Saturday, April 22, 2006

America, the compromised

I just finished this long comment over at Digby's place. I figured I would post it here since I might as well remember what I write. Besides, I wanted to post this picture anyway:

Digby
We seem to have a little glitch in our national psyche that won't go away. It isn't just southern anymore. The misadventure of the last five years has been run by a southern dominant political party, but its architects were elite, cosmopolitan intellectuals. This is an American problem and we are going to have to get rid of it if this country is going to survive.


I couldn't agree more. We are still paying the price for the Missouri Compromise and for the failed Reconstruction period after the Civil War. This is true for race relations, as Katrina and its aftermath amply prove, and, just as importantly, it is true for class relations.

I am not a Civil War historian, but I am from the South and lived in the South for a long time before coming to L.A. One thing I know about red states is that they are a model of colonialism and extraction, seeking to suck out the fruits of natural resources and human labor where they can.

If the most efficient means of labor/resource extraction means classifying a group of people as sub-human, then that is the obvious path. If that becomes socially or politically unacceptable, then other means become necessary. The South's loss in the civil war was as much a social conversion as it was a resource failure. In fact, it is a myth to think that the South lost because it did not have industry. The South lost because people gave up. If the average Southerner in 1864 really believed in slavery and that the slave-owner society was really helping the average citizen, then the South, in 1866 or 1867, would have resembled Iraq in 2006--there would have been widespread rebellion, uprising, guerilla war. This did not happen. Why? The answer if of course complicated, but, in part, it is because many, many white people were oppressed by the upper-class land owners. These whites, while having many more benefits than slaves, obviously, understood that the system was working against them. It was not their war to begin with. How else does one explain the huge desertion rates in the Southern army? (I know, I'm generalizing.)

To get back to my point, and perhaps yours, something changed during reconstruction. As soon as Blacks had "equal" status, they could become the boogeyman for Whites. White Elites exploited this to their full advantage and began to mythologize racism and the "Golden Age of the Old South" through groups such as the KKK --and the Southern Democrats.

The racist mythology allowed poor Whites and rich Whites to find a common ground at the beginning of the 20th century, and at the present. The Republican party, as everyone knows, constantly summons this racist mythology through hint and allusion by nominating racist judges on MLK's birthday, by avoiding speaking to the NAACP, through talk radio and TV pundits. And this is where it gets dangerous, as D. Dneiwert, among others in the blogosphere, points out. The racist myth is so pervasive, so easy to tap into, and so powerful (because its fallacies seem to explain so many things), that a word here, an image there, and our Mass Media has fed into and propagated a racist creed. It is a creed that is false, but powerful because it imbues the believer with power, with an impression of superiority, and this "superiority" crosses class lines, and that is the ultimate scam.

So it isn't just Southern (it never was, it was just more so), and it isn't just race. I have lived abroad, and I will say that America is one of the most racist places I know. Racsim is a huge, huge problem. That said, I feel that it is the ability of the myth, through racism, to elide over class issues that is causing us problems today. It isn't that the "South" has taken over; it is that the extractors, those adept at mining the land and its humans, have come into power. Their belief system in 1860, like now, was exploitation (of blacks and whites), elitism, and expansion. The extractors, now as then, are constantly seeking new territories and peoples at the lowest cost. It is their way of hiding the true cost of their (and our) wealth.

They know that the weath of the here and now almost always comes at the price of people and land. They just don't care.

Look at how the Republican leadership frolics in New York and L.A., supposedly speaking for the "common man", while, in reality, the red-states they represent are among the poorest regions of the country. Though to a lesser degree, Kansas and South Dakota are to America what Africa and South America are to the "developed" world.

This is the Brand America they have created; its purveyors are Fox News and Malkin and Bush. They are all racists, they are all elitists, and they just don't care. The only hope is not it some PC version of eliminating racism, but in re-forming the instutions that purvey the racism and exploitation of Americans, namely government, big business and the media.

Whoever the next president may be, the only real hope is in "demolishing" large swaths of the federal government, and by that, I don't mean getting rid of it, but re-doing it. The Republican party has infiltrated every nook and cranny of government and will hold on to those positions no matter what. The only way to get rid of them is to litterally re-invent the departments from the ground up, removing, where possible, the revolving doors, promoting career officers, etc. Re-organize is perhaps the best term, but there will need to be some creative destruction before the demons of the Republican party, which are overwhelmingly the demons of the Civil War and the Reconstruction, are sufficiently reduced, removed, or whatever.

I do not want to absolve the Democrats in this. They carry a huge blame historically in promoting racsim and exploitation, but, presently, they are simply a weak, rudderless party. The Republicans are, and they know it, up to something far more dangerous and corrupt. It will take an earnest Reconstruction of government to repair what the Repblicans have done and continue to do and to make progress in alleviating the burdens of our national demons.

[Update: I see that other people are working on a Grand Unified Theory, all inspired by Digby's musings.]

What have I done to deserve this?

http://themodulator.org/archives/002373.html

Oh, well. Thanks for the other posts.

Philomath, etc.

I was struck by the amount of foresting, or, more properly de-foresting going on in the whole area between Athens and I-20 between Atlanta and Augusta. The size of the area with so few houses was also surprising. Eventually, I came upon Philomath, and, though I'd been several times before, I found the house with tree trunks as intriguing as ever.



Friday, April 21, 2006

Friday Cat Blogging from the Left Paw Society

And, yes, with some other critters I've captured on camera this week. Includingthe common House Finch. Of course, I didn't think this bird was common at all. In fact, when I saw its colors, I thought maybe I had seen the elusive Red-Ringed California Fly Swatter or something. Alas, it was but the humble House Finch. I wish I could have gotten closer, but
the bird was on the top wire of a telephone post. For me, it was quite a moment. As I approached, steathily moving in the shadows of the alley and snapping pictures as quickly as my nervous, trembling hands would let me, my avian friend turned away, beckoned the sound of a distant call. At that point my subject, obviously keen to respond, took a deep breath, ruffled its feathers, and spoke back. While I am loathe to translate from Common House Finch, I think the bird said "Yes, I do" and took flight. I never saw it again.

Finally, a warbler of some sort, I think. Orthinologists of the world, correct me.

This little--tiny actually--bird has been all over the garden eating aphids off the roses. Nature is reallly quite amazing if you let it be.

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Secret Plans to Gut the National Park Service

(X-listed at Dkos).

Here is an issue that is vital to the public interest, has wide public support and understanding, and yet little play in the Democratic Party:


Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility has a press release detailing the latest in budget "reforms" for our National Parks. A lot of managment-talk is used, but it boils down to cutting, gutting and probably ruining some of our national treasures. While recent measures to include faith-based messagesin our parks and park commercialization may seem bad enough, cutting the budget is by far the most serious concern we should have. Indeed, the overall plan seems to be to choke the parks, then, in a few years, make the problem so big that commercialization and privatization is inevitable.(keep reading...)
According the the Bush administration, spending for the NPS is up. Of course, according the Bush Administration, Iraq is doing well too. Given their proclivity for misrepresenting the truth, it behooves us to examine more closely the actual record. To that effect, The National Park Conservation Association provides some explanation:

[T]hrough creative accounting and forecasting, some in the administration seek to take credit for providing $4.9 billion toward the maintenance backlog by fiscal year 2006. Yet only $662 million is new funding--the rest includes funding raised by national park visitors' entrance fees or money already coming to the parks for day-to-day repairs over the past four years.


The national parks' deferred maintenance backlog, now estimated at $4.1 billion to $6.8 billion, is more than double the Park Service's entire annual operating budget. It includes projects such as visitor center repairs, invasive species removal, electrical and fire-suppression system upgrades, road and bridge rehabilitation, and historic building restoration.(Source: http://www.npca.org/)


A fellow Kossack, who happens to work for the NPS, chimed in:
And I can tell you that the GAO report is spot on. The parks are being slowly starved.

If your income were raised about 2%-3% each year, while your "fixed costs" such as health insurance, rent, food, etc are going up by about 5%-10% per year, the results are predictable. First you compensate by cutting out luxuries, but that only goes so far. After a few years, you are forced to start taking short cuts. You decide to quit fixing things that are broken, hoping that your situation will improve later. After a few more years, you start doing increasingly desperate things. Eventually you get to a point where you seriously contemplate selling yourself.

That's what is happening folks. We're starving, and they get to report that "the NPS has never had so much money." It's an appalling insult.


Of course, there are scoundrels aplenty looking to tap into the vast visitor base of the NPS, and there are just as many mining corporations looking to get free or extra-cheap mineral rights (just look at some of Pombo's legislation). Given the overwhelming public support for the NPS, why aren't the Dems making a bigger issue of this? As David Sirota recently pointed out, even red-state publications like "Field and Stream" are taking offense at the Bush Administration. And, as Asdf notes: "The bureaucracy has been so thoroughly infiltrated by browns in key political apointee positions that, despite their their power base having been eroded - somewhat - the juggernaut forges on. And the judiciary, which has been instrumental in overruling executive discretion in environmental disputes, continues to be infiltrated."

In a word, the Commons, our public lands are under attack from multiple angles. It is important that we act soon, and that the Democratic party gets the message too.

Are you fired up yet? If not, read PEER's press release:

For Immediate Release: April 17, 2006

SECRET PLAN TO CUT NATIONAL PARK FUNDING BY 30% IN 5 YEARS -- Parks "Glide Path" to Impoverishment Breaks Bush Campaign Pledge


Washington, DC -- The Bush administration has directed the National Park Service to substantially decrease its reliance on tax-supported funding, according to internal documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). In a turnabout from the last two presidential campaigns when candidate Bush promised greater funding of parks, new "talking points" distributed last week to all park superintendents urge them to begin "honest and forthright" discussions with the public about smaller budgets, reduced visitor services and increased fees.


Using a new approach called Core Operations Analysis, each park is asked to develop budgets based on a 20 to 30% reduction in appropriation support. In this exercise, park superintendents decide which visitor services or other functions can be jettisoned ("staffing and funding alternatives based on realistic funding projections," in the words of the Park Service). Whatever shortfalls in support for essential operations that remain must be made up for with fee hikes, cost shifting or increased reliance on volunteers.



Once the Core Operation Analysis is finalized, each park is then put on a "glide path" to implement the agreed upon reductions during the next five years.



In the talking points memo issued on April 11, 2006, park public affairs and budgetary staff provide coaching as to how individual parks should spin shrinking budgets and reduced visitor services, including:

* "The National Park Service, like most agencies, is tightening its belt as our nation rebuilds from Katrina, continues the war on terrorism and strives to reduce the deficit" and ...

"Our satisfaction rating is over 96 percent nationally, and has remained high for several years. That's a clear indicator that budgets have not reduced visitor enjoyment."


By contrast, prior to the 2004 election, park officials were ordered to avoid mention of cutbacks and instead use the euphemism "service level adjustments." In talking points distributed on April 7, 2004, park managers were instructed to counter charges of lower budgets by declaring "NPS has fared well under President Bush."

"Rather than being honest about planned budget cuts, the Bush administration once again makes stealth policy decisions cloaked by management reform mumbo jumbo," stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. "If our national parks are going to be reduced to performing only the bare minimum of `core operations' the public ought to be given some say as to what is considered essential."


So, Bush can be down in the polls, congressmen and lobbyist can be jailed, but the program to privatize and corporatize every inch of the American commons continues. As you can see, NPS employees are already being asked to spout the Republican talking points about the budget. What next? Our National Parks will resemble theme parks, not refuges of nature. For example, here is a picture I took at Disneyland last year:




So I'll skip my usual wordy entry, and get straight to the point: If you think this important, take action with the two groups below. Hey, write the Democratic Party too! This is a no-brainer issue. The National Park Service has huge public support. This is why even Bush has to talk all nice about it in the State of the Union and why Dems should be pointing to the Republican rape of this venerable institution every chance they get.


Take care...


Links:


NOTES:

Some folks asked for more numbers. Here is the non-partisan General Accounting Office discussion of the NPS budget:

All park units we visited received project-related allocations, but most of the
park units experienced declines in inflation-adjusted terms in their
allocations for daily operations. Each of the 12 park units reported their
daily operations allocations were not sufficient to address increases in
operating costs, such as salaries, and new Park Service requirements. In
response, officials reported that they either eliminated or reduced some
services or relied on other authorized sources to pay operating expenses that
have historically been paid with allocations for daily operations. Also,
implementing important Park Service policies--without additional
allocations--has placed additional demands on the park units and reduced
their flexibility. For example, the Park Service has directed its park units to
spend most of their visitor fees on deferred maintenance projects. While the
Park Service may use visitor fees to pay salaries for permanent staff who
administer projects funded with these fees, it has a policy prohibiting such
use. To alleviate the pressure on daily operations allocations, we believe it
would be appropriate to use visitor fees to pay the salaries of employees
working on visitor fee funded projects. Interior believes that, while
employment levels at individual park units may have fluctuated for many
reasons, employment servicewide was stable, including both seasonal and
permanent employees.
source: GAO report