Metaphors for America: MFA

I thought this picture at americablog was a great metaphor for America (speaking to Bush). I'm sure some others will come to me soon...

"C'est du lapinisme!" Quote from Les 400 Coups

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 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.

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:

• http://www.npca.org/
• http://www.peer.org/...
• http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dailykos_environmentalists/

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

Friday Cat Blogging, Left Paw Society

Old polaroids: I like how the film is stripped away, and development is uneven, and the colors are untrue, all of which heighten, paradoxically, the reality of memory.
Has anybody ever noticed the overuse of simile in greeting cards? I have.

Wednesday Moon Blogging, with fungus and a cat

Propaganda from the NYT (via IHT)

I came across "Economics, French Style" when I awoke this morning, and I thought it would make for some conversation.  In typical NYT/IHT style, it glosses over reality and paints France in a backward light.

PARIS Danielle Scache tries to avoid using the term "capitalism" in her economics class because it has negative connotations in France.

Instead, she teaches her high school students about the market economy, a slightly less controversial term she started using last year after a two-month internship at the dairy giant Danone. That was an experience that did away with more than one of her own prejudices, she said.

"I was surprised to see that people actually enjoyed working in a company," said Scache, who is 59. "Some of them were more enthusiastic than many teachers I know."

"You know," she confided with a laugh, "in France we often think of companies, especially multinationals, as a place of constant conflict between employees and management."

This view of bosses and workers as engaged in an endless, antagonistic tug-of-war goes some way toward explaining the two-month rebellion against a new labor law.

In this world, beyond the political fault lines of left and right, companies and the market cannot be trusted. Any measure that benefits them necessarily hurts employees. The invisible hand in this world is the state, or the "public powers" to use the French term, whose role is to tame companies, protect workers and hold sway over economic growth with public spending.

It is a world that many people here still prefer to live in. In a 22-country survey published in January, France was the only nation disagreeing with the premise that the best system is "the free-market economy." In the poll, conducted by the University of Maryland, only 36 percent of French respondents agreed, compared with 65 percent in Germany, 66 percent in Britain, 71 percent in the United States and 74 percent in China.

The findings suggest that French reluctance to introduce flexibility into the labor market - the embattled new law makes it easier to fire young workers - goes beyond the reform fatigue and nostalgia for the post-World War II welfare state evident in some other European countries. As Finance Minister Thierry Breton put it last week: "There is a significant lack of economic culture in our country."

Hmmm, is it possible that people in France disagree with "capitalism" and "free" markets, not because they are less educated, but because they are more so, because the upsides and downsides of political and economic systems are discussed more openly?

Not surprisingly, all of this gets blamed on education:

"The question of how economics is taught in France, both at the bottom and at the top of the educational pyramid, is at the heart of the current crisis," said Jean-Pierre Boisivon, director of the Enterprise Institute, a company-financed institute that sponsors the internship program for economics teachers that Scache took part in.

"In France we are still stuck in 1970s Keynesian-style economics - we live in the world of 30 years ago," he said. "In our schools we fabricate a vision of society that is very different from the one that exists in other countries."

True enough.  As so many of Jérôme's diary have shown, quality of life and economic growth do not differ significantly in France, and though unemployment is an issue, even the numbers there do not suggest France is a radical outlier.  Economy, as taught in France, in its elite schools, does not seem to differ from the pro-globalization econ taught in so many other places like London and Chicago:

French and international economists agree that the material taught at France's top universities and elite business schools, like HEC, or Hautes Études Commerciales, and Essec, or École Superieure des Sciences Économiques et Commerciales, does not differ markedly from that taught elsewhere. Indeed, France has a long tradition of excellence in academic economics; Europe's most famous economist is Jean-Claude Trichet, the Frenchman who heads the European Central Bank.

What is interesting is that the author of the story forgot to mention the revolt that took place in France in 2000 and gave birth to "Post Autistic Economics".  This revolt did not come from the lower strata, but from the students at the very top of the grandes écoles.  Students at Harvard followed suit by protesting the intro to economics there, which has been taught in essentially the same way for 30 years.  Clearly, if this article were a true discussion of the economic thought in France it would mention all of this.  It does not, and that is revealing and it suggests that the author of the article is penning yet another "hit job" on France.  She goes on to discuss how economics is taught in high schools: "But in high schools, the "economic and social sciences" branch - one of three options that is chosen by about a third of all students - appears to dwell more on the limitations of the market and the state's task of addressing those limitations than on the market itself."

Then the author really gets to the true danger to economic "education" in France:

And then there are the textbooks. One, published by Nathan and widely used by final-year students, has this to say on p. 137: "One must analyze the salary as purchasing power that you could not cut without sparking a deflationary spiral and thus higher unemployment." Another popular textbook, published by La Découverte, asks on p. 164: "Are there still enough jobs for everyone?" It then suggests that the state subsidize jobs in the public sector: "We can seriously envisage this because our economy allows us already to support a large number of unemployed people."



These arguments were frequently used on the streets in recent weeks, where many protesters said raising salaries and subsidizing work was a better way to cut joblessness than flexibility.

Et voilà, now we understand the real culprit behind the civil disobediance--high school teachers and text books.  That's right, it's all those unreformed Soixante-huitards inculcating Maoist propaganda into French youth!

I'm not saying that the textbooks aren't simplistic or even wrong, but I would suggest a more thorough analysis of them before jumping to any conclusions.  Textbooks have been a political issue for decades now in the U.S., and the effect has been to stifle discussion of economics, slaver, class, sexuality and any number of "controversial" subjects.  If the French students are brainwashed, then the American ones are

simply robots, if textbooks are to be believed.

Anyway, that's my take on an article I found rather offensive this morning (or afternoon, depending on your location...).

Saturday Cat Blogging: Left Paw Society

California Cat Blogging on a Friday

Disney to Offer Cell Phones: Dangerous

Of Tinkerbells and Republican Values

Disney will begin marketing a nationwide wireless phone service that will enable parents to manage their children's cell phone use. Be very afraid, especially if you have a child, are a child. Be even more afraid if your child is female.

Although Disney markets itself as a trustworthy company that provides innocent, family-friendly products, in truth the Disney Corporation seeks neither to promote "family values" nor to adhere to them. It seeks to make money by the most efficient means possible.

Since its inception, Disney has been a "pioneer" in animated film because it brought the assembly line to animation production. In so doing, it has consistently sought to crush unions, or severely limit them. How else do you think they earned 32 billion dollars last year? This lack of scruples has made them one of the largest owners of media in the world, fighting every battle to keep control over copyrights and extending patents into the indefinite future. We could also mention Walt Disney's sexism and his love of Hitler serious flirtations with fascism, but that is for another time...

"Yes, but I like Disney movies. They're safe and non-threatening" you say. Well, unfortunately, Disney movies are anything but. Remember, Disney is a corporation with the power to make any film it wants, yet it continues to make films like the Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast in which female heroines are in one way or another deprived of a voice. "But Belle was smart and read a lot," you say. She may have been, but that did not stop her from being captured, forced to put up with a violent male, and ultimately find "happiness" being married to him. The subtle message is "if you are nice to a mean man, he will eventually be nice to you." If you don't believe me, listen to children say it on Mickey Mouse Monopoly.You will see that little girls learn that being nice and subservient is the way to keep a man. It's probably a great way to learn how to stay in an abusive relationship too, but is that what you want your children to do?

You want to know more? Go read about Dumbo, Song of the South, Jungle Book, Aladdin and more.

Speaking of depriving females of a voice and objectifying them at a young age, did you hear about the guy in Homeland Security who was trying to find an opportunity to sexually assault a minor? Well, Disney is a major player in an entertainment industry that sexualizes young chilldren. Here is a good example. It's a photo I took at Disneyland last year.

Notice where the image leads your eyes. How is that for innocent? Think about this. Disney plans their marketing meticulously and they choose to portray women and children in derogatory ways.

The sexualization of young females is bad enough, but it also leads to their objectification and thus exploitation by men like Doyle. I suppose it also leads to men like Lewis Libby, who says, in The Apprentice: "At age ten the madam put the child in a cage with a bear trained to couple with young girls so the girls would be frigid and not fall in love with their patrons. They fed her through the bars and aroused the bear with a stick when it seemed to lose interest." What is in your popcorn?

Those are Republican family values for you, and these are corporate values that sell.

But let's get back to Disney.

What embodies the transition to innocent whore better than the mouseketeers? Nothing. Let's take a look at one of the most famous graduates from the mouseketeers, Britney Spears:

Note the childlike pose, but the woman-like attitude "Do it one more time." A rather provocative juxtaposition if there ever was one.

Is it any surprise that she also sings "Slave 4 U":

What is important here is that Brittney is not only a Disney product, but a product of Disney.

Disney is interested in capturing a youth audience that spends billions and Britney is the perfect example of a transitional product--transitional in the sense that young girls, whose parents had been making purchases for them, will be attracted to the (pseudo)"independence" of a Britney and want to emulate her and buy her products as they move from dependent child to "independent" teen. The downside is that they learn to be "slaves" and sexual objects in the process. Thus, independence is only perceptual because they are learning subservience to men, and to the corporation. Disney could change this, but easy profits seem to dictate otherwise.

Disney has the power to change its theme parks too. But it doesn't. Here is a picture from the jungle safari.

If you are a minority, you probably know exactly what this means. What you see here is not a funny representation of history, however, but a reinforcement of social hierarchy that some people happen find funny. The black men are portrayed as scared and are made to look stupid. The while male is scared too--but who do you think most visitors to Disney laugh at, the white man or the black men? Racism is pervasive in their films too (Jungle Story, Song of the South, Lady and the Tramp, etc.), but I won't go into that here.

Beyond the cultural cues Disney instills in young people, there are other reasons not to trust Disney. According to Information Week,

"Parent-friendly features in Disney Mobile include being able to set spending allowances and track usage for voice minutes, text messaging, picture messaging and downloadable content...In addition, parents can decide on the hours of the day and days of the week kids can use their phones, program restricted and always-on phone numbers, prioritize family messages and locate kids' phones through their global positioning systems. The controls will be accessible via the Disney Mobile website.

Disney has already violated the right to on-line privacy for children. By signing up for the phone service, my guess is that you will also sign away many rights to information about your child. You will also be subjecting them to the Disney advertising machine every time they open up their phone. Let me repeat: Disney is neither harmless nor innocent. Every time you go online to Disney to control your child's phone access, you are inadvertently giving information about your own morals and ideas, and an insight into your child's. Do you think Disney will use this information to protect your child, or do you think they will use it to find even more subtle ways to communicate to them? I would err on the side of caution and suspect the latter.

In a word, by avoiding a Disney cell phone service, you will avoid having to compete with Disney for parenting rights for your child. Indeed, one of the fundamental ideas of freedom is not only the freedom to do something, it is the freedom to be free from something. Unfortunately, in a world where the average child sees 40000 advertisements per year, it is now a luxury to be free from advertisement. There is "no space," as Naomi Klein says, children need a place where they can simply be without being forced to see themselves through the lens of advertisement and commodities. Henry Giroux states it well:

Intent on defining itself as a purveyor of ideas rather than commodities, Disney is aggressively developing its image as a public service industry. For example, in what can be seen as an extraordinary venture, Disney plans to construct in the next few years a prototype school that one of its brochures proclaims will "serve as a model for education into the next century." The school will be part of 5,000 acre residential development, which according to Disney executives, will be designed after "the main streets of small-town America and reminiscent of Norman Rockwell images."[H. Giroux]

It is important for parents to understand, as Disney does, that in today's economy ideas are a commodity, and perhaps we should not buy them all, for they can be deleterious to the family. Indeed, when Americans think that to be a good parent they need to conform to the ideas Disney presents, then it is time to ask questions. Why should Disney be an intermediary between ourselves and our parenting goals? Why should I give important information about me and/or my children to Disney who will then have the power to use it in advertising research? Why should I trust a company that portrays young women as subservient, sexualized and objectified beings? Why should I subject myself or my child to more advertisements? Why should I buy a phone from Disney when many of the features offered are offered by other providers, just in a different package? Ask yourself these questions.

In classes I teach, I have noticed that students will often defend Disney and other corporations as if they were a member of the family. In fact, students will often find nothing wrong with Disney but will speak for hours about how terrible their parents were. This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of corporate behavior and the role of parents. Unfortunately, childrens' perception of what a company is and what a parent should be are often formed by listening to TV, and to Disney. Parents' voices are drowned out by the corporate noise. So, again, just one more reason not to buy the latest product from Disney.

If all my shouting and preaching hasn't convinced you yet, then I have just one more picture of Disney's philosophy, the one they want to instill in you anyway. You can find it on the trash cans at Disneyland:

[Note: Updated and edited for spelling, formatting and clarity.]

Paris-Los Angeles: Walks on the wild side

Today in L.A., protesters will flood the streets in an attempt to be heard on immigration "reform." Yesterday, protests, accompanied by some violence, came back to the streets of Paris, and, indeed, all of France yesterday, the NYTimes reported.

On the surface, the French are fighting against changes in laws that make firing young workers easier. On the surface, we are told (by the Minutemen and Lou Dobbs), that the protesters in L.A. are fighting to keep "lax" immigration laws and enforcement and that it "patriotic" to build an even bigger fence (I wonder who will make the profits at an expected 1.7 million per mile) and to let border crossers starve by making it illegal to even give crossers food or water.

Dig a little deeper and you will find common strands that tie Paris, Marseille, Chicago, L.A., Tijuana and Ciudad Juarez. Dig a little deeper and you will find that border fences built in the name of patriotism, are really just pork. And while you are digging there, ask yourself why this is becoming a hot-button issue all of a sudden and which "side" (Republican or Democrat) will win the political battle once "real Americans" are enflammed by the patriotic rhetoric. Also, ask yourself why journalists and politicians rarely point out that NAFTA has hurt Mexico and is thus a driving force behind illegal immigration. Expand NAFTA to a global level and you get the WTO, which is a driving force behind job insecurity in France, the U.S., Mexico, and all over the world.

Now, do you really trust CNN and FOX News to guide us through this discussion? Are you going to let them push your buttons? Are you going to allow corporations to hire cheap labor here, exploit workers abroad, and reap the benefits of tax breaks at "home" in the U.S.?

Read the following paragraph and think about the U.S.:

...Philippe Robert found out that starting from the early years of the twentieth century (that is, by more than sheer coincidence, from the early years of the social state), fears of crime began to subside. They went on diminishing until the middle of the 1970s, when a sudden eruption of 'personal safety' panic focused...on the crime apparently brewing in the [poor neighborhoods] where immigrant settlers were concentrated. What erupted was however, in Robert's view, but a 'delayed action bomb': explosice security concerns had already been stored up by the slow yet steady phasing out of the collective insurance that the social state used to offer and by the rapid deregulation of the labour market. Recast as a 'danger to safety', the immigrants offered a convenient alternative focus for the apprehensions born of the sudden shakiness and vulnerability of social positions, and so they were a relatively safe outlet for the discharge of anxiety and anger which such apprehensions could not but cause. [Zygmunt Bauman in Wasted Lives p. 55]

Though Robert is referring to the 1970s in France, you can easily see the similarities between then and now, and there and here.

I would argue, then, that rising economic insecurity is not the result of immigration; immigration is the result of rising economic insecurity.

Indeed (getting back to France for a minute), before you go thinking "Oh those spoiled French workers," go read this post by Jérôme à Paris (Why the fight in France is the same as in the U.S.). While there, check out his diary for other posts about blatant media bias in these matters and interesting stats that reveal, among other things, that unionization rates are actually lower in France than here. So, at the risk of repeating some of what Jérôme has said, but with the hope of enlarging the discussion, why are young French people revolting, and why is it important?

You see a lot of background and fundamentals over at Jérôme's diary, but a good summary of Friday's events and the situation were written by someone Emmanuel refers to--Eric Chaney (a leftist) at Morgan Stanley:

The fundamental reason why attempts to reform the labour market in France have failed so far lies in what several economists, ranging from Prof. Gilles Saint-Paul of the University of Toulouse to Prof. Olivier Blanchard from the MIT, have named the “insider disease” — which I denounced back in 1995 (see ‘The Inside Worker Disease’, Inside the French Economy, December 1995). In short, the French labour market is a two-tiered market with, on the one hand, highly protected workers (civil servants and holders of permanent contracts, mostly in large companies) and, on the other, highly flexible jobs (internships, short-term contracts, temporary jobs) for new entrants, immigrants and, more generally, unskilled workers. The reason why college and high-school students are demonstrating, sometimes violently, is obvious: they strongly resent this situation as unfair — why would they accept reforms while nobody is questioning the privileges of the insiders?

Chaney concludes by noting : "Piecemeal reforms that do not question the status of insiders are doomed to fail, in my view, because they are opposed by insiders, who fear that they may be the next on the list, and outsiders, who consider them as discriminatory and continue to dream of becoming themselves inside." [His emphasis.] Of course, I would extend insider status to many groups, including an ever richer and smaller bourgoisie, to corporations on their way to becoming global monpolies, to the Western world. Les bourgeois, c'est comme des cochons, to quote Brel.

According to Chaney (and Emmanuel over at AFOE), then, the true root of the problem is large unfairness of the job market, not only in salaries but also (especially) in job stability. This inequality is even greater in the U.S. because we tie health benefits to jobs.

Of course, how to deal with this inequality is largely what has defined left-right politics for a long time. A discussion of left-right could take up a million pages, so let's not get into that here. I will say however, that the neo-liberal policies of large-scale supposedly free-markets seems to have been a series of of failures--NAFTA is just one example--and the promises of trickle-down economics, tax cuts for the upper classes, and privatization have been shown to be, at worst, enormous failures, and, at best, middling successes. Poverty and inequality have grown worse all over the planet, and they are growing ever worse in the U.S. and Europe, though much, much faster here than there. Moreover, during this time, the social network has been eroded, especially in the U.S., and, perhaps more importantly, the voices for reinforcing the social network have disappeared from the public sphere. Voices for the left have also dissapeared from Socialist (Europe) and Democratic (U.S.) parties. This explains why Robert's ideas are so appropriate to French workers, U.S. workers and immigrants: "Recast as a 'danger to safety', the immigrants offered a convenient alternative focus for the apprehensions born of the sudden shakiness and vulnerability of social positions"

What remains to be said, then, and what is more important to me is that French workers, like workers here and all over the planet are suffering from a crisis of representation. There is no more representation in government, we have weak unions and a media that has no desire to bring these voices to the table. Emmanuel hints at this when he writes: "The first thing to keep in mind is that the French parliament is inherently weak: when the government really wants a law to be passed, it always gets its way." Yes, the French parliament is inherently weak; in the U.S., it has become so. And if a strong executive and week legislative sound familiar, well, then you know why an ignited Paris is important and why voices are searching for recognition in L.A., Chicago...everywhere.

In France, they have taken it upon themselves to make their voice heard. They want representation, they want a voice. But the social contract is broken. What this means is that, while the government may see some valid (from a left-wing point of view) economic reasons for the reforming the laws in France, the crisis in representation means that the government can no longer be trusted to enact any reforms, even good ones. (Note: I'm not saying the new contract law is necessarily good.) Mistrust of the government is as much a reason for the protests as the issues in the reform law itself.

The United States is not to this point yet. In spite of the fact that our government has been overtly undermining the social contract for at least 25 decades; in spite of Katrina; in spite of the war; in spite of no-bid contracts; in spite of horrendous gutting of environmental laws; in spite of Abramoff;in spite of the takeover of the fourth estate; in spite of everything georgia10 said the other day, we are still asleep.

Sure, in our beds, be they soft or hard, we kick, we roll over, we are uncomfortable, we are prodded with nightmares of immigration by the media and simultaneously lulled to sleep by their platitudes.

So we still sleep.

One thing that we do not have that the Europeans do is a press that (a little) more accurately represents the views of its constituents. Europeans therefore have an social and economic vocabulary to discuss their situation, to find motivation or, at least, vent frustration. They have, to some degree, a vocabulary that allows them to think about the future and reflect on the present. Have you noticed how little we talk about the future in the U.S.? Have you noticed how young people here have begun to assume that they will not do better than their parents? Have you noticed the statistics of youth and young adults are living longer and longer at home and have worse and worse jobs? Have you noticed that the only national vocabulary we have to talk about it is "tax cuts"? Have you noticed how the talk of outsourcing always turns to "secure borders" and "bad foreigners" rather than improving labor laws and land reform all over the world so that people don't have to leave home? (For people do not cross borders for fun. I repeat: people do not cross borders for fun.)

All of the above is the result of a lacking or lackluster vocabulary for explaining our situation. It is the symptom of the financial tools (GDP, unemployment) we choose to use to measure our success and our failure, tools, which are at best incomplete because they do not give a full accounting of our lives or of the costs (and worth) of our lives. Thus, lacking representation, we need a voice. More importantly, we must begin to act quickly, and we must look to the poorest for leadership, for their voices and ours have more more in common than the media leads us to beleive.

In France it sometimes helps to take to the streets. I hate to end on a questions, but what does it take here? Blogs? Really--what will shake us out of our sleep? Soon we will be among the superfluous:

Superfluous people are in a no-win situation. If they attempt to fall in line with currently lauded ways of life, they are immediately accused of sinful arrogance, false pretences and the cheek of claiming unearned bonuses [How dare American children get a free education in our schools! Why should my tax dollars go to a welfare recipient in West Virginia! I'm not paying for universal health care!]...If they [the Superfluous] openly resent and refuse to honour those ways which may be savoured by the haves but are more like poison for themselves, the have-nots, this is promptly taken as proof of what 'public opinion' (more correctly, its elected or self-appointed spokespersons) 'told you all along'--that the superfluous are not just an alien body, but a cancerous growth gnawing at the healthy tissues of society and sworn enemies of 'our way of life' and 'what we stand for'. [Bauman, p. 41]

Have a nice Saturday.

French Racists and the 10 Condiments!

Note: This is an essay covering topics of geopolitical import. Please read it carefully, for it explains in intricate detail how, starting with the Bryant Gumble Revolution, America overcame its demons. Because of a poll that was recently conducted, the essay begins with France, a country that has failed miserably because it lacks the ability to act upon its introspection. This leads the essay to a thoughtful examination of the crucial period of the early 80's. I then develop and conclude with a significant insight into what historians will call the Condi Rice Era.

The essayist apologizes for following the strict structure of the essay form. (Essay comes from the French word "essai," which can be loosely translated as "trial," "attempt" or "experiment." And this essay is just that. It is a trial, an attempt at understanding the present and predicting the future. So, dear Reader, your patience is appreciated, as is your open mind.)


Part I: The French Problem
I was shocked to find out today that French people are racists. And this news doesn’t come from a Bush administration official, PNAC or the Wall Street Journal, but from the French themselves. Indeed, a recent poll indicated that 30% (or something like that) of the population (of that former Roman territory) considers itself racist.

You know, while living there, I kind of suspected this. There were the tell-tale signs: I saw mostly white folks stores like the Bon Marché, yet there were just a few chez Tati. I also noticed that even in France's capital city there are poor, non-white people living in sub-standard conditions. (Now, to be fair, they do provide the poor with health care and numerous childcare options, but that doesn’t make things alright with me. I don't care how much you help people--it's the thought that counts. So, even if French people are helping poor African immigrants, it doesn't matter because their heart is in the wrong place, as the survey says.)

Part 2: A New Age Dawns
Television news has always been a progressive reflection of society, so a lot can be learned looking at how France and America® do things. For example, when I was in France, another thing I noticed was that French TV hosts are almost always white. That’s a problem because TV hosts can and do change the world. Luckily for us, America solved its racism problems a long time ago. This was known as the Bryant Gumble Revolution. This was when all Americans quit being racist because we finally understood that people with colored skin were not always like Richard Pryor or Malcolm X. Rather, they were just like us! Since then, we've had people like Barack Obama. He transcends race, as do most people who don't talk about it much.

But let's leave Barack aside a moment, for I do believe we are at a crossroads: America (and the world) are currently in what serious historians will probably call the Condi Rice era. It is an age of glory, truth and justice for all creeds and colors. History is over and race is an afterthought. What proof do I have of this? Well, though we are still awaiting the arrival of the Ten Condiments, we do still know that the present era represents a profound change. How profound? Well, for the first time, the Senate heard a black woman’s testimony without challenging her veracity.

Getting back to France and the poll that shows they are racist... I think this poll represents an important step in American journalism: the AP did, for once, report what a French person thinks rather than what an American person thinks a French person thinks. Really, this is important, so I checked with my contacts at CJR, FAIR and Media Matters and they agree. (Does that make me a reporter now, like Ben Domenech, and not just a blogger? Gosh, I hope so!)

This new pollalso really just confirms what those car burnings were all about. Now, you think I’m going to say "because racism exists in France, that ’s why those disaffected youth took to the street to protest that (as well as the sinister forms of institutional racism that frame their lives.)" Well, this time you’re right. Racism--and class difference--exist in France, that ’s why those disaffected youth took to the street to protest. What do you expect, France is still socialist and now the people are revolting against the sinister forms of institutional racism that frame their lives. Luckily, in America, we no longer have to worry about government repression because neoliberalism and capitalism have brought us all the freedoms we need.

You may also remember that last weekend one million (1,000,000) French youth marched peacefully to protest a new law that allows employers to fire young people pretty much at will. While the car fires showed how disorderly French youth could be, this protest shows how spoiled and utopian the French are. Fighting for your rights is so passé, and now it may get you fired! (“You’re fired!” That’s so classic!)

Part 3: Confronting Our Demons
Now, you’re thinking: “what about Katrina?” I’m here to report that there was, kind of like for Karballah and Fallujah, a lot--a lot!--of false reporting. For example, all those reports about violence in the SuperDome, they were false. Really--even Voice of America says so! Those people, mostly African American it appeared to me, were not as disorderly and violent as it might have seemed. It was just an impression, thank goodness, and that really reminds me of why the Bryant Gumble Revolution was so important to our country and why Condi Rice is proof of the absence of racism in America. It’s all very logical if you think about it and that is why the 10 Condiments (whenever they come and whatever they say) will be so very revolutionary.

In conclusion, I think I understand why the French are racist and, more importantly for today’s news, why they consider themselves such. France has prosecuted numerous territorial, imperialistic wars. Think Napoleon, South-East Asia, North Africa, West Africa, Canada, and a dastardly (and successful) pre-emptive strike on Wallis and Futuna. This did not just come from the blue (or should I say Le Grand Bleu), but from a deep-seated belief that they were not just equal to, but better. The Best. The Best. They have HUGE egos.

Now me, I'm a huge--HUGE!--Lee Greenwood fan (I own “God Bless the USA/Proud to be an American”--I even have the American Idol version of the song that came out after, well, you know). Anyway, I think that Lee and I agree that there is a difference between pride and thinking you’re the best. I really don’t think he is trying to say America is “The Greatest.” He’s just saying we’re great, really great, but not necessarily The Greatest.

And that’s why Condi Rice is such an important figure in this essay and, dare I say, in the whole world. She’s now our Secretary of State and has John Bolton (he happens to be white so she’s not racist either) working for her at the United Nations. Since America is a land of equality and opportunity, we will be able to convey those and other ideals (democracy and freedom, for example, and our greatest gift, representative capitalism) to the world. Maybe we can spread a little humility, culture and tolerance for other races too, because, obviously they need it! In fact, I suspect that one or several of the 10 Condiments will focus on this and they will actually replace the UN Charter. Furthermore, they will be written in English Only, and French will no longer be one of the official diplomatic languages, precisely because the French are racist.

Part 4: The Final Countdown
In a final conclusion, I feel compelled to address those critics who say I'm leaving out our own history when I don't mention Native Americans, Latinos, Asians and other people whose skin is not white. My point is that things have changed and that Americans need to have a different mindset. Back in the day, we used to send people of color away. For example, we sent Josephine Baker and James Baldwin to Paris not because they weren't welcom here, but to show how amazing these black folk could be. And though the Liberal Left will say they were fleeing oppression here, that's just not true. They were sent to the even more racist country of France as punishment and show them how life was actually pretty darn good here. This recent poll just proves my point again. Furthermore, if any residual racism lingers here after the pronouncement of the 10 Condiments, it will no doubt dissapear quickly. (My concern is that the Condiments will not appear until the burning Bush. I know that this may be as worrisome to you as to me, but rest assured: anonymous sources tell me that Barbara's hair spontaneously combusted several weeks ago.)

So, in my last conclusion, , I will say, without equivocation, that France is racist and the age of the 10 Condiments lies just around the corner. This will be much better than the Teresa Heinz 57 (so verbose that Kerry clan) or heavy racist French fare such as the Hollandaise 11, the Dijonnaise 24 and Beurre Blanc for Dummies .

Paris awakens, will America? (What are you buying this Sunday?)

"Il est cinq heures, Paris s'éveille." (Jaques Dutronc)

What's happening?
About a million French youth took to the streets yesterday. As usual, the American Press as well as the right-leaning French Press portrayed this as an example of conduct by disorderly, spoiled children who don't know the "real world." (You know the media drill: anyone fighting for their rights is considered a loser or a dreamer.*)

French workers, French students, French unemployed, France in general has been suffering from the modèle americain, which is now in the middle to late stages of spreading throughout the French economy. Indeed, the current French administration has been passing law after law against workers and immigrants, and ministers such as Sarkozy have been spreading fear without due cause to bolster their own agendas. Sound familiar?

The latest law, called the CPE, allows business to fire young workers much more easily during a two-year probationary period. The fear, probably real, is that there will be a large portion of young workers who are cycled through jobs during the two-year probation imposed by the CPE. It is assumed, probably correctly, that this will also allow for more exploitation of those in the probationary period since people beleive that businesses will only keep those who are the most subservient and self-sacrificing.

Why does this matter to Americans?
I'm sure "reasonable" Americans will say: "French workers live cushy lives already!"; "What are they complaining about, I earn 5 bucks and hour and have three kids!"; or "France needs to be more competitive."

Let's start with that last point. Forget the propaganda: the French are actually among the most productive workers in the world--in spite of 5 weeks of guaranteed vacation to those with full-time employment. The French work very hard, but they have an identity outside of their work. The fact that they French people can (or used to be able to) relax, enjoy a meal, and spend time with family is due to social protections and, importantly, to an attitude that values such activities that encourage and reinforce a social fabric.

For example, French people often spend Sundays having a picnic, visiting with family, going to a concert, or, yes, even watching sports. In general, though, they do not go shopping except for food on Sundays and most stores are not even open. (Alas, this is changing thanks to neo-liberalization). Sunday is still a day of rest and most people treat it that way, and if you don't believe me look at Paris traffic at 6 pm on Sunday evening and ask yourself what the people have been doing all day. I can promise you it was probably not work. (Hint: Sunday in the Country.)

On Sundays, when not watching sports, we Americans often shop. We shop "for fun." We shop because we "don't have time during the rest of the week." We shop because "we need stuff." Why is this important? In America, shopping is often more a symptom of a disease, a culture looking outside of itself (to commodities, to wasted time), for fulfillment. Many Americans have forgotten how to spend time with each other and to spend it away from TV and a purchase opportunity. More importantly, even those moments of distraction, of community events such as sports, or visits to a National Park, find Americans face to face with a corporate sponsorship.** This is profoundly disturbing. It is attributable to affluenza mixed with and compounded by economic ideas that are an insult to a humane way of life. Ideas such as "work is more important than family" or "work is more important than anything" or "I am where I work and what I own"--ideas that only function in a society that does not take care of the basics such as healthcare and education first and foremost.

Getting back to France and their cushy lives: well, the fact is that life is not cushy at all if you are poor in France, and let's not even talk about being a Beur***. But France has one of the largest middle-class populations (percentage-wise) in the world, and for many decades this middle class has fought for government programs that serve them and their community. Luckily, important parts of this have trickled down to the poor as well. There is not a single un-insured child in France. Every mother gets free natal care. Beginning with the birth of the second child, every family, regardless of income, gets a check to help support that child. Every person in France has a right to health care (though this is getting tougher and more exclusive).

In a word, life is less stressful in France because any number of risk factors are accounted for by a network of social support. Though American-style "modernity" is already there, what the French understand is that there are many, many areas of life in which people, elected representatives and governments can make a choice. America is great (yes, I'm a loyal American), but our economics are cruel and unhealthy--not only for the un-insured, but for all of us. Moreover, there is nothing inevitable about our economic system.

There are economic theories and there are economic laws. Politicians have been tricked or suckered into thinking that they are responding to economic laws when they have actually been enacting laws in the name of "economics," and then only one form of economics. If Milton Friedman defines something, that does not make it an economic Truth. So, no matter how many times economists, politicians and pundits state "that's just the way it is" or "that's how it is going to be", well, don't listen. But what about the inexorable global trade juggernaut?

Sure, global trade matters. I want to buy coffee and Hawaii just doesn't produce enough for me alone, not to mention all of you. However, I want to pay a fair price, and that is where we have a choice and where economic theories can be shaped into better economic laws. World trade, as Friedman states, seems inevitable, our version of it does not. But that is awfully hard to see from within our bubble, our little trickle-down exploit the poor and the hungry bubble.

So France matters because they are fighting. They are taking to the streets and they know first hand that things can be even better. They know that France is far from perfect, but they sleep knowing that at least from conception to l'école maternelle no child is left behind. Wouldn't that be nice?

Allez, encore un petit effort...


____________________________________

*Unless, that is, they are fighting against an official "enemy" of the U.S; then they are "freedom fighters."
**The Bush Administration is passing laws to encourage corporate sponsorship of national lands.
***Comes from the word "Arabe" (Arab).

Morro Bay

Morro Bay is one of my favorite places. Unlike Santa Barbara, which is great but also snobby and expensice, Morro has character and beauty to spare (Ok, ignore the PGE plant), and you can do it on a budget. Cheap imports are killing it, however:

MORRO BAY, Calif. — Just about everyone on the docks knows the Gianninis.

For 46 years, the family has run a marine supply house a couple of blocks from the wharf. When times were good, they would outfit whole fleets from aisles crammed with such items as tiny brass grommets and huge spools that could spin out miles of line and countless acres of net. When times weren't so good, they would carry debt-ridden fishermen on their books season after season — until the next big haul, or maybe the one after that.

But that was before competition from cheap imported fish, before diesel fuel that runs upward of $3 a gallon and before environmental rules that severely limit the amount of fish a fisherman can catch, and when and where and how.

Now the fishing fleet at Morro Bay is down from several hundred boats to perhaps 50. And, amid coils of anchor chain and crates of engine parts, Giannini's is hung with hand-painted signs that say, in big red letters: "ALL SALES FINAL."

A sad day. When I think that we could make oceans safer and provide local businesses with cheap fuel through locall produces biodiesel. When will out outsourcing, self-serving politicians sstart helping small local business?

Friday Cat Blogging

Here's a picture of my cat

Did I fool you? That's not actually a cat, it's the big horn sheep we saw while in Joshua Tree last weekend. Cool, huh? For the cat lovers, here's Biscuit hunting down a Republican:

Food, Labels, Democracy and Life: A Note to Congress

Congress passed a new label law for food today. It is a travesty of state rights and it is dangerous for our physical and mental health. As always, what these people do is a threat to us and to our democracy...

Our “Representatives” have blessed us with The National Uniformity for Food Act, H.R. 4167. Unfortunately,

H.R. 4167 would shift the balance of power between the states and federal
government, critics say. They object that the bill would undermine states'
ability to prepare for and respond to terrorist threats to the food supply;
prevent states from requiring consumer notifications about health risks
associated with certain foods; and create a new federal bureaucracy to
review and, potentially disapprove, new state food safety laws.

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer says the bill specifically targets
California's voter-approved Proposition 65, a 1986 law requiring businesses
to provide "clear and reasonable" warnings when they expose consumers to
known reproductive toxins, such as mercury.

Note to U.S. Congress: Food is not supposed to be uniform, and neither are the laws that govern it. Every fruit, vegetable, leaf, stalk, seed and pit should be a work unto itself, not the cold, tasteless, uniform, factory products that they have become and that you may be used to.

Your law will certainly ensure profits for Wal-Mart, Kroger, Ralph’s, Von’s and Safeway, but, in the long run, it will undermine the health of millions of individuals, not only because these laws will allow companies to bring even more contaminant-laden food to market, but also because such food and such a food system is detrimental to our local and national economy.

I probably do not need to make an argument here about the importance of safety in our food (I know how seriously you take “security”). I would like you to know a few things, though: mercury in fish is rising and it is dangerous to our health; we have so depleted the soil that it now takes perhaps as much as 10 calories of fertilizer to produce 1 calorie of food; got milk? well, then you probably have very toxic rocket fuel too; many softdrinks and juice-drinks contain chemicals that can combine to form benzene, a well known carcinogen...I haven’t even gotten to mad cows or hormonally doped poultry, but I hope you are getting the idea that the ability to accurately and fairly label food is a necessity. Consumers should have rights too.

Perhaps the pervasive nature of contaminants listed above shocks you. I hope so, for all of the problems are related. It is impossible to talk about any of the above without talking about government policies (ones you seem so eager to continue), and government subsidies, about corporate misdeeds. Government subsidies pay for the seeds that are planted by the corporate farms that in turn sell cheap corn syrup to soft-drink companies. These same corporations use subsidies and thus use more fertilizer, fertilizer that is made from oil that is subsidized by our military actions. And the rocket fuel in our milk and our lettuce, well, that comes from a long history of defense subsidies.


But let’s get back to labels and why they are important. I live in L.A. and have travelled all over the place. To some I may seem cosmopolitan, though I’m not sure I want to run with the Travel and Leisure crowd. (Ah yes, poor folks are lazy; rich folks have leisure. Story for another day.) What I’m saying is that you folks need to start treating the U.S. with some respect, you need to be more like farmers, like my grandparents and my mom, who, if they did not respect the laws of nature and treat their animals well, didn’t make it through the winter. If abusive farming does not work on a small scale, what makes you think that it will work on a large one, even with all the technological prowess we put into vaccines and hormones and fertilizer and irrigation and genetic modification. Labels will help us ensure that our food is safer and that it uses techniques that mean there will be good food here next year too. Your solutions to corporate marketing “problems,” will only mean more problems in the long run. Your labels will not create an informed, knowledgeable consumer, but an ignorant one. Wendell Berry writes:

“Between these two programs--the industrial and the agrarian, the global and the local, the most critical difference is that of knowledge. The global economy institutionalizes a global ignorance, in which producers and consumers cannot know or care about one anothers, and in which the histories of all products will be lost. In such a circumstance, the degradation of products and places, producers and consumers is inevitable.” (Citizenship Papers 121, my emphasis)

Knowledge is vital for our physical health, because what we eat can make us sick. It is also vital for our more general health, because this knowledge relates us to other people upstream and downstream from us (literally and figuratively). Why then do you choose to make us more ignorant and sicker? I can think of only one reason, and, again, Wendell Berry explains it very well:

“

The idea of people working at home, as family members, as neighbors, as natives and citizens of their places, is as repugnant to the industrial mind as the idea of self employment. The industrial mind is an organizational mind, and I think this mind is deeply disturbed and threatened by the existence of people who have no boss. This may be why people with such minds, when the approach the top of the political hierarchy so readily sell themselves to ‘special interests.’ They cannot bear to be unbossed. They cannot stand the lonely work of making up their own minds.
The industrial contempt for anything small, rural, or natural translates into contempt for uncentralized economic systems, and sort of self-sufficiency in food or other necessities. The industrial ‘solution’ for such systems is to increase the scale of work and trade. It is to bring Big Ideas, Big Money, and Big Technology into small rural communities, economies, and ecosystems--the brought-in industry and the experts bein invariable alien to and contemptuous of the places to which they are brought in. There is never any question of propriety, of adapting the thought or the purpose or the technology to the place.
The result is that problems correctable on the a small scale are replaced by large-scale problems for which there are no large-scale solutions.” (Citizenship Papers 145).

I read those words and I look at the actions you took in writing and passing your food labeling law and I see contempt for America and Americans. You worship money, and you are subservient to those who have it. You lead us into wars to get the oil to make the food. You lead us into ignorance and contempt for ourselves. Uniformity of food, of people, of ideas, of places. What will be the next uniformity you ask for?

Sphincter of Light© Contest!

We all know that Thomas Kinkade is the Painter of Light©, and before I go on, you need to know that I judge an artist by his works, not where he pisses, whom he gropes, or whether "God is his agent." In fact, if he urinated on a Walt Disney icon, well, that actually makes me kind of happy, since I've always seen Disney as an exploiter hidden under the guise of innocence.

Anyway, Painter of Light© is such a great phrase (why didn't Manet think if that?), it got me to thinking. We already have Thomas Kinkade, Painter of Light©, what we need is the "Sphincter of Light©"

The question is: Who?

Now some of you are thinking Rover. Others are thinking King George, or maybe Cheney, or Mehlman, or Gonzales... The list could get very, very long, so, readers, you see the challenge. Who deserves this winning phrase? Who, in the world of Republican skulduggery, can equal Thomas Kinkade's feats of the brush? Who stands above the rest of the pack, not as the Artist of Evil©, Prevaricator Without Peer© or just a plain arsehole, who, who is the Sphincter of Light©?

Remember, we are branding someone, giving that person a title that s/he can use an market himself/herself with for the rest of his or her life. Like Kinkade, they can make millions, even thought they may have to serve some jail time first. So think, be original, and, as always, vote with your heart and forget about Diebold.

P.S. I've left off George Bush. It's just too easy. Also the list of possibilities is so long that it may not include someone you feel should be the S

Voting is on over at Dailykos. I'll post results later.


Update: And the Winner is...

Bill O'Reilly

Congratulations! Out of the Thousand Sphincters of Light© that comprise the Republican leadership and its cronies, you are the winner. [Yes, the results actually placed McCain at the top, but polling was not scientific because, I liste McCain under "John (I'll stab you in the back) McCain," while other Sphincter's of light© just had the names. Conclusion, push-polling works, but it's not solid scientific method, and around here, only the most solid of methods are allowed. We do science! Science, Man, science!]

NPR airs Voice of America: Spreading Propaganda. Think Nice Polite Republicans

I have a soft spot for the idea of public programming, for the idea of NPR, but the reality of their programming, and their worn-out on-air personality are making them increasingly irrelevant, and, as far as the news programming is concerned, well, as the saying goes, "you reap what you sow," and currently they are sowing a lot of half-truths and BS.

The latest edition of this downward spiral can be seen in the recent reporting on Haiti, which I overheard. Now, Haiti Action Alerts, via Pacifica Radio, brings some substance to my suspicions:

In another dramatic infiltration of the mainstream press, Flashpoints has learned that Amelia Shaw, National Public Radio's current correspondent from Haiti, is also a reporter with the US government propaganda organization, Voice of America (VOA). By law, VOA is not allowed to broadcast on US frequencies. Shaw's reports have appeared both on Voice of America and National Public Radio in the same 48 hour period. Her reports - very much in line with the US State Department - have tried to suggest that René Preval is a troublemaker, a spoil-sport who was trying to undermine the mostly free and fair electoral process in Haiti. [Source]

Of course, it is illegal for VOA to report in the U.S.. And for NPR, it is disengenuous--if not biased and devious--to bring a VOA reporter's work to a U.S. audience. While Amelia Shaw may have two jobs, her voice and her message are one and the same: not reportage, but propaganda. The same applies to the AP, where a "freelancer for the Associated Press, who is also a stringer for the New York Times in Haiti, is moonlighting as a consultant for the US Government funded National Endowment for Democracy, according to an official at the NED, and several of the agency's grantees." (Important side note: The NED was probably highly involved in the coup against Hugo Chavez. The NED is of the same ilk as the International Republican Institute and other right-wing organizations that supposedly promote democracy but actually promote corporatocracy and militarism. These groups have influence in State and and USAID...)

Anyone who follows NPR closely has probably remarked that they frequently have guests from the Cato Institute, the American Enterprie Institute and other similar groups, and that these groups outnumber "center" and "center-left" thinkers, not to mention actual old-style left wing spokespeople. Numerous studies have proved this statistically (see FAIR and Media Matters).

All this reminds of an episode not so far, far away. In fact it was last summer and I was listening to Day to Day. I had to write them a letter:

Dear Day to Day: I have no problem that Jonathan Last did not like Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith. In fact, I agree. The wooden acting, the hackneyed dialogue and the silly plot are, at best, irritating. However, his review made me, well, uncomfortable. I understand that Mr. Last found the transformation of Darth Vader more interesting than the a light-saber-weilding-pseudo-philosophizing Yoda. However, we should separate falling in love with the character from falling in love with what that character means. Mr. Last's review, which lauds the Empire's order, strength and ability to effectively suppress those that disagree with it is, quite simply, praise for fascism and despotism--yes, the same fascism and despostism that can be associated with Hitler and Mussolini. While I hesitiate to convict by association, Mr. Last's employment at the Weekly Standard only reinforces the idea that his review of Star Wars III was a thinly-veiled piece of propaganda that could have emerged from his magazine. Take for example "The Case for American Empire" in which the Weekly Standard's Max Boot argues that "The most realistic response to terrorism is for America to embrace its imperial role" (10/15/2001, Volume 007, Issue 05). Mr. Last's review was not about the politics in George Lucas' movie, but rather those of today and his own vision of political utopia--one where "messy" civil liberties are less important than order, one where the inherent disorder of any democratic republic (read filibuster [this was when all the discussion about how impolite it would be for Dems to filibuster]) make it somehow less desirable than goose-stepping our way to a well-organized, smoothly operating and, ultimately, despotic empire.

Well, I was lucky and they called me up and I read this on the air. But not everyone will be as lucky. So, are we going to let NPR lead us, with its melifluous yet boring propaganda, towards a post-democratic America? This brings me to my next point. Since we all know that NPR is actually an acronym for Nice Polite Republicans, what do we do? Well, I've pretty much quite listening to them and I've quit giving them money. Perhaps you should too. However, this will lead to a further abasement of NPR by the Right. They will seize on this weakness to make NPR even more of a voice for this administration and for right-wing thinktanks.

Perhaps the better course of action is to write NPR news more often. They do read what you write. More importantly, when you call in to give your yearly contribution, call in during Car Talk or one of your other programs and explain that you want to support the station but NOT the national news division. If this happens in large numbers, the Nice Polite Republicans will notice, for they do care about money.

There are tons of examples like the ones for Haiti, I chose Haiti because it is a blatant example of propagandizing and the U.S. is consitently bashing Haiti for a situation that the U.S. is actually creating by undermining legitimate authorities. You can also look to M. Liasson or Juan Williams for blatant examples of right-wingers posing as centrists.

Anyway, my thoughts du jour.

What's the difference between...

Communism and Capitalism? Less than most people think.

Sure, North Korea is by anybody's economic and civil definition a complete and total failure. Starvation, quasi-slave labor, totalitarianism, repression... The picture is ugly. However, they are obviously catching on. The "management" elite of North Korea are beginning to understand that they can have their cake and eat it too--i.e., they can still be a managing elite and unfairly exploit labor under capitalism too!!! (How exciting for them!):

If the leaders of the two Koreas have their way, Hwang's factory, with its 326 North Korean workers and seven South Korean managers, will represent the economic future of the peninsula.

"Kaesong Industrial Park [in North Korea], a place where the South's capital and technology and the North's land and labor are being combined to a make a new prosperity," an American-accented voice announced on a peppy information video shown to the first group of foreign reporters to tour the site, only several hundred meters north of the demilitarized zone.

Almost four years after the initial agreement for the park, the legal and infrastructure building blocks finally seem to be in place for explosive growth. Over the next year, the number of South Korean factories and North Korean workers is to nearly quadruple, to 39 factories and 15,000 employees.

By 2012, the industrial park is to spread over 67 square kilometers, or 26 square miles, and to employ 730,000 North Koreans, almost 8 percent of the work force in this impoverished nation, which has a total population of 23 million." [Source: IHT, "For Managers, a Korean Paradise"]

Some people will praise this as an ouverture to the global economy. To me it signals yet another fall towards the bottom. We have heard for decades how bad it is for North Korea to exploit its workers under Communism, yet, when financiers for Seoul fund the factories, the "maquiladoras," the exploitation, we have no issues whatsoever.

Tell me, what is the difference between these two photos? (The first is from the IHT article on Korea, the second one I took in Mexico)
courtesy AP Photos

Now here's mine:
Photos by me.

So now South Korea wants to create its own maquiladoras and the usual caveats appear:

In the United States, American labor and human rights activists may object to employment conditions here.

At Kaesong, the minimum wage for the 48-hour week is $57.50. But $7.50 is deducted for "social charges" paid to the North Korean government. The remaining $50 is paid to a North Korean government labor broker. None of the South Korean factory managers interviewed would guess how much of the $50 salary ends up in the pockets of workers.

"The exact amount is determined by North Korean authorities," said Kim Dong Keun, a South Korean who chairs the Kaesong Industrial District Management Committee.

Under labor contracting arrangements in Russia and Eastern Europe, North Korea's government often withholds half of their workers' salaries.

Attempts to interview seamstresses at the Shinwon, factory elicited evasive responses and intervention by South Korean guides.

Yes, human rights organizations should be very concerned. Fortunately, the article normalizes the situation and says, essentially, "hey--don't worry, it's all going to be ok": "In our view, the agreement applies to goods produced only in South Korea and the United States," an U.S. Embassy official in Seoul told reporters. "We hope that the Kaesong issue won't be a major hurdle in reaching the comprehensive goal of signing the free-trade agreement."

Exploitation is great!!! Let's get started.

So tell me again what's the difference between Communism and Capitalism. For me the answer is that Communists haven't realized that they can continue to exploit populations under the "freer" system of Capitalism. And if you think that the U.S. economy is getting better, well, you must be very, very rich already and not reading this. Go read this over at the Left Coaster, and you'll see what I mean.