I'm breaking my self imposed silence for a quick post. I was going to just post this on facebook (inc) but wanted to write a little bit more and thought I would share it here.
http://current.com/shows/viewpoint/videos/extra-charles-ferguson-on-how-harvard-and-other-universities-collude-with-the-financial-industry/
On Eliot Spitzer's Current TV show, Charles Ferguson lays out a terrifically important point, saying how American Universities, which (Santorum's right) should be a bedrock of Progressivism, have been hijacked by the radical pro-1% 'center.' Professors have been cut off at the knees by the internal attack of cultural relativism and the external control of Administrators who can't see beyond the University's bottom line. It is morally reprehensible, not to mention unpatriotic, to view the education of the next generation as a business venture. It is just as morally reprehensible to view the army, the postal service, public transit, public scientific spending, or medical care as a business venture. By that I do not mean that they should operate without fiscal constraint. Most people would not consider their family a business venture, but that doesn't mean that they go and buy a house every week. The bottom line for a business (and this is the point that, if he's going to veer to the left, Obama will,and has started to, campaign on) is: did you make a profit. Yes, for some businesses the welfare of their workers is very important but that's an added bonus, its not what being a 'successful' business is about. Businesses that
use union busting policies in America and child or slave labour abroad aren't doing bad things because they're all run by evil people... they're doing bad things because it improves their bottom line. We have, as a society, decided that its best for businesses like these to exist. We can have the discussion about the merits of that later, but even given that its good for these semi-amoral businesses to exist... that's a far cry from saying they're the model for every form of collective organization. The co-opting of the Presidency of Harvard is, in the end, a relatively minor problem when looking back at the past 30 years, but that does not mean it is meaningless. It is vitally important that we realize decisions like Citizen's United or the policies that Romney exercised at Bain (and countless other executives do every day) are symptoms of an endemic disease of radical pro-1% policies and must be treated like that rather than as the disease itself.
And the charge of 'its always been this way' simply isn't true. This is how it was under the rule of Kings and Despots, when you only had to learn as much as your pre-allotted job would require, where some murder with impunity while others are murdered for stealing a slice of bread, where you worked without the promise of adequate (or any) compensation. That is not the way Democracies are supposed to work. The path of Democracy has not been how to change that system into something slightly more agreeable but to how to move away from that kind of system all together. It has been a bumpy, slow, and still unfinished journey to get there, but that has been the direction this country and the majority if not all Democracies have taken. Not to say that the other opinion has not been voiced. The cry to return to something 'easier' and more 'orderly' where people take their lot in life rather than aspiring for something more has remained part of the conversation. But, apart from a few outliers, a few proto-nationalists, the 1880s in America, its been an option which has, been fought against by the people who we now recognize on being on the 'right' side of history. (For all you cultural relativists out there, FDR and De Gaul = Right Hitler and Franco = Wrong) That is until the past 30 years. From Thatcher and Reagan to W. to Merkel to Norquist this has been the unabashed policy of the Right in Democracies worldwide. And, under the guise centrism and the bribes of big business, its been a policy that has, on the whole, spread as easily through many supposedly leftist parties as it has permeated the rest of society. The Occupy / 99% movement is a beginning to one of the most important tasks that facing the world: pointing out that the current state of affairs is not just abominable. It is an aberration. The first step to purging it from our polity is to point it out. Everywhere we see it. So, great thanks to Charles Ferguson for pointing this out. I haven't had a chance to watch Inside Job yet, but I certainly mean to, especially now.
Beyond that. I think you should all check out Spitzer's show (and not just because I have a thing for forgiving sex scandals). You can get clips on Itunes for free if you can't watch on Current TV. The style of the show is a bit Law and Order for me, but Spitzer's a smart guy, he can get fantastic guests, and I'm fairly certain he thinks that this might just be the best way to kickstart his re-entry into Public Service. And, with an increasingly internet-driven electorate and (especially in New York) a core of Progressive news/podcast nuts (myself among them), he might just be right.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
To Make the Obvious Official
Obviously I've been taking a momentary break from blogging here. Developments in my non-blog life and moving apartments has taken up much of my time recently, but I hope to get a few posts out over the next month or so and then restart full time, either here or on a re-lauched website, some time in mid July.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Anders Behring Breivik and Insanity
On Tuesday, we heard slightly surprising news out of Norway. Anders Behring Breivik, the conservative Eurocentric terrorist who killed 77 people this past summer, was found sane enough to stand criminal trial. This is a dramatic reversal of the original decision declaring him psychotic, absolving him and his society from some of the blame of this heinous act. After all, it's much easier to declare that these kind of actions can only result from a deranged mind. Yes, we are a violent species, but we have moved beyond that kind of barbarism-especially in the West. This is the lie that those who want to maintain the status quo feed us. They have created a linguistic system by which we label everything which appears to be outside of the Dominant culture/counterculture duality as socially, if not scientifically, insane.
Breivik is a perfect example of how part of this works. Rather than trying to explain how or why our people like Timothy McVeigh, Adolf Hitler, or Anders Behring Breivik, exist in our-or any other-culture, we dismiss them as being insane, evil, and/or heretical. We have seen the results of closing our eyes jamming our fingers in our ears and attending our society has "evolved" beyond that. It is certainly true that human society has, in many ways drastically progressed in the past 200 years. However without knowledge of the past and an understanding of what it means for us today, we will find ourselves as part of a regressive society. The idea of declaring someone or something insane has far more insidious repercussions than the blunt example of Anders Behring Breivik. As acceptable behavior becomes more severely codified (not only in terms of one set of acceptable behaviors, but also a different more restrictive subsets), more becomes deemed as unacceptable.
I do not mean to suggest that this is a unique phenomenon, rather it is a basic definition of how collectivized societal power works. Some measure of this is necessary for basic human interaction. For example we could not communicate effectively if we had personal definitions for every word. However, the branding of nonconformist or dominant thought as insane must be thought of as regressive. It is simply a scientifically-charged way of calling someone a witch or a heretic. That is when they don't just call you a witch or a heretic. We can see this in the way that people in the LGBTQ community are treated, the way that Feminists are treated, the way the Wicca are treated, and certainly the way that Progressives are treated (these are three of many groups I could name). Look at the way that Progressive ideas like having a more equitable tax system, ending oil subsidies, ending or at least changing the tactics used in the 'War on Drugs,' or free public college are treated. No matter how popular these policies may be, as shown through polling, their ideas that do not fit in with how we are told that our society is run. So they are dismissed as impossible, as insane.
Once again this is not a new phenomenon. Other 'insane' ideas from our history are that women are not just property. That, really, when it comes down to it, no person should be any other person's property. Or the insane idea that everybody should be taught to read or write. The key point in understanding this is not that the Dominant forces in society are using a new tactic, it's that they're using the same one. No matter how many times we are told that we do, we do not live in post-racial, post-sexist, politically correct 'end of history' world. The Dominant forces in our society, the corporatists, the one-percenters are counting on the rest of us to be satisfied enough with the status quo and scared enough of being branded as 'insane' that we will accept the wool which is being pulled haphazardly over our eyes. We have to prove to them and to ourselves that we aren't. That this is still a world which needs new ideas and transformative policies.
Which brings us back to Anders Behring Breivik. Norwegian society, and European society on the whole, was rocked by his violent actions. The original decision to declare him insane seemed designed to be sedative, calming a terrified populace than anything else. "Don't worry," that decision said to Europeans, "he was just an outlier, a random force in our standardized society." Just one look at European society shows this not be the case. While Breivik certainly went a step further than some of his compatriots, his bigoted beliefs are far from uncommon across the entire European Union. All of those people are not criminally insane, regardless of how distasteful their particular beliefs might be on, say, race relations. Before we can have a conversation about the direction our societies and our species is going in, we must recognize the existence of multiplicities of thought. We must insist that there is not a black-and-white choice here, that insisted upon this does not lead to the trap of cultural relativism. I have no problem condemning Breivik’ s way of thinking, but that doesn't mean that I can simply dismiss the conclusions he draws or factors that caused him to believe those things. The only way for society to progress as a whole is for us to look honestly at the component parts which our species contains. The court's decision to declare Breivik sane, and thus fit to stand criminal trial for his actions, is a small step in the right direction.
Breivik is a perfect example of how part of this works. Rather than trying to explain how or why our people like Timothy McVeigh, Adolf Hitler, or Anders Behring Breivik, exist in our-or any other-culture, we dismiss them as being insane, evil, and/or heretical. We have seen the results of closing our eyes jamming our fingers in our ears and attending our society has "evolved" beyond that. It is certainly true that human society has, in many ways drastically progressed in the past 200 years. However without knowledge of the past and an understanding of what it means for us today, we will find ourselves as part of a regressive society. The idea of declaring someone or something insane has far more insidious repercussions than the blunt example of Anders Behring Breivik. As acceptable behavior becomes more severely codified (not only in terms of one set of acceptable behaviors, but also a different more restrictive subsets), more becomes deemed as unacceptable.
I do not mean to suggest that this is a unique phenomenon, rather it is a basic definition of how collectivized societal power works. Some measure of this is necessary for basic human interaction. For example we could not communicate effectively if we had personal definitions for every word. However, the branding of nonconformist or dominant thought as insane must be thought of as regressive. It is simply a scientifically-charged way of calling someone a witch or a heretic. That is when they don't just call you a witch or a heretic. We can see this in the way that people in the LGBTQ community are treated, the way that Feminists are treated, the way the Wicca are treated, and certainly the way that Progressives are treated (these are three of many groups I could name). Look at the way that Progressive ideas like having a more equitable tax system, ending oil subsidies, ending or at least changing the tactics used in the 'War on Drugs,' or free public college are treated. No matter how popular these policies may be, as shown through polling, their ideas that do not fit in with how we are told that our society is run. So they are dismissed as impossible, as insane.
Once again this is not a new phenomenon. Other 'insane' ideas from our history are that women are not just property. That, really, when it comes down to it, no person should be any other person's property. Or the insane idea that everybody should be taught to read or write. The key point in understanding this is not that the Dominant forces in society are using a new tactic, it's that they're using the same one. No matter how many times we are told that we do, we do not live in post-racial, post-sexist, politically correct 'end of history' world. The Dominant forces in our society, the corporatists, the one-percenters are counting on the rest of us to be satisfied enough with the status quo and scared enough of being branded as 'insane' that we will accept the wool which is being pulled haphazardly over our eyes. We have to prove to them and to ourselves that we aren't. That this is still a world which needs new ideas and transformative policies.
Which brings us back to Anders Behring Breivik. Norwegian society, and European society on the whole, was rocked by his violent actions. The original decision to declare him insane seemed designed to be sedative, calming a terrified populace than anything else. "Don't worry," that decision said to Europeans, "he was just an outlier, a random force in our standardized society." Just one look at European society shows this not be the case. While Breivik certainly went a step further than some of his compatriots, his bigoted beliefs are far from uncommon across the entire European Union. All of those people are not criminally insane, regardless of how distasteful their particular beliefs might be on, say, race relations. Before we can have a conversation about the direction our societies and our species is going in, we must recognize the existence of multiplicities of thought. We must insist that there is not a black-and-white choice here, that insisted upon this does not lead to the trap of cultural relativism. I have no problem condemning Breivik’ s way of thinking, but that doesn't mean that I can simply dismiss the conclusions he draws or factors that caused him to believe those things. The only way for society to progress as a whole is for us to look honestly at the component parts which our species contains. The court's decision to declare Breivik sane, and thus fit to stand criminal trial for his actions, is a small step in the right direction.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Another Reason to Love Patrick Stewart
"Our house was small, and when you grow up with domestic violence in a confined space you learn to gauge, very precisely, the temperature of situations. I knew exactly when the shouting was done and a hand was about to be raised – I also knew exactly when to insert a small body between the fist and her face, a skill no child should ever have to learn. Curiously, I never felt fear for myself and he never struck me, an odd moral imposition that would not allow him to strike a child. The situation was barely tolerable: I witnessed terrible things, which I knew were wrong, but there was nowhere to go for help. Worse, there were those who condoned the abuse. I heard police or ambulance men, standing in our house, say, “She must have provoked him,” or, “Mrs Stewart, it takes two to make a fight.” They had no idea. The truth is my mother did nothing to deserve the violence she endured. She did not provoke my father, and even if she had, violence is an unacceptable way of dealing with conflict. Violence is a choice a man makes and he alone is responsible for it.”
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Thoughts on the Upcoming Election(s)
Though I have not given up my hope that we will someday have a true multiparty Democracy in America it's also important to have a plan on how to go about pursuing electoral politics in the next few years that fits within some designated framework that already exists. It it may be easier to hijack the Democrat Party back into the hands of the true left than to start from scratch. But... here's my take on what Progressives should do if we stay within the Democrat Party.
In 2012, though its fine to criticize him, but don't mess around with not voting for Obama. No I do not think that Obama is a shining light for Progressives. But he's the best option we have. I fear how his 2nd term would go with a Republican controlled House and Senate, but with at least a truly left-leaning House and Senate along with a vocal populace, I believe he could do great work. So this is my bit of advice for Progressives for the upcoming election. First, vote for Obama. Second, unless you're in a swing state or the Republican candidate turns out to be Superman, don't do more for Obama than that. Our time and money must go into promoting progressive candidates, like Massachusetts' Elizabeth Warren. If we manage to accomplish these things: re-electing Obama with at least a Progressive-slanted mandate then I believe that there is a great possibility that Obama will govern as more of a Progressive in his second term.
One idea I have been thinking abut a lot lately is how Progressives can try to influence Obama's appointees in his second term. Clearly he will be carrying many of the first-termers into the second term (Even Joe Biden… who had better not run for President). However, think of what it might mean to the Progressive movement to have a real Leftist as Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Labor. Any of the Cabinet level positions. It is hard to find a single Progressive among Obama's closest advisors. We must find a way to change that in his second term. Perhaps this is the way to find Dennis Kucinich a way back into government. Or, if their elections go badly, Warren, Norman Solomon, Donna Edwards, or any of the few progressive candidates that are running now (check some of them out here). Or maybe this is the way to try and welcome sexual deviants Eliot Spitzer or John Edwards back into the fold. Or any of the Progressive leaning leaders in business, energy, law, education, the arts. Any of these would be an improvement on the 1990s-style 'centrists' that currently fill up Obama's cabinet.
Lastly, we have three years before the 2016 elections. There is no excuse to not have Progressives running in, and in many places winning, Democratic primaries. Just because the Tea Party is an organization of regressive cretins doesn't mean that their tactics aren't useful. The general idea for Progressives must be to have a progressive leaning Congress by 2014 and the more Progressive President, or at least a President who will pay more deference to us elected in 2016, regardless of how this election goes.
In 2012, though its fine to criticize him, but don't mess around with not voting for Obama. No I do not think that Obama is a shining light for Progressives. But he's the best option we have. I fear how his 2nd term would go with a Republican controlled House and Senate, but with at least a truly left-leaning House and Senate along with a vocal populace, I believe he could do great work. So this is my bit of advice for Progressives for the upcoming election. First, vote for Obama. Second, unless you're in a swing state or the Republican candidate turns out to be Superman, don't do more for Obama than that. Our time and money must go into promoting progressive candidates, like Massachusetts' Elizabeth Warren. If we manage to accomplish these things: re-electing Obama with at least a Progressive-slanted mandate then I believe that there is a great possibility that Obama will govern as more of a Progressive in his second term.
One idea I have been thinking abut a lot lately is how Progressives can try to influence Obama's appointees in his second term. Clearly he will be carrying many of the first-termers into the second term (Even Joe Biden… who had better not run for President). However, think of what it might mean to the Progressive movement to have a real Leftist as Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Labor. Any of the Cabinet level positions. It is hard to find a single Progressive among Obama's closest advisors. We must find a way to change that in his second term. Perhaps this is the way to find Dennis Kucinich a way back into government. Or, if their elections go badly, Warren, Norman Solomon, Donna Edwards, or any of the few progressive candidates that are running now (check some of them out here). Or maybe this is the way to try and welcome sexual deviants Eliot Spitzer or John Edwards back into the fold. Or any of the Progressive leaning leaders in business, energy, law, education, the arts. Any of these would be an improvement on the 1990s-style 'centrists' that currently fill up Obama's cabinet.
Lastly, we have three years before the 2016 elections. There is no excuse to not have Progressives running in, and in many places winning, Democratic primaries. Just because the Tea Party is an organization of regressive cretins doesn't mean that their tactics aren't useful. The general idea for Progressives must be to have a progressive leaning Congress by 2014 and the more Progressive President, or at least a President who will pay more deference to us elected in 2016, regardless of how this election goes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)