Why I won't vote: Ambition

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?

Time magazine published this article by Michael Kinsley, which A Tiny Revolution highlighted, that draws attention to this problem.

[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 Barack Obama 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.

Why I won't vote: Introduction

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:

Arthur Silber
Who Is IOZ?
Chris Floyd
Noam Chomsky
Jonathan Schwarz
Winter Patriot
Dennis Perrin
politicalcompass.org

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.

Contrition... contemplation

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.

IOZ is right, on both points.

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.

More shit! (This time with political commentary)

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?

Shit!

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.

Kids have sex, which is a crime

What in the fucking fuck is wrong with everyone?

SHEBOYGAN, Wis. - A 17-year-old Sheboygan boy is facing criminal charges after allegedly fathering a child with his 16-year-old girlfriend.

Kou Yang is charged in Sheboygan County with repeated sexual assault of a child. The charge carries a maximum 25 years in prison.

A criminal complaint says the girl told police she and Yang started having sex shortly after they met in August 2005, when both were 14.

The girl gave birth to a girl in December.

Authorities say Yang has acknowledged having sex with the girl.

This is either atrocious reporting or insane state overreach, ala Genarlow Wilson.

I hate everyone.

Why Obama is a joke:

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.

Euphemism and American Violence

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.

The "Free Market" at Work!

"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."

Obama = asshole

yup.

update: more

Grad School News

I've accepted an offer to study at McMaster University. I'll be in this lab. This couldn't have worked out any better.

shame

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.

That's just number 15 on a list of 20 shames of being American.

I'm moving to Canada soon, and I'll be apologetic about my nationality.

"daily" rage 2

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

- Bullet in the Head



Ya gotta bullet in ya fuckin' head!

The Wire Finale

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.

what is the point of school

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.

daily rage

Trappist Achel Extra - Belgian Strong Dark Ale

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!


All my beer tasting notes.

Greg Oden: Licking the Boots of Power

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.

books updates

Well I haven't nearly gotten through all 12.

I finished:

Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies
Though I didn't read all the appendices. I'll probably go back and read them at some point, since I can't get enough Chomsky.

1984 (Signet Classics)
Can't believe I hadn't read this sooner, though it probably wouldn't have meant as much to me.

God Is Not Great
Pretty good, and an enjoyable read.

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.


Still haven't finished:

Teaching As a Subversive Activity
Just not moves to read this. Maybe when I start teaching?

Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq
Hard for me to fret about the tactical blunders of an invasion that was so wrong to begin with. Might never finish this.

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.

Unexceptional: America's Empire in the Persian Gulf, 1941-2007
Similar probably as Fiasco. I have a general familiarity with the material and I'm not sure that digging into these details this way is important to me right now.

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.


Still haven't started:

In Our Image: America's Empire in the Philippines

Les Misérables (Signet Classics)

A Power Governments Cannot Suppress


Considering in the near future:

Interventions (City Lights Open Media)
More Chomsky.

Catch-22
Another classic I've never read that seems appropriate for me.

The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature
I plan to reread this, like The Moral Animal.

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.

Nature Via Nurture: Genes, Experience, and What Makes Us Human

The Survival Game : How Game Theory Explains the Biology of Cooperation and Competition

Margaret Mead and the Heretic: The Making and Unmaking of an Anthropological Myth

The Octopus and the Orangutan: More True Tales of Animal Intrigue, Intelligence, and Ingenuity

killing women so as to pretend to save babies

I recommend this typically excellent piece from Chris Floyd. Some highlights:

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.

The Unified Theory of Bullshit

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

And the government.

Ricky Gervais on atheism

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.

all Chomsky, all the time

One of my favorite blogs, Tom Dispatch, is currently featuring a guest post by Noam Chomsky. Who is on the world's most wanted terrorist list? Read it for Chomsky's take.

now: Horus

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.

no more inertia?

I have a new post over at inertia anonymous. It begins:

I don't think I have an inertia problem any more. Looking back, I'm not sure I ever did.

Anarchy and human nature

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.

waiting to hear

So my grad school applications are out there, under review. And so now I'm just waiting to hear.

My recent visit to McMaster was very good, and I'm hoping they'll offer me admission. I think I've got a good chance there. I haven't heard back from any other schools, and every passing day makes it seem less likely that I will, but maybe that's just pessimism.

It is kind of frustrating though just to be sitting here waiting for the next big step of my life. I used to love having no obligations and lots of freedom, but now I'm getting bored with it, and I'm genuinely excited at the prospect of going back to school. I like having all this time to read, but I want to interact with a bunch of smart people and learn under the guidance of someone with lots of experience. But mainly I'd just like to know what's next and feel like I'm moving towards it.

waiting... waiting... waiting...

bush, terror, saudis, mommy, etc

A popular right-wing response to various accusations against the Bush regime is that whatever "questionable" or "unpopular" (read: illegal and immoral) actions they may have taken (read:did), they were certainly doing them to Protect America From Harm. This idea is very much an article of faith among people like my family: comforting and totally wrong. That should be obvious (even Bush's own analysts concluded that the Iraq invasion increased the threat of terrorism) but reality isn't something these types are good at seeing.

Nevertheless, after noticing this little nugget, I decided to send along some information to the folks. A painfully distorted justification is the only engaged response I'm likely to receive, but I can always hope...

Here's the message:

It is well documented that the Bush family, including both Presidents (and Dick Cheney) are very close personal friends with Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia, going so far as to nickname him "Bandar Bush." Previously secret documents recently revealed in British courts show that the Bandar had threatened to make it harder for British officials to prevent terrorism unless they ended a corruption investigation into massive secret payments to Saudi royals by British aerospace company BAE, which promptly scuttled the investigation.

Recap: the President's close personal friend basically threatened to kill random civilians if the British government even thought about trying to stop the dirty money and weapons flowing to him and his associates.

This is of course just one small episode of corruption and disregard for human life from the Saudi royal family, whose deep personal and business ties to the Bush family has lasted decades. Put aside for a minute that the job of a President is to protect and defend the Constitution, not the nation. Does a man committed to doing everything he can to protect America cuddle up to a guy like Bandar Bush?

I just noticed that I used the words "scuttle" and "cuddle," which kind of rhyme. So I got that going for me.

ha more Kristol

Speaking of Bill Kristol's epic performance, A Tiny Revolution has an excellent three part feature on it.

11111
22222
33333

Why do they hate us????!

So many are just utterly incapable of understanding that some people have legitimate objections to the actions of the US Government, which then motivate the aggrieved to illegitimate actions. A Tiny Revolution highlights a perfect example. I'd describe it as hilarious but the fact that it is really fucking serious would make me feel bad about laughing. I need a word for that situation, because I'd use it a lot.

edit - I should note that Israel is involved in the linked case, but they're a US client state so they can be lumped in for these purposes. Also, racism or some other form of bigotry that allows us to think of some groups as subhuman contributes to this and other cases.

Laws don't apply here, that's why we're the best

Greenwald today sums up just how pathetic things are here in Obama's "last, best hope of Earth."

The president and numerous government officers have been accused, with overwhelming evidence in support, of illegally spying on their own citizens. Congress responds by passing laws to make more spying legal, and retroactively immunize the lawbreakers. The Supreme Court refuses to hear the case, despite the ruling of two lower-court judges that the spying was illegal.

A war-mongering supreme leader, his cronies in supposedly coequal branches of government, and his corporate conspirators have announced that the rule of law does not apply to them. Despite public outcry, nothing has or will ever happen to seriously investigate their crimes. They are untouchable and unaccountable.

If this shit happened in Russia or China, all the conservative blow-hards and liberal enablers would be denouncing it at the top of their lungs. But applying the same standard to America that we apply to the rest of the world is unthinkable.

The epic depravity of Bill Kristol

I've mentioned before my disdain for Bill Kristol, though I really can't summon up strong enough words to fully express my opinion of the man. He's the sniveling, scoffing, sneering face of the cancer eating away at the world, wrong about everything as he licks the boots of power, endlessly rewarded by the pathetic corporate media who amplify his combination of astonishing ignorance and blatant lies. TomDispatch has a good piece up about one of Kristol's most epic performances.

tell me

What would happen if, upon my attempted reentry to the good ol' Yew-Ess of Ay, I refused the border Nazi's demand to open my trunk for his random inspection? I genuinely have no idea. As a citizen do I have rights in this situation? What would happen if I just asked him if I'm allowed to refuse? I assume I'd then be subject to an anal cavity search, as punishment for my insolence.

Anyway, more on the trip later. Generally, it was good. Very, very good.

gone til Monday

to Canada!

Why? Why? Be more constructive with your feedback!

I've repeatedly heard from my family that part of what makes Hillary Clinton so terrifying is that she's a socialist.

A SOCIALIST!!

Now I agree that Hillary Clinton is terrifying, though really no more so than any of the other sociopaths contending for the most powerful job in the history of humanity, but I'd never identify a desire for wealth and production to be distributed more in line with popular interests as her most glaring flaw. In fact I have a hard time attributing that characteristic to her at all. I can't imagine that an objective assessment of her positions and voting history, compared to that of any of the other presidential contenders, or compared to just the Democratic field, or hell even just to Obama, would find her to be the most socialist. And I can't imagine any meaningful reason to label her candidacy as a socialist one, overall. She's conservative on economic issues, hawkish on foreign policy, and authoritarian on domestic policy, though slightly less so than the ultra-lunatic incumbents. In the parlance of our time...

SOCIALIST!!

So, evil she-devil aside, what is so overwhelmingly wrong with socialism anyway? They never have a good answer to that question though that doesn't slow them down. They end up muttering something about how all the people from socialist countries are trying to move here for our medicine. (Huh?) Or how socialism basically just makes the whole government a huge corporation that inevitably collapses. (Isn't that what is happening here?) Their heads are full of nonsensical cartoons of history and political theory, but they know that sure as the sweet baby Jesus was born of a virgin, socialism is really fucking bad.

How did this instantaneous and intense negative association come to be? Noam Chomsky explains:

One notable doctrine of Soviet propaganda is that the elimination by Lenin and Trotsky of any vestige of control over production by producers and of popular involvement in determining social policy constitutes a triumph of socialism. The purpose of this exercise in Newspeak is to exploit the moral appeal of the ideals that were being successfully demolished. Western propaganda leaped to the same opportunity, identifying the dismantling of socialist forms as the establishment of socialism, so as to undermine left-libertarian ideals by associating them with the practices of the grim Red bureaucracy. To this day, both systems of propaganda adopt the terminology, for their different purposes. When both major world systems of propaganda are in accord, it is unusually difficult for the individual to escape their tentacles. The blow to freedom and democracy throughout the world has been immense.

Government says online poker is a national security matter

Seriously, how pathetic can our government get?

Americans, according to this administration, have no right to know how many billions of our tax dollars they've spent with no legislative authorization whatsoever in order to buy the cooperation of other nations and allow them to continue to violate the rights of American adults by preventing them from gambling in the privacy of their own home.

The new guy

Horace got a clean bill of health from the vet, and so at least for now he's living with us. He spent the first few days closed off in our spare bedroom, but we introduced him to the other cats and they all get along so the whole house is open now. I haven't captured it on camera yet, but he does this very cute submissive routine with them where he rolls onto his back and reaches out to them with his front paws.

He is still quite afraid of people, running away in terror if we come near him, but he seems to forget his fear at meal times so we think he's making progress. His body language is slowly becoming more confident and while he spends almost all of his time hiding, he's spending more time in the hiding spots closer to people. When he was confined, we were able to scratch his head and neck a bit, but now that he has open space, he just runs away if we reach towards him, so we've stopped trying to initiate contact. We figure he'll see the other boys enjoying it and eventually come give it a try.

Now that he's part of the family, we've considered changing his name. "Horace" sounds too much like "Hattori" and isn't even a Japanese character from a movie. The problem is that we've been calling him Horace ever since we first saw him running around outside back in August, so it is really hard to change direction. We tried switching to "Wallace," figuring it would be easier to switch to a name that sounded similar to what we've been calling him, and that it could be a tribute to Alfred Wallace. (Or Rasheed.) But the best I've been able to do is call him "Horace Wallace" which is unbearable.

In summary, he meows when he uses the litter box, which is convenient as an early warning stink alarm.

on the fine tradition of virgins having babies

I recently read Christopher Hitchens' God Is Not Great and particularly enjoyed this passage, in response to a gospel account of how Mary "was found with child of the Holy Ghost."

Yes, and the Greek demigod Perseus was born when the god Jupiter visited the virgin Danae as a shower of gold and got her with child. The god Buddha was born through an opening in his mother's flank. Catlicus the serpent-skirted caught a little ball of feathers from the sky and hid it in her bosom, and the Aztec god Huitzilopochtli was thus conceived. The virgin Nana took a pomegranate from the tree watered by the blood of the slain Agdestris, and laid it in her bosom, and gave birth to the god Attis. The virgin daughter of a Mongol king awoke one night and found herself bathed in a great light, which caused her to give birth to Genghis Khan. Krishna was born of the virgin Devaka. Horus was born of the the virgin Isis. Mercury was born of the virgin Maia. Romulus was born of the virgin Rhea Silvia. For some reason, many religions force themselves to think of the birth canal as a one-way street.

I sometimes wonder how many people who claim to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin genuinely believe that 2,000 years ago an actual human being was born whose conception didn't involve human sperm. The notion is obviously preposterous, and even the most devout Christians must have a hard time hiding behind "the mystery of faith" as their cheap cover. If those people were then exposed to the stories of all these other mythological asexual reproductive events, wouldn't that make it even harder for them not to see their beloved miraculous conception as a silly fairy tale like all the others? Knowledge is the enemy of faith.

[I couldn't resist including the last line of the quote. It would be an excellent introduction to a discussion of control over female sexuality, a topic I might revisit in another post.]

Infinite Hypocrisy

Just consider the consequences if the privileged and powerful were willing to entertain for a moment the principle of universality.

So begins what I think is the first Noam Chomsky passage I ever highlighted in one of his books, the first of many. Elsewhere he's called the principle of universality a "moral truism that should not provoke controversy," defining it as "We should apply to ourselves the same standards we apply to others - in fact, more stringent ones." In Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy, he continues [emphasis in original]:

If the United States has the right of "anticipatory self-defense" against terror, or against those it thinks might attack first, then, a fortiori, Cuba, Nicaragua, and a host of others have long been entitled to carry out terrorist acts within the United States because of its involvement in very serious attacks against them, often uncontroversial. Surely Iran would also be entitled to do so in the face of serious threats that are openly advertised. Such conclusions are, of course, utterly outrageous, and advocated by no one.

He goes on to highlight two other historical instances where by "US and UK standards," attacks commonly regarded as atrocities should be seen as "legitimate anticipatory self defense." The Taliban and Osama bin Laden had reason to believe the US was planning military action against them, making the 9/11/2001 attacks " a pre-emptive strike in response to what he saw as US threats."

An even stronger case is the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor and the Philippines in World War 2, preceded by well publicized US plans to (as expressed by an air force general) "burn out the industrial heart of the Empire with fire-bomb attacks on the teeming bamboo ant heaps of Honshu and Kyushu," and slaughter civilians.

All of this provides far more powerful justification for anticipatory self-defense than anything conjured up by Bush, Blair, and their associates. There is no need to spell out what would plainly be implied, if elementary moral principles could be entertained.

Indeed.

My personal statement for grad school applications

Here are the opening sections of the personal statement I attached with my graduate school applications. Below this would be a customized paragraph expressing interest in the work of specific faculty members at each school, and sections about my academic, research, and other experiences.

In this personal statement I essentially want to summarize where I am and how I got here. Along the way I will discuss my research interests, career goals, and relevant experiences.


Worldview

My views include the following ideas:

• The foreign policy of the United States Government has been grossly immoral for at least 100 years. Many of its executive branch and military leaders during this time should be considered war criminals, with Congressional leaders of both parties fully complicit.
• Increasingly authoritarian domestic policies have eroded personal liberty in a multitude of ways, and are contrary to our supposed national ideals.
• The vast majority of our national dialog on these and related matters is remarkably ill-informed, predicated on false assumptions, and dominated by people with an interest in keeping it that way.
• The American lifestyle is perilously unsustainable and unhealthy. Our transportation, energy, and agricultural systems depend on unsustainable resource consumption and environmental destruction. Our economy is propped up by unsustainable debt levels. Our high-calorie diets and sedentary lifestyles are leading to deteriorating health while our healthcare system becomes increasingly unaffordable.
• Religion is a negative societal force. Its destructive consequences include the following: encouraging pride in scientific illiteracy and historical ignorance; glorifying sexist, racist, and homophobic ideas and actions; inhibiting compassion and stunting our moral reasoning abilities in favor of punishment and deference to authority.

These views are based on a great deal of reading and reflection, but each point would take far more space to adequately defend than I have available in this format. So I present them as an unsubstantiated list of my personal views, for which I believe I could argue convincingly and passionately, though I always consider myself open to intelligent counterargument.

Taking all of those views together, I find the hypocrisy, injustice, and immorality disturbing, almost indescribably so. I see understanding the thoughts and behaviors behind each of those points as a necessary contribution to fighting them, and I find myself driven to pursue this understanding.


Academic, Career, and Faculty Interests

I want to understand how individuals can hold obviously contradictory beliefs. Why do people have strong opinions on subjects about which they know almost nothing? I want to understand how each individual within a population can assume patterns of behavior that seem so obviously self-destructive to the group as a whole. How can people come to value superstition and dogma over logic and evidence? What forces drive these behaviors?

I’ve invested a lot of time and energy in trying to make sense of these things, and I’ve concluded that an academic career in psychology would be the best avenue for continuing this pursuit. I envision myself as beginning an academic career with a unifying theme of studying conditions that encourage or discourage reasonable behavior, drawing on findings from, and contributing to the body of knowledge in the fields of personality/social psychology and evolutionary psychology.

My interest in those particular fields developed because they’ve offered the most compelling insights for me as I’ve explored those questions. The classic social science experiments – Milgram, Stanford Prison – shed valuable light on Abu Ghraib and our national torture debate (I still can’t get over that there is any debate). I’ve found the personality research of Dr. Robert Altemeyer of the University of Manitoba, who has extensively studied authoritarianism and religious attitudes, similarly illuminating. Evolutionary Psychology offers the insight that many of the disturbing problems I listed could be united by a common theme of human confrontation with evolutionarily unprecedented situations: huge states, agriculture, powerful weaponry, hydrocarbon energy, and advanced scientific knowledge. The vast majority of the evolution of the human mind occurred in the absence of these innovations, and thrusting our stone age brains into the space age seems bound to cause trouble.

I’ve given political issues a prominent place in this essay because they arouse my passions these days, but I’ve touched on other areas as well: education, morality, health, religion, media consumption. There are a number of kinds of behavior that interest me under all of those headings. I hope to have the opportunity to explore one or more of those interests as a graduate student and beyond.

visiting grad school

When I applied to grad schools this time, I had no idea what to expect. I'm fairly confident in my ability, but wasn't sure if I'd be a good candidate on paper. I was just hoping I'd get into at least one school.

This weekend I'll be visiting McMaster University, for a prospective student weekend with the Department of Psychology, Neuroscience, and Behavior. I'm excited for the visit, and I'm optimistic that the invitation (and especially their willingness to pay for my travel and lodging) is an indication that they'll be likely offer me acceptance and funding. They're the first program I've heard back from, so now I'm imagining a scenario where I get into a few schools and have options. But that's getting ahead of myself.

McMaster's program is different than the others to which I applied, with their focus on examining human behavior from a biological perspective, which I'm calling evolutionary psychology. Faculty members Martin Daly and Margo Wilson are very prominent researchers in this field (though unfortunately for me, they're not accepting grad students). The opportunity to study and possibly collaborate with them would be quite appealing. Evolutionary Psychology seems to be rather controversial, and while I have a gut feeling that this means it is onto something, I should consider the option of focusing on a more conventional research area as a student. I doubt that would actually be a decisive factor, but I do want to try to understand more fully that element of controversy.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to meeting faculty and getting a feel for the department. I like the idea of coming into this kind of setting as an outsider, with no real psychology background. Reading through the course curriculum, I feel a genuine enthusiasm for learning about those topics. Aside from learning more about all that stuff, I'm hoping I'll get a tour of their facilities and see all the cool toys and whatnot. Meanwhile Kira will be checking out the town, investigating local housing options and potential employers for her. This will be my first visit to Canada, so that will be cool too.

This is an exciting time, and I hope that I'll find myself in a good situation next fall, whether it is McMaster or another program. If anyone has suggestions about the kinds of questions I should be asking, please let me know.

blog identity crisis... averted?

I haven't been doing much blogging lately, and I think a big reason is that I'm not really sure what this blog is supposed to be anymore. That sounds weird because I created it and I'm the only one who writes it, so it can be anything I want it to be. But I don't know what I want it to be. Maybe this has just run its course.

Who am I writing for? I have a handful of people that I know read this, and I get a few dozen random google hits every day. I have a couple of sponsors that give me a small but not insignificant revenue stream. But what I am doing here?

Blah.

Ok, so I saw this graph, and I thought it was interesting. First of all you have to understand the tool. It uses a two-dimensional political spectrum (economic issues on the x and social issues on the y) to plot the political sentiments of people or groups. You can take a test to see where you'd fit on the graph, and the creators of the site have done research to estimate where various politicians from around the world would fall.

The graph shows something I already know, that prominent US Presidential candidates represent an extremely narrow spectrum of right-wing authoritarian policy positions. Since I'm in the far bottom left, I'm completely alienated. Many of the people who criticize the current administration and its supporters are then supporting a party that is almost the exact same, with a few tiny differences (differences that admittedly in some situations can make a difference to real people - the point is that the ideology isn't very different). And then when a guy like Nader comes along, they hate him and vilify him, and totally miss the irony of it all.

Now I already understood that, but I have no idea how well anybody else understands this whole situation. Or if they care. Or if they'd be able to make sense of the graph. Or if they'd care to. I think it is a useful tool, but will anyone else? More specifically, should I put it on my blog? Why?

That's just one example and there are a hundred more. I guess whenever I have these blog identities crises I should just remember that I'm doing this for myself. I should approach it like a personal journal that I'm sharing with anyone who is interested. I should just write about the things I want to write about. I guess this means recording ideas and events that I'd want to look back on. I did that recently with my series of "grad school?" posts because I've got something going on with grad school choices (more on that in another post maybe). It was helpful. I could extend the same logic to political thoughts, and personal events (a.k.a. what's up with my cats), and whatever else.

So I guess I hereby resolve to drop the formality and the second-guessing about what my audience wants to read and I'll just write what I think makes sense to write. I'll try to label the post title very literally, to at least give you some chance to skip the boring shit.

So that means getting away from just posting a link and a line of commentary that is clearly intended to share with others. I wonder if I'll really do that.

I live among football Gods

Apparently every football every used in every Superbowl was made in that Wilson factory I jog past. Sweet.

who's #1? See For Yourself, biotch

#1

loss of diversity because of modern agribusiness

Thanks to Walt for passing it along.

chime in

I'm having an interesting discussion in the comments of this post. The author is defending a criticism that Richard Dawkins and other atheists (who I've taken to mean Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens) are "incurious" and otherwise unserious about examining religion's root causes before they dismiss it. He's also claimed that they ignore any position effects of religion. I've generally argued that the first claim is incorrect but rather irrelevant, and that the second is just wrong. Along the way I've defended evolutionary psychology and memetics against his derision.

Go see if what I've said makes sense.

Poor Horace

Horace has been in our bathroom for a week now and we're disappointed with his slow progress. He's very afraid of people, and doesn't seem to be warming up much to us. I found an excellent essay about what is involved in taming an adult feral cat, and we now realize it is going to be a lot harder than with the younger kitten we tamed in December. Cats need positive exposure to humans at a young age, otherwise they tend to be extremely distrustful of people.

He just hides in a cubby in the bathroom and generally seems miserable. He does eat the food we give him, use a litter box, and move around the bathroom when we aren't there. He'll let us rub his head sometimes, but rarely seems to enjoy it; he obviously just wants us to leave him alone. He doesn't seem to mind if we're in the room, but when we look directly at him or move near him, that's when he shrinks away or even hisses. If we try to move things around in his cubby, he panics.

We're taking him to the vet soon, which should be an ordeal. If he's healthy enough, we're going to keep him for a while and try to socialize him. We'll get him neutered and immunized and then give him some space. We'll keep hanging out where he can watch us, but stop pushing him to accept our physical contact and let him adapt at his own pace over several months. Eventually he'll meet our cats. Apparently feral cats learn a lot about how to interact with human from watching housecats, so it will be nice if we can find a safe way for that to happen.

Temperatures here have been in single digits at night and in the teens and 20s during the daytime, so I know he's better off being scared but warm and well fed in our bathroom than hungry and freezing out there.

votes, terrorists, criminals

Today I'd like to offer you three links of essential reading. All three issues are straightforward examinations and interpretations of incontestable reality, and yet all would likely be immediately dismissed as extremist hysterics by most everyone I know. People who genuinely prioritize truth and morality are rare.

1.) At Harper's, Scott Horton has Six Questions for Mark Crispin Miller. The discussion is about how election fraud, and the media's failure to report on it except derisively is an ongoing scandal that undermines our (already thin claim to) democracy. I'd note that while Republicans are overwhelmingly the perpetrators and direct beneficiaries of these dirty tricks, Democrats have done very little to oppose them. For me the most shocking example of Donkle capitulation is Al Gore's blocking the attempts of few Democrats from the House of Representatives to contest the 2000 Presidential election, and every single Senate Democrat siding with Gore.

2.) Chris Floyd discusses the bloody doings of "the most dangerous terrorist organization at work in the world since the Second World War," the United States Central Intelligence Agency. Your tax dollars pay for an unaccountable Presidential army that has "overthrown governments, sponsored wars, carried out assassinations and terrorist attacks, organized and financed death squads, kidnapped and tortured, trafficked in drugs, bribed and blackmailed, even worked with the Mafia." If America was even the least bit serious about fighting world terrorism, it would take Chalmers Johnson's advice and abolish the CIA.

3.) Winter Patriot makes the point that needs to be made every single day. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Paul Wolfowitz, Ari Fleischer, and Scott McClellan "by any civilized standard... are obviously guilty of mass murder, war crimes, and crimes against humanity." I don't share his hope that they all be tortured to death in front of a worldwide audience of billions (life in prison in the strictest sentence my conscience can allow to even the most vile criminal, a category to which all of them clearly belong), but I do share the outrage behind the sentiment. And I also share his frustration that nothing will ever happen about it.

collaborate, learn about justice

Great post over at The Primate Diaries. He recommends Chomsky and Zinn, two authors and activists I've praised here many times, along with many other people and organizations.

He provides some links to excellent resources to learn about them. I've felt like my internet reading routine is getting kind of stagnant, so I'm looking forward to exploring these. Now that I'm grooving on anarchy, I'd been meaning to read some Emma Goldman, so I'm particularly excited to learn more about her. My wife has been talking about Che Guevara recently, so we'll have to dig into that too.

I added a comment that sustainable agriculture is a topic that fits well into the social justice discussion. Check out his list and add your own ideas in the comments!