding it from much of the risk."
15. CNN. American news has become so shamelessly propagandistic and idiotic that today, a blatant White House propaganda tool like CNN is considered "liberal" simply because it's gotten a wee bit squeamish over the whole Iraq debacle, as compared to FOX, which, like the gang in Hitler's bunker, is still issuing cheerful dispatches about inevitable victory in Iraq. Then there's Lou Dobbs, the guy with the freakish child molester face who transformed himself from neoliberal "New Economy" tool into a sleazy Mexican-bashing rat. This is what passes for a "liberal media" in the United Embarrassment of America.
Checka, checka, check it out They load the clip in omnicolour Said they pack the 9, they fire it at prime time Sleeping gas, every home was like Alcatraz And mutha fuckas lost their minds
No escape from the mass mind rape Play it again jack and then rewind the tape And then play it again and again and again Until ya mind is locked in Believin' all the lies that they're tellin' ya Buyin' all the products that they're sellin' ya They say jump and ya say how high Ya brain-dead Ya gotta fuckin' bullet in ya head
Just victims of the in-house drive-by They say jump, you say how high Just victims of the in-house drive-by They say jump, you say how high
Uggh! Yeah! Yea!
Ya standin' in line Believin' the lies Ya bowin' down to the flag Ya gotta bullet in ya head
Ya standin' in line Believin' the lies Ya bowin' down to the flag Ya gotta bullet in ya head
I'm sad that The Wire is ending tonight, but I'm looking forward to the finale. This last season has been a notch below the previous 4, though that is a lofty standard. If we're lucky, we'll get a Wire movie in a few years.
A while back I mentioned an interest in home schooling, but haven't directly followed up on it since. I haven't done much more research specifically about home schooling, but I've done a significant amount of reading and reflection about learning and the function of institutionalized education.
When I first contemplated home schooling, one of the first drawbacks I considered was about socialization. How would the kids learn how to interact with people? It is a very common concern, but I imagine almost all of the people who share this concern have one thing in common: they went to standard schools. Since that's where they (we) had their (our) first social experiences, it is hard for us to even imagine growing up in a different environment.
My sister sent me a great essay about this topic of socialization in institutional schooling that makes several great points. Exactly what does this oh-so-important "socialization" process actually teach kids? That they have to stick with people of exactly their own age? That you should sit indoors, bored out of your mind, being forced to pay attention to some subject you don't care about? That you shouldn't talk to your friends or make jokes in that situation? That you have to keep interacting with the same asshole that you don't get along with every fucking day because that's the way the seating chart is assigned?
Basically my position now is that I see little of value in the traditional education system that couldn't be better achieved through alternative methods. And I see lots of things in the standard school system that are extremely negative, aside from what I mentioned above. In my recent post over at Inertia Anonymous, considering how academic success is largely measured by test scores, I wrote:
Well what do tests measure except the ability to tell authority figures what they want to hear, to regurgitate information that we committed to short-term memory simply to earn the approval of the authorities, to jump through fucking monkey hoops just to see a shining "A" on the "report card" that the school authorities sent out to other school authorities (not to mention our home life authorities.)
Institutional schools are class societies. The ruling class makes the rules and enforces them cruelly. They control information and tell you what you can believe. They allow you a certain amount of freedom amidst your drudgery, and you spend your whole days looking forward to it, but they always remind you that this is a privilege that they can revoke at any time. The lower class must obey the rules, or else they are punished. They must stand in lines and tell the authorities what they want to hear. They are prevented from doing what they naturally want to do, and forced to do mundane tasks for no apparent reason. They must stick within their own groups in the lower class, groups formed arbitrary conventions like age and name, with little regard for personality, interest, or ability. Sure you sometimes have honors classes, debate teams, or a sophomore on the varsity soccer squad, but these are exceptions and afterthoughts (that suit the needs of the ruling class, who have their own rulers they must answer to).
I don't even have a kid, and it makes me queasy just thinking about putting a child through that if there are better ways to raise them. I don't know that that makes homeschooling the default alternative. I could imagine a variety of alternatives to mainstream schools, involving various combinations of formal and informal opportunities.
Back in October I picked up a bottle of Trappist Achel Extra at Whole Foods for $12. That's pretty expensive for 750ml of beer, so this is a rare luxury indulgence. It is definitely an outstanding beer, even at that price. Beer Advocate calls it a Belgian Strong Dark Ale, although some commented that it should be considered a Quadrupel. Some beer styles tend to overlap, and I could see how this one could be a borderline case. Anyway, those are two of my favorite styles, so I had been looking forward to trying it. An icy Ohio night seemed like as good a time as any for it, and it didn't disappoint.
It pours a deep amber brown with a creamy tan head that fades to a frothy cap. The aroma is very Belgian and dark, a complex bouquet of dark fruits, caramel malt, candy sugar, and spices. The complexity of the smell carries into the taste. It is surprisingly crisp with some tart fruitiness, balanced with a roasted coffee and caramel malt presence. The Belgian spices are prominent throughout, and some slight hops profile shows up in the aftertaste, quenching and leaving you wanting another sip. This beer is very smooth, and the 9.5% ABV can really sneak up on you.
Strongly recommend it if you're willing to pay extra for an amazing brew. Here's one thing that monks can do right!
So the story is that Greg Oden (the #1 selection in last year's NBA draft who is sitting out this year due to injury) had a brief conversation with Obama that didn't touch on politics, and like a day later, Oden decides to officially endorse Obama. All I hear is how great this is, and that it will inspire young people to vote.
I say the whole episode shows how bankrupt the entire system is. The kid basically admits he knows nothing about politics, but all these media freak celebrate that he's nonetheless willing to jump in blindly. Hooray for mindless conformity! Hooray for directionless participation in a farcical system designed to provide the illusion of democracy! But what else are the media freaks going to say? They're a key part of the system; they wouldn't be in the positions they're in if they didn't think this way.
I feel kind of bad picking on Oden. He only had this mass audience because he's good at a silly game that everyone loves (myself included). That he doesn't know more about politics isn't really his fault. The true nature of the system is carefully obscured from people who aren't trying very hard to figure it out. And now that he poked his head out and received lavish praise for licking the boots of power, he'll probably only do more and better licking. That's what is rewarded.
What We Say Goes: Conversations on U.S. Power in a Changing World This is a collection of interviews from the last couple years, so it hits a variety of topics but not in great depth. His writing style can take getting used to, but the conversational nature makes this one of the more accessible Chomsky books I've read. Or maybe I'm just more open to his ideas now so they are easier to process.
In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto Very good stuff here, though I'd recommend Pollan's last book, The Omnivore's Dilemma, more highly. I enjoyed especially a discussion of the cultural evolution aspect of traditional cuisine.
Hope for the Flowers Also wasn't on the original list, but it only takes 30 minutes to read. Kind of a children's picture book for adults, or something like that. My sister loved it, and gave Kira a copy. Good for inspiration when you need that.
The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution I was way off in my initial assessment that I was halfway through this. I was no more than a quarter of the way in. Now I'm probably 2/3 finished. Reading this is kind of like watching a good nature documentary on PBS. I learned that axolotls are awesome.
The Moral Animal: Why We Are, the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology This wasn't on the original list, but I decided to reread this book before my grad school interviews. It has been about 3 years since I read it first, and I've had some pretty significant intellectual growth since then, so I wanted to reprocess the information from my new perspective. I'm most of the way through it now, and I think I am indeed seeing it in a new way. I'll leave it at that for now, except to say that this is a great book that was crucial to the development of my thinking.
Plus I picked up these last four at a discount book store in Columbus. I don't know how good they're supposed to be, but they were like $5 each and cover subjects of interest to me.
The defining issue of modernity is control of women's fertility. It is this question – more than religion, politics, economics or the "clash of civilizations" – that forms the deepest dividing line in the world today. It is a line than cuts through every nation, every people, from the highest level of organized society down to, in many cases, the divided minds and emotions of individual men and women.
Control of fertility – and its active principle, sexuality – has always been an organizing principle of human society, of course, but modernity has presented the world with a revolutionary concept that overthrows millennia of received wisdom and tradition: namely, that an individual woman should control her own fertility. This notion destabilizes state structures and religious dogmas, and uproots cultural mores whose origins reach back to prehistoric times. It is a profoundly disturbing development in the life of humankind.
I don't know if I'd call control of female fertility "the defining issue of modernity" though I suppose it has a strong case. And advances in birth control and abortion technologies have certainly brought much controversy, and much tragedy as power centers seek to control the use of these technologies:
Chillingly, as the Lancet paper shows, there is no relationship between the legality and the incidence of abortion. Women with no access to contraceptives will try to terminate unwanted pregnancies. A World Health Organisation report shows that almost half the world's abortions are unauthorised and unsafe. In East Africa and Latin America, where religious conservatives ensure that terminations remain illegal, they account for almost all abortions. Methods include drinking turpentine or bleach, shoving sticks or coathangers into the uterus, and pummelling the abdomen, which often causes the uterus to burst, killing the patient. The WHO estimates that between 65,000 and 70,000 women die as a result of illegal abortions every year, while 5 million suffer severe complications. These effects, the organisation says, "are the visible consequences of restrictive legal codes".
Using state power to ban abortion doesn't save fetuses, it kills women.
Floyd also discusses the role of religion in this whole mess. Suprise: there are more abortions where there's more religion.
What organization rakes in the cash by exploiting the poor and making extravagant claims that never come true? What business is built entirely on mass marketing and dishonest advertising, and yet is never called into account for its failure? It isn't the tobacco companies or the makers of penis enlargement drugs — it's religion. - PZ
Ricky Gervais is the comic mastermind behind The Office (the BBC comedy on which the NBC sitcom is based) and the HBO comedy Extras. Here's his story about becoming an atheist. I'd highlight the same 2 paragraphs as PZ:
Wow. No God. If Mum had lied to me about God, had she also lied to me about Santa? yes, but who cares? The gifts kept coming. And so did the gifts of my newfound atheism. The gifts of truth, science, nature. The real beauty of this world. Not a world by design, but one by chance. I learned of evolution—a theory so simple and obvious that only England's greatest genius could have come up with it. Evolution of plants, animals, and us—with imagination, free will, love and humor. I no longer needed a reason for my existence, just a reason to live. And imagination, free will, love, humor, fun, music, sports, beer, and pizza are all good enough reasons for living.
But living an honest life—for that you need the truth. That's the other thing I learned that day, that the truth, however shocking or uncomfortable, in the end leads to liberation and dignity.
So we wanted to give him a badass Japanese name like Lord Katsumoto or Hattori Hanzo, but we'd been calling him "Horace" for so long that we were finding it difficult to call him anything else, even a name like Wallace that sounded similar. We solved that problem when we discovered Horus, the Egyptian sky or sun god. If any feline ever looked like the sun, it is this guy. And it has been pointed out that Horus was a pagan archetype for Jesus, with numerous similar life events. So we're set with that name now.
He's been making lots of progress lately. He's spending more and more time out from his hiding places (see picture), letting us come a bit closer before he gets scared, playing with toys, eating treats from our hands, and letting us rub his neck and back while he eats. He still runs away though if you make a sudden movement, or loom near him, or make a loud noise. In a few more weeks maybe he'll be napping on my lap.
We haven't seen any more strays near our house since we brought Horus in. We see lots of them all around town though, so I'm guessing that maybe when the weather warms up they'll start to expand into new territory.
Noam Chomsky had this dialog in a 1976 interview with the BBC's Peter Jay. (You can listen to the entire interview on YouTube. The question begins around 7:38 of the clip below, which is part 5 of the 5 part series.)
QUESTION: How far does the success of libertarian socialism or anarchism really depend on a fundamental change in the nature of man, both in his motivation, his altruism, and also in his knowledge and sophistication?
CHOMSKY: I think it not only depends on it but in fact the whole purpose of libertarian socialism is that it will contribute to it. It will contribute to a spiritual transformation -- precisely that kind of great transformation in the way humans conceive of themselves and their ability to act, to decide, to create, to produce, to enquire -- precisely that spiritual transformation that social thinkers from the left-Marxist traditions, from Luxembourg, say, through anarcho-syndicalists, have always emphasized. So, on the one hand, it requires that spiritual transformation. On the other hand, its purpose is to create institutions which will contribute to that transformation in the nature of work, the nature of creative activity, simply in social bonds among people, and through this interaction of creating institutions which permit new aspects of human nature to flourish. And then the building of still more libertarian institutions to which these liberated human beings can contribute. This is the evolution of socialism as I understand it.
Jay asks about three characteristic of humanity: knowledge, sophistication, and "the nature of man." His interest in the latter is specific to the nature of man's motivation and altruism. The question is whether Chomsky's preferred social structure, anarcho-syndicalism, would require changes in those three characteristics to be successful.
I agree with Chomsky that a change in man's knowledge and sophistication would both be needed for and brought about by the success of such social system, but I disagree with his inclusion of human nature in this list. Now I can't object too strongly to his full response, because his elaboration is entirely about the social environment, and I certainly agree that humans will behave differently as social structures change. He glossed over the human nature part and talked about a "spiritual transformation" which would be a social/cultural characteristic.
I'd like to comment a bit more on my understanding of human nature, because I think it is a useful elaboration on Chomsky's point.
What motivates our behaviors is somewhat programmed by our genes, and somewhat influenced by our environment. Roughly speaking, our genes program us to seek out certain kinds of resources and avoid certain kinds of dangers, and our social environment provides information about those resources and dangers. The way we pursue and evade is also influenced by biology and environment. That is human nature: somewhat hard-wired and somewhat plastic.
Human nature won't and can't change over the course of a few decades or centuries; biology doesn't work that way. But social conditions can change that quickly, and the behavior of humans within the new systems can be different. Those humans will have the same underlying (not necessarily conscious - see next paragraph) motivations and the same nature, but might for example demonstrate more altruism or sophistication, both of which are just behavioral strategies for pursuing resources and avoiding dangers. Victorian England, for example, was a culture that rewarded refinement and sophistication, rewards that could lead to access to various resources. Football locker rooms reward a rather different set of behaviors, but the same human nature and the same motivation to pursue the resources would underlie the different behaviors.
As noted above, motivations don't have to be conscious, which I think is the key for understanding altruism. You need not stop and think "saving this drowning stranger could earn me rewards" in order to act altruistically; an immediate and deep feeling that it is right thing to do is enough to encourage you to act. That feeling is shaped by genes and by environment. Genes likely provide for some amount of plasticity, meaning that as you collect information about your environment and what kinds of behaviors are rewarded, your feeling about what kinds of behaviors are "right" could be variable.
If Chomsky is right that anarcho-syndicalism would provide a preferable life for the vast majority of people, why don't we already have it? Well, that's part of the reason that more knowledge and sophistication would be required for the success of that structure. The vast majority of people lack the knowledge of the flaws in the current social structure, partially because the powerful act to prevent this in selfish service of their own interests. People have been convinced that working within the existing system is in their best interests, and without knowledge to the contrary, change is unlikely. Presumably the same forces that have led to the current social structure would still be at work in the proposed structure (meaning the boundless greed of the powerful), and so continual refreshing of knowledge would indeed be necessary in order for anarcho-syndicalism to succeed. The knowledge to recognize the self-interest of behaving in a more altruistic fashion might be a specific kind of knowledge required to foster the spirit of altruism (which by the way is the sense in which Chomsky referred to a "spiritual transformation," as opposed to a religious sense of the term).
But that doesn't represent a change in human nature, just a change in social conditions that allow non-altruistic behaviors to thrive. Knowledge is a resource, environmental information on which people can base decisions. Sophistication is a behavioral strategy in regards to the application of knowledge, altruism a behavioral strategy in response to certain kinds of knowledge, or in response to a less conscious evaluation of the social environment. A system of anarcho-syndicalism would rely on a certain amount of knowledge, sophistication, and altruism, and also serve to encourage more of each. Human nature would not need to change for such a system to be successful; we're already well equipped with the right kind of motivation to respond with altruism and sophistication to an environment that rewards those behaviors.
I think what Chomsky discussed wasn't really human "nature," but how human nature would actually manifest itself under certain conditions. Many manifestations are compatible with human nature, at least in the short run, but the question is which manifestation is preferable and why. Chomsky prefers anarcho-syndicalism because he believes it will "provide the framework for intellectual development, the growth of moral consciousness, cultural achievement, and participation in a free community." I tend to agree with that assessment, as well the idea he has expressed elsewhere that the survival of humanity may well depend on this kind of change.
