destroy all bloggers

Book 'em Danno!

2005-11-10T15:50:00.000-08:00

The following clip is from Zappa's "The Untouchables" off of Broadway the Hard Way.

Oh, to dream....

2005-11-10T15:48:00.000-08:00

I Dedicate This Verse To The Power Wardens In France AND The Rest Of The World

2005-11-10T02:49:00.000-08:00

Come on, Come out of the rain.
Your not impressed;
your just too learned.
I took the book;
I lit the page.
Your sabbatical was burnin' !
Sweet, sweet, sweet, sweet
fires in the street,
let's sully every stage.
Lick my lips;
twist my hips.
Oh Contessa,
I already did...
--Dan Bejar from 'Streets of Fire'

Q: What are Americans doing?

A: Watching it on TV.

One of the only social service projects I have heard of being added to the current U.S. budget considerations is a bill that would help Americans switch to a Digital TV format. This is in the wake of a push to switch all broadcasting to the digital format.
Cut education funding, medicaid provisions, taxes for wealthy Americans and multinational corporations
BUT, those in power will not allow for a majority of Americans to be without their TV,
no suh!

They might actually start talking to each other and discovering the truth.

Q: And what might be the 'truth'?

A: They are not the only ones suffering for lack of a decent quality of life.

So,
All you people watching and fearing for your own security.
Keep watching your digital TV.
The revolution might actually be televised.

The Economics of Security

2005-11-05T09:34:00.000-08:00

Social and economic justice has always been the framework for my dissent with the status quo of my community and country. There has been a particularly nasty aberration of populist theory in practice since the Reagan years, whereby the resources of this country and the world have been consolidated and hoarded at the top 5% of the (inter-) national population. What I view as an unfair distribution of wealth is one of the main reasons for my entering this profession of social work. I feel that much work needs to done to reconcile the egregious inequalities of economic stratification.

There have also been times in my life when I have felt powerless over my lot in life. There have been key people (family members, friends, employers) who have been there at the right time to help me plow through the rough spots - for that I have been fortunate.

Through his participant observer research method in the book, Tell them who I am, Elliot Liebow crystallizes the analysis of our culture’s misguided ‘remedies’ for homelessness. As a culture, we start our therapy by informing the homeless person that the reason she is homeless is because of some overarching fault within her – we will help a woman who will relinquish her ‘self’ yield to the monolithic institutional roller coaster ride she is about to board.

This critique of the way in which we ‘help’ the homeless, of course implies the obverse argument – the system in which we exist is at fault. At the very end of the main text, Liebow examines why this may be a valid assessment:
…[H] omeless men and women and families are victims of the same system of free enterprise that has been so extraordinarily productive and generous to others. Viewed from the bottom, two of the most obvious system failures are the abject failure of the free market to provide minimally decent jobs and affordable housing for poor people (233).
Right. All the promises of the American Dream are only for those deemed worthy by the market. Viewed from above (that is, from a financially successful person’s perspective), unemployment and underemployment are natural occurrences in a self-adjusting economy of scarce resources, i.e., some people must be sacrificed for the good of the market (226).

It is at this point that the social worker is often found - with the duty to provide unemployed, homeless people with a way out of their predicament, yet with no real tools at his disposal. By real tools I mean jobs and a place to live (Liebow seems to agree). Sure, we are given policies that dictate who can receive what services, be they counseling, addiction treatment, skills training, etc. – and these options can help some individuals. However, this approach has been employed since LBJ’s Great society was implemented; and, notwithstanding the cuts in funding and services seen in the last 25 years, the approach is not working.

The question then remains, how do we convince a culture, like ours, besot by fear and endless war against an abstract enemy (terrorism) that we will attain that most coveted security if we simply redistribute the wealth, not only in our country, but also among the people of the world? It is only then that the people who use tactics such as suicide bombing, kidnapping, and hijacking will be less inclined to do so because their needs and their people’s needs will have been met; security will be awarded to those who allow for the security of others.

I find myself inspired by this book as a critique of systems in which social workers are pitted against poor folks in a battle over, ostensibly, scarce resources. Concurrently, I have been inspired recently by Hugo Chavez and his implementation of socioeconomic systems whereby the oil wealth of Venezuela (of which he is President) is reinvested in the people’s needs – socialized healthcare for everyone and affordable housing for the homeless. In an interview with Democracy Now! (Pacifica network radio show) he echoed his own statements to the U.N. two weeks previously, declaring, “If you want to eliminate poverty you must empower the poor – NOT treat them like beggars!” Indeed. The most salient contention I take away from reading Liebow’s Tell Them who I am is that, as social workers, we must strive to assist vulnerable populations at macro, mezzo, and micro levels. Working on a case-by-case basis is akin to the application of bandages to wounds that will never heal by simply covering them up.

Sovereignty of the People is Bad for Business

2005-10-02T09:12:00.000-07:00

COSMETIC DEMOCRACY

As Americans, we really know how to put on a good show, don’t we? We have some form of an election at the local level every year and federal level every two years. Our representatives at the state and federal levels are becoming quite fanatical about the image they present to the public at large – wanting to appear as though they really feel our pain (or joy?) and are going to fight for policies that will raise up the majority of Americans struggling to make economic ends meet. This patina of empathy does little to hide the fact that most policies enacted by politicians, Democrat and Republican alike, favor the ‘personhood’ of corporations and their (in)vested interest in courting such companies to set up shop with tax incentives and deregulation of their beloved markets – ostensibly to create new jobs.

Oddly enough, at the turn of the last century, we were seeing corporate entities lobbying in favor of regulation for two reasons: to fund their newly forming entrepreneurial schema (especially tax dollars for ‘rough’ economic times… sound vaguely familiar?) and to create fair and competitive markets. Sure, some of these companies were building an infrastructure with the goal of serving a public want or need, e.g., utilities projects, mass communication networks, and mass transportation systems to name a few. However, as we moved into the second decade of the 20th century, fairness was replaced with the driving force of avarice in these ‘united’ states to this day – the ‘bottom line.’ And it is within this framework that one’s attention should now shift to recent socioeconomic events.

I believe, at the risk of being pegged a polemicist (ahem…), that within the past 35 years an ireful wave of populist rhetoric has infiltrated the federal and state levels of our governance (not to mention mainstream media). As Thomas Frank points out in a succession of two books (One Market Under God and What’s the Matter With Kansas?), we are treated to a grand play in the theater of our beloved infotainment media outlets that demonizes anyone who criticizes or questions policies that engender unmitigated free-market capitalism.

More specifically, as Frank points out, laissez-faire policies are apotheosized as the ultimate democratizations of the economic playing field. Therefore, any attempts to regulate or legislate ‘fair play’ within the bounds of the market is viewed (by free market ideologues) as unbridled evil – fascist elites tampering with the lives of all free Americans.

Regarding the gulf coast hurricane relief efforts, the beat goes on. Even though policies that have gutted the social safety net in this country have visibly failed, the market ideologues see this as an opportunity to experiment with even more cavalier economic policies they claim will create an ‘opportunity society.’

The robber barons of the welfare state, i.e., the leaders of many transnational corporations via their federal and state political surrogates, are offering tax incentives to contractors operating in the gulf region, elimination of environmental restrictions that will ‘hamper’ building, along with President bush’s suspension of the Davis-Bacon Act, which provides that the prevailing wage be paid to all laborers and mechanics employed by government contractors. The rest of the provisions (some even sound philanthropic. remember, read between the lines) are here - as compiled by Naomi Klein and The Nation.

Ultimately, these ‘opportunity zones’ put the wealth of funds for reconstruction into the hands of powerful business leaders (I’d like to call them ‘opportunity czars’). And when the ‘bottom line’ is printed in black numbers, who do you think will benefit from the wealth created by such massive reconstruction efforts? Furthermore, as our political leaders all vie for a spotlight in this massive relief effort to show how they really care about their economically marginalized citizens, watch for the legislation, passed and enacted, trickling right past those who ought to be empowered with the means of production and direction in rebuilding their communities.

David Brooks Equivocates, Kulanova Responds

2005-09-05T04:06:00.000-07:00

The Bursting Point
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: September 4, 2005 NYTIMES

As Ross Douthat observed on his blog, The American Scene, Katrina was the anti-9/11.

On Sept. 11, Rudy Giuliani took control. The government response was quick and decisive. The rich and poor suffered alike. Americans had been hit, but felt united and strong. Public confidence in institutions surged.

Last week in New Orleans, by contrast, nobody took control. Authority was diffuse and action was ineffective. The rich escaped while the poor were abandoned. Leaders spun while looters rampaged. Partisans squabbled while the nation was ashamed.
The first rule of the social fabric - that in times of crisis you protect the vulnerable - was trampled. Leaving the poor in New Orleans was the moral equivalent of leaving the injured on the battlefield. No wonder confidence in civic institutions is plummeting.

And the key fact to understanding why this is such a huge cultural moment is this: Last week's national humiliation comes at the end of a string of confidence-shaking institutional failures that have cumulatively changed the nation's psyche.
Over the past few years, we have seen intelligence failures in the inability to prevent Sept. 11 and find W.M.D.'s in Iraq. We have seen incompetent postwar planning. We have seen the collapse of Enron and corruption scandals on Wall Street. We have seen scandals at our leading magazines and newspapers, steroids in baseball, the horror of Abu Ghraib.

Public confidence has been shaken too by the steady rain of suicide bombings, the grisly horror of Beslan and the world's inability to do anything about rising oil prices.

Each institutional failure and sign of helplessness is another blow to national morale. The sour mood builds on itself, the outraged and defensive reaction to one event serving as the emotional groundwork for the next.
The scrapbook of history accords but a few pages to each decade, and it is already clear that the pages devoted to this one will be grisly. There will be pictures of bodies falling from the twin towers, beheaded kidnapping victims in Iraq and corpses still floating in the waterways of New Orleans five days after the disaster that caused them.

It's already clear this will be known as the grueling decade, the Hobbesian decade. Americans have had to acknowledge dark realities that it is not in our nature to readily acknowledge: the thin veneer of civilization, the elemental violence in human nature, the lurking ferocity of the environment, the limitations on what we can plan and know, the cumbersome reactions of bureaucracies, the uncertain progress good makes over evil.

As a result, it is beginning to feel a bit like the 1970's, another decade in which people lost faith in their institutions and lost a sense of confidence about the future.

"Rats on the West Side, bedbugs uptown/What a mess! This town's in tatters/I've been shattered," Mick Jagger sang in 1978.

Midge Decter woke up the morning after the night of looting during the New York blackout of 1977 feeling as if she had "been given a sudden glimpse into the foundations of one's house and seen, with horror, that it was utterly infested and rotting away."

Americans in 2005 are not quite in that bad a shape, since the fundamental realities of everyday life are good. The economy and the moral culture are strong. But there is a loss of confidence in institutions. In case after case there has been a failure of administration, of sheer competence. Hence, polls show a widespread feeling the country is headed in the wrong direction.

Katrina means that the political culture, already sour and bloody-minded in many quarters, will shift. There will be a reaction. There will be more impatience for something new. There is going to be some sort of big bang as people respond to the cumulative blows of bad events and try to fundamentally change the way things are.
Reaganite conservatism was the response to the pessimism and feebleness of the 1970's. Maybe this time there will be a progressive resurgence. Maybe we are entering an age of hardheaded law and order. (Rudy Giuliani, an unlikely G.O.P. nominee a few months ago, could now win in a walk.) Maybe there will be call for McCainist patriotism and nonpartisan independence. All we can be sure of is that the political culture is about to undergo some big change.

We're not really at a tipping point as much as a bursting point. People are mad as hell, unwilling to take it anymore.
E-mail: dabrooks@nytimes.com

Where is the 'Free-Market'?

Mr. Brooks,

I have been a reader of your column for about a year now. I am intrigued by your assertion that we have seen institutional failures at many levels in our society with the nimble and weasely analysis tacitly implying that the 'elemental violence of human nature' and 'cumbersome reactions of bureaucracies' are at least partially to blame. That you fail to mention the continuous and effective gutting of the social safety net (Nixon tried but he had other problems, didn't he?) since the robust free- market Reagan era and all of its promises of prosperity (What Happened?) is duly noted, Mr. Brooks.
Where is your beloved free-market now and its unregulated institutions which should have the economic means and lack of bureacracy to effectively end the suffering of the tens of thousands in New Orleans? - Not to mention the millions who live in abject poverty in other urban and rural communities alike.

Somebody send in WAL-MART... HURRY!

I find your commentary here equally smarmy and off-the-mark, as usual.

-chairman kulanova

THE BOLD NEW FACE OF DEMOCRACY

2005-08-22T18:10:00.000-07:00

"We were rushed up to the front of the ballroom, where it smelled even more strongly of tobacco and whiskey. Then we were pushed into place. I almost wet my pants. A sea of faces, some hostile, some amused, ringed around us, and in the center, facing us, stood a magnificent blonde – stark naked. There was dead silence. I felt a blast of cold air chill me. I tried to back away, but they were behind me and around me. Some of the boys stood with lowered heads, trembling. I felt a wave of irrational guilt and fear. My teeth chattered, my skin turned to goose flesh, my knees knocked. Yet I was strongly attracted and looked in spite of myself. Had the price of looking been blindness, I would have looked. The hair was yellow like that of a circus kewpie doll, the face heavily powdered and rouged, as though to form an abstract mask, the eyes hollow and smeared a cool blue, the color of a baboon’s butt. I felt a desire to spit upon her as my eyes brushed slowly over her body. Her breasts were firm and round as the domes of East Indian temples, and I stood so close as to see the fine skin texture and beads of pearly perspiration glistening like dew around the pink and erected buds of her nipples. I wanted at one and the same time to run from the room, to sink my eyes through the floor, or to go to her and cover her from my eyes and the eyes of the others with my body; to feel the soft thighs, to caress her and destroy her, to love her and murder her to hide from her, and yet to stroke where below the small American flag tattooed upon her belly her thighs formed a capital V."

-from Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison (prelude to the Battle Royal). [America the Beautiful...indeed]

Let us not forget the ugly...
There is a particularly nasty aberration of Populism that has nearly taken over this country in the past thirty years (you might have noticed... maybe not). It is interesting because though our daily lives don't operate democratically, we (as a whole) still cling to the notion these 'united' states are run with the best interests of its people in mind. Though officially a republic, many in the public are beholden to private interest.
Sure, every few months we apply an election to our rumpled visage. Our illusorily elected officials often allow for ballot initiatives - applying the 'rouge' of self-governance. Ultimately, the system under which we are ruled offers only cosmetic accoutrements in the place of true democratic rule. Until the resources and means of production are in the control of the people (economic democracy) we will continue to be ruled by corporate despots with our own government as the 'banana republic.' This is the subject of my next essay (sound familiar?). Coming soon.

David Brooks of the New York Times has already asked the question that always follows any assault on capitalism: "If not capitalism, then what economic system SHOULD we implement?" We will get there next David, we will get there...

#10 Coronation St.

2005-05-01T15:11:00.000-07:00

I guess I missed the coronation. Again. For the first time in history the customer has achieved the status of royalty via the power of Internet communication (at least according to the Economist – April 2, 2005 ed.). This ‘consumer-king’ is another in a long line of abstractions from the reality of life, as many people know it – abstractions that form the ‘market mythos.’ It may be true that the advent of Internet technology has borne an increasingly well informed consumer and this means marketers and admen have to constantly tweak the way in which they help their brands stand out from the constant barrage of product offerings aimed at their targets… excuse me, consumer-kings.

However, stating that the consumer (I suppose this means your ‘everyday jack’) has absolute power over the availability, price, and quality of goods and services he purchases is stretching the reality of most buying situations in which he finds himself (how much are you paying for gasoline currently?). Moreover, let’s keep in mind the dramatically stratified economic class structure in which we exist. A more realistic assertion would be that the consumer is king to the extent that his income will allow him.

The Economist’s 14 page ad campaign for the idea the market is now run by the consumer is disconcerting to those of us still weary from the previous decade of propaganda promoting the unregulated free market as the only viable and efficient way to democratize our society. In that paradigm, government regulators and trade union leaders were labeled ‘elites’ whose aim was to keep the common man from getting a larger piece of the wealth pie in America – and their power to distribute wealth more equitably was, in turn, obliterated.

What the Economist and its ilk are telling us is that you don’t need to have government and unions regulating the market forces in order to insure consumer power – through the Internet and word of mouth, the market will do this on its own. ‘Now go buy your power!’

Furthermore, one might argue that this idea of a consumer-king is the culmination of the market mythos – a religion deeming the unfettered market as an infallible entity. Just as the neo-liberal economic model predicted, the market has aligned itself with the individual. Now, after you stop laughing, consider that for this to be more than a hollow concept, all consumers must have approximately equal access to this market. In a society organized with a high degree of disparity in income (as in America), those with more money have more influence in the market and the decisions made in the interest of the ‘consumer-king.’ 1

After this analysis, the question remaining is, which consumers have been crowned? The market ‘priests’ would say, “those who choose to participate.” Ah, the wonders of almighty enlightenment! Cathleen Whiting addresses the issue of marketplace choice quite tangibly here, “Living in substandard housing because it is the only way to afford adequate food for one’s children cannot be reasonably interpreted as a voluntary choice for food over adequate housing services…” 2 One might assert that this has nothing to do with the way the Internet has (or hasn’t) championed the individual in the marketplace. Notwithstanding this observation, it is also rather unlikely that the mother above would even have Internet access.

Sure, the Internet has revolutionized the way many people shop for products and services – while leaving half the population with little or no Internet access out-of-the-loop. Moreover, the Internet has not changed the inordinately disparate economic class structure in the U.S. So, before we rush the choir on stage to sing the praises a new consumer monarchy in the free market society we must first consider who is (not) being allowed to 'play store' and who owns the 'kingdom.'

Aside: I tried to access a link to the Economist article referred to above
but was told by the server that this was 'premium material' - Indeed... Anyway, if you are so inclined,it is the cover story for the April 2nd 2005 issue.

cheerio!

gp

Notes

1. Cathleen Whiting, “Income Inequality, the Income Cost of Housing and the Myth of Market Efficiency,” The American Journal of Economics and Sociology Oct. 2004 v63 i4.
2. Ibid.

EXCUSES

2005-04-12T03:07:00.000-07:00

This is about as personal as I will get. The combination of my grandfather's ailing health and other academic commitments has left me with little time for this forum. I will be posting something within the next week.
The next topic: Has the Internet really crowned the consumer king? According to some 'cogs' in the greater world totalitarian machine, yes it has. More to follow...

kulanova

COMMENTS

2005-03-23T02:51:00.000-08:00

Comrades-

I have set the comment posting function so you don't have to leave a DNA sample anymore along with your words (thank you rusted matthew ^_^). let me know if this works out.
gp

AMERICAN TOTALITARIANSM

2005-03-23T02:48:00.000-08:00

AMERICAN TOTALITARIANISM

Freedom and independence are ideals that many Americans believe to be the moving forces of our society. This country was founded over two hundred years ago on the principle of independence from tyranny, specifically from the English monarchy. Since that time, the protection of the rights of the individual has, ostensibly, been the goal of legislation in American society. The notion that the state should restrict itself from intervening in the affairs of individuals has often been invoked as the reason for rolling back the regulations placed on corporations in the pretext of ‘protection of the independent businessman’s rights.’ The overall effect is such that corporations end up being treated like persons. This logic has been applied to the rules regarding media ownership and has had a catastrophic effect on the majority of U.S. citizens’ access to accurate and unbiased information regarding issues of political, social, and cultural importance.1 Consequently, public awareness of all sides of issues concerning the society as a whole has been eliminated and, thus, the democratic process has been subverted. Furthermore, it can be asserted that the current U.S. administration is attempting a totalitarian consolidation of power – a unilateral power unfettered by the restraints of true democracy.

Our government’s grab for power did not happen ‘overnight’ and was not because of the events surrounding the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. In the past 20 years, the rules used to govern and regulate corporations have been relaxed – the most important of which are the rules governing media ownership. Corporations used a couple of methods to gain such legislation in their favor – congressional lobbyists and lawyers pleading cases so that corporations are treated as persons, with all of the inherent rights provided by our constitution. The focus of this argument is on the immediate manifestation of the political-corporate collusion to subjugate the American people – President Bush’s administration. Quite frankly, this may be the most powerful manifestation of American tyranny ever.

Using the events of September 11 to justify his administration’s actions in the name of national security, George W. Bush and a relatively compliant congressional body, attempted to curtail the rights of American citizens with the USA PATRIOT ACT. This law was hurried through both chambers of Congress with any opposition pushed aside by Dick Cheney and the rest of the federal executive branch who deemed opposition to passage as ‘attempts to aid and abet possible terrorist operations within America.’ Section 215 of this legislation threatens the individual rights of citizens to know that a FBI search has taken place on their premises and it also allows the FBI to conduct such searches without obtaining a warrant or showing proof that the person is suspected of being a ‘foreign agent’ – both of which violate our fourth amendment rights that provide for searches to take place only after the government has shown probable cause and obtained a warrant.

Though the constitutionality of this legislation has been disputed in federal courts, 2 the current Bush administration presses on, undaunted by such allegations – even more so, now, in the wake of his reelection. Invoking ideas such his claims of “the will of the majority” and “the earning and spending of political capital,” overshadow the sentiments expressed by Bush, such as “I will work hard to earn your respect” (directed, of course, to the 48% of voters who did not support him). Merely acknowledging that there might be opposition to one’s policies does not mean that one is practicing fair judgment when implementing new policies.

A way in which the notion of totalitarian rule in America will be disputed is the assertion that we still have free elections. While it is duly noted that the U.S. still employs the electoral process to choose its leaders, it is a relatively flimsy notion that our elections are free of coercive elements. In order for democracy to actually be taking place in our elections, the people doing the choosing must have adequate access to accurate information regarding all sides of the issues – an example of an ‘issue’ being ‘health care options for all Americans.’ The current media system we have in this country does not allow for this. According to the Center for Public Integrity, despite local media watch groups vigilance, the fifty largest media corporations have spent over 110 million dollars between 1996 and mid-2000 lobbying congress and the President.3 This, while not directly reflective of the current administration’s relationship with the media, is indicative of a corporate-governmental symbiosis, i.e. ‘I’ll scratch your back, if you scratch mine.’

Furthermore, the most palpable evidence of the inaccuracy and convoluted nature of the information media companies supply is in an article quoting Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. published in the Metro Times shortly after the 2004 national election: “There’s a recent report from the University of Maryland that shows that 72% of people who voted for Bush believe that Saddam Hussein bombed the World Trade Center and 75% believe that weapons of mass destruction were found.”4 What this tells us is that many Americans who support the current administration have a very distorted view of the reality of fairly recent events – Saddam Hussein had no connection to Al Qaeda and no WMD’s were found. Moreover, due to the obvious success of the propaganda that created this disparity of fact, democracy in America has been insidiously thwarted.

With the so-called democratic mission of the press obliterated, we are left with nowhere to turn except our government with the aim of having our voices heard. This is not the popular notion of the use of our first amendment rights. In our recent past, free speech rights have been invoked to abridge the authority of the state in an individual’s affairs. The Media Fairness Doctrine had provided for the counterbalance to a market-driven press corps stating that it was the responsibility of major media outlets to air all sides of issues so that the electorate may knowingly and appropriately choose which candidate they will support. This FCC enforced provision was overturned by the FCC itself in 1987 as being unconstitutional, applying the first amendment right of free speech to media corporations. Soon after, President Reagan swiftly vetoed a congressional measure intending to reinstall the Media Fairness Doctrine, citing the same constitutional provision.5

Since the nature of democracy is that of having an informed public debate freely and openly the issues which affect them directly and indirectly, it would be necessary for the state to re-intervene and give a ‘megaphone’ to those who, otherwise, would not be heard.6 The problem, however, is that our media system is set up so that only those issues which generate wealth for the media companies are aired to the public – the most concrete example of the corporate death grip in which our elected officials have left us. An example this ‘death grip’ type of legislation would be the Telecommunications act of 1996. This law has a provision within it that reorganizes the media ownership rules such that one company can own many different radio stations within a single market. Yes, this was signed by Bill Clinton and supported by Al Gore – American totalitarianism can have an enticing liberal façade as well as self-righteous arrogance.

The struggle caused by a lack of alternative voices heard in the mainstream media is yet another example of the coercive retention of power that the Bush administration enjoys due, in part, to his administration’s version of corporate welfare – i.e. tax breaks. The endgame is control of all resources to the extent that there is an inexhaustible supply of cheap labor in this country and, with the current global economy in mind, abroad. A good euphemism for this would be ‘the majority takes all.’

Notwithstanding the heterogeneous makeup of our society, the idea that ‘the majority takes all’ is being put forth as a governing principle of our ‘democracy.’ This leaves a good number of our citizens with their needs determined by those with different values. A solid example of this is the current wave of ballot initiatives defining marriage as between ‘a man and woman only.’ These popularly instituted proposals leave 5-10% of our population (those who have a same-sex relationship) with almost no way to legally define their relationship so that common family resources, such as health insurance, can be shared among partners.

Elections need not be of the ‘I win, you lose’ mentality. It is possible, as we all learned in pre-school, to let the majority rule while protecting the minority’s rights; this would be the principle of “taking turns.”7 However, there is current wave of popular sentiment that is having a silencing effect on our right of self-expression. Examples of these include such banal statements as - ‘dissenters are really nothing but a bunch of complainers’, ‘if you don’t like living here then why don’t you go live somewhere else?’, and the voice that shook the ‘free’ world, ‘You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists.’ The ‘either/or’ false dilemmas are especially troubling to those of us who view true democracy as having an informed populace free to debate all sides of issues about which our public representatives will create legislation to be passed in congress. Moreover, narrowing the public debate to only two options is an example of the subtle fascism with which our government is operating.

It seems as though we are moving towards centralized federal government which cloaks itself in the principles of freedom and ‘will of the people’ while it unilaterally moves forward on policies which threaten our freedom. There have been many different paths to total societal control in recent history: Mussolini’s Italy, Hitler’s Germany, and Stalin’s Soviet Union have each instituted their own form of public control. Sheldon Wolin has claimed that the American path to totalitarianism is ‘inverted’ due to its upside down organizational character:
The Nazi’s abolished the parliamentary system, instituted single-party rule and controlled all forms of public communication. It is possible, however, to reach a similar result without seeming to suppress. An elected legislature is retained but a system of corruption (lobbyists, campaign contributions, payoffs to powerful interests) short-circuits the connection between voters and their representatives. The system responds primarily to corporate interests; voters become cynical, resigned; and opposition seems futile.8

One example of this system in action can be seen in policies that are described as removing state control over ‘social safety net’ programs and privatizing such programs, i.e. putting them in the control of corporations. The end result of this is to cause individuals to be dependent upon the state and the corporations to whom the state is beholden. Further proof of this active coercion can be seen in the tax cuts the White House promoted in the middle of an national economic slump, meanwhile, directing most of the country’s assets toward the endless War on Terrorism – depleting the domestic budget and causing the citizenry to be more dependent on a government that is continuing to eliminate funds for social programs.9 The nature of this tyranny is paradoxical (hence, the term ‘inverted totalitarianism’), as is the notion of a democratic empire. This allows a great amount of latitude to the architects of such domination because the perceptibility of its fascist nature is elusive.

Some will deny the presence of totalitarianism in our society because there are no public institutions of torture or other forms of coercion present in our society. While on the surface this may be true, let us not forget the direct references to torture and coercion subtly conveyed to us in the revelations of conditions at the Abu Gharib prison in Iraq and the Guantanamo Bay camp in Cuba. Also the threat of removing civil rights, by way of the Patriot Act (referred to above), reinforces the ‘subtle’ threats of torture so that the populace is weakened and ‘bullied’ into compliance10 – all of this in the name of (‘reckless’) nationalism – the main similarity American totalitarianism has with other historical examples of total governmental control.

Contrary to popularly invoked notions of freedom and independence, Americans are in a position of little control over our individual lives. The current Bush administration has consolidated its power and sharpened its rhetoric for the next four years. Breaking from the ‘inverted totalitarian’ regime is going to take more effort from the so-called progressively minded individuals than to simply elect a Democrat to the presidency in 2008. Though the scope of this argument focused mainly on the Bush administration’s use and abuse of power in this country; it should be, again, noted that the problem of absolute power in our society is something even bigger than President Bush. I believe Douglass Rushkoff focuses on the correct target in saying that, “It is more constructive to think of the coercive forces in our society as part of a big machine that has gotten out of control. As we become more conscious of how it works we can begin to dismantle it.”11 Thus, with the proper focus of our efforts to break the system of political/corporate symbiosis, we may one day be truly free and independent.

NOTES
1. McChesney, Robert W. “Waging the Media Battle.” Center for American Progress July 2004. 27 Oct. 2004 .
2. Eggen, Dan. “Key Part of Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional.” Washington Post.com 30 Sept. 2004. 6 Feb. 2005
.
3. McChesney, Robert W. and John Nichols. “The Making of a Movement.” The
Nation.com. 7 Jan. 2002. 27 Oct. 2004. .
4. Lessenberry, Jack. “Crimes Against Nature.” Metro Times. 24 Nov. 2004: 8.
5. Fiss, Owen M. The Irony of Free Speech. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1996: 56-59.
6. Ibid. 2-4.
7. Guinier, Lani. “The Tyranny of the Majority.” Brereton, John C. and Linda H. Paterson, ed. The Norton Reader. 11th ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2004: 888.
8. Wolin, Sheldon S. “A Kind of Fascism is Replacing Our Democracy.” Common Dreams News Center 18 July 2003. 6 Feb. 2005 .
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. Rushkoff, Douglass. Coercion. New York: Riverhead Books, 1999: 23.

MANUFACTURING DISSENT

2005-03-17T02:46:00.000-08:00

MANUFACTURING DISSENT

One of the more salient topics in market research over the past decade has been the “anti-consumption movement.” Many people disdain consumerism and are less likely to buy brand name items or shop in the mega malls to outfit their wardrobes. However, they still consume. The seeds for targeting ‘rebel consumers’ were planted in the 1960’s American youth culture. It was within those protest rallies that consumption came to be about individuality, difference, and choice. Previously, it had been about conformity and fitting-in. In the 90’s, much like the 60’s, marketing strategists catered to the anti- consumption rebels. Products were referred to and displayed on television in a self-deprecating manner. Some of the more popular corporate label music acts had names such as Rage Against the Machine and Marilyn Manson. Companies owning the aforementioned products took notice of the effectiveness of the rebel consumer strategy and were ready to apply it elsewhere in this ‘information culture.’

As the economy began to slow down after the prosperous early 90’s and jobs were beginning to be shipped abroad, those in control of the public airwaves realized that they might have to sell us things that consumers didn’t necessarily need money to buy – their political candidates. Anyone paying attention to the elections of 2000 and 2004, as far as media coverage is concerned, would likely agree that most political candidates, including those for U.S. President, are now being packaged and sold to the American public much like most commonly found products in WAL-MART. Though this type of behavior works well in the realm of capitalistic society, our system of governing is set up to be a democracy. The citizens of America need media reform in order to more adequately assess their options as voters.

Those in control of the public media, airwaves and print, have often asserted that they are merely giving the people what they want with reference to the content of programming and dissemination of information.

"What’s different today is that your customers will choose how and where you offer your products and services. And they’ll expect to receive a consistent branded experience no matter which touch point or channel they use."1

The above quote is taken from Patricia Seybold’s book, The Customer Revolution (2001), and is out of context here because what she is primarily referring to is the business relationships between retailers and manufacturers or business service providers. However, it highlights a sentiment often heard by American consumers – ‘you’re in the driver’s seat, you decide.’ Dispelling this myth is the idea that in a national media market controlled by relatively few companies; there is producer sovereignty, not consumer sovereignty. People are given what they want only within a range that generates the most profit for the media companies. Supply is creating demand as much as demand is creating supply.2

Furthermore, supply creating demand is exemplified extremely well by commercial advertising on major network television. There is nothing more satisfying to a majority of television consumers than commercial-free broadcasting. Current polls indicate that nearly 2/3 of all Americans would prefer that there not be so much advertising in the public space and on television. However, we are constantly bathed in commercialism through every media outlet we access – including, of course, the Internet.3

Yes, there are many different types of media available to the public. However, there are only a handful of corporations controlling these media. Currently, there are about seven giant firms that control most of the airwaves in America.4 Some of these parent corporations own a large number of print, radio, television, and Internet media. For example, take Viacom, Inc. It owns 18+ television networks along with 39 local stations, 7+ movie distribution companies including Paramount Pictures, 184 Infinity Broadcast radio stations, and exclusive advertising rights on buses, trains, subways, kiosks, billboards, and other venues in New York, LA, Chicago, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Detroit, Houston, Atlanta, and 82 other U.S. cities along with cities in Mexico, Canada, Britain, Ireland and throughout Europe.

In order for democracy to exist in our society, access to accurate, non-misleading information regarding issues of public concern must be realized. The most brutal blow to this public right came in 1996 when a provision seemingly written by radio industry lobbyists passed both chambers of congress without an iota of press coverage (ironically enough) – one of its provisions being that broadcast firms were allowed as many as eight stations in one market.5

This type of legislation is often referred to as deregulation – akin to decriminalization. Though the term may seemingly imply something that is good, what ends up happening is that companies control larger market areas via owning more stations. If one tries to broadcast on a station allocated to a company by the federal government, they are subject to possible criminal indictments. This is, in fact, serious regulation. Moreover, deregulation, in the realm of broadcast media, means that firms can own more government-granted ‘monopoly licenses’ than before.6 Our current media structure is not so much the product of free market competition. The federal government has granted free monopoly rights to television frequencies for corporations, without the public’s consent.7

An event that highlights the scarcity of fair media representation took place during last year’s state of the union address. It was here that President Bush called for a constitutional amendment protecting the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. It was carefully worded so as to not say ‘banning gay marriage’ – which is the purpose such an amendment would serve.

This topic was brought up continually throughout the campaign – obscuring, what some may deem, more vital social issues such as environmental quality, jobs, access to adequate health care, and the future of social security. The media focus on this newly implemented social issue and the abortion question along with the war in Iraq lasted through the debates wherein only scant reference was made to jobs, medical insurance reform, and social security.

Moreover, during the majority of the campaign for President in 2004, the media echo chamber spent most of its public deliberation airtime focusing on the war in Iraq or Kerry’s service record during and after the Vietnam Conflict. Consequently, voters ended up basing their decision primarily on information supplied to them by an administration compliant propaganda media machine with a narrow focus on their hand-picked set of issues.8 This media machine caters to the implementation of a totalitarian state not seen since the era of the ‘Greatest Generation’ (on the other side of the Atlantic, of course…) – making Bush’s allusions to FDR all the more chilling.

In response to the idea of an American totalitarian state it will be asserted that there are no instruments of torture being used directly on the populace. However, we must remember that the oblique references to the removal of civil rights (Patriot Act), weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq, and Hussein’s alleged culpability in the September 11th tragedy promotes fear in the public and makes people complicit with current U.S. policy.9

Though the nation is nearly evenly split, it seems as though marketing strategists have co-opted the rebel consumer ethos and channeled it into the major arteries of the media, which presented the public with one choice – we must go to war. Dissenters are portrayed as ‘conformists’ and ‘freedom-haters’ (compliant in the great ‘liberal media’ scheme to dupe America) while the conformists are being cast as ‘individuals’ and ‘freedom-loving Americans.’ By absorbing the rebel sentiment, the political status quo has subverted the counter-culture with counter-culture ‘mores’ – and gross misrepresentations of the facts echoed endlessly throughout the media landscape.

Ultimately it is the goal of media fairness advocates to be able to have all sides of public issues aired and open for deliberation. Currently, what we have in this country is a handful of mega-corporations issuing directives as to what to believe about, what should be, debatable issues; the most telling example being whether to keep150,000 U.S. troops in and send billions more of tax-payer dollars over to Iraq – ostensibly, securing Iraqi freedom. Marketing strategists have come a long way from the influencing techniques of the 60’s and 90’s. They have co-opted the rebel consumer-selling scheme and employed it in the political candidate-selling arena. One might even be able to consider one’s self a rebel because they support the status quo – in this case, President Bush. Moreover, the consolidation of companies that own print and broadcast media outlets has rendered the claim of objectivity from those sources untenable; furthermore, deregulation of the restrictions placed upon these media conglomerates has left many Americans with less access to objective information – replacing options with directives. If public awareness continues to grow, in reference to the issue of media fairness, new policies are more likely to be implemented regarding, what should be, the multilateral objectives of the often termed ‘fourth estate.’ And we can begin to refer to our system of government as ‘democracy’ without clenching our teeth when we say it.

Notes
1. Seybold, Patricia B. The Customer Revolution. New York: Crown Business, 2001. 373.
2. McChesney, Robert W. “Waging the Media Battle.” Center For American Progress. .
3. Ibid.
4. Lessenberry, Jack. “Crimes Against Nature.” Metro Times. 24 Nov. 2004: 8.
5. McChesney, Robert W. “Waging the Media Battle.” Center For American Progress. .
6. Ibid.
7. McChesney, Robert W. and John Nichols. “The Making of a Movement.” TheNation.com 7 Jan. 2002. .
8. Lessenberry, Jack. “Crimes Against Nature.” Metro Times. 24 Nov. 2004: 8.
9. Wolin, Sheldon S. “Inverted Totalitarianism.” TheNation.com 19 May 2003. .

Carribean Sweet Potato Salad

2005-03-12T09:34:00.000-08:00

Here's my attempt at encouraging the warmer weather to move on in. This is also a delicious salad that is fairly easy to prepare and will be a good addition to the drudgery of normal pot-luck selections. Ciao! gp.

Caribbean Sweet Potato Salad

INGREDIENTS
1 large russet potatoes, peeled and quartered
1 large sweet potato, peeled and quartered
1 cup corn kernels, fresh or frozen
1 teaspoon Dijon mustard
2 tablespoons lime juice
3 tablespoons chopped cilantro
1 garlic clove, minced
3 tablespoons canola or corn oil
1/2 teaspoon salt, or more, to taste
1/4 teaspoon fresh-ground black pepper
1 cucumber, peeled, halved
lengthwise, and sliced into thin half-rounds
1/2 red onion, sliced thin
1/4 cup finely chopped dry-roasted, unsalted peanuts

1. Put the russet potato pieces into a large saucepan, and cover them with salted water. Bring the potatoes to a boil. Turn the heat down to medium, and simmer the potatoes for 10 minutes. Add the sweet potato pieces, and cook about 15 minutes more. Remove a piece of each potato, and cut in half to see if it has cooked enough. You should feel a bit of resistance with both potatoes; don’t let them cook until they are breaking apart. Once the potatoes are tender, promptly add the corn kernels, and cook another 30 seconds. Quickly drain the vegetables in a colander, and fill the saucepan with cold water. Drop the potatoes and corn into the cold water, and leave them for 5 minutes to stop the cooking.

2. In a large bowl, combine the mustard, lime juice, cilantro, and garlic. Stir with a whisk. Slowly add the oil while whisking. Add the salt and pepper.

3. Drain the cooled sweet and white potatoes, and cut them into 1-inch cubes. Add the potato, the cucumber, and the red onion to the vinaigrette. Toss well.

4. Serve the salad at room temperature or chilled. Toss the peanuts in just before serving. Well covered in the refrigerator, this salad keeps for 3 to 4 days.
Serves 5.

Burroughs audio clip

2005-03-08T18:43:00.000-08:00

This is from "Dead City Radio." I find the line "inept, frigtened pilots of the controls of a vast machine they cannot understand - calling in experts to tell them which buttons to push" EXTREMELY apropos for this first decade of the 21st century in america. Released in 1990, fyi.

2005-03-08T18:40:00.000-08:00

THERE WILL BE NO MORE STALINS

2005-03-05T23:35:00.000-08:00

In the past 20 years, the rules used to govern and regulate corporations have been relaxed – the most important of which are the rules governing media ownership. Media corporations have used a couple of methods to gain such legislation in their favor – congressional lobbyists and lawyers pleading cases so that corporations are treated as persons, with all of the inherent rights provided by our constitution. The consequences of such rulings have helped to transform the influencing power of the media into coercion of the American people.

Currently, there are about seven giant firms that control most of the airwaves in America. Some of these parent corporations own a large number of print, radio, television, and Internet media. What tends to happen when one corporation owns many types of media can be referred to as the ‘echo chamber’ effect. For example, someone reads in the paper that Nader’s candidacy is being fingered as the reason Gore lost the election in 2000. That same person may hear a report on the radio about Nader in a similar light later on. Then in the evening, that same person might see an interview with Nader defending himself as to whether or not he is or was the spoiler in either the previous or the current presidential election, Ad infinitum. Anyone who primarily accesses mainstream media outlets would hear nothing of what he has to say about any social issue that might pertain directly to them – they simply hear the accusations, then witness Nader defending himself.

One of the difficulties in asserting that large media companies have an excessive influence on the opinions of many Americans is being able to distinguish the ‘opposing’ sides. The media companies are made up of people who read, listen or watch like anyone else. It is becoming more apparent that a process of coercion is operating through our media – part of an automated machine spinning wildly out of control. The driving force for these companies is, of course, profit.

The most palpable evidence of the inaccuracy and convoluted nature of the information media companies supply is in a report from the University of Maryland. This report shows 72% of people who voted for Bush believe that Saddam Hussein bombed the World Trade Center and 75% believe that weapons of mass destruction were found. This tells us is that many Americans who support the current administration have a very distorted view of the reality of fairly recent events – Saddam Hussein had no connection to Al Qaeda and no WMD’s were found.

Consequently, the deregulation of restrictions placed upon media conglomerates has left many Americans with less access to objective information – replacing options with directives. The influencing power of major media outlets in America is predicated on fear and control of information. Until the cycle of a profit driven news media is broken, Americans will continue to be guided ever closer to tyranny in the guise of ‘freedom.’

Music is the Best

2005-03-05T19:05:00.000-08:00

I really enjoy music. In fact, I enjoy it so much that I believe it to be the ultimate form of expression. When I am trying to focus on something that I am reading with music going on in the background, especially lyrical music, I cannot concentrate on the words on a written page as well because my brain wants to be interpreting what it is hearing. When I am writing, I find it easier to listen to music, even with lyrics. It’s very interesting to me because I view reading and writing as interwoven in the two part model of communication – much like speaking and listening. I am writing this while listening to a mix of two bands called Yo La Tengo and The Cure. They both prominently use lyrics in their music. I really enjoy music.

The method I use to write a song is similar to the way in which I write prose – I start at the beginning. This doesn’t mean I cement myself in obsessive rigor; it is simply the easiest way for me to begin compiling my ideas. This is one area in which I feel that I have shown the most improvement – the ability to compile ideas somewhat coherently. I feel another strength of mine is my respect for the musical quality of the English language. I think it reflects in my pieces. I try to infuse, what could be termed, ‘dry topics’ with abstract and palpable imagery. I enjoy reading things that wink at me from the written page and I guess I assume that a large number of other readers enjoy this as well.

Now that I’m through patting myself on the back, let’s look at some areas in which I need improvement. I think that the most important skill I need to master is to keep simple concepts simple. My inclination is to overcomplicate my message for fear that I may leave a crucial detail out. This is why I really enjoy good feedback from those who read my stuff. To me, reading is a very important part of writing – yin to yang.
This is the next area that I feel I need to strengthen. My lack of reading comprehension has been a constant struggle throughout my academic career. It takes multiple readings of others’ pieces for me to extract meaning and themes. I wish to be more diligent to this end.

Sometimes I extrapolate the experience of listening to a song to reading an article or a book. I just let the words slide through me leaving a trail that has elements of the author’s intended meaning, but never a complete version of it. Oh, to have a book that reads like a good piece of music sounds! Life would be so much easier. Each author would have his own band that would tour the country performing his book. The attending crowds would devour the material. Everyone benefits and is happy…or sad…or angry. It is my wish right now to simply be mellow, cool, and painfully aware. I am. It is good.