Freethought Weekly

Nader on Democracy Now!

2008-06-18T14:30:00.000-07:00

Ralph Nader appeared today on Democracy Now! and gave his opinion on Barack Obama, John McCain, and the difference between their campaigns and his. During election time it's so easy to get in the "Republican vs Democrat" mentality that it's easy to forget which issues one actually cares about in politics and whether they are being represented in the major campaigns. Nader's interview with Amy Goodman may help you remember.

Support Nader now to make Obama Progressive later

2008-06-12T10:20:00.000-07:00

     With just half a week having passed since Obama brought on Jason Furman, the man who in 2005 wrote a lengthy defense of Walmart entitled "Walmart: A Progressive Success Story", as his chief economic advisor, I think it's becoming more and more clear that progressives need to do something different this election cycle if we are hoping to get the change that our country so desperately needs. Do you remember the election of 2006? Do you remember all the "hope" we had then? Remember the claims and expectations that as soon as the Democrats regained power that this ridiculous war in Iraq would end and that Bush and his cronies would possibly be impeached and removed from office? On looking back, it seemed that we were all so naive to think that the Democrats would have done anything regarding these promises. Yet here we are again, in 2008, "hopeful" as usual. Why are things going to be different this time? Is it because Obama has a crack PR team and the good guess of his website crew that people would respond so positively to images of a politician who looks like he's coming out of the clouds like a god?

    I don't buy it, and I don't plan on being duped again this year. That is why I'm supporting (at least for now) the Nader/Gonzalez ticket. Despite the virtual complete blackout from the mainstream media, Nader is polled at a remarkable 6% of the electorate. This is considered an important number because many debate organizers have minimum thresholds of 5% of the vote to get to the debate. Can you imagine the impact of having Obama being forced to go up against Nader and McCain in a debate? Obama wouldn't be able to just slip by with arguing for centrist policies, he would actually have to commit to progressive positions. I think that getting Nader in the upcoming Presidential debates should be first priority for any Obama supporters out there. This is one of the easier ways for you to help Obama stay true to the progressive values that you assign to him and to actually give his campaign the substance that would make it deserving of the hope that so many seem to have in it.

    Again, it's pretty simple. If you are willing to vote for Obama, regardless of what his positions are as long as he is to the left of McCain, he is acting in the most rational way if he decides to go further to the right. In this way he picks up more conservative votes and doesn't have to worry about losing yours. Only if you give the impression that you won't vote for him if he doesn't make progressive changes in our government will he take to the time to actually do any of it. Remember, Obama has been in Washington for many years now and has he shaken up this illegal government? No, he's been rather passive. So why would you expect anything else if you don't force him to be different?

Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results Of 2008 Election Early

2008-06-07T09:42:00.000-07:00

May 1968 and Gore Vidal on Democracy Now!

2008-05-17T09:35:00.000-07:00

     I've been out of the political loop for awhile. This is due to a combination of a rush of research related material that I've been needing to get done (I submitted my first paper this past month), finishing up the cycling season, and honestly, also due to the fact that I am nearly uninterested in the whole Obama vs Clinton war (unfortunately, that is all that anyone wants to talk about).

     However, I glanced at the Democracy Now! update that I get daily in my mailbox this week and noticed that they were going to talk about the spectacular events that occurred in France in May of 1968. I've read a good deal about these events in the past and always enjoy hearing more, even if it's just more of the same, because of how fascinating these events were and the hope it gives me that someday again everyday people will reach this level of political and social awareness.

     There's also a great interview by Amy Goodman of Gore Vidal. It's actually probably the most entertaining interview that I've ever seen her do. I really recommend both of these. They are from the show from this Wednesday and you can find them here. Check them out and if you're interested we can discuss them in the comments.

Note: Democracy Now! now has a wide variety of video selection formats to choose from (including torrent) that they didn't have a couple of months ago.

Good anti-religion song

2008-04-13T20:20:00.000-07:00

Driving to a road cycling race this weekend I heard a song called "Haillie Sallasse, Up Your Ass" by a group called Propagandhi (on the driver's iPod, not the radio). It's not the best song in the world, but it's sort of catchy, and I like how they don't shy away when they say 'Fuck religion' over and over again. And in any case, someone made a YouTube video to go along with it that lists some of the reasons why religion is so harmful to society.

Iraq War Blogswarm: 'We Own the World' by Noam Chomsky

2008-03-20T08:57:00.000-07:00

So I'm a little bit late on my post for the March 19th Iraq War BlogSwarm. Let's just say that yesterday was a busy day.

I thought about what would be most appropriate to write here. Simple criticism of the Iraq War, while certainly valid, lacked the historical context that I wanted to provide linking this war to the way our government always operates. The Iraq War was not just a 'botched job', a 'miscalculation in the fight for freedom', or a 'misguided attempt to attack the evil-doers', it was instead a simple application of the way our government works. Power and profit for the few, squalor and death for the others. Noam Chomsky, whose ability to step back and see the big picture always makes his thoughts illuminating, wrote an essay at the beginning of this year entitled 'We Own The World' that expresses the sort of ideas that I wanted in this post. Feel free to check it out.

Awesome John McCain video

2008-02-11T18:22:00.000-08:00

Iraq War Blogswarm

2008-02-08T09:34:00.000-08:00

March 19th will be the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War and will probably only get passing mention in the corporate media. This despite the fact that over a million Iraqi civilians and thousands of U.S. troops have died, that it's given people in the Middle East more legitimate reasons to seek revenge against our country, and that it's cost more money to the U.S. taxpayer than any war in U.S. history with the exception of World War II.

But on the web we can set a different tone than the one set in the media. We can dominate the blogging medium on March 19th with posts calling for the end of the Iraq war and immediate withdrawal of troops. This is organized by the people at the March 19 Iraq War Blogswarm and I encourage you to check it out and participate. I'll be going to an anti-war rally in San Francisco on that day and will report on the event (with pictures!). Let's provide much-needed coverage and assistance to those who will be out protesting in the streets on that day and make it so that no one goes the day without reflecting on the outrage that is the Iraq War.

Single issue coalitions as an electoral strategy

2008-02-03T17:23:00.000-08:00

     Super Tuesday isn't still for a couple of days, but already, most of the big issues of our country have already been decided for us. Whether or not a Republican or a Democrat wins the Presidency, it seems that our government will remain in Iraq, that healthcare matters will still be controlled by the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, that the military will still eat up a gigantic fraction of our tax dollars, that the American government will continue to pursue an aggressive and unilateral foreign policy, that homosexuals will still be denied their rights, that our voting system will remain ineffective, that media companies will continue to consolidate power, torture by government agents will still be considered a topic of debate, and judging by the complete lack of discussion on environmental matters we will continue to ignore the adverse effect that we are having on the environment. Let's face it, we lost the 2008 election. Our strategy does not work, and we desperately need a new one.

     It seems like the vast majority of educated Democratic voters (i.e., the ones who follow politics from reasonable sources, say, online) scrambled to distance themselves from the progressive candidates such as Kucinich and Edwards and jumped on the 'ship of viability' in order to 'win'. But what has this accomplished? Have we succeeded in advancing even one progressive issue? If you think so, please do tell.

     An idea of how to change this is the subject of this post. It's somewhat similar to my previous stated ideas about a Progressive Front but perhaps more realistic and achievable. The idea would be to pick a single progressive issue and attempt to unite as many progressive voters as we could behind that issue. We would try to organize as many people as possible to agree to not vote for any candidate who did not support this single issue. Outside of this single issue, it's up to each individual. But we strive for at least one issue with which to be united. To me it seems like if we do not focus our attention around one specific issue it's too easy for us as voters to get distracted, fragmented, and then race to the right-wing of the Democratic party where the corporate-funded,'viable' candidates are so that the even worse Republicans do not win.

     An obvious question would be, how do we pick the issue? Well, the best answer I have for that is that some of us get together, pick what we think is the best issue to unite behind, and hope to convince others to join us. Now a careful choice of this first issue may be result in this being easier than you might think. The issue I have in mind is IRV, or instant runoff voting. I think IRV is a very important electoral achievement that we could strive for. It would then allow for people who supported say, the Green party, to vote their conscience without worrying about whether they are 'helping' the Republicans win. Whether or not this would open up our political system to third-parties is debatable (money and advertising would still play a powerful role in the election process) but it would certainly force the Democrats to offer some real alternative to the Republicans. The 'secret weapon' behind choosing IRV as the first issue to test this strategy is this: as more and more of us agree to not vote for any candidate who doesn't support IRV there will be an increasing number of people who vote for Green or other third-parties instead of the Democrats (I'm supposing that initially the Democratic candidates don't support IRV). This will, in some states, put the Democrats in a position that they might lose to the Republicans without our votes (like what happened in Florida in 2000, not paying attention to the cheating of course). And this will put pressure on other Democrats to support IRV-backing candidates, even if they don't think that it's the most important issue or think that our strategy is worthwhile. In this respect, a couple of Republican wins over the Democrats due to third-party voters would be a huge boost to getting more people behind the issue and having it succeed. In addition, I think it's hard for someone to argue that IRV wouldn't be a good idea. In fact, there are libertarians on the other side of the spectrum that would be interested in this sort of change themselves. After achieving success with getting IRV passed, we would have demonstrated that single issue coalitions can actually make a difference and would continue with some other issue. But I think it's important that as voters we unite and force our government to fix a particular problem rather than be disorganized and have nothing of any value happen at all.

     This strategy is of course not restricted to electing a president, it would be applied to all elected offices. We would need a sympathetic Congress and House to help make IRV a reality. And of course, just like with the Progressive Front idea, an important part of this strategy would be to give ourselves visibility. We would need heavy blogger support, t-shirts, bumper stickers (e.g., 'I only vote for IRV candidates'), and the like to let our neighbors know what we are trying to accomplish. With enough funding we could pursue more ambitious outreach, such as newspaper ads.

     One of the biggest advocates out there for IRV is FairVote, whose influence and existing infrastructure could be used to launch this campaign if those who run it are interested in it. Then we as bloggers would help play a support role and could volunteer in the FairVote efforts. But I think it's important to not mix the issue with others issues (such as some of the other initiatives that FairVote sponsors), and this may require an independent organization to do so if it's impossible to do this within FairVote. We would need a website to allow people to 'sign up' (projecting our strength in numbers is crucial I think to success) and to organize the campaign (although this, in many respects, should be as decentralized as the efforts to impeach Cheney and Bush are from ImpeachBush.org).

     Okay, does anyone else think this is a good idea? Have a better one? Or are we just hopeless?

NYT: Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler

2008-01-27T11:25:00.000-08:00

Here's an interesting article I just read in the New York Times regarding the consumption of meat in the world economy. Of particular interest to me were the following pieces of information:

Growing meat (it’s hard to use the word “raising” when applied to animals in factory farms) uses so many resources that it’s a challenge to enumerate them all. But consider: an estimated 30 percent of the earth’s ice-free land is directly or indirectly involved in livestock production, according to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization, which also estimates that livestock production generates nearly a fifth of the world’s greenhouse gases — more than transportation.

and this one, which I already was aware of qualitatively but didn't know the difference was so substantial:

Though some 800 million people on the planet now suffer from hunger or malnutrition, the majority of corn and soy grown in the world feeds cattle, pigs and chickens. This despite the inherent inefficiencies: about two to five times more grain is required to produce the same amount of calories through livestock as through direct grain consumption, according to Rosamond Naylor, an associate professor of economics at Stanford University. It is as much as 10 times more in the case of grain-fed beef in the United States.

My fiancee and I currently are not vegetarians, but we do try to limit our meat intake for both health and economic reasons (we have a lot of fresh, cheap vegetables available out here in California). Sometimes I joke that we're "vegetillusullarians", i.e., that we "usually eat vegetables". I believe the information will further factor into my mind when I'm looking through our recipes deciding what I should make for dinner.

Book Review: Superpower principles - U.S. Terrorism Against Cuba

2008-01-20T19:31:00.000-08:00

Occasionally you'll hear some story about Cuba or Fidel Castro in the news, generally portraying the country as a wasteland and the man as a ruthless dictator. You may have also heard presidential candidates talk about Cuba, how they support the U.S. embargo against the country (which has been condemned each year for over a decade by the United Nations and also the WTO, where the European Union brought charges against the United States for the illegal embargo in 1997) which if we listen to the official line is imposed to help bring about "democratic" change in the country.
Why is the United States government so hostile towards Cuba? The book Superpower Principles: U.S. Terrorism Against Cuba is a great collection of essays by people like Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, William Blum, Michael Parenti, and more which help explain this phenomenon. The "Cuban threat" began in January of 1959 when Fidel Castro and his guerrilla forces overthrew General Batista's U.S.-backed dictatorship. Michael Parenti explains what angered the U.S. government

    In June 1959, some five months after the triumph of the Cuban Revolution, the Havana government promulgated an agrarian reform law that provided for state appropriation of large private landholdings. Under this law, U.S. sugar corporations eventually lost about 1,666,000 acres of choice land and many millions of dollars in future cash-crop exports. The following year, President Dwight Eisenhower, citing Havana's "hostility" towards the United States, cut Cuba's sugar quota by about 95 percent, in effect imposing a total boycott on publicly produced Cuban sugar. Three months later, in October 1959, the Cuban government nationalized all banks and large commerical and industrial enterprises, including the many that belonged to US firms [Cuba offered to reimburse those who previously owned land or property that was nationalized, according to whatever value they had placed it at on the previous year's tax return. This was rejected.--Delta].
    Cuba's move away from the free-market system domination by US firms and toward a not-for-profit socialist economy caused it to become the target of an unremitting series of attacks perpetuated by the US national security state. These attacks included U.S.-sponsored sabotage, espionage, terrorism, trade sanctions, embargo, and outright invasion. The purpose behind this aggression was to undermine the Revolution and deliver Cuba safely back to the tender mercies of global capitalism.
    The U.S. policy toward Cuba has been consistent with its longstanding policy of trying to subvert any country that pursues an alternative path in the use of its land, labor, capital, markets, and natural resources. Any country or political movement that emphasizes self-development, egalitarian human services, and public ownership is condemned as an enemy of the USA and targeted for sanctions or other forms of attack. In contrast, the countries deemed "friendly towards America" and "pro-West" are those that leave themselves at the disposal of large U.S. investors on terms that are totally favorable to the moneyed corporate interests.
    Of course, this is not what U.S. rulers tell the people of North America. As early as July 1960, the White House charged that Cuba was "hostile" to the United States (despite the Cuban government's repeated overtures for normal friendly relations). The Castro government, in Eisenhower's words, was "dominated by international communism". Cuba was a threat to the "stability" of the hemisphere and to the survival of American democracy, we heard. U.S. officials repeatedly charged that the island government was a cruel dictatorship and that the United States had no choice but to try "restoring" Cuban liberty.
     U.S. rulers never explained why they were so suddenly concerned about the freedoms of the Cuban people. In the two decades before the Revolution, successive administrations in Washington manifested no opposition to the brutally repressive autocracy headed by General Fulgencio Batista. Quite the contrary, they sent him military aid, did a vigorous business with him, and treated him well in every other way. The significant but outspoken difference between Castro and Batista was that Batista, a comprador ruler, left Cuba wide open to U.S. capital penetration. In contrast, Castro and his revolutionary movement did away with the private corporate control of the economy, nationalized U.S. holdings, and renovated the class structure toward a more collectivized and egalitarian mode. That is what made Fidel Castro so insufferable in Washington--and still does.
     Needless to say, the U.S. method of mistreatment ahs been applied to other countries besides Cuba. Numerous potentially dissident regimes that have asked for friendly relations have been met with abuse and aggression from Washington: Vietnam, Chile (under Allende), Mozambique, Angola, Cambodia, Nicaragua (under the Sandinistas), Panama (under Torrijo), Grenada (under the New Jewel Movement), Yugoslavia (under Milosevic), Haiti (under Aristide), Venezuela (under Chavez), and numerous others. The U.S. modus operandi is:

to heap criticism on the targeted government for imprisoning the butchers, assassins, terrorists, and torturers of the previous U.S.-backed reactionary regime;

denounce the revolutionary or reformist government as "totalitarian" for failing to immediate institute Western-style, electoral politics;

launch ad hominem attacks upon the leader, labeling him as fanatical, brutal, repressive, genocidal,power hungry, or even mentally imbalanced;

harass, destabilize, and impose economic sanctions to cripple its economy;

attack it with surrogate forces, trained, equipped, and financed by the CIA and led by members of the former regime, or even with regular U.S. armed forces.

The book goes into many aspects of U.S.-Cuban relations, and offers important historical background to understand why the media and government act the way they do towards Cuba. It also goes into some detail about the plight of the Cuban Five. The Cuban Five are a group of five Cubans who infiltrated anti-Cuban terrorists groups that are located in Miami and who operate with the consent of the CIA. They used this information to warn the Cuban governments of future attacks, which were often involved with planting bombs in tour buses, hotels, and other attacks with the intent of hurting Cuba's vital tourism industry. After doing this for over a year, the Cuban government met with the FBI and handed over all the evidence that the Cuban Five had gathered and asked the U.S. government to take action against the terrorists. But instead of acting against the terrorists, the United States arrested the Cuban Five. The Five were tried in Miami, the most unlikely place in the world for Cubans to get a fair trial. At the end of the day many of the Cuban Five were sentenced to life in prison with the only crime actually committed being identification fraud. However, the government accused them (and the biased jury convicted) on conspiracy to commit espionage, which there was no evidence available suggesting this. The trial has been criticized by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Amnesty International, among others.

Leonard Weinglass, an attorney for the Cuban Five,writes

The Five were not prosecuted because they violated American law, but because their work exposed those who were. By infiltrating the terror network that is allowed to exist in Florida they demonstrated the hypocrisy of America's claimed opposition to terrorism.

I recommend this book to anyone who wants more insight on U.S.-Cuban relations or the Cuban Five. Also, if you become outraged at the treatment of Cuba you could participate in the boycott of Bacardi (which also makes Grey Goose vodka, by the way). Bacardi is a private company whose owning family is strongly anti-Cuban, has funded the groups that carry out terrorist attacks against the island, and was strongly influential with the U.S. government in making the embargo harsher in 1996 (the lobbyist for Bacardi actually wrote part of a bill that was passed in 1999 as well).

Cuba isn't a perfect place and there are certainly mistakes that have been made (some admitted by the leadership itself). But the United States supporting an illegal and immoral embargo, backing terrorist acts against the Cuban people, rejecting public opinion in the U.S. (most of which wants normal relations, even among the business community), and imprisoning Cuban anti-terrorist heroes is not the way to bring about democratic change (which of course the U.S. is unwilling to do anyway). If anyone wants to talk about issues relating to Cuba, please bring it up in the comments.

Mitt Romney Defends Himself Against Allegations of Tolerance

2008-01-17T11:41:00.001-08:00

Huckabee wants to amend the Constitution to reflect 'God's standards'

2008-01-16T10:20:00.000-08:00

     I'm posting this for two reasons. One, because I think it's a interesting sound byte. But also, I think it's important to point something out here. It's common among the secular community to view this kind of proclamation as simply a way for politicians to manipulate religious nutbags. And while this fact is indeed true, it's also important for us to remember that this does not make Huckabee the "bad" Republican. All the Republicans are bad, both for our country's people, for people around the world, and for the health of the world itself. Each one of them is firmly attached to the idea of US corporate control over the political and economic life of the country, each one is attached to the idea that the US should invade and undermine the political expression of foreign people's if it endangers US corporate profits, and each one is opposed to actually solving the climate crisis that our planet faces (unfortunately many of these are actually part of the "bipartisan consensus"). Huckabee cannot make "God's law" U.S. law for two primary reasons: 1). The wealthy of our country who have control of the government do not particularly want this and 2). Huckabee probably doesn't want to do this himself, he just wants votes and will disappoint the Christian fascists the moment he gets in office (as did Bush and those before him).

     The response for this from the secular community should not be to excessively fear a Huckabee presidency and to work towards getting those who we know who might vote Huckabee to vote for some other, "better" Republican candidate. The point is that we don't want any Republican candidates in office, and so we should fight at the very least for Democratic candidates (if not Green, Peace and Freedom, etc.). To do otherwise is to allow these types of statements made by politicians to manipulate not only religious nutbag political opinion, but also that of the freethinking community.

Documentary - What Would Jesus Buy?

2008-01-10T23:08:00.000-08:00

     I recently became aware of a documentary by Morgan Spurlock (creator of Super Size Me) which addresses over-consumption in American society and the commercialization of Christmas called What Would Jesus Buy?. It features "Reverend Billy" of the Church of Stop Shopping who brings a unique and comical way of getting people interested in the anti-consumerism movement. I haven't been able to see the film yet (it's only playing at select locations) at the moment) but I'm anxiously awaiting a wider release.

     Here's the trailer. Enjoy, and happy New Year =) I suppose I've had a dry spell in terms of writing as of late, but I hope to bring this blog back up to a more active state. You know how it is...

Supporting Change through Working Assets

2007-10-19T10:39:00.000-07:00

     For those who've ever tried 'voting with their wallet', you probably know how frustrating it can sometimes seem. There generally aren't that many options for where you can purchase your goods and services, and when there are, most of the choices aren't too much different. However, I recently became aware of a phone company which gives portions of its charges to progressive causes. The company is called Working Assets and claims to have given over $50 million to progressive organizations since 1985. Each year the customers of Working Assets vote on which organizations should receive support. There are many organizations which receive funding for this year, for example, Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, Amnesty International, Union of Concerned Scientists, Code Pink, Human Rights Watch, Democracy Now, Doctors without Borders, Americans United for Separation of Church and States, and many more.

    Working Assets donates 1% of your bill (long-distance, cell phone, etc.) to these progressive organizations (the customers also vote on how the money will be divided up amongst the recipient organizations). But even better, Working Assets also has partnerships with a couple of organizations in which they give 10% of your wireless bill to the organization! These types of partnerships involve the organizations Amnesty International (Working Assets link), the Humane Society (WA link), Planned Parenthood (WA link), and Democracy for America (WA link). They may also have partnerships with other organizations in the future. This would be a good recommendation to any organizations that you're part of that you'd like to help contribute to with money that you're going to be spending anyway.

    Working Assets plans are also competitive. Their wireless plan is the same price as the Cingular (oops, now AT&T, because the cell phone market was also just so damn competitive...) plan I'm currently on. And in terms of coverage, they actually use Sprint's network, so you should expect the same reception that you would get with Spring. Also, Working Assets will buy out your current plan up to $175. And I believe that the current price for breaking a Cingular/AT&T contract is $175, so that's perfect. I plan on breaking my contract this week and switching to Amnesty's Working Assets plan. It'll make me feel good knowing that ~$75 of my money each year will automatically go to supporting Human Rights and will also help combat the telecommunications monolopolies. Plus I've heard you get free Ben & Jerry's ice cream for signing up!

Switch to Linux

2007-10-13T16:32:00.000-07:00

     If you're not currently running Linux and you don't play a large number of commerical video games, why haven't you switched yet? It's free, fast, open source, secure, and there are plenty of sources of free help out there for it.

    The internet is of course going to be extremely important for the future of our society-don't leave your access to it in the hands of a corporation that provides an inferior product at a price.

Evolution Meme Blog Tag

2007-09-29T10:28:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I got tagged by Vjack of Atheist Revolution. The idea behind this tag is that we are supposed to list five of our older posts which are reflective of the evolution of our blog, and then of course we are required to tag 5 other bloggers afterwards.

Generally I don't get that interested in blog tags, but this one seems like it could be interesting. I started blogging in April of 2005, about half a year after I helped "reelect" George Bush to his second term. For those who read my blog now, it's pretty obvious that my ideas have changed substantially since that time. Unfortunately part of this change happened in that six months after the election so it's not possible to see the evolution in its entirety. But regardless, there were significant changes outside that time period as well.

The Problem with Conservatism-This was my first blog post and so I think it reflects on the motivation behind the creation of this blog. Inititally my idea of the blog would be that it would be primarily a blog opposed to religion and the "values" that social conservatives hold. This focus probably had a lot of to do with the fact that I lived in Texas at the time, and was continuously exposed to Christian messages and "arguments", whether it was while I was driving on the road, reading the official editorials of our campus newspaper, or just walking around campus. Nearly everyone I came in contact with wore the badge of social conservatism with extreme pride, and for me it represented nothing but cultural backwardness and a whole list of "-isms". In this post I specifically target 'social conservatism' and omit discussion of economic/political conservatism. This was to be something that I would change later on, but at this point the blog was primarily to attack social conservative arguments and its main pillar, Christianity. An interesting note is that in this post the only political advice I give the readers is to "vote Democrat", which seems very naive looking back on.

Is Socialism Superior to Capitalism?- In this post I pose the question as to whether socialism is superior to capitalism. This idea was rather blasphemous for me at the time. Throughout most of my life I had been very patriotic and so accepted, somewhat blindly, that because the U.S. had a capitalist system that it must be necessarily the best. But this was not because I viewed inequality and class domination as good, it's just simply that previously the whole notion of 'class' was foreign to me. In the good ol' jingoistic days of my thinking, my nationalist feelings lumped all Americans together in one big community. The thought that our leaders wanted something different than the people seemed absurd. I mean, hell, we were all Americans right? Our nation is a force for freedom and democracy worldwide, right? And if our leaders cared about such ideals, then how poorly could our internal system be constructed? However, this post marks a significant change in my thinking. I still cared about the collective welfare of ALL American people, but I was coming to the realization that capitalism was not about people working together to improve their lives. The idea that we weren't a single group with the same interests was critical to my initial socialist leanings, which were more nationalistic in origin perhaps then they were for the reason that socialism is more just, is able to sustain democracy, and may be the only system capable of protecting the planet's environment. The thoughts contained in this post and comments by me were fairly uneducated at this point. I was simply interested in the topic. The majority of my other posts maintained to be about religion.

The Media-A Tool of Propaganda- This post was written right after I had watched a documentary based on Noam Chomsky's book Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. In the documentary Chomsky puts forth his Propaganda Model, which explains right-wing, corporate bias in the media in terms of structural economic causes. This documentary and book marked a significant shift in the focus of this blog. This changed my thinking from believing that progressive change could come naturally fron discussion and the eradication of irrational religious belief. I was now more concerned with the impact that the media played, which pandered more to corporate and government interests than it did to religious interests. I started seeing this blog as more of a vehicle to circumvent the bias in the media, and began seeing capitalist control of media as more threatening to postive change than to what theists happened to believe. My blog would necessarily take a more political tone from here on out.

To the Christian Left-This blog post was directed towards progressive Christians. It was basically a call to work together towards changing society for the better and putting the rather unimportant (in terms of daily life) issues regarding whether or not there's an invisible, magical being in the sky off until a time when we've got nothing better to argue about. This post really marks a shift in focus because here I'm calling on progressive Christians to unite in opposition with leftist atheists to oppose the entirety of right-wing politics whereas just a couple months before I was calling on fiscal conservatives to unite with atheists against religious belief. This shift was mostly due to the experience I had at an anti-war rally in San Francisco a month before, which I wrote about. In this post I write

Yesterday I saw many people who could see through the bullshit that not only the adminstration puts out, but also the bullshit the media puts out. And many of these people were not atheists. And I identified with these people and felt like we were a group of thinking, concerned citizens even though I knew they probably believed in a magical sky daddy or two. See, what I've come to realize is that there are many aspects of having a realistic outlook of the world. Some of us see through the religious bullshit very easily, but then we are still fooled by the non-religious crap that we were indoctrinated with at the beginning of our lives. These things, I believe, include strong feelings of jingoism, a strong commitment to free market capitalism and the associated economic belief that both the rich and the poor "earn what they get", as well as the inability to see that the corporate-owned media is, without exaggeration, essentially propaganda. However, there are some people who see the latter stuff very early in life but still believe in the ridiculous religious stuff.

     From here on atheism and attacks on religious would take a backseat to discussions based on historical events ignored in the media, contemporary media bias and criticism, and anti-capitalist discussion. However, this should not be taken that I think atheism-oriented blogging is unimportant. On the contrary, I think the elimination of blind religious devotion and its associated control on thought is of paramount importance to the creation of a citizenry capable of effective political action. My personal preferences in posting had just shifted away from this.

The Progressive Popular Front- This post and idea is very recent, but I think it also marks a significant shift in my outlook. Before August, my real-world political activism was extremely limited. I was seemingly content with reading books,learning some things, and then throwing a couple of them up on this blog. Political activism would have been fairly hard for me to do before this also, as my political beliefs were changing fairly rapidly that I didn't know if my thinking would stay stable enough to get involved with real-world activities. However, in the past few months my guilt at not participating more has come to weigh heavily on me. Additionally, my political views have changed only in details for about a year now, giving me the comfort of having a stable and somewhat "tested" outlook on the world. What good am I doing if I sit at home and read about socialist politics and history, U.S. opposition to democracy and human rights, and media issues while our world goes down the shitter? So I've decided to become more active in politics and try to change society for the better. While I am still a dedicated socialist, I am oriented my efforts around more short-term goals like universal healthcare, election reform, etc. Some people on the left will accuse me of being 'reformist'. That's fine, although maybe I should address this claim. In my opinion a socialist revolution is like jumping a creek. The act of jumping to the other side surely requires strategies outside of the official political avenues (general strikes, dual power structures, etc.) but reformism is the walking up to the edge of the creek before you jump. People cannot be instantly lifted to a higher political conciousness. I think (in the absence of major disasters) it has to be gradual. We must work to transform society little by little, with the newer society producing people capable of transforming it even more. But with this being said, I should make it clear that the extent of my 'reformism' is basically the support of Green politics. Anything less than that is not fighting for worthy change at all in my opinion.
     But back to topic, in this post on the Progressive Popular Front I propose an organization which I hope will be able to make progressive changes in America, perhaps bringing the United States to the level of the other advanced Western countries. I've set up a new blog here with this purpose in mind.

Okay, thanks for reading, now to tag 5 other people. I choose:
    1)breakerslion from Confusion of Ideas
    2)Mookie from Meme Processing
    3)Parge at the Environmental Atheist
    4)DT from Drunken Tune
    5)Beep Beep from Beep Beep It's Me

Book Review: Mao's China and After

2007-09-23T12:44:00.000-07:00

    China is the world's most populated country, has a very rapidly enlarging economy, and according to Department of Defense estimates (as opposed to official CCP figures which neglect nuclear weapons and also some funds used for military development) ranks second in the world in terms of military expenditures, while still only spending 1/5 of the leading United States (which of course doesn't need this excess money for education or healthcare). This power is also perceived by many around the world. I have a couple of friends who are taking Chinese language classes and I ask them why they are taking Chinese as opposed to some other language. Typically I get responses along the lines that they hope to be giving me orders in my work camp after the Chinese invasion. So clearly, both in terms of numbers and perception, China is a very powerful country on the world scene today. And for me, as someone who likes to pride myself on the idea that my political views are at least loosely correlated with social and political reality, my previous near total lack of knowledge on the country and history of China made me feel like I had a huge gap in my understanding of the world that needed to be filled.

     This gap has been substantially reduced after reading a book by Maurice Meisner titled Mao's China and After: A History of the People's Republic. The book goes through in great detail the transition from China being a completely unindustrialized country that was exploited by Western imperial powers to its current state as one of the most rapidly industrialized countries whose people are now simply exploited by international corporations in association with the ruling 'Communist' Party.
     The book starts with a description of the iconoclasm of many of the youth and intelligentsia at the beginning of the 20th century against the ruling 'Confucian' social order that had ruled Chinese society for centuries. Many people in this group in China looked toward the western parliamentary democracies as models that China should emulate and believed that this would transform China into a powerful country that could not be humiliated by imperial powers and would also bring China's socially backward populace into the 20th century. This movement took a turn on May 4, 1919 when thousands of students demonstrated in Beijing in response to the decision of the Western democracies to give German imperialist possessions in China to Japan as 'war booty'. Meisner explains how this event changed the political landscape in China:

The dramatically new political situation radically politicized a significant number of intellectuals. Many who had regarded themselves as liberal cosmopolitans emerged as militant nationalists, defending the country against the menace of foreign imperialism. Many who had rejected political participation because they attributed the plight of China to fundamental deficiencies in culture, for which political measures offered only superficial solutions, now began to favor immediate political action to save the nation from the external threat and to resolve the grave social and economic crises that threatened from within. The new spirit of political activism permeating the cities raised hopes that the masses could be organized for effective action and that the intellectuals could be effective in leading them. Concurrently, the intellectuals' views of the West underwent a dramatic transformation. The bitter nationalist resentments aroused by the fateful decision at Versailles, coupled with growing national political activism at home, led to a rapid erosion of the faith that the "advanced" Western nations would instruct China in the principles of democracy and science. The foreign teachers were now perceived as oppressors, and the old image of a Western world providing progressive models for the regeneration of China was replaced by a new image of a West made up of cynical and aggressive imperialist states. Having rejected traditional Chinese intellectual and political values, the intellectuals still looked to the West for guidance; but they now began to look more to Western socialist theories, which were themselves critical of the West as it was, in placed of conventional Western liberal ideologies, which sanctioned the existing capitalist-imperialist order.........To become a Marxist was one way for a Chinese intellectual to reject both the traditions of the Chinese past and Western domination of the Chinese present.

     The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was founded two years later, and then over the course of a long civil war it finally won against the Nationalists in 1949 when the state of the PRC was formed. The CCP led by Mao Zedong, during the revolutionary years of the civil war, was a remarkably grassroots and popular organization that appealed to large numbers of the Chinese population, both in terms of their hopes of social betterment, but also in response to the understanding that the CCP would finally free China from the control of foreign imperial powers. This progressivism and connection with the masses was to deteriorate once the former revolutionaries found themselves as leaders of a state, as expected when you create a new ruling class with privileges not enjoyed by others.
     The book then discusses the early years of the PRC, and its attempt to reconcile the fact that, at least according to orthodox Marxist theory, it was building a socialist country in economic and cultural conditions that were not suited for doing so. There are many parallels to the Soviet experience of course, but the Maoist experience is also in many ways very much different than the situation encountered by the leaders in the Soviet Union. Industrialization was to proceed rapidly, in order to build up the economic 'preconditions' for a socialist society. But this rapid industrialization and the need for increased production was hard to reconcile with the socialist aims of worker control and popular democracy. The need for centralized control over production to achieve maximum economic growth was in direct opposition to the socialist aim of direct control and the withering away of the state and the power and influence of the bureaucracy exploded in the years following the birth of the PRC. This fundamental dilemma, between building the political and social aspects of a socialist society (i.e., a democracy of producers) and that of building the economic aspects of a socialist society (a modern industrial base), was to rear its head many times in the first two decades of the PRC, manifesting itself in events like the The Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.
     After the death of Mao Zedong in 1976, new leaders took over that promised more intellectual freedom and democratic reforms. These leaders, most notably Deng Xiaoping, were to soon to lead China on the road back to capitalism. They also soon went back on their promise of democratic reforms, as could be seen by their persecution of China's Democracy Movement. This persecution is most widely known from the incident in Tiananmen Square in 1989, in which the Chinese government massacred thousands of students and workers who were fighting for democratic reform of the government. In the wake of protests, the government declared martial law in Beijing. The first troops that were sent to Beijing fraternized with the students and workers, and so were withdrawn. The city was then surrounded by 200,000 veteran troops loyal to the government and on June 3rd they entered the city and began their attack, with the army's tanks, machine guns, and AK-47s firing indiscriminately into the waves of protesters who were courageously fighting back with bricks, sticks, and Molotov cocktails. At the end of the second day, thousands of people had been killed and over 40,000 would be arrested in the subsequent two months for their political activism. Below is a good Youtube video showing scenes from the attack:


     Today we have a China which is still very controlling of their population. Political dissent is suppressed, and the workers are forbidden from forming their own labor unions in response to the exploitation that they suffer from at the hands of companies who go for cheap labor with no threat of labor unionization. I think the power that China has and the influence that America could have on it requires us to be knowledgeable about the situation there and its historical causes. For this reason I very much recommend this book.

Other reviews:

Of the thousands of books that have been written about contemporary China, only a few will stand the test of time. This is one of them. --Foreign Affairs

Splendidly relates the human drama of the Chinese people and their leaders, with empathetic understanding and constructive criticism
--Zhiyuan Cui, professor of Political Science, MIT

Progressive Popular Front - I think we're going to do this

2007-09-11T21:31:00.001-07:00

Thanks for all the feedback everyone. There was actually quite a bit of support for this idea, many of you having emailed me directly. There was enough so that I feel like it would be worthwhile to give this idea a shot, so I plan on taking it to the next phase. So what would the next phase be? This is up for debate of course, but a general outline I was thinking about goes as follows:

1). Obviously one of the first things we need to do is really clarify what this project would be about, both in deciding how the idea would be presented to the public and also hammer down the details for ourselves in how the organization would be structured, function, etc. Some of this may be able to be made up as we go, but it would be nice to get some basics down. Additionally, the list of progressive issues that we want the Popular Front to represent has to be decided upon. We clearly cannot ask anyone to 'sign on' to the PPF if we don't have the issues beforehand. To help in both of these purposes, I have set up another blog at Progressive Popular Front. In terms of organizational structure, perhaps that can be done some over email and then a little bit as well on the blog itself. For the issues, I plan on having a post on each potential issue where we can openly discuss the position. We can also invite people who are active in these respective fields (other activists) to come and give us their opinion.

2). Once we've completed the previous tasks, the next stage will be to officially launch the project. This requires a few things:

A better website: we will need to get off Blogger and onto a new url and hosting with more capabilities. We may be able to get hosting for free, as there are some small businesses which give free hosting to progressive organizations, but this usually requires that we be a ....

registered non-profit (501(c) in the US tax code). This should not be hard to get I believe.

Volunteer drive, website design, and shirt, bumper sticker, etc. designs. This is where we prepare to really launch the PPF

Now that all the groundwork is done, we begin, hopefully in enough time so that we may influence the 2010 or 2012 elections. All types of activism will start here, and we will also try to raise money so that we may purchase more visibility for the organization and message.

The timescale for the above outline is obviously highly dependent on how well we are able to get a lot of grassroots support and participation.

Except for comments to these past two posts, let's take all discussion on the PPF over to the new blog. If you'd like to get involved in this endeavor please let me know, either by posting here, at the new blog, or emailing me at progressivepopularfront@gmail.com.

Also, if there are any strong criticisms of this idea in general or some of its specifics, please bring it to my attention. The more minds working on this the better.

An idea for the progressive movement - the Popular Front

2007-09-06T10:09:00.000-07:00

     One of the biggest problems I think we have as progressives is that it's tough for us to really organize ourselves into committed, long-lasting movements. The primary reasons for this in my opinion is as follows:

  1). We have no support from the media, so our organizations and small victories we may score go unreported in the news. Everything we do in this sense has to be grassroots. The media also defines what 'mainstream' views are, and these views are generally quite conservative.

  2). Our organizations have trouble fighting for change because there's a strong impulse to let our values be coopted by attempts to elect the 'lesser of two evils'. Even though I think progressive views are strongly rooted in the minds of many Americans, these people, come election time, are usually torn between those who vote their conscience and those who think that doing so is handing the election to the Republicans, who they may view as only slightly worse than the Democrats that they will be voting for. I think this issue is actually one of the biggest problems facing the movement.

     So last night I was thinking about this, and I thought of one solution. The progressive movement, instead of focusing its efforts on rallying support for the Green Party or for Dennis Kucinich, should focus its efforts on convincing people to vote their conscience and to agree on a limited number of progressive goals that any candidate must meet to get their vote. A benefit of doing this is that one's efforts from one election cycle don't go wasted for the next election. So rather than simply rallying for Kucinich, who may not run again next election, the activist energy that you put in today could be then applied to a different progressive candidate in the future. Also, by having people commit to issues and not politicians or parties, the movement can also avoid being stuck to a party which may go conservative. So if the Green Party all of a sudden changed its platform, it would automatically lose the support of those who had agreed on the issues that they felt were necessary to qualify for a vote.

     Now, for the movement to gather momentum, people will want to see it grow and see that it's making progress. This is why this effort would need a name. My first thought for this name would be the 'Progressive Popular Front'. And basically how it would work is that we'd need to establish some basic progressive goals that the PPF supported. Some suggestions would be universal healthcare (the real, non-for-profit kind), some sort of election reform (IRV or something along those lines), legalizing same sex marriage, legalization of abortion, end the war on drugs, clean energy (with some details to be provided on its nature), fair taxes, diplomacy over war (again in actuality, not politicians paying homage to diplomacy while preparing for war), etc. The exact list needs to be progressive enough to be worthwhile but also not too radical so that we can have a substantial following. We would then attempt to convince people that they should only vote for candidates who can meet these criteria and ask them to sign on to being part of the 'Progressive Popular Front'.

     So now what we would have is a movement which was issue-oriented, and uncompromising with its votes. Also, it would be easy to keep the movement cohesive because we've put all these issues under the umbrella of the Popular Front. So rather than saying "hey, do you support x,y,and z, and will only vote for someone who also supports this?" you can simply say "hey, are you part of the Progressive Popular Front?", and if not, convince them to join.

     Now to show that the movement is making progress, because it won't be reported on in the media, we can have tshirts, a website giving statistics, Popular Front icons for blogs, and bumper stickers saying "I support the Progressive Popular Front". Each person who puts this on their car will show to others that they are not alone (I think alientation is one of the reasons why people let their political desires be coopted). As the movement grows, more and more people will have this displayed and this will help prevent people from voting for the "lesser of two evils".

     The Popular Front website will give analysis each election cycle to help the members determine which candidates support the views they signed off on. Perhaps we can have some sort of internal election so that the Popular Front can officially endorse a candidate.

     Now these ideas are very rough, but I wanted to get your opinion on it. If you like it, we could start and get the ball rolling. It'll of course start out small, but if the idea is good it should grow in size.

Don't let the media decide your vote for you

2007-09-04T23:43:00.001-07:00

Poll: Are Americans happy prisoners or progressives without strategies?

2007-07-25T00:38:00.000-07:00

Recently I've tossed around the idea of writing a book. It's more of a long-term goal as I don't yet feel qualified to write publishable material with all the necessary references characteristic of a scholarly endeavor, but it's something I would like to work towards and eventually do in the next 6 years. I have a general topic in mind, but I haven't decided yet on approach or focus. However, I'm having an initial difficulty that I'd like your opinion on. It has to do with what the progressive movement in America needs most at this time. Are Americans, in your opinion, more progressive than the government that pretends to represent them? Is it simply the tyranny of the two-party system and the absence of effective methods at controlling government actions which enable our government to ignore the well-being and wishes of its people much more than its European counterparts are able to do? This position can be argued from looking at polls which show that Americans consistently disagree with the position of the government on certain topics, notably the health care system and most recently the invasion of Iraq. Or is this position perhaps too optimistic? Are the American people actually happy prisoners of the system, not having any influence but also not desiring anything radically different? Does the overwhelming domination of corporate media, the consumer society, and atrocious educations in history actually produce a people which do not understand the nature of the institutions and policies that they support? This position I think can be supported as well, although I'm more interested in hearing your opinions than trying to convince you of mine. I'm trying to decide whether the content of a book should be more directed towards the "how" or the "why" (or perhaps equal amounts of both?). I would appreciate your participation in the poll and in any comments you might make in explaining your choice.

The Daniel Singer Prize: $5000

2007-06-13T12:18:00.000-07:00

     Hello, I hope this post finds everyone well. Posting has certainly been light this past month, but I have some good excuses (does anyone ever not?). 1). I've been really picking up speed in the research area. I do research in condensed matter physics and since I just started in February I have a lot of reading to do and techniques to learn which takes up a great deal of my time. 2). This past month I got a road bike. It's the first *real* bike that I've ever owned and it's very fun to ride and I've gotten some great workouts from it already. It makes going around the city very easy and I'm also using it as an aerobic replacement for running, which is supposed to be bad for your knees. If you've never ridden one you should really try it out, it's great. 3). My fiancee and I are learning French together. We've only done a couple of lessons but it's something fun that we can do together. Once we know it it'll be like having our own secret language (that 300 million people also speak). We're also going to be in France for a week this summer and it's much more enjoyable to me if I speak a little of the native language. I feel less like a foreign invader and more like I belong there I suppose.

    I haven't had much time to do any "fun reading" in the past month, although a couple of days ago I started the book Prelude to Revolution by Daniel Singer, a socialist writer who has authored a couple of books and written articles for The Nation (as its Europe correspondent) and The Economist. The book deals with the events of May 1968 in France, in which a revolutionary situation occurred which brought out 2/3 of the French workforce in a general strike. It is looked on by some as a sign of hope that even in first-world countries where economic conditions are such that people are not starving that it does not mean that large numbers of people cannot become interested in changing society in order to become more democratic, fair, sustainable, and enjoyable. But at the same time I think that movements like this may actually have a greater chance in first-world countries where productivity, if used for the common good and not for a small group of social parasites whose only contribution to society is being rich, could actually drastically reduce the work week without a decrease in the quality of life. I think the realization of this, and then its strong contrast with what society currently looks like, could very well be a strong motivator towards the adoption of 'radical' ideas.

     Anyway, in doing some background research before starting this book I stumped upon a website by the Daniel Singer Millennium Prize Foundation. Daniel Singer passed away in 2000 unfortunately but in his memory they have an essay contest every year in which the winner receives $5000 and is invited to give a public lecture based on the essay. The question for the essay is "What major breakthrough in socialist theory is necessary in order to move the practical struggle forward?". I thought this was something that some of you may be interested in. It would take a little more effort than a normal blog post, but at the same time there would be a chance at $5k as well as the satisfaction of writing an essay which could influence the outlook of many people. I may write something in a couple of months if I can find the time. If you're not interested in writing something, you might want to check out the essays of the previous winners. I just read the most recent winner's essay, and thought it was very well done.

Book Review: American Fascists

2007-05-03T22:41:00.000-07:00

     In the atheist community nowadays we hear a lot of chatter about the threat of theocracy rearing its head in America. While I agree that religious believers who shun reason and prefer to live a life of magical superstition, continuously feel persecuted even while on the offensive, and believe that all social problems can be solved if we "get right with God" are a huge threat to our so-called democracy, I think that there is essentially zero probability that a theocracy will rule the US in the near future. The reason for this belief is that I'm assuming that for a political system to be truly a theocracy, the rulers of the economic and political life belong to religious institutions or are at least strongly controlled by those who are. But I can't see this happening in America. The movement that the Christian Right represents is not anti-capitalist, and this is what they would have to be in order to displace the current rulers of our society. Furthermore, because religion is basically a tool to prevent those from thinking and from taking independent action, it necessarily creates a movement of followers, not leaders. This places all decision making at the top, and the leaders of any organization (whether they be religious, hierarchical worker unions, or even "revolutionary" parties) have been shown to be very susceptible to being assimilated into the thinking and behavior of the ruling class. While other movements can have some hope in the initiative of the rank-and-file members, religious movements have little chance of this happening due to their extreme hierarchical structure, the silencing of dissent, and the deification of their leaders.

     Having said that, the Christian Right does pose a threat, but it's in the form of bringing about fascism, rather than theocracy. Christians will not establish a new order, but will simply lend support to the existing order and help dismantle social programs and liberties that have taken us a long time to achieve. This has been religion's role for centuries, whether its supporting the rule of kings, dictators, or capitalists.

    But to the book. American Fascists is a book by Chris Hedges which holds as one of its claims on the cover that it will argue the similarities between the Christian Right and young fascist movements that developed in Italy and in Germany at the beginning of the 20th century. If this is what you're interested in (as I was), do not read this book. Hedges barely even mentions Italian fascism and National Socialism in his book, a far cry from the detailed analysis and comparison I was looking forward to. I even read a book by Daniel Guerin called Fascism and Big Business before reading American Fascists in hope of learning more about the young fascist movements in Europe so that I could better evaluate Hedges' arguments. Guerin's book, written in the eventful 1930s, is a very detailed look at the buildup of fascist movements, what institutions supported them, and how they were able to appeal to the masses. Reading Hedges' book you wouldn't be convinced that he is even aware of all the characteristics of the Italian and German fascists as he routinely misses opportunities to make comparisons that would have been of great interest to the reader and would have made his case more solid.

     The book is written in that very personal style, as if he's simply writing in his diary as he travels the country and attends various christian political events and sermons. Some people may like this style of writing because it resembles a novel, but for an analysis I think it's completely inappropriate. It tends to focus on individual figures and their actions rather than analyze the entire movement from a distance. Here, I just flipped open the book to a random page, and here's what I read:

The opening session is held on the third floor, a large room with a round stage surrounded on three sides with rows of folding chairs. The hall is dimly lit. There are a few thousand people. Large television screens are suspended from the ceilings, and the platform in front of us has a podium and a grand piano.....

....see what I mean?

So in conclusion, I didn't enjoy this book very much. To me it seemed like a more or less unstructured rant against those who are "hijacking" the otherwise good Christian religion. However this book may reach out to moderate and left-wing Christians (Hedges actually went to Harvard Divinity School) and so I'm glad it's out there. But if you want to learn about fascism and how movements develop then you should look somewhere else.

† The picture at the top is one that I took about two months ago in San Francisco after coming back from the march against the Iraq war. Their website is about what you would expect from a group called "Nation Takers".

On an unrelated note, I recently decided to make an anarchist shirt on CafePress. What do I hope to come from it? Well, anarchism is basically the political equivalent of atheism in America, and as many atheists seek to convince believers that atheists don't worship the devil, I feel somewhat compelled to try to convince those around me that anarchism does not mean "chaos", but that, as the symbol represents, "anarchy is order". I have also included some text on the back of the shirt which says

Anarchism, simply put, is the radical notion that freedom and democracy are not merely words, but that they represent actual social conditions that we should strive to implement

While it's not the best definition in terms of rigor, I think it at least gets across the idea that 1). Anarchism is a legitimate political philosophy, and is not simply a way for teenagers to get back at their parents for making them take out the trash and 2). That anarchism is associated with democracy, not with disorder. One of the primary goals of anarchism is the creation of an actual, direct democracy, and I hope to introduce that idea into the heads of those who see me wear this shirt. Pictures of the design are below, and if you'd like to see the design on other items, go check out my site.

Capitalism is War

2007-04-14T16:45:00.000-07:00

     I think everyone, regardless of their political and religious orientation, hopes for a future in which all of humanity lives in harmony with each other. We hope for a world free from war and the human suffering it entails. But these goals can never be met as long as mankind lives beneath the shadow of capitalism.

     What's so bad about capitalism you ask? And how the hell is it comparable to war? To begin with, let's look at the conventional wars, those fought with formal militaries. What starts them? Perhaps every one was started due to a conflict over resources. They, for the most part, were not fought over religion, as an apolitical atheist may hope you to believe. Religion is often used to placate the masses or to aid in convincing them to participate in the slaughter of their fellow human beings, but the initial motivation is always material in nature. Kings and emperors, the predecessors of todays' ruling capitalist class, started wars with the intent of increasing their material wealth. They have always had others shed their own blood for their material comfort, and if they could not convince their people to fight by calls to religion, patriotism, and the defense of "freedom","democracy", "order", and "civilization" then they resort to drafts and other forced service in their interests.

     Now perhaps this doesn't seem all that bad to some people. After all, eventually a nation will emerge the final victor, having either obliterated its adversaries or having reduced them to a powerless extension of themselves. And then war, outside of minor scuffles and "interventions", will be over. However, this is not the case in my opinion, because I think the mere existence of capitalism necessarily puts humanity in a constant state of war.

    What is war? War is a conflict of interests, in which (typically) one party wins and one party loses. The losing party's quality of life is diminished, and to the victor goes the spoils. But what is capitalism but the glorification of conflicting interests? Capitalism, not by systematic imperfections, but by design is a system that puts people's interests opposed to each other. Worker versus owner, buyer versus seller. These interests are necessarily in opposition. There can be no peace and we cannot work toward common goals if our goals are not the same, if one of us being better off necessarily means that the other is worse off. These conflicts of interests and their outcomes are just as serious as those from more conventional wars. Those who starve, suffer from inadequate health care, curable diseases, and the like do so whether they are the losers on the battlefield or if they are the losers in the marketplace, whether suffering is delivered to them at the point of a gun or handed down to them from the "invisible hand of the market". Even in the "first-world" countries where hard-won labor reforms exist they are constantly under attack by those who lose profit by their very existence. The daily demand for more work from the workers at less pay by the employers and more pay for less work by the workers puts every individual in the society in constant conflict with others.

     I don't believe that anyone is inherently "bad" (if only because no objective definition for the word exists), but I do believe that people act in their own interests, whether they be of a material nature or not. This is a fact that cannot be avoided. So it is crucial that our political and economic structures tie people's interests together rather than set them opposed to each other. No one can reasonably expect any system to be free from conflict, but if you ever hope to minimize it, you shouldn't be using a system that is actually built on it.

Long Time No Post

2007-03-08T21:22:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone, sorry the posting has been very light lately. I recently joined a research group and have been very busy getting myself settled in and trying to get something productive done. It's theoretical physics, although at the moment I spend a lot of time looking at computer code and debugging it before submitting jobs to the supercomputers we have access to. Although I haven't been posting, I have had a little time to read and watch a few interesting things that I'd like to share with you in case you're interested.

I recently finished a book called America Beyond Capitalism by Gar Alperovitz. There's 4 clips of the author talking at a bookstore on this website so you can get an idea of what he talks about in the book. In addition to some interesting facts and statistics, probably the biggest idea that I took away from it was the importance of local democratic structures and participation as a means of exerting democratic influence on a more larger scale. As Alperovitz says in his book:

The heart of the larger foundational argument-and this is a critical emphasis-might be put thus: Is it possible to have Democracy with a Big D in the system as a whole if you do not have real democracy with a small d at the level where people live, work, and raise families in their local communities?

In this goal of having a true democracy Alperovitz looks at other conditions that are necessary if a government is truly going to be democratically controlled. A lot of this obviously has to do with how wealth is distributed. He looks at a variety of institutional changes, some of which are very radical and some of which are not, and often cites some current trends as to how things are leaning in this direction. Some of the things he proposes are good ideas but have no chance of actually coming into being in the near future. However, he says that he realizes that things are likely to get worse before they get better, and cites a number of issues such as health care, social security, the environment, and a population which sees themselves working harder and harder despite huge technological gains that could drastically minimize work as factors that could radicalize the mainstream of America. Watch the video if you're interested in more.

     A good documentary I recently saw is Militainment, Inc. which is a film about the military and war as entertainment. There are a lot of very good clips of the mainstream media in there that are worth watching. It's available on Youtube, and I've included the first of the 12 portions below for convenience.



    Also, a few days ago I ordered a book called American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America by divinity school graduate Chris Hedges. I usually don't read books by christians, but this guy's politics impressed me in his interview with Democracy Now! so I decided to give it a shot. Apparently in the book he compares the Christian Right in America with young fascist movements in Italy and Germany at the beginning of the century. If you have time check out the interview, he makes a couple good observations. It blows my mind though to see someone who apparently have such a clear depiction of how the world works yet still describe himself as a Christian. Maybe he does it because it will make him more effective in communicating his ideas to a wider audience, or maybe he just can't completely let go of superstition I don't know. But it looks like a good book.

     I'm currently reading Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance by Noam Chomsky. I'm about 1/3 of the way through and have found it fairly engaging. A number of the events he cites I actually know a fair amount about, but there are some things that I hadn't heard before and even with the things that I've had, it's nice to hear his opinion and analysis of it.

    Hope everything is going well for you all. I don't know if I'll be getting any less busy in the next month or so, but I'll try to post every so often and check in with your blogs.

Majority of CNN panel concludes that atheists need to "shut up"

2007-02-11T00:25:00.000-08:00

     Some of you may have heard of the recent uproar about the Paula Zahn CNN segment about discrimination against atheists. If not, the videos are below along with some comments.



    What I thought was interesting about this segment was the choice of atheists interviewed. You may have noticed that all the atheists chosen for interview were overweight and rather unattractive in general whereas the Christian man who was interviewed was fairly handsome. This is a popular media technique to influence opinion. If those who are undecided on the issue see it they will often identify the "bad" idea with the "bad" looking person. Fox News employs this tactic on Hannity and Colmes. Hannity is a fairly decent looking guy whereas Colmes looks like the child of a zombie and an old turtle. People naturally want to associate themselves with the better looking person, and this can have a huge affect on the subconscious.

Here's the second part of the video:



    The first thing I'd like to comment on here is the initial backdrop of "Why do atheists inspire such hatred?". I thought the initial question of the segment was "are atheists discriminated?" not "what do they do to deserve it?". The language used clearly suggests that not only are atheists hated, but that there are reasons that justify such hatred.

    Then to get to the comments. It's incredibly disappointing to see a black woman criticize a discriminated minority and say that they simply need to "shut up" only 40 years after the Civil Rights movement. Now the blonde really reminds me of a character played on Saturday Night Live, although I can't decide exactly who. Her claim of America being a "christian nation" has been refuted so many times it's beginning to cause my ears pain to hear it. America's "founding fathers" were overwhelmingly deist, certainly a far cry from being Christian. Maybe the blond woman should let the black woman (I refuse to honor them with their names) know that America (by the same twisted logic) is also a "white nation". And then finally the blond woman's comment that Europe is "fast falling" and is becoming "Islamic" is certainly ridiculous. Europe is becoming more secular, that's for sure, but not "Islamic". And the countries that are more secular, e.g. the Nordic countries, are also the countries with the highest standard of living for their citizens. They also have more responsive government and hence much higher voter turnout, all signs that their democracies are "fast falling" in comparison to ours.

    In summary, what a ridiculous panel. Our great mainstream media can get a panel of people in a room to discuss atheism (none of which are atheists by the way) and agree that we need to shut up. Damn, Christians sure are persecuted in this country.

Finally, here's a nice remix that someone made.

Independent Media in a Time of War

2007-01-25T22:33:00.000-08:00

Bernie Sanders on Corporate Control of the Media

2007-01-22T22:19:00.000-08:00

Democracy Now! has a good video of Bernie Sanders speaking at the National Conference for Media Reform. Sanders highlights the centrality of the media issue saying

If you are concerned, as been said, about healthcare, if you are concerned about foreign policy and Iraq, if you are concerned about the economy, if you are concerned about global warming, you are kidding yourselves if you are not concerned about corporate control over the media, because every one of these issues is directly controlled and directly relevant to the media

Video here.

Socialism Defined

2007-01-21T14:36:00.000-08:00

Mookie of Meme Processing has a interesting post on socialism that some of you might be interested in. He talks about a number of issues, including the negative connotations of the word and of its true definition, common misconceptions and arguments made against socialism, whether violence is necessary to achieve fundamental change, discusses the apparent paradox of a free market which supposedly protects individual liberty and responsibility while at the same time is not controlled by people but by an "invisible hand" which is independent of human control and thereby relieves people from responsibility for anything that the market affects, among other topics. If you're interested, regardless of your views, feel free to join the discussion.

Also, I'd like to thank whoever ordered those 4 atheism books after clicking on one of my Amazon links. They give me 4% of the purchase towards Amazon gift certificates. I still haven't gotten to the $10 minimum redemption amount goal, but I'm getting close =)

Pirates and Emperors

2007-01-16T21:06:00.000-08:00

Short cartoon from TayTV based on Chomsky's book Pirates and Emperors, Old and New.

What is the media reporting on now?

2007-01-12T10:41:00.000-08:00

Most days I check out the mainstream media and see what they're reporting on, just for shits and giggles. Today I wanted to see how the media was responding to Bush's call for an escalation in Iraq (20,000 more troops for the slaughter), the fact that polls show that 71% of Americans are opposed to Bush's plan, and also Bush's aggressive statements towards Iran and Syria. I remember back in high school we were told that we needed a President to make decisions because the process of democracy is often too slow to react quickly if the need arises. I don't remember the part where the the President gets to do whatever the fuck he wants, especially if public opinion is directly opposed to it. Withdrawal from Iraq? No, silly citizens, we're sending in more troops. Going to recall me? Too bad, you can't. Impeach me? Too bad, you don't control the Congress or House, and in half of the states you can't recall them. In fact, most of you didn't even have a choice to elect a peace candidate in November to begin with! As always, direct action is the only way to control our lives and our world. I may talk about this later, especially if a war with Iran starts to look imminent.

Anyway, I just downloaded this great extension for Firefox which lets me save screenshots of the web pages I go to. I made some comments on the news websites I visited. As you'll see, the US media is utter bullshit. Al Jazeera, however, was quite impressive. You may want to click on the photo to make it larger and easier to read. Am I the only one who thinks that ongoing, escalating, and upcoming war is something that should be the focus of reporting in a civilized society?

ABC

CBS

CNN (morning)

CNN (hour later)

Fox "News"

Al Jazeera (my new mainstream news source)

Idiocracy

2007-01-12T00:00:00.000-08:00

I usually don't promote movies on this blog, especially if they aren't documentaries. But Idiocracy is one that I think many of you would enjoy. Besides, if 20th Century Fox won't promote it, maybe I should pick up the slack. Let me borrow a fantastic review from John Patterson of the Guardian

It looks as though Mike Judge, the satiric mastermind behind Beavis and Butthead, King of the Hill and Office Space, just got punked again. By his own studio. For the third time.

Seven years ago, 20th Century Fox dumped Judge's anti-corporate cri de coeur Office Space, but it became a bona fide smash on DVD, one of the studio's biggest sellers that year. Last year Fox unceremoniously cancelled Judge's animated hit King of the Hill, perhaps the most socially precise comedy on American television, before giving it a last-minute reprieve.

Now it's the turn of Judge's second feature, the splenetic, pitch-black satire Idiocracy, which wrapped nearly two years ago. Fox didn't screen it for critics, ran no print ads or trailers, and dumped it on 130 screens nationwide. Apparently the lesson of Office Space's success went entirely unlearned.

Knowing Judge's sterling track record as an American satirist, I had to find out what went wrong. Usually a film eliciting such utter contempt from its own backers is a disaster. Far less often, it's a masterpiece.

The plot: in the future, the educated and intelligent will be massively out-bred by moronic A-type prison-fodder and Nascar idiots, to the point that all knowledge of engineering, agriculture, medicine and literature will be lost to misty memory. Luke Wilson plays ordinary Joe Bowers, chosen to be frozen by the military in 2005, who accidentally wakes up in 2505 to find a broken-down, thuggish America where language has become a patois of football chants, hip-hop slang and grunts denoting rage, pleasure and priapic longing, where citizens are obese, violent, ever-horny and narcotised by consumerism, TV and fast food. Everything's branded, and people have names such as BMW, Mountain Dew and Frito. TV features the Violence Channel (its signature show: "Ow, My Balls!") and the Masturbation Channel ("Keepin' America 'batin' for 300 years!"). The President's a Smackdown champ and porno superstar, and there's a mulleted wrestler on the billion-dollar bill. And everyone in the future thinks that Joe Bowers, suddenly the smartest man on earth, "talks like a fag".

There is venomous anti-corporate satire throughout the movie, remarkable mainly because Judge names real corporations. I was astounded - and invigorated - by the sheer vitriol Judge directs at these companies, who surely now regret permitting the use of their licensed trademarks. Like fast-food giant Carl's Jr, which in 2006 sells 6,000-calorie burgers the size of dictionaries under the slogan, "Don't Bother Me, I'm Eating". In Idiocracy, this has devolved into "Fuck You! I'm Eating!" And every commercial transaction has been sexualised: at Starbucks you can get coffee plus a handjob (or a "full body" latte).

Idiocracy isn't a masterpiece - Fox seems to have stiffed Judge on money at every stage - but it's endlessly funny, and my friends and I will be repeating certain lines for months (especially while eating), a sure sign of a cult hit. And word got out fast: I saw it last Saturday in a half-empty house. Two days later, same place, same show - packed-out. There's an audience for this movie, but its natural demographic barely knows it's out there.

Behind the movie's satire lie long-term social changes like the stupidisation of the American electorate over 30 years through deliberate underfunding of public education, the corporate takeover of every area of public and private life, and the tendency of the media - particularly Fox News - to substitute anti-intellectual rage and partisan division for reasoned public debate.

Some will argue that Fox has also given us some of the best television of the last 15 years - true - and that if quality sells as well as garbage, then the bottom line is served either way.

So why was Idiocracy dumped? Perhaps because it taps a growing anti-corporate mood in the nation; perhaps because it expertly satirises the jingoistic self-absorption that now passes for public culture. Or perhaps because more people are sick of the modern America that Fox energetically helped to build than the Fox corporation itself is ready to admit.

While I don't believe a trailer was ever made for it, here's something that someone put up on YouTube. If you watch it, let me know what you think.

To Political and Social Consciousness

2007-01-07T14:48:00.000-08:00

     We all grow up with the same idea that freedom, democracy, and justice are things that should be valued. Whether this is due to upbringing or due to some intrinsic desire of mankind is something I haven't particularly thought about, but just about everyone strives for these things in their politics. What type of politics comes out, however, is anyone's guess. Differences in perspective, due to an infinite number of factors ranging from religiosity to historical background, are the cause of such a vast difference in the believed paths to these commonly agreed goals.

    My personal story is one in which my politics changed drastically while at the same time I remained faithful to the previously mentioned ideals. I went from a very patriotic two-time Bush voter to a libertarian communist in less than a period of two years. Below I will try to outline my path, as best I can, to (what I hope) is a more socially and politically conscious position.

    As I described in a previous post, I used to be extremely patriotic. I bought into the lie that our country and our government, which I believed was strongly democratic, stood and fought for democracy, freedom, and human rights. I felt that we were a beacon of hope in a dark world and that we were doing the best we could to spread those fundamental ideals throughout the world. Having believed this,it made sense that I would support our military and hope for "us" to have an ever increasing amount of control over other nations and their people. For if we failed, then perhaps freedom would be extinguished from the human experience altogether. Sometimes we may act imperialistic (I didn't realize how prevalent this behavior was at the time), but it seemed justified to me because we had to make sure that our country got the natural resources and strategic leverage to sucessful fight for freedom and democracy. The reason I supported Bush twice was because he was "good for the military". I also believed that the American people were a unified body with more or less the same interests in how our country was run and what should happen in the world. At least this was how history is usually taught in the US. As Howard Zinn puts in his amazing book A People's History of the United States:

The pretense is that there really is such a thing as "the United States," subject to occasional conflicts and quarrels, but fundamentally a "national interest" represented in the Constitution, in territorial expansion, in the laws passed by Congress, the decisions of the courts, the development of capitalism, the culture of education and the mass media

I bought into this. I didn't realize that capitalism, by the way it forces the interests of the buyer and seller, of owner and worker, to be in direct opposition to each other (and this basic relationship propagates to affect other relationships throughout the society) makes it impossible for there to be a "national interest". And if the citizens of a nation don't have common interests, whose interests do they favor?

    So due to these beliefs, I always supported the US military and its wars. I very much enjoyed watching bombing by US warplanes on the news because we were attacking the "enemies of freedom". I also supported very high tax rates, because that would go into improving our great country. I even somehow managed to think that if I were ever rich one day that I would donate a large sum of my money to the US government, as I thought that it would go to good use (I can't really defend myself here, but let me throw out the fact that I was in high school).

    So how did this view change? It's hard to be exact, as changes in politics or religion tend to be very gradual and in some respects the individual experiencing them may not have a good sense of what is happening. To see that our government represents only a small minority of the country whose interests are opposed to the majority's and that the US government, rather than supporting and nurturing freedom and democracy at home and abroad, actually suppresses it you need to be exposed to new ideas and history that isn't usually taught and never discussed in the mainstream media. The first step then was my disillusionment with the media.

     I used to live in the south, and there the standard news station is Fox News, so that's what I usually watched. They subscribed to the same jingoistic ideas that I did, and besides, they had nice graphics and special effects. It was actually my atheism that ended breaking me free from Fox News. I was in the kitchen washing dishes while I listened to Fox News one day. They had some people come on and they started discussing whether an atheist could be President. So I went into the living room to watch. Everyone on the show, the guests, the anchors (I think it might have been Hannity) all unanimously agreed that an atheist could not be President. Atheists simply just did not have the moral fiber to do so. If they didn't have the common sense to accept Jesus, how could they lead the country? I had never been so pissed off by watching the news before, and since I no longer had any respect whatsoever for the people over at Fox News, I stopped watching it altogther. I then started watching CNN and MSNBC and also the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I think the Daily Show may have influenced me in that I began to become increasingly critical of the Bush administration (his religiosity and opposition to stem cell research also affected this).

     But for perhaps 6 months after this it's hard to discern how my thinking evolved. Some idea can be had by looking at my posts on my blog. Looking at a post from April 2005 (the first month of my blog) I made my opposition to social conservatism well known, but didn't appear particularly opposed to economic conservatism. I know at some point in early 2005 I read a book called Reason: Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America. After reading that book, I classified myself as a liberal and felt, at least for a period of a few months, very supportive of the Democratic party. Perhaps it was this identification of myself with the minority party that allowed me to easily criticize the way that the GOP was running the country. In July I made a post to my blog titled Is Socialism Superior to Capitalism?. By the way I answered the many responses that I got it seems clear that I had answered this question for myself at least a few weeks earlier and had educated myself to some extent about socialism. Then in August I made a post about Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media called The Media-A Tool of Propaganda?. The realization that the mainstream media is essentially right-wing propaganda was the turning point which shifted my sources of learning and understanding of the world from the TV to more scholarly resources like books and documentaries. And then basically due to how intersting these topics are I began to consume new information at a very fast rate, always having (and still have) 2 or 3 books waiting in line to be read after finishing the current one. It's interesting to look through my posts indexed by month and watch my political transformation happen as I learn more about both current and historical events and get exposed to new points of view.

     As I said it's hard to really detail the thought process that I went through, but I hope this gives some idea. A good deal of credit also goes to many of you in the blogging community, whom I've had a great many educational conversations with and who've opened me up to new ideas. I look forward to more dicussions with you in our shared goal of understanding more about the world around us and affecting it for the better.

Happy New Year

2007-01-03T15:10:00.000-08:00

    Happy New Year everyone! I'm finally back from my holiday break. Both my parents and my fiancee's parents live in Texas, so that's where I was for the entire break. It was nice to see them and have some time off. But I'm very glad to be back. It's only been about two years since I lived there myself, but it's amazing how already things that previously I didn't even take notice of really bothered me while I was there and made me really appreciate living here in the Bay Area (around San Francisco). Of the smaller things was the lack of recycling facilities. Where I live I'm used to getting roughly 1/3 to 1/2 of my weekly trash volume getting picked up on the curb and is taken to be recycled. It seemed so strange to fill up trash cans with wine bottles and cans and just throw them away with the rest of the trash. It made me feel very wasteful and actually bothered me a lot more to not recycle than I would have ever imagined it to. But I think the biggest thing was the complete dominance of large retail and restaurant chains. Driving through Houston on the highway you almost wonder if you're going in circles. Best Buy, Starbucks, Wal-Mart, Chili's, Olive Garden, Office Max, Bed Bath and Beyond, etc. just repeat over and over again. I must have (honestly!) seen a dozen Best Buys as I drove through one part of Houston. Coming from an area which has very few corporate chains and the only big box stores we have are on the outskirts of the city, I thought this was very depressing. And while it may just be because I live in a fairly urban area in which it doesn't pay to advertise in this way, I was also irritated by the fact that you could see advertising and billboards in every direction that you looked. Everything was an advertisement. Nothing was sacred. And people seemed completely complacent, even happy, about this situation and spent their days rushing about in their SUVs to the next occurrence of the corporate consumer troughs already mentioned. I know this is a generalization and not everyone and every place there can be described like this, but I felt isolated and surrounded in a completely corporate controlled area by politically and socially unconscious people who were fully content with living a "McLife".

    One of the exceptions was when I visited Austin. Austin, at least parts of it downtown, were very nice and reminded me very much of where I live now. I had some very good local Mexican food and one restaurant had the best margaritas that I had ever had at a restaurant. I was also lucky enough to meet up and talk with Mookie of Meme Processing. He showed me a little about the area around where he lives and then we had a beer and talked for a couple hours. It was certainly a pleasant experience and I thank him and his girlfriend (let's call her 'Tookie') for their hospitality and for taking the time out of their schedules to show me around.

    While I was visiting my fiancee's parents (who are divorced) I had a fun 3-hour long political discussion with her brother, her father, and his new girlfriend. All three of them are very conservative and read and listen to O'Reilly on Fox News. So you can imagine how lively the discussion was with someone who doesn't shy away from the word "communist" and who counters "Islam is a religion of death" with "yes, all religions are". I should really give thanks to the generous amounts of alcohol we all had for our discussion to be so candid. While I was certainly outnumbered it takes no time to refute GOP talking points and, as I expected, they hadn't even heard of the historical events which I cited to support my positions. At one point her father tried to argue that history isn't relevant, but at least her brother had the sense to disagree with him on that.

    Over the break I've been reading Homage to Cataloniaby George Orwell. It's an account of his experiences in the Spanish Civil War (and defeated social revolution). Orwell actually fought in this war against fascism and almost died from being shot in the neck and his experiences are said to have greatly shaped his outlook on the world before he wrote his famous book 1984. I'm not quite done with the book yet, but I think it's probably going to be one of my all-time favorites once I finish it. It's very interesting and I am very impressed with Orwell's understanding of the nature of capitalism, mass media, and the church that he displays in his writing. If you like the Spanish Civil War I think you'll really like this book. And if you don't know much about it, this would be a good introduction to it if you want to get a feel for what happened.

    I'm planning on having my next major post describe, as best I can, how I changed from being a jingoistic Bush voter (twice!) to a libertarian communist. I tried to write this post back in August but had to stop because I started getting ashamed and depressed writing it. So I'll try to approach it in a different way and see how that goes.

    It's nice to be back blogging again. I hope you all had (or are having) a great break.

They Hate Us For Taking Away Their Freedom

2006-12-12T21:14:00.000-08:00

     Immediately after 9/11, the media was filled with questions of "why do they hate us so much?" Our country, with all its resources at its disposal, came up with the obvious answer--they hate us for our freedom. This is the equivalent of the high school cheerleader telling her friends that people hate her because she's so nice. One of the main countries that focus was put on is Iran, one of those members of the "Axis of Evil" (too corny even for a comic book). From an American perspective, they see an Iranian burn a flag and therefore, he is evil. He hates America for the freedom and wonder of democracy. But what if we were wrong? What if America had done something to Iran in the past, something that would justify such hate? What if America overthrew the only democratically-elected government that Iran has ever had? And for OIL. Well, it did.

     It all starts with Mozzafar al-Din Shah Qajar, Shah of Persia from 1896-1907. A highly unpopular leader who was hated by his people, Mozzafar also had a very luxurious lifestyle. In order to pay for this, he gave away much of the country of Iran's wealth to foreign businesses. In what is called the D'Arcy Oil Concession, Mozzafar gave away the rights to Iran's oil for 60 years to the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. He sold it for only 10,000 £, which today is approximately $1 million.

    Without going into too much detail, shortly after Mozzafar left the Iranian Constitutional Revolution took place, and that was when Parliament was first established. The Iranian people now had, at least formally, some sort of political representation. Meanwhile, the British oil company was making a fortune off oil revenues (84% of all profits of production never saw Iranian hands).

    Then, in 1951, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh was elected Prime Minister. Mossadegh was extremely popular, both inside and outside Iran and was named Time magazine's "Man of the Year" for 1951. But Mossadegh deeply hated foreign intervention in Iran, and pushed for the nationalization of Iran's oil reserves. Responding to the demands from the Oil Company, Britain immediately put an embargo on Iran. But this wasn't enough, and the nationalization of oil continued. The British government went to the United States for help, and in 1953 the CIA launched Operation Ajax to overthrow Iran's democracy. Kermit Roosevelt, grandson of former President Roosevelt, was the Near East director of the CIA and orchestrated the operation. Using a combination of lies and bribery of politicians, military personnel, and religious leaders, the CIA was able to throw Iran into chaos and drive Mossadegh from power. He was arrested on charges of treason, put in jail for 3 years, and then afterwards lived under house arrest until his death. The Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who was forced to step down by the Allies in WWII due to his cooperation with Nazi Germany, was put back in power with the help of the US and Britain. His rule became very dictatorial. The CIA helped Pahlavi set up his own intelligence agency called SAVAK. SAVAK had near unlimited power, had secret detention centers, tortured Iranians, and it is estimated that it killed nearly 15,000 Iranians in the 1960s. In return for this support, the Shah allowed an consortium of British, American, Dutch, and French companies (40%/40%/14%/6%, respectively) to operate the oil fields for the next 25 years. This consortium was supposed to split the profits from oil 50/50 with Iran, but Iran was not allowed to audit the companies accounts and make sure that they were getting their half of the profits.

    This overthrow of Iran's democratic government and the support that the US gave to Iran's dictatorial Shah in exchange for oil is one of the main reasons why Iranians hate the United States. The connection is not usually made, but the reason that the Iranians took over the US embassy in 1979 was that they believed that the United States was going to overthrow the new government established in the Iranian Revolution as it had done with Mossadegh. For this reason they called the embassy the "den of spies".

     These historical events are important to consider when looking at the events of today. Is it believable the the United States wants democracy in Iraq, and isn't there for the oil? Seems unlikely considering the US has shown that it is willing to overthrow democracies in order to get access to oil.

And the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company? They are now called BP.

Privitization of Iraq's Oil Key Component of the Iraq Study Group

2006-12-10T10:33:00.000-08:00

Whenever the American government does something that seriously upsets its people, you end up seeing committees of politicians getting together to "solve" the problem and give Americans the impression that their government can be held accountable, that fundamental change can occur. The media reports as if the commission is offering new ideas that are at least moderately opposed to those that have been carried out. It's important to actually look at what these commissions recommend, rather than simply react with blind support to an hollow statment of "the war isn't working". Antonia Juhasz, author of The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Timewas on Democracy Now! a few days ago commenting on one of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group-that Iraq's oil industry be fully privitized. She also goes into some of the ties to oil that members of the Iraq Study Group have. The video is here.

Buy Nothing Day

2006-11-24T10:33:00.000-08:00

I hope everyone had a good Thanksgiving. As a reminder, today is Buy Nothing Day. Much more than a show of consumer solidarity and conciousness, it is a time for people to reflect on how they live their lives. Many of us, driven by effective advertising, live life always wanting more and more "stuff". This consumerism not only generates extreme waste and hurts the environment, but it also distracts people from the important things in life, from spending time with friends and family to being politically active and wanting to create a better world for our children than we currently live in. It is hoped that by having a day like this, people will alter their habits over the course of the entire year, if only slightly.

Here are some videos for Buy Nothing Day (the first video is from a previous year so the date mentioned is incorrect).

On the Nonexistence of Free Will

2006-11-22T00:00:00.000-08:00

If you look up free will in the dictionary, you will get this definition

freedom of self determination and action independent of external causes

Can the definition be any more condemning? Action independent of external causes?! This means that free will is incompatible with the principle of causality. In the physics community, we quickly toss away theories that are non-causal. If events do not have a cause, then you cannot predict them. They are, in effect, supernatural events. In fact, it hard to think of a scenario where one could argue for having free will without believing in some sort of supernatural "spirit" or "soul" that isn't affected by natural events.

    Now someone might say "quantum mechanics has shown us that we cannot always predict what will happen with absolute certainty, perhaps this leaves room for free will?". This is a good try, but it still doesn't cut it. It's true that in modern physics things cannot be predicted with absolute accuracy, but we can predict probabilities of events occuring. So in principle, I could compile all events that happened in your lifetime into a huge computer, complete with all genetic information that may be relevant, and if I knew what events you would later observe I could predict the probabilities of you doing certain actions and of your brain generating certain thoughts. Sure, it would take a huge amount of computing power and a great deal of initial data to compute these probabilities, but they could be computed in principle, and that is all that is necessary to invalidate the idea of free will.

     The ambitious atheist might try to conclude that that absence of free will completely destroys the idea of Christian^TM morality because if humans don't have free will, then they cannot choose their life and it makes no sense to punish nor reward them for their actions as Christian dogma describes. But I have to say, for the sake of intellectual honesty, that I don't believe my argument applies to Christianity in this way, or any other religion for that matter. The reason for this is that Christians, for example, presuppose the existence of a supernatural realm, and who is to say that the principle of causality applies in that realm? Christians actually believe in souls, spirits, angels, and demons. So it's quite easy to see how a Christian might be able to argue that the supernatural realm is non-causal. However, if they do so, some of their ideas of God, particularly those which are related to his anthropomorphic character, are bound to fall apart. For example, if God lives in the supernatural realm, and is a non-causal being, then why should one pray to him? Your prayers don't necessarily cause him to think about your situation, because his processes are not caused by external events! Any story from the Bible where God reacts to earthly events also becomes suspect, since the supernatural world is not causal. The Christian may then argue that some aspects of the supernatural are causal, while others are not. And it's obvious that the things which are causal and those which are non-causal will depend on what it needs to be to be consistent with his worldview. I guess that's the convenience with believing in a magical world where anything goes and one can simply wish it to be true and it is....

     Outside of religious debates, what significance does the absence of free will mean to the normal person? For one, it's something that must be kept in mind when one considers the concept of justice. If people do not actually make choices in a free manner, it makes no sense to punish them for their "wickedness". Instead, one must look for the causes of bad behavior and think about logical ways to prevent it from happening in the future.

     I personally am not concerned with my lack of free will. My choices and thoughts are determined by the experiences I've had in my life, and that's all that I need, not to mention the only thing that makes sense to me.

Little Speech on Religion by Little Girl

2006-11-15T09:00:00.000-08:00

She's surely reading lines, but still.

Voices of a People's History of the United States

2006-11-10T00:00:00.000-08:00

I just got back from a live reading of excerpts from Howard Zinn's book Voices of a People's History of the United States. Amazon's book description is

For Voices, Zinn and Arnove have selected testimonies to living history-speeches, letters, poems, songs-left by the people who make history happen, but who usually are underrepresented or misrepresented in history books: women, Native Americans, workers, blacks and Latinos. Zinn has written short introductions to the texts, which themselves range in length from letters or poems of less than a page to entire speeches and essays that run several pages and longer. Voices of a People's History is a symphony of our nation's original voices, rich in ideas and actions, an embodiment of the power of civil disobedience and dissent, wherein lies our nation's true spirit of defiance and resilience

The excerpts were read by a large collection of very good speakers, including Alice Walker, Steve Earle, Mos Def, Melanie Demore, Aya de Leon, Nora el Samahy, Luis Valdez, John Trudell, Anthony Arnove (the book's co-author), and Howard Zinn himself. Despite there being a couple thousand people there, I got a very close seat. Below is a picture I snapped of Zinn towards the end.

I didn't even know that this was going to happen until lunchtime today, when I was fortunate enough to have to go to the restroom and there discovered this event being discussed in the paper. I'm glad I found out. It was by far the best live event I've ever been to. Two hours straight of extremely powerful and moving material. I believe my favorite part was a reading of an editorial from the abolitionist newspaper North Star called "The War With Mexico". I wish I had the full excerpt, but I'll have to deal with the only part I could find online.

We have no preference for parties, regarding this slaveholding crusade [here he refers to the Mexican-American war (1848)]. The one is as bad as the other. The friends of peace have nothing to hope from either. The Democrats claim the credit of commencing, and the Whigs monopolize the glory of voting supplies and carrying on the war; branding the war as dishonorably commenced, yet boldly persisting in pressing it on

This is the tail end of what was said. But by the end of the bolded part, the entire audience saw that that was exactly the situation we faced today and broke out into applause. If they didn't understand it before, then after this the entire audience must have finally understood why historians say that history repeats itself. It was truly an awesome moment, and similar moments occured throughout the rest of the night as events from the past were almost identical to those today except for changes in names.

Everyone's readings were great though. Mos Def was absolutely fantastic as Malcolm X! Probably the best part of the night was a contribution from the Vanguard Public Foundation (not in anyway related to the trading company) which paid for 500 high school students to come to the event. The event must have made a large impact on many of them that will shape their outlook on the world for the rest of their life.

If anyone has the chance to go to this sometime, you really should. I also plan on buying the book. I won't be able to read it for awhile, but it looks like it will be a great reference for my personal library.

Vermont Elects First Socialist to Senate/Ralph Nader's Analysis of Election Results

2006-11-08T20:32:00.000-08:00

Democracy Now! had two good segments on their show today that I thought were worth watching relating to yesterday's election. The first is an interview with Vermont's Bernie Sanders, who yesterday became the first socialist to ever get elected to the Senate. He talks about his campaign and explains what "socialism" means to him. The second part is Ralph Nader giving his analysis of the election results. He talks about the likelihood of the Democrats solving the main problems that our country faces. The video is here. What I'm referring to starts at the 18:18 mark.

How is everyone feeling about the election yesterday? Are you happy with the results, or were you disappointed? Do you think the Democrats will do much now that they have power? If so, what and how soon?

Get Out and Vote Tomorrow

2006-11-06T00:00:00.000-08:00

    Tomorrow is Election Day, that one day that comes around every 2 years when our government is forced, both by tradition and the need to keep up appearances, to give us some sort of input into how our country is run.

    Do I think much comes out of elections? Not really. Looking at the slate of candidates quickly lets one know that the people have already lost. You don't even have to have radical politics to think this. "The lesser of two evils" is sadly a very commonly spoken phrase in our country nowadays. But having said that, I think good things can come out of elections. Firstly, if you can vote directly on propositions then you have a rare opportunity to have your voice heard. In California we have two propositions (87 & 89) that would be worth passing. Prop 87 raises taxes on oil companies to help fund alternative energy, while Prop 89 establishes some sort of public financing of campaigns which will enable third-party candidates to spread their message to a wider group of people. Unfortunately I've heard that due to a large misinformation campaign funded by Chevron that Prop 87 is behind in the
polls. Just goes to show that even when democratic structures are in place, that differences in economic power can easily translate themselves into political power. But at least we have the opportunity to vote on it.

    For the most part I believe that elections are purely symbolic, and basically serve as a poll of public opinion. That is why I vote for candidates whose policies I support (as much as possible), and refuse to vote for the "lesser of two evils". While I'm certain that none of the candidates outside city-wide office that I voted for (I voted early) will win, I look forward to seeing how many like-minded individuals there are out there and to draw some hope for the future from a good showing. In addition, I think voting for parties that are on the left (such as Peace and Freedom, or the Greens) is the best way to prevent the country from right-wing policies. When people vote for the Democrats because they are afraid of Republicans coming into office, it gives the Democratic party little reason to not drift further to the right. And they will, since that's where the money and media power is. But voting to the left of them gives them a reason to remain progressive, in the hopes that they might be able to pick up those leftist votes in the next election. It's like if you have a new puppy that isn't housebroken yet. While you certainly prefer that he shits on the tile kitchen floor (the Democrats) rather than shit on the white carpet (the GOP), you certainly don't give him a treat when he goes to town near the kitchen table.

    Anyway, go out and vote. Tuesday night I might be at a local bar with the Green party candidates for Governor, Secretary of State, and Senator. If I get a picture with them I'll put it up. I didn't vote for all 3 of them (Peace and Freedom instead) but they are all progressive individuals and I hope to meet them.

    Also, the blog has been a little politics heavy as of late. After reporting on the election results I hope to write a post about free will. Have a good week.

The British Hate Us for Our Freedom

2006-11-04T00:00:00.000-08:00

America is now seen as a threat to world peace by its closest neighbours and allies, according to an international survey of public opinion published today that reveals just how far the country's reputation has fallen among former supporters since the invasion of Iraq.

Carried out as US voters prepare to go to the polls next week in an election dominated by the war, the research also shows that British voters see George Bush as a greater danger to world peace than either the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, or the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Both countries were once cited by the US president as part of an "axis of evil", but it is Mr Bush who now alarms voters in countries with traditionally strong links to the US

Full article here.

We're Not #1? Or Even Top 50?

2006-11-01T00:27:00.000-08:00

It's always good to remind people that we can't live in a wonderful country simply by proclaiming that it is so.

World Government

2006-10-30T00:00:00.000-08:00

     Back when I was in high school, I was a big fan of the idea of having a world government. I thought of all the money, resources, and energy that was dedicated on people spying on each other, fighting each other, and wasting money on military that they purchase in order to ward off an attack by an enemy's arsenal (bought for the same purpose). I remember being a strong advocate of the European Union and wished that someday the US would lose its strong sense of nationalism and would join the EU, centralize its power, and offer economic packages to induce other countries to join. During the summers I worked at Staples (the self-proclaimed Office Superstore), and I remember stocking shelves trying to convince another student who worked there of the benefits of a world government. He objected, on the grounds that the Bible said that a world government would be the first step towards the end times. So you can imagine how productive that conversation was...

     My outlook on the world has changed drastically since that time. Probably the biggest difference related to this topic is the idea that the governments of the world aren't actually accountable to their people. That democracy, even in places where it enjoys a formal existence, is merely a sham and is actually controlled by some elite, whether they be of political or economic nature. So with this understanding, I now find the notion of a world government absolutely terrifying.

    But that suggests the question, to what extent do we already have a world government? In just about every country in the world the dominant business interests have a huge say in what actions the government takes, and the largest business interests in each country are very often part of large multinationals that exert influence on other governments as well. They are certainly far from being outright dictatorships, but I believe it's certainly arguable that a great deal of the political power in the world is concentrated in the same type of oligarchic structure. Furthermore, that power is becoming more concentrated over time due to natural market forces in addition to other causes such as more effective propaganda tactics and the lack of organized resistance from the people.

    This view of the world is certainly a depressing one, and makes radical change seem nearly impossible to achieve on short time scales. Perhaps a gradual dissolution of the current structures from the inside is the only way to go. War or a quick, isolated revolution is certainly out of the question in an age of nuclear weapons. In addition, this view makes the countries which we are supposed to hate (Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, etc.) acquire a silver lining. Surely all these countries are run by complete bastards †, but at least they aren't the same bastards. During the Spanish Revolution, the western "democratic" countries refused to sell the Republic weapons ‡ In fact, in some cases they directly helped and supported the fascists (to be covered in a later post). The only country (besides Mexico) that would support the legitimately elected government was Stalin's USSR. You never know when history will decide to repeat itself, and sometimes the enemy of an enemy is a friend.

† Yes, good things can be said about Castro and Chavez. Iran's current situation is due to the United States and Great Britain overthrowing Iran's only democratic government under pressure from the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now called BP) in 1953. But these are complex topics worthy of a more dedicated conversation.

‡ Imagine, a democratically-elected government being refused weapons to defend itself from an openly fascist insurgency!

Poll on Political Idealogy

2006-10-26T23:48:00.000-07:00

I had planned on writing a substantial post tonight but ended up walking around the city with some friends for a few hours instead. So rather than rushing the writing, I'd like to get an idea of what political idealogies you subscribe to. Each category will have a short description (mostly lifted from Wikipedia due to time constraints). If you'd like to elaborate in the comments section, please do. The definitions are perhaps necessarily vague (as specific definitions can get very subjective), so if you're torn in terms of the definition vote based on the other beliefs and connotations that you have with the two choices.

Anarchism-Anarchism is a political theory which aims to create anarchy, "the absence of a master, of a sovereign." In other words, anarchism is a political theory which aims to create a society within which individuals freely co-operate together as equals. As such anarchism opposes all forms of hierarchical control - be that control by the state or a capitalist - as harmful to the individual and their individuality as well as unnecessary.

Christian Democracy-Broadly speaking, Christian Democracy is conservative in regard to moral and cultural issues, and issues of public morality and tradition. It can be described as left-wing insofar as it claims a "strong social conscience", in the sense of emphasizing the alleviation of poverty, the welfare state, and if necessary the restraint of market forces. It may also be seen as liberal insofar as it upholds human rights and individual initiative.

Communism-Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a future classless, stateless social organization, based upon common ownership of the means of production. Clarification: Please choose this choice if you see a communist society coming into being with a "communist state" as an intermediate step. If you're an anarcho-communist, please choose anarchism.

Communitarianism-Communitarianism as a group of related but distinct philosophies began in the late 20th century, opposing classical liberalism, capitalism, and other similar philosophies while advocating phenomena such as civil society. Not necessarily hostile to social liberalism, communitarianism rather has a different emphasis, shifting the focus of interest toward communities and societies and away from the individual. The question of priority, whether on the individual or community often has the largest impact in the most pressing ethical questions, such as health care, abortion, multiculturalism, and hate speech.

Conservatism-Conservatism is a political philosophy that necessitates a defense of established values or the status quo.

Fascism-Fascism is a radical political ideology that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism.

Feminism-Feminism is a diverse collection of social theories, political movements and moral philosophies, largely motivated by or concerned with the experiences of women. Most feminists are especially concerned with social, political and economic inequality between men and women (in the context of it being to the disadvantage of women); some have argued that gendered and sexed identities, such as "man" and "woman", are socially constructed. Feminists differ over the sources of inequality, how to attain equality, and the extent to which gender and gender-based identities should be questioned and critiqued. In simple terms, feminism is the belief in social, political and economic equality of the sexes, and the movement organised around the belief that gender should not be the pre-determinant factor shaping a person's social identity, or socio-political or economic rights.

Green Politics-Green politics or Green ideology is the ideology of the Green Parties, mainly informed by environmentalism, ecology and sustainable economics and aimed at developing a sustainable society. It is considered by its advocates to be an alternative to socialism, conservatism, and liberalism, although adherents of the traditional ideologies tend to view Greens as representing "one of the others."

Islamism-Islamism is a set of political ideologies that hold that Islam is not only a religion, but also a political system that governs the legal, economic and social imperatives of the state according to its interpretation of Islamic Law. For Islamists, the sharia has absolute priority over democracy and universal human rights.

Liberalism-Liberalism is an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value. Liberalism has its roots in the Western Enlightenment, but the term now encompasses a diversity of political thought.

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, free public education, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected. In modern society, liberals favor a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed.

Capitalist Libertarianism-Capitalist Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating that individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others.

Nationalism-Nationalism is an ideology that holds that a nation is the fundamental unit for human social life, and takes precedence over any other social and political principles. Nationalism makes certain political claims based upon this belief: above all, the claim that the nation is the only legitimate basis for the state, that each nation is entitled to its own state, and that the borders of the state should be congruent with the borders of the nation.

Social Democracy-Social democracy is a political ideology that emerged out of classical socialism in the late 19th and early 20th century. Unlike socialism, social democracy does not seek to dismantle or replace the capitalist system, but instead aims to reform it in order to remove its perceived injustices and to bring about a more equal distribution of wealth. In recent years, many social democratic parties have embraced 'Third Way' ideology.

Socialism-Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control. As an economic system, socialism is associated with state or collective ownership of the means of production. This control may be either direct — exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils — or it may be indirect — exercised on behalf of the people by the state. Clarification: While direct control of the means of production is certainly socialism (and in my opinion the only way to truly have socialism), please choose this one if you envision indirect control through a state (a so-called "worker's state" if you like).

Richard Dawkins on the Colbert Report

2006-10-19T12:11:00.000-07:00

Richard Dawkins was on the Colbert Report recently promoting his new book The God Delusion. When I first checked last night it was #2 on Amazon's bestseller list, and it's currently at #3. I'm assuming that it reached the top mark the first day after he appeared on the Colbert Report.

It's nice to see atheists and their books being promoted on shows with large audiences. Stephen Colbert and his show continue to play their part in helping to better our country and to give hope for future change. While being an atheist doesn't imply that one's views and actions are going to be progressive, freeing oneself from corrupt and authoritarian religious structures and beliefs is the first step. I personally don't read atheist books anymore, as it seems like a waste of time to read about arguments against something that's comparable to unicorns, but I hope that it makes a positive impact in the lives of those who have and will buy Dawkins' book.

An Introduction to the Spanish Civil War

2006-10-16T21:27:00.000-07:00

     Hi everyone, I'm sorry for the light posting as of late. I had a momentary spike in my "real life" activity, in addition to being busy during my free time reading the book The Battle For Spainby Antony Beevor, which is an in-depth look at the events during and surrounding the Spanish Civil War. I'm finally done with it, and I'll try to give a brief introduction to what it is and leave specific topics for later posts.

     Despite being an extemely interesting period in history, the Spanish Civil War is not all that well known. Perhaps this is because many of the aspects of the winning side, the right-wing nationalists led by the fascist Franco and supported by Hitler and Mussolini, are so similar to many of the ruling or controlling interests in the US. Perhaps it is because the losing side, that of the liberals, socialists, anarchists, and communists, had core values that are much easier for the average person to identify with. Or maybe it was because it was another example where the Church took the complete wrong side, as they openly praised the fascist Franco and took an active role in helping him with his goals whenever it could. Maybe it has to do with the fact that powerful business interests in the US and elsewhere helped Franco overthrow a legitimately elected democratic government. Or perhaps because the United States giving aid to Franco and preventing aid from reaching the Spanish government (despite polls in the US showing overwhelming public support for the left-wing government, henceforth referred to as the Republic), undermines the image of the United States being a warrior for freedom and democracy in the period surrounding World War II. But perhaps I should get started.

     The Spanish Civil War began in 1936 and ended in 1939, right before Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia. The war began after a new left-wing government was elected in 1936. The government was not revolutionary, but it was concerned with progressive programs for agrarian reform and it was also in favor of the separation of church and state. This last measure was incredibly irritating for the Church of Spain, who had been a major player in the government and had received large subsidies for centuries. Spain was an extemely polarized country between left and right before the election. Beevor describes the campaigning done by the right:

Millions of leaflets were distributed saying that a victory for the left would produce 'an arming of the mob, the burning of banks and private houses, the division of property and land, looting and the sharing out of your women'. The finance for such a campaign came from the landowners, large companies and the Catholic Church, which hurried to bless the [right-wing] alliance with the idea that a vote for the right was a vote for Christ

The war started when a group of generals, later to be led by Franco, decided to overthrow the democratically elected government on July 18th, 1936. The right, called the nationalists,

argued that they represented the cause of Christianity, order and Western civilization against 'Asiatic Communism'.

On the other side, the Republic portrayed itself as representing

the cause of democracy, freedom and englightenment against fascism

But Beevor also says that

The Spanish Civil War has so often been portrayed as a clash between left and right, but this is a misleading simplification. Two other axes of conflict emerged: state centralism against regional independence and authoritarianism against the freedom of the individual. The nationalist forces of the right were much more coherent becuase, with only minor exceptions, they combined three cohesive extremes. They were right wing, centralist, and authoritarian at the same time. The Republic, on the other hand, represented a cauldron of incompatibilities and mutual suspicions, with centralists and authoritarians, especially the communists, opposed by regionalists and libertarians

I think the Spanish Civil War is interesting for a few of the following reasons, and I plan to go into more depth on each in the future.

Anarchism in action- Spain had a very large anarchist following, with anarcho-syndicalist trade unions with millions of members. When the nationalists began the coup, the official Republican government was extremely slow in reacting. This prompted the anarchist and socalist trade unions to take control of the situation themselves in many cities, setting up their own revolutionary committees and preventing the rebels from obtaining an immediate victory. Barcelona, one of the centers of revolutionary activity, was described by a journalist as

the strangest city in the world today, the city of anarcho-syndicalism supporting democracy, of anarchists keeping order, and anti-political philosophers wielding power

The anarchists, despite their superior numbers, did not impose their own system on the population though. The anarchist Garcia Oliver described the alternatives :

'Libertarian communism, which is tantamount to an anarchist dictatorship, or democracy which signified collaboration.'

Beevor notes

Imposing their social and economic self-management on the rest of the population appeared to violate libertarian ideals more than collaborating with political parties. Abad de Santillan [an anarchist] said that they did not believe in any form of dictatorship, including their own

Many people did join collective ventures during this time though, and agricultural production on collectivized land increased by 20% over what it was previously. Many small farmers who owned their own land also voluntarily joined the collectives. Meanwhile, on the industrial side, production was largely controlled by the unions formed by the workers.

The Support of Fascism by the Church- The Catholic Church was very supportive of the fascists. Whether it was lying to international bodies concerning events, giving the nationalists lists of people who didn't show up to church in order to interrogate and/or execute, lobbying the US government to refuse aid to the Republic and to support Franco, or simply making statements comparing Franco's war to a holy crusade against heathens, this aspect of the Spanish Civil War should be interesting to any atheist who is looking for more examples of the Church supporting oppressive institutions.

The Support of Facism by the first-world "democracies"- Great Britain, the United States, and even France helped to turn events in the nationalists favor. This is most likely due to the ruling business interests of these countries fearing the consequences of a democratic government's existence, both in terms of the example it would set and also in terms of likely losses in profits. Many politicians and business leaders of these countries were openly pro-fascist. Lady Chamberlain of Great Britain, for example, "proudly wore fascist badges and insignia".

The Possibility of Something Similiar Occuring in the US- Could this sort of event happen in the US? While I don't believe that there is currently enough polarization between left and right for a civil war (despite us being constantly told about how divided we are), it's certainly possibly that we will become further polarized. The fact that 30% of Americans still support Bush is a sign that we could become much more polarized, since a large amount of this 30% would likely follow the neo-cons to nearly any extreme if the message was mixed with the proper amounts of patriotism and religion.

If anyone is interested in learning more about the Spanish Civil War, I would definitely recommend this book. It was a #1 bestseller in Spain and seems to be most widely recognized account of the war.

A More Intelligent and Humane National Defense Policy

2006-10-01T14:57:00.000-07:00

     The United States government has the largest military budget in the world, and amounts to roughly 50% of all military spending worldwide. In 2006 the US military budget was $441 billion. It is worth noting that this does not include spending on the war on Iraq or Afghanistan, nor does it represent nuclear weapons research (part of the US Dept. of Energy budget). The following graph gives a nice summary of how US military spending compares to other countries, including its military "rivals" and members of the "Axis of Evil" (none of these grave threats made the list).

     With the US national debt becoming more and more out of control and with lack of funding for education and other social services, responsible citizens should ask themselves whether all this military spending is justified or not. Is it really necessary for us to be able to win a war against the rest of the world, or would it be preferable if our leaders felt a little more compelled to resolve conflicts without resorting to the threat or use of force? Those in favor of this amount of spending might argue that we need a large military because we have taken on the honorable duty of protecting freedom, peace, and democracy around the world. Even without looking at history (which outright refutes this), it seems doubtful that the US government would spend its own money on safeguarding the well-being of foreigners when it doesn't even have the desire to provide health care to its citizens like almost every other country in the first world.

     We're certainly seeing the problems associated with the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned against back in 1961. Reducing the federal military budget by just a small amount could mean a huge boost to other social programs, such as education which comes in at only $88 billion.

     On the other hand, let's for the sake of argument say that the US spending on defense is justified. Then we must ask ourselves whether we are getting the most bang for our buck. And I think we certainly are not. In 1997 the United Nations Human Development Report stated that the approximate cost of providing basic education, basic health and nutrition, reproductive health and family planning, water, and santitation for ALL in developing countries would only cost $40 billion/year for 10 years. Additionally, for an extra $40 billion/year, poverty could be eradicated completely. Imagine how popular the United States would be if we were to fund this! And this can be done all while maintaining a ridiculously high military budget in comparision to other countries. If the US really wanted to win the war against terrorism, then this would be a simple and sure way to do it. Terrorist organizations wouldn't be able to recruit if the US was seen as being so generous and benevolent towards others.

     Unfortunately, I do not think this has a chance in hell of happening anytime soon. The reason that it won't happen is that the ruling interests in the country do not care about national security, nor do they care about peace in other countries. Military spending is a handout to the military contractors and as a tool to further US imperialistic interests abroad. If only Lockheed Martin made bread....

     But probably the biggest reason against rising the standard of living in other countries would be the horrible hit on corporate profits. If you had access to food, water, education, and health care for you and your family, would you go to work in a factory for $1/day? Absolutely not. Only someone who is faced with the threat of death would consider throwing away their short life in this way.

     I think this issue shows how important it is for American citizens to exert control on the government. The US is by far the most wealthy country in the world, and if allowed to, that wealth could transform the world into a much, much better place.

Quote of the Week

2006-09-27T22:33:00.000-07:00

Political rights do not exist because they have been legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they have become the ingrown habit of a people, and when any attempt to impair them will meet with the violent resistance of the populace

-Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-Syndicalism

Capitalist "Libertarianism"

2006-09-20T16:59:00.000-07:00

    I was thinking a few days ago about the capitalist libertarian idea that people should be free to acquire as much power as possible in the economic sphere as they can get. They view the idea that society should be able to place some sort of restriction on this accumulation of power as a horrible threat to liberty and freedom. But that got me wondering, for what reason do they not also apply this logic to politics? Is it not a grave injustice for society to restrict someone from obtaining large amounts of personal political power for the same reason?

     After all, are there many differences? Political power has to be preserved by force if threatened. But then so does economic power. Try having a monopoly on economic power without an army and police and see how long that lasts. Isn't competition going to assure that our political dictators are just as optimum as our economic dictators are? Some may object that a very ruthless person could become a political dictator, and this is different for the way that economic markets work. But what does the market reward more, a business who pays its employees well and doesn't pollute or one that ships its labor off to the 3rd world and dumps its pollutants in the water supply? Sounds pretty ruthless to me...

     Anyway, just a thought. Perhaps this is all irrelevant since it's pretty obvious that economic power equals political power in this world, so arguing for arbitrarily high levels of either is really arguing for both.

Quote of the Week

2006-09-13T22:40:00.000-07:00

When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me

-Emo Philips

What have you been reading?

2006-09-05T20:13:00.000-07:00

Yesterday Sportin' Life over at It Ain't Necessarily So tagged me for a book questionnaire thing that's been going around the blogosphere for the past week or so. So here we go.

One Book That Changed Your Life

I feel somewhat unoriginal for listing the same book as SL here, but I also think that Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States was a book that really enriched my life. It wasn't that it made my outlook on life radically different, but simply that it helped me shape my ideas into a coherent and complete worldview. It also whet my appetite for the history of those like me, namely human beings, which seem all too neglected in traditional history lessons. For those unfamiliar with the book, I had a review of it this past May.

One Book That You Have Read More Than Once

With what I consider to be my political awakening happening only a year and half or so ago, I've been very busy in my spare time reading about new ideas and events and still have so many books on my plate that I couldn't imagine reading one of them twice. Now the first serious nonfiction book I ever read was Bertrand Russel's Why I Am Not a Christian. That was around the age of 15 or so, and I do remember reading select chapters of that book twice. The book meant a lot to me as I was reading it at a time when I didn't know anyone else who called themselves an atheist.

One Book You'd Want On A Desert Island

Obviously the most important book would be one that would help with survival, but this depends greatly on the exact nature of this desert island. For example, if there is only a mile or two of water between me and civilization, I might want a book on raft-making rather than a book telling me how to have safe sex with a cactus. So let's just assume that my basic needs are taken care of. Then I would have to say that by far I would want to have Peskin and Schroeder's An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory. This is because if I didn't read this book then I would be hopelessly behind the rest of the class when I returned to school.

A Book That Made You Excited

The book that probably got me worked up the most may have been Robert Reich's Reason: Why Liberals Will Win The Battle for America. I read this book at the beginning of my political awakening but perhaps a good few months before I left the mainstream. It was after I had voted for Bush's re-election. It's a good book, and exposes good progressive ideals alongside criticizing the goals and views of those he calls the Radcons. However, ultimately, the book is very much about outrage at the current situation and not about solutions. This is of course because the solutions, I believe, exist outside the range of mainstream options he's willing to consider. The solution is certainly not to play the political see-saw and elect Democrats into office.

One Book That You Wish Had Been Written

Tough question. I'd say either How the CNT/FAI won the Spanish Civil War and Changed the World or How I Lost My Leg in a Bear Attack by Paris Hilton.

One Book That Wracked You With Sobs

I've never actually cried while reading a book, although I am susceptible to emotional endings in movies. The last book that I had a somewhat strong emotional response to would be Rudolf Rocker's Anarcho-Syndicalism. While it's really a book of ideas, the clarity and style of the author's writing can trigger emotional responses in the reader, although the responses are more inspirational than sob-inducing.

One Book That You Wish Had Never Been Written

Oh I don't know, one of the big holy books? Although ignorance and a life devoid of meaning are much more the driving factors behind religion than a book is.

One Book That You're Currently Reading

While I haven't actually started it yet, the next book I will be reading will be Antony Beevor's The Battle for Spain: The Spanish Civil War 1936-1939.

One Book You've Been Meaning To Read

After finishing the book just mentioned, I also have sitting on my bookshelf the books A Homage To Catalonia by Orwell and The Spanish Anarchists: The Heroic Years 1868-1936 by Murray Bookchin. I've recently become very fascinated with the events leading up to and surrounding the Spanish Civil War.

Now Tag Five Bloggers

Five? It seems that everyone is cheating and isn't doing all five, so I won't either. I tag SH, Mookie, and breakerslion.

Reversing the Argument

2006-08-31T14:28:00.000-07:00

     Most open-minded people have thought about the possibility of alternatives to capitalism at one time or another. Unfortunately, I think many people quickly dismiss the idea because they think of one or two particular problems that could exist in an non-capitalistic society. The objections range from a number of things, but they generally start with, "It just seems like X would happen". I think many of the objections that people raise to non-capitalistic systems can be reasoned away with a better understanding of what the alternative is actually about as well as pulling from examples from historical events that are not taught and thus are not very well-known.

     However, let's assume that they are valid objections. They certainly could be. After all, few would argue that the alternatives to capitalism are perfect, just that they are better. It's probably impossible to create *perfect* economic and political structures, and it's impossible to guarantee that a certain system will operate in ways that we desire, if only for the obvious reason that it's functioning hinges critically on the complex dynamics of society.

    Having said that, imagine we reversed the situation. Imagine we were living in a socialist society and were theorizing about the possibility of changing to a capitalist society. Just think of all the criticisms one would have!

Wouldn't wealth begin to accumulate over time, resulting in the quality of lives that people have being determined almost 100% on the conditions in which they were born?

With wealth accumulating to such an extent, wouldn't those with wealth be able to undermine the democratic process, resulting in a loss of not only economic freedom, but also of political freedom?

Wait, so even though there are enough means to feed, clothe, and take care of the entire world population, millions will die from hunger and preventable diseases yearly because it is impossible to make a profit off of them? (I have some interesting data from a UN Development Report that I'll post on in the next few weeks relating to this).

Wouldn't those who owned the private resources and businesses be rewarded in the market for keeping wages low and polluting the environment?

Don't people work better when they "own" a part of what they work with rather than just be paid a wage to work for the benefit of someone else?

And so on....

Point being, when people think about alternatives to capitalism I hope that they will remember to think about what they are comparing it to.

Busy Week

2006-08-24T14:10:00.000-07:00

I've been wanting to post something for the past few days, but it's been very crazy for me as of late. The semester starts next week and I am basically in charge of the teaching of some 450 students, so I have a lot of preparation and organizational stuff to take care of. And for people whose blogs I normally read and post on, I'm sorry about my absence. I've read some good stuff but just haven't had time to give you my thoughts yet. Things should calm down a little next week.

Bible Comedy

2006-08-20T16:59:00.000-07:00

This is pretty funny. My favorite part is when he describes how the first man and woman were made.

Missing White Woman Syndrome

2006-08-17T19:09:00.000-07:00

From Wikipedia, Missing White Woman Syndrome.

Missing white woman syndrome, also known as missing pretty girl syndrome, is a tongue-in-cheek term coined by some media critics to reference a form of media hype in which excessive news coverage is devoted to a specific missing white woman or girl, while virtually ignoring missing men, non-white women, or other news stories. According to these critics, reporting of these stories often lasts for several days or weeks, sometimes even months, and displaces reporting on other current events that some people consider more newsworthy, such as economics and politics. This syndrome appears to be most prevalent in U.S. media, but famous examples can also be found elsewhere in the world, e. g. the United Kingdom

I'm tired today, and the commentary pretty much writes itself.

Democracy Now! Asks If America Will Become More Authoritarian

2006-08-15T21:14:00.000-07:00

     Today's episode of Democracy Now! had an interesting segment with John Dean, author of Conservatives Without Conscience. He discussed some conclusions made by social scientists after WW2 that the type of fascism that Italy and Germany experienced could come to the United States. The social scientists came to the conclusion that there were authoritarian elements within America that could easily rally around a leader regardless of what he did. Dean notes that 23% of people today still don't believe that Nixon did anything wrong. It wouldn't surprise me if that 23% was also part of the 33% that still supports Bush.

     It's easy to say "oh, it couldn't happen here", but what do you think would happen if tomorrow Bush announced a plethora of new programs and "security" measures that would be taken to protect against terrorists? The rally I went to on Saturday was very opposed to the actions of the Israeli government. What if he used that to claim that leftists supported terrorists and therefore should have restricted rights? Do you doubt that at least a sizable fraction of the 33% who support Bush would still support him?

     Imagine what would happen if there was another large terrorist attack. Mix that with some good media propaganda and patriotic rhetoric and I could see a very large portion of the American population supporting Bush and whatever actions he might take. If terrorists attack again, I will fear our government more than anything else.

Photos from the Anti-War Rally and March

2006-08-13T12:16:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I went to a march in San Francisco to protest Israel's invasion of Lebanon and US support of Lebanon, although with any decent protest the root causes-capitalism, imperialism, lack of democracy, etc. all end up being part of the show. Clicking on any of the pictures will give you a much bigger version.

This was taken as I first got there. There was a very large police presence, as you will see in some of the other photos.

Here's Uncle Sam with that great corporate America flag.

We had a rally for about 2 hours before the march actually began where we had speakers and music. Activists went around with petitions and a socialist running for office in San Francisco was telling people about his campaign. There were also a bunch of socialist tables with literature, people selling shirts and bumper stickers, as well as radical bookstores like Haymarket Books and Revolution.

Across the street from us there was a pro-Israeli counter-demonstration. In this picture you can see someone holding up a sign that says "Israel's enemies are God's enemies". Other people had signs saying things like "America is a Judeo-Christian nation" and "liberalism is a mental disorder".

Number wise, we had about 10,000 people, whereas the counter-rally had about 300, and that's being generous. But for those of you who've actually been to a rally and then later watched the mainstream media report on the numbers, you won't be surprised with what was reported. A major news channel reported that it was 2000 anti compared to 500 pro, which is just a very blatant lie. All the pro-Israeli demonstrators were on a sidewalk between a building and a street, whereas we had an entire grass-covered area between all the buildings for our rally. We were even more densely packed than they were, so just by geometry alone their 2000 to 500 estimate looks obscene. Arrr....but that's what you expect.

This is Todd Chretien, who is running for the US Senate in California under the Green party. I'll probably vote for him this November. If not, I'll probably vote Peace and Freedom , whose platform is here. Voting is mostly a symbolic act anyway.

I wasn't paying attention when they introduced this woman. I think she might be part of the ANSWER coalition, who organized the march. But she was a very good public speaker. I was especially impressed by the fact that she seemed to young and was yet a very active leader in the movement. There's another picture of her that I snapped during the march below.

So the rally is over now and the march has begun. The Raging Grannies were there as you see above.

The police didn't want us to go down this street for some reason. The route was planned ahead of course, so I think this was mostly for intimidation. It was the first turn of the march and they didn't do this on the other turns. One of the cops doesn't look too happy about me taking this picture.

This is taken from the front of the march. There was a guy next to me that was passing out some sort of anti-Bush flier and as he passed this one bystander the person said "Unless that's da Bible I don't need it". I wanted to ask him why he thought that, but the crowd was coming and I didn't have time.

I thought this was cool. That guy is on top of a bus stop. There's nothing spectacular in that of course. What was neat was that he got up there by stepping up on the hands of that "average American" looking guy in the blue shirt behind the microphone. Just seeing people that come from different backgrounds and who look different working together is nice. Something you don't really see in the media, who like to stereotype all who disagree as something or another.

We were heading down Market Street, pretty much the biggest and busiest street in San Francisco. Most of those people there are waiting for a ride on the street cars (that's where it picks up). I was glad that we were going to reach a lot of people with the message. Public demonstrations are pretty much the only way to do it, since anti-war views have no time in the media.

Here are three people with masks as seen in V for Vendetta. I asked them about them later and they said they cost them around $40 for all three. I haven't decided yet if I think it would be cool or stupid to have a whole bunch of people wear masks like this in a march.

Kids.

Dog activists.

So now we're back where we started, where we are going to have a post-rally. This is south of us (where the vans were earlier). I guess the cops are having a discussion on how best they can 'serve and protect' us.

West of us, more cops.

So that's pretty much it for my pictures.

I love going to rallies like this. It's very motivating to go out and see so many people who not only are against the war, but also many of them (from all ages and backgrounds) are also anti-capitalist and very leftist. And those who are more mainstream that attend are surely educated and radicalized as a result of going. The event consumed most of my Saturday, but I was glad that I went.

And here's a report from the ANSWER coalition about the event. There were other marches nationwide and apparently they had 30,000 people in Washington.

My Good Luck Charm

2006-08-09T23:27:00.000-07:00

Today I was walking back through my neighborhood after lifting weights when I passed these two young girls (probably about 7 years old) sitting in front of their driveway. I was listening to music so I guess I didn't hear them at first, but I noticed that they were looking at me so I took my earphone out just to catch the youngest one say "Do you want one?" as she held out the leaf shown above. "They're for good luck", her friend added. I said "sure", and then was told that it was going to cost me a penny. I was skeptical about the magic powers of this leaf, but hell for a penny? Imagine if it did work! So anyway, I rummaged through my pocket and informed them that I didn't have any change. The youngest one then said "we'll trade you for your keys". That was easy to say no to. I told them sorry and started to walk off. The youngest one then said "here, take it anyway" and her friend also told me I could have hers. I took the leaf, said thanks, and started to walk off. I got probably a quarter of a block away when I realized I did have my wallet with me. Seeing me walking back one of the girls, somewhat hiding behind the bush that they had clearly picked the leaf from, asked "what are you coming back for?". I told them I didn't have a penny, but that I would give them a dollar for the good luck charm they had so graciously given me. The girl I handed the dollar to looked at it like I had just given her a pot of gold, and the other girl's jaw just dropped. As I walked away I remember how excited I would get when my brother and I would make a few dollars selling lemonade when we were younger and felt good about perhaps giving the same experience to them. That good feeling was much better than anything I could have gotten with that dollar. Sometimes the most selfish thing you can do is to help others.

------------------------------------------------------------------

On an unrelated note, my good friend Mookie has recently started up a blog called Meme Processing. Mookie, a fellow libertarian socialist and atheist, has always left interesting, intelligent comments on my blog and I recommend that you go check his site out.

Hilton's Celibacy is a Sign of the Apocalypse

2006-08-08T00:26:00.000-07:00

I apologize for the light posting, but in addition to my brother being in town, I've also been deeply affected by some of the news that has been reported on for the last two (or three) days. Namely that Paris Hilton isn't going to have sex for a year. I am glad that we have so many good reporters out there that could get me all the important details of this story. And if you look at the article, you'll see that they know exactly how these types of stories should be reported.

The story starts with this

The 25-year-old who gained international fame when a former boyfriend posted a videotape of the couple having sex on the Internet denied leading a promiscuous lifestyle in an interview with the British edition of GQ magazine.

This description was crucial for me. I had almost forgot who Paris Hilton was. Today's fine reporters know that I need to have at least a small paragraph description of a person before I learn about their sex life.

The article continues

"I'm not having sex for a year. ... I'll kiss, but nothing else"

Thank you! I mean, yeah, I understand she's going to be celibate for a year, but how far is she willing to go? Isn't this the natural question? This is news you can use, especially on the club scene.

Guy 1- Dude look, Paris Hilton is over there. She looks great.

Guy 2- No she doesn't asshole. She's way too skinny, has no chest, and her face doesn't even look that good.

Guy 1- Whatever. Think I should buy her a drink?

Guy 2- Nah, I wouldn't bother. Furthest you can get is first base. I saw it this morning on CNN.

-----------------------------------------------

In less important news, here is an interesting statement signed by Chomsky, Zinn, Loach, and others that appeared in the Guardian regarding the Israeli attack on Lebanon.

Subcomandante Marcos on the Importance of Alternative Media

2006-08-03T20:09:00.000-07:00

Just by taking a glance at any mainstream news program or website and it's painfully obvious that we need independent media. Essentially all of CNN.com's pictures today have been of the Israeli forces, many of them taken in a way that makes the soldiers look powerful and brave and with commentary that makes their cause look just and even noble. I wish I would have saved the one that I saw an hour ago in order to show you. But anyway, I came across this video on YouTube today of Subcomandante Marcos discussing the importance of independent media. It's from 1997, but the problem has only gotten worse since the rise of Fox News. Marcos is an interesting person and has done a lot of good work in Mexico in terms of building political awareness amongst the people as well as participating in direct action.

Robert Fisk Reports on the Lebanon Situation

2006-08-01T12:05:00.000-07:00

I recommend that you all go over to SH's My Free Thoughts and listen to the phone interview of Robert Fisk, reporter for The Independent, with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now on the massacre of innocents in Qana by the Isreali military. SH has had a bunch of good posts about this situation since the beginning. Fuck, I'm just so pissed off about this.

Book Review: Parecon, Life After Capitalism

2006-07-30T20:04:00.000-07:00

     A few weeks ago I finished reading the book Parecon, Life After Capitalism by Michael Albert. Albert analyzes the parecon system in comparison to other economic systems, namely capitalism, market socialism, centrally planned socialism, and so-called green bioregionalism. He looks at their productive capabilities, as well as four other "economic values" that he thinks are important, these being equity, self-management, diversity, and solidarity.

     First I'll start off with what I didn't like. One of the biggest problems I had with the way it was written was that it was almost unbearably repetitive. Whether it was the mind-blowingly dull discussions of what day-to-day life would look like in a parecon or the fact that he always lists all of his economic values after discussing a certain aspect of a parecon, I found myself many times looking toward the end of the chapter wondering "how many pages do I have left?".

     Having said that, I'll take a look at the ideas of Parecon. Some of the core ideas, such as councils for the producers and decentralized planning, have been out there in the form of anarcho-syndicalism and council communism, so they certainly aren't new. In Parecon Albert lays out a very specific framework with how the different councils will interact with each other, with his iterative planning process, which he spends a good deal of time going into. While this perhaps is useful for the skeptic who might want to know an example of how it would work, Albert also admits that the process could be quite different for different societies. And I believe that he's correct in this, which is why it was hard for me to read his indepth discussion of how it would work when in reality the processes are likely to come about organically from the people. So this whole detailed process just seemed like mental masturbation to me.

    That brings me to another point-whether or not he's actually serious. At times I got the impression that he was trying to sell parecon too hard, because he would make some pretty outrageous claims. He claimed that a parecon economy could probably exist inside a country which was otherwise capitalist, but then also has said that it would be necessary to take private economic infrastructure and incorporate it into the participatory economy. What capitalist government is going to allow that to happen? Also, central to the Parecon idea and which isn't included in other council-based economies, is the idea of balanced job complexes. A balanced job complex is where all workers have the same amount of rewarding work and interesting work as they do dull, more manual work. The point of this is to let people learn the skills and gain the confidence necessary for them to participate constructively in their organizations and not simply waste their formal decision making power because they don't feel prepared enough to make decisions. While in a society with an extreme material abundance this might be something that might be worthwhile to pursue, it seems completely impractical for any time period even decades after a revolution (not to mention a parecon existing in a capitalist country!!). Again, it just doesn't seem like he's really that serious here.

     However, the book does have some virtues. He gives a good discussion on how people should be compensated for their economic activity, i.e. whether to reward property, effort, contribution, etc. It's critique of capitalism is also good, although there are better out there. Also, as I mentioned earlier, giving very specific examples how it could work might bring peace of mind to someone who believes that capitalism is the only way to go.

    All in all, I wasn't that impressed. It certainly doesn't compare with a couple of the other books that I've read this summer that have been absolutely great, A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn and Anarcho-Syndicalism by Rudolf Rocker.

Praying Made Easy

2006-07-24T23:17:00.000-07:00

If you're like me, praying can be a real bitch. My prayer success rate is surely less than 100%, and because of this it's tough to decide when I should count on my prayers being answered, or when I should just get off the couch and make sure the cat has food myself. Luckily, there's a new product out that guarantees results (h/t breakerslion).

Documentary on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

2006-07-18T13:57:00.000-07:00

With all the events going on in the Middle East right now, and with the people over at Fox News anxiously hoping for World War 3, I can't think of a better time for people to watch the documentary Peace, Propaganda, and the Promised Land over at Google Video.

The documentary examines the cause of the conflict, but perhaps more importantly, the inaccuracy and bias that is seen in the US media. This is shown through comparisons of news clips from the US and from foreign sources, such as the BBC. Commentary is provided by journalists, rabbis, Palestinians, former Israeli soldiers, media analysts, as well as Noam Chomsky.

Media Blitz

2006-07-13T22:45:00.000-07:00

A collection of interesting video clips, some commentary on the events in the Middle East today, and some documentary/movie reviews.

Bush in 30 Seconds--This is a political ad contest sponsored by MoveOn. I believe the competition ended a good while ago, but you can now see the top 150 ads online. I personally liked those done by Mark Vicente (#5 and #47).

Adam Carolla hangs up on Ann Coulter--This was pretty funny. Ann Coulter called in to Carolla's radio show 1 1/2 hours late and he just hung up on her.

John Gibson trying to stir up a war with Iran--Gibson claims that attacks on Israelis with rockets by Hezbollah is really Iran attacking the United States! Wow, that's shameless.

In a somewhat related story, the United States vetoed a UN resolution today that would have demanded that the Israelis cease their attacks, that the Palestinians release the kidnapped Israeli soldier, and that Hezbollah cease their rocket attacks. Why would the US do this? Well, U.S. ambassador to the UN John Bolton said that the resolution would have helped inflame passions in the Middle East. Hmmm...ending attacks=inflamed passions? You know, maybe he's right, perhaps it's better for the Israeli airforce to attack a suburb in Beirut. What a sad, cruel joke. Oh well, we're going to need all the terrorists we can make if we're gonna have a never-ending war on terror.

Now to the documentary and movie reviews.

Land and Freedom--You can see a description at the link, but I really enjoyed this movie.

Fidel: The Untold Story--This is a really good documentary about the Cuban Revolution and Cuba's international actions since then. Naturally it is centered on Fidel Castro, who led the Revolution and continues to lead today. I thought it was a very interesting story and one that is certainly not told in the United States.

Weather Underground--This is a documentary on the leftist group Weather Underground which developed out of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), which was a student group protesting the Vietnam War. Seeing little change from their efforts, and with the administration escalating the war, the Weathermen went underground and started bombing federal buildings (they made sure that no one was in them). It was a fairly interesting documentary, but Fidel was better.

A Place Called Chiapas--This is a documentary about the Zapatista Army of National Liberation, a group that formed in "a place called Chiapas" in Mexico to battle for the improved conditions of its people. It also focuses on one of the leaders of the group, Subcomandante Marcos (pictured below). Subcomandante Marcos actually has a Master's degree in Philosophy, answering the question of what philosophy majors do after they graduate. Some parts of this documentary were slow, but quenching my ignorance on this subject was well worth it. Today Marcos is known as Delegado Zero in what the EZLN calls the Other Campaign, which is basically an attempt at building a more responsive Mexican government by educating the people and making activists out of them.

The Trials of Henry Kissinger--This is a popular documentary about Henry Kissinger, who served as National Security Advisor as well as Secretary of State in the 70s. Just check out the trailer at the link. With his involvement in some very horrible acts conducted by the United States, the documentary hightlights why he should be tried as an international war criminal. Most interesting to me was the discussion about the US involvement in the overthrow of the democratically elected Chilean government, which was then followed by the brutal dictator Pinochet. Kissinger said in a meeting with the President "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people". It's a good documentary, I recommend it.

The Motorcyle Diaries--This is a movie about Che Guevara's motorcyle trip over South America that he took with his friend in the early 50s, 10 years before he got got together with Castro and traveled to Cuba to help overthrow the Batista military government. The movie shows how the trip changed his outlook on the world. It's actually very light on the leftist message, so much so that it got nominated for two Oscars in 2005. But it's a pretty good movie, although I think Land and Freedom is much better.

Well, that's it for what I've seen this week. If you're having trouble finding places to watch these documentaries or films (some of them are fairly rare), send me an email and I'll try to help you out.

On the Notion Of Property

2006-07-10T13:11:00.000-07:00

Pretty much any alternative economic theory that you'll come across deals with property rights much differently than it is dealt with in capitalist systems. I'm hoping that this post makes people realize that they are more in line with these alternative theories than they may be aware of.

In the current capitalist system any property that you can get from trade is legimitate, and there is no cap on what percentage of the world you can own. But imagine in the distant future, let's say that one person owns the entire world, his ancestors having accumulated it through normal business operations and trade. The rest of the world's 6 billion people own essentially nothing in comparison and their labor is exchanged in order for them to get the food they need. Is this fair? Should that be allowed? I'm guessing that everyone would say that this is not acceptable. And if you don't, you probably would say it's unacceptable if you were actually living in that situation. Okay, well what about if 2 people owned the world, each owning roughly 1/2 of it? Still no? Okay, 3 people, each a 1/3? No? 4 people, each a 1/4? No? At what point do you say "yes", and how do you justify that decision? In many ways this reminds me of the famous Stephen Roberts quote

I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do

We both agree that a certain group of people owning the entire earth is wrong, we just differ on how small that group of people is before it becomes wrong. I believe that the world shouldn't be up for sale, or equivalently, that it belongs to everyone equally.

Perhaps you're sympathetic with that argument. However, you may still feel that by taking away the idea of private property that we are somehow stealing from those who currently claim rights over it. You may feel like they have some sort of more natural, legitimate right to it and what gives society the right to take it away? To this I say, what does "own" really mean? Ownership is purely a social construct. We can't take a test tube of dirt into a lab, run some tests, and prove that it belongs to Mr. So and So. If society decides that no one can own the world, it's as simple as that. You just can't. The notion of ownership just doesn't exist. An example that you can see of this idea today is the air. Air is made up of atoms just like the earth is, yet it can't be owned. Ownership of the air is just something that doesn't exist in our society. Perhaps this is solely due to the practical difficulty of prosecuting air "trespassers", but if it suddently became feasible to do so, I'm sure you would agree that society shouldn't allow the private ownership of air. I believe the same statements can be equally applied to water.

Land is just as necessary for life as air or water. And no matter how lazy our ancestors were, or how bad their businesses fared, or how unlucky they were, should that make us forfit our rights as people to the natural resources of the planet. The planet should not be for sale.

My Religious Deconversion Story

2006-07-06T14:15:00.000-07:00

     This blog has been running for over a year now and I still haven't posted my deconversion story. What the hell is wrong with me? I figure I should remedy this now.

    I come from a family that I guess you would call Catholic. My father's parents are Baptist, but he's rather apathetic to religion, much more so now since my parents know that my brother and I are both atheists. So the religious aspect of our life was dominated by my mother, who had gone to a Catholic high school. Although she wasn't really dedicated to Catholicism, much more to just the general picture of Christianity, seeing as part of my early childhood we went to a Methodist church rather than the Catholic one we later went to, and then even later we went to one of those non-denominational, "worst concert you've ever been to" churches.

    My early church life was probably what's typical for most Christians. You go to Sunday School, learn about Noah's Ark and such, don't really believe it, but don't really think about the fact that you don't believe it. I really just didn't think about religion at all for the first 10 years of my life. I used to read the Sunday comics in church, which is a little odd because to this very day, I've never laughed at a comic in the comics section.

    My religious life changed when I was about 11 years old. I remember my mother was in my 9-year old brother's room trying to comfort him because he was crying about something. When my mom came into my room I asked what was wrong, and she said that he was worried about dying. Perhaps most 11-year olds wouldn't be affected, but in my youth I was a huge worrier. I worried about everything, especially about my health. I worried about cancer, leukemia, brain tumors, internal bleeding, brain damage, and even AIDs. From this and other behavior that I had as a youth I think I probably was obsessive-compulsive, although luckily I don't have the symptoms anymore at all (*saves post as draft 8 times for good luck*). Just kidding, but that would have been me before.

    Anyway, one of the ways that I stopped from worrying was to research what was bothering me and convincing myself that it was extremely unlikely that I had whatever problem I thought I might have. When I started worrying about death (eventual death, not immediate death due to some cause) my mother tried to comfort me by saying that I would be going to heaven when I died, in essence living forever. This is where my OCD (self-diagnosed, in retrospect) really kicked in for me. Now, in order to stop worrying about death, I felt that I should really explore this idea of heaven and be able to convince myself that I was indeed going, and that this place did actually exist. I wasn't going to simply take it "on faith" because like I said, I was a huge worrier. It had to be overwhelmingly clear that I didn't have a problem. So at this point I decided that I would more actively think about my religion, with the hope that I would soon convince myself of the near certainty of heaven, Jesus, God, etc. It didn't quite work out that way.

    I started to pay attention in church, which is probably the worst thing you can do if you want to keep your faith. The preacher would sometimes say something that was either racist, something against science, or some other absolutely ignorant statement. This bothered me, and I attempted to discuss it with my mom on the way home from church. They were legit criticisms, so she couldn't really defend them. She'd usually just say the typical "god works in mysterious ways" or "you just have to have faith" sort of garbage. The more and more I saw this excuse, the more I translated it to be "yes, you're correct, our pastor is psychotic, and that part of the bible doesn't make sense at all". So after only a few months of this increased attention in church, I began to seriously doubt the competence of the preacher, and I was probably also a little angered by some of his statements. This was convenient because it put me, at least in my head, opposed to him. And when you're opposed to someone, you usually put in a lot more critical thinking into trying to debunk what they say. I should say that by this time I probably had moved on from worrying about death and was probably worried about some skin-eating disease or something instead, but now I was focused more on religion.

    So being opposed to the preacher, I would listen to him talk and actually think critically about it. And so you can probably imagine how easily I began to doubt the most blatantly stupid of the stories in the bible, like the one of Jesus cursing at a fig tree for example. After enough of these examples, I just decided that organized religion was completely wrong. I didn't really believe anything that the Bible contained, although I held on to the vague idea of Jesus dying for our sins and the existence and nature of God. I probably held this general state of belief for a few years, until the age of about 14. I don't remember what prompted it, but I began to think about these issues again. I thought about the necessity of Jesus coming down to save people. My thinking was as follows

Jesus came to forgive us of our sins, and allow us to go to heaven. God sent him to die on a cross.

God controls whether we go to heaven or not; nothing is outside of his power. God could allow us to go to heaven unilaterally if he wanted.

God sent Jesus down to die so that he could tell himself to let us into heaven. God is a moron, and so doesn't exist.

The night I thought this, I said to myself "omg, I'm an atheist". Instantly, the connotation of "devil-worshipper" and feelings of having done something wrong came to mind, because that's what I had learned to associate with the word atheist. I realized that these feelings and associations were completely unjustified, and this made me doubt religion even more for having made me think otherwise.

So that's pretty much the entire story. While my atheist position has surely become more sophisticated with time, reading of books, and reading of all the great blogs in the atheist online community, my actual deconversion was complete.

Happy 4th of July

2006-07-03T23:31:00.000-07:00

     Today we celebrate our independence from Great Britain. Why did we want independence? One popular cry was "no taxation without representation". Over two hundred years later, how are we doing in this category? We do have formal representation at least. But do our politicians actually represent us? Or do they simply represent a small sector of society and then lie to, ignore, or simply distract the others with "threats" to our freedom coming from indians, blacks, japanese-americans, communists, terrorists, gays, liberals, secularists, and mexicans?

    Another reason for wanting independence was so that we wouldn't simply be a exploited source of resources and so that we could have our own autonomous political system. Economic and political independence was our goal. But if you look at the situation today our government vigorously opposes economic and political independence for other countries, and has done very well in succeeding in these aims in the past, even if that involves putting in power brutal dictators that massacre their own people.

    Point being, I just don't see much reason to celebrate the 4th of July (other than those incredibly entertaining Snake fireworks). It would be like celebrating the unchaining of a dangerous animal into a crowded room. I believe it's very important for us to finally make real progress on the above two issues of economic and political freedom, both domestic and foreign. We don't have to demand freedom for ourselves, but we have a moral obligation to control our political situation to the extent that it doesn't interfere with the freedom of others.

    Have a good 4th everyone.

In addition, here is a short 4th of July article by Howard Zinn.

MUST SEE: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

2006-06-30T12:29:00.000-07:00

Wow, I just got done watching the documentary The Revolution Will Not Be Televised which covers the events surrounding the coup which put Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez out of power temporarily in 2002. It was filmed by a group of Irish filmmakers who were doing a documentary on Chavez but then got caught up in all of the action as it took place. Maybe I'm biased towards films like this, but I thought it was fucking amazing. I've never been so interested in what was going on in a documentary before.

Quit wasting your time reading this and go watch it over at Google video. Below are the parts that I liked the most. Don't read the following if you're going to go watch it, it might spoil some of it for you.

At the beginning of the movie, before the coup, the filmers were at a meeting on the wealthy side of town where a bunch of rich, white people were gathered and discussing what they should do. A rich, white girl tells the filmers that the poor have no values and that they haven't "struggled" like the rich have. But then, when they are filming the meeting that she is attending, the speaker at the meeting says "keep an eye on your domestic servants". I thought that was great. Having domestic servants can really make life tough.

The film shows clips of the private media during the whole ordeal and of course the media shows a very obvious bias and even lies when the people retake the Presidential palace after the coup. Before the coup however, when covering the peaceful demonstrations in support of Chavez, the media says that the demonstrators were "like the mobs used by Mussolini and Hitler".

There was awesome footage shot in the Presidential Palace of the guards and people when they knew that the army had switched sides and was surrounding them with tanks and was planning on bombing the building if Chavez didn't resign as President.

When the people took back the Presidential Palace, the Chavez's VP was getting sworn in as President (Chavez was being detained by the army). After being sworn in, you see the VP on the phone saying to someone "I hope this will settle now that I've been sworn in as Vice President", and then you hear someone else say "You're President" and then he says "Yes, I mean President". I thought that was amusing.

I think the most exciting part of the film is when the people in support of Chavez surround the Presidential Palace currently being controlled by the "transitional government". With the people around it, the guards of the palace (with hidden loyalties to Chavez) decide to organize and take back the building. Once they've taken it back, you see a couple of soldiers on top of the building with their fist in the air and waving at the cheering people.

I meant to make a post about my religious deconversion today, but that will have to wait until next time. I just had to tell you about this documentary. Hope you like it.

Vote Green: Bad Behavior Bumper Sticker

2006-06-26T23:13:00.000-07:00

This weekend I was waiting on my fiancee in a mall in Portland and I started to think about voting. I used to be very gung-ho about voting. This isn't really much of a surprise since I was also a Fox News watching, Bush voting, hard-core, jingoistic patriot. However, since my political deconversion (which I view as being, at least in practical matters, more important than my religious deconversion) I now look at voting much differently.

As I've mentioned in a previous post, I think the two-party system is absolutely horrible, a complete joke of a democratic system. As Hellen Keller once said

Our democracy is but a name. We vote. What does that mean? It means that we choose between two bodies of real -- though not avowed -- autocrats. We choose between 'Tweedledum' and 'Tweedledee'

showing that even being blind and deaf is not an excuse for believing in the 2P system.

    But anyway, it's what we've got, and until we can change it, how should we act within it? One suggestion is that we vote Democrat. Why would I want to do such a thing? The Democrats don't even have the moral clarity to be able to denounce the Republicans strongly for what they're doing. Senator Biden quickly retreats from any suggestion that Bush should be impeached, and simply stops at censure. And I choose Biden because he seems to be one of the better Democrats. Most Democrats wouldn't even speak favorably of Biden's censure resolution. I'm sorry, but if you can't even say with confidence that Bush should be censured, then there is no way in hell that you deserve my vote. And in many respects, Democrats are very much like Republicans. Most Democrats are also just as much in the hands of big business as the Republicans are. Democrats have started wars of aggression against innocent people in the past also; Iraq wasn't an Republican invention (which is another thing that Democrats won't denounce strongly enough to make an impression on the American people). The Democrats do differ from the Republicans in their rhetoric however, but less so recently, and with the Democrats looking at stealing some of the evangelical vote in the upcoming elections you'll probably see more references to God in their speeches as well.

    Some suggest that voting is completely worthless and even harmful. They say it gives legitimacy to a corrupt system, which I think is hard to refute. It's the worthless attribute that I'm skeptical of, and I'll address that next. From those who want a completely different system, whether it being a different economic or political system, the claim is that this can't occur by participating in the current system, but that one must overthrow the current system by other means. I think that they are generally correct in this view, but I don't think that the solution is to not participate. Look around. Revolution is not around the corner. Republicans are getting elected. I don't want to be in a revolution of people who vote Republican and defend torture on primetime TV. I think it makes sense to try to shift the political debate to the left first, and then, perhaps when people are more sympathetic to concerns relating economic fairness, sustainability, democracy, freedom, and peace, well then perhaps then we'll have a revolution and overthrow the corrupt systems that control our lives and endanger humanity.

    I think the best thing that we can do is vote third party, such as the Greens. For one the Green positions are often close to my own and so it's nice to actually be able to vote for a candidate that represents my views in at least a rough sense. Voting Green shifts the political debate to the left, because it forces the Democrats to look to the left for votes. Without this incentive, the Democrats will simply go over to the right, which is where all the money and all the unquestioning voters are (thanks Jesus). And perhaps if enough people vote third party, we'll be able to start a movement toward a proportional representation (PR) system.

    With this reasoning I've decided to become more active with the Green party. Will much good come out of it? I'm doubtful, but I'm not ready to completely give up on voting yet. During my wait at the mall I decided to create a bumper sticker for my car, as seen below.

    If anyone is interested in purchasing one, you can buy them here. And if you haven't checked out Cafepress before, you should. They have a lot of really nice designs, for t-shirts, bumper stickers, coffee mugs, etc.

Random Comedy

2006-06-22T23:31:00.000-07:00

I'm going to be out of town for the next few days. In the meantime, check out the Farting Preacher .

In addition, here's a few really good cartoons (stolen in the worst possible way from beepbeepitsme and Atheist Girl)

Also, for you fans of Paperboy on NES, you MUST check this out (h/t to Wustlog).

Parecon Reading #1

2006-06-18T19:41:00.000-07:00

     This weekend I got busy with my goal that I mentioned in my last post of learning more about Parecon. I ordered Parecon: Life After Capitalism by Michael Albert and read my first non-Wiki article on the subject. This was an introductory paper by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel entitled Socialism As It Was Always Meant to Be. It's not too long, but it gives I think a good introduction to the basic concepts of participatory economics.

     I'm not going to write a book report type of summary here, because that's incredibly inefficient when you could just read it yourself. Rather, in the spirit of learning together and discussing, I'll mention a few aspects of the article that I found interesting.

     Firstly, the notion of rewarding people based on their effort, i.e. "to each according to his or her labor". This was a feature that I knew existed in Parecon before reading this article and I had some definite skepticism about this. Shouldn't those who are naturally gifted and intelligent benefit the same from less effort if they can produce more efficiently? I'm not criticizing Parecon in that there wouldn't be incentives for innovation, because I think they made a decent case in such a short paper that there would indeed be. However, this idea is relatively new to me. They argue that giving people more just because of their gifts that they are born with is no different than giving people more because they are born with more money and property. And I can see this point of view. However I don't think that analogy works completely because intellectual differences contribute to real differences in productivity, whereas property ownership simply means that you're benefiting from someone else's productivity. However, even this sort of compensation might result in an increase of living standards for educated people over what they get in the current capitalistic system. In the current economy, when you think of the big money, who do you think of? CEOs and property owners get the lion's share of the economic output, yet produce little to nothing of value. Jobs that take a lot of education, like science for example, get paid next to nothing in comparison.

     I also thought the idea of Workers' and Consumers' Councils and the iterative planning process that they are involved in was interesting. They didn't discuss this too much in this paper, and I look forward to hearing more about the details of it in upcoming readings.

     What were your thoughts? Does anyone else want to host the next reading or next topic? It doesn't have to necessarily contain a reading.

Miscellaneous

2006-06-15T00:49:00.000-07:00

Here's a bunch of different things I wanted to say, most of which don't justify their own post. So here we go.

Thanks to Foosh from Wustlog for bringing Google Analytics to my attention. It can give you some pretty cool information about the visitors who come to your site. You have to request to be invited, but I was accepted just 2 or 3 days later.

For those of you who might have wondered how the YearlyKos meeting in Las Vegas went, LBBP from Skeptic Rant has a first-hand account here. Also, I've heard that the GOP is going to use euthanasia as one of its focuses for the 2006 elections. And I'm glad. This affects me so much more than war or the economy. And it's about damn time I lost the right to end my own life. Only our Leader can make decisions that end lives. Anyhow, Fair Enough has a post about the issue here.

I just watched Ann Coulter on Jay Leno tonight, hoping that something interesting would be said by Carlin, who was also on the show. He didn't say anything of interest. But I got a little pissed watching it. For one Coulter is a fucking psycho. And actually listening to her talk made me realize that she's even more of a pyscho than I had previously thought, which is hard to do. But I basically knew that beforehand. What bothered me was the applause that she received after she would state her disgusting and pathetic point of views. She got booed a little, but the applause was much louder. It was just sickening.

In the comments of my last post there was some discussion about alternative economic systems, namely Parecon (Participatory Economics). Personally I don't know that much about Parecon, and from the little reading I've done of it there are some issues that I don't agree with. However, Parecon has also gotten some good reviews from people whose opinions I respect, and I feel that it would be beneficial to look into the issue more. Most notable of these is Chomsky, who says of Parecon

A great many activists and concerned people ask, quite rightly, what alternative form of social organization can be imagined that might overcome the grave flaws -- often real crimes -- of contemporary society in more far-reaching ways than short-term reform. Parecon is the most serious effort I know to provide a very detailed possible answer to some of these questions, crucial ones, based on serious thought and careful analysis

     Even if its not perfect (which is certain), it may easily be superior to capitalism and worthy of progress towards. And the flaws it does have, well, by learning about them perhaps we could improve on the ideas.

    Anyhow, I plan on learning about Parecon in my free time for at least the rest of the summer. What I thought would be nice is if others wanted to learn more about this as well, defend it, or simply critique it, we could structure our discussions in a "reading course" type of way. I basically imagine selecting an article or paper discussing the concepts of Parecon, of which there are many available (especially on Znet), and then someone would write up their opinion on the particular concept of Parecon that the article was about and people would discuss it. A week later (the exact time depending on how many participants we had) it would be someone else's turn.

    Would anyone be interested in this?

Book Review: Government in the Future by Noam Chomsky

2006-06-08T22:31:00.000-07:00

Noam Chomsky's Government in the Future is a small book based on a talk that he gave in New York in 1970 in which he asks "What is the role of the state in an advanced society?" To answer this, he gives his views on four major political positions-classical liberalism (libertarianism), libertarian socialist, state socialist, and state capitalist.

He makes his personal preference known from the outset. He states that he believes

libertarian socialist concepts (left-wing Marxism through anarchism) are funamentally correct and are the proper and natural extensions of classical liberalism into the current era of advanced industrial society

He then begins his look at classical liberalism. He says

Classical liberalism asserts as its major idea an opposition to all but the most restricted and minimal forms of state intervention in personal in social life. This conclusion is quite familiar. However, the reasoning that leads to it is less familiar and I think a good deal more important than the conclusion itself

This reasoning for limited state intervention, Chomsky explains, was that man's most important attribute is his freedom. Citing the 18th century libertarian Alexander von Humboldt,

To inquire and to create-these are the centers around which all human pursuits more or less directly revolve.......Whatever does not spring from a man's free choice, or is only the result of instruction and guidance, does not enter into his very being, but remains alien to his true nature; he does not perform it with truly human energies, but merely with mechanical exactness

Chomsky then compares Humboldt's statements with those of Karl Marx, born a half a century later, who speaks of

the alienation of labor when work is external to the worker, ...not part of his nature,....[so that] he does not fulfill himself in his work but denies himself...[and is] physically exhausted and mentally debased

Chomsky continues

Robert Tucker, for one, has rightly emphasized that Marx sees the revolutionary more as the frustrated producer than as a dissatisfied consumer. And this far more radical critique of capitalist relations of production flows directly, often in the same words, from the libertarian thought of the Englightenment. For this reason, I think, one must say that classical liberal ideas in their essence, though not in the way they developed, are profoundly anticapitalist. The essence of these ideas must be destroyed for them to serve as an ideology of modern industrial capitalism.
Writing in the 1780s and early 1790s, Humboldt had no conception of the forms that industrial capitalism would take. Consequently, in this classic of classical liberalism he stresses the problem of limiting state power, and he is not overly concerned with the dangers of private power. The reason is that he believes in, and speaks of, the essential equality of conditions of private citizens. And of course he had no idea, writing in 1790, of the ways in which the notion of a private person would come to be reinterpreted in the era of corporate capitalism. He did not foresee-I now quote the anarchist historian Rudolf Rocker-that "Democracy with its motto of 'equality of all citizens before the law,' and Liberalism with its 'right of man over his own person,' both [would be] shipwrecked on the realities of the capitalist economic forum." Humboldt did not foresee that in a predatory capitalistic economy, state intervention would be an absolute necessity to preserve human existence and prevent the destruction of the physical environment....Humboldt also did not foresee the consequences of the commodity character of labor,the doctrine,again in Polanyi's words, that "it is not for the commodity to decide where it should be offered for sale, to what purpose it should be used, at what price it should be allowed to change hands, and in what manner it should be consumed or destroyed." But the commodity is, of course, in this case, human life....

I'll stop there for the reasons of length, but Chomsky continues in much the same way for two more pages, until he reaches the concluding statement

Classical libertarian thought seems to me, therefore, to lead directly to libertarian socialism, or anarchism if you like, when combined with an understanding of industrial capitalism

He then begins his discussion of libertarian socialism. This collection of ideas

reflects the intuitive understanding that democracy is largely a sham when the industrial system is controlled by any form of autocratic elite

Chomsky then goes on to explain some of the basic thinking associated with libertarian socialism and discusses some events in history related to the ideas or those who held them. I won't go into those ideas here, partly for length and partly because I will have another book review in the next month on a book that deals primarily with these concepts. He then addresses two counterarguments against this sort of social system, those being that such an organization is contrary to human nature, and that it is incompatible with the demands of efficiency.

     Chomsky ends the book by looking at state capitalism and state socialism. But rather than discuss these ideas abstractly, he looks at the behavior of the United States and the Soviet Union. In 1970 when he gave this talk it was surely a good way to discuss these issues, but I didn't find this small section particularly illuminating, perhaps because I've heard Chomsky and others discuss these issues in much greater detail than is allowed in a public talk.

    In conclusion, I thought it was a good read. I had gone into the reading thinking that he might make predictions about the government in the future, but instead he simply discussed some major political philosophies. However, in hindsight, this is the logical thing for him to do. The government of the future is for us to decide, and the first step towards a decision is to hear about all the options.

    I wouldn't recommend buying the book though. It's only 67 pages long and there isn't even that many words per page (like I said, it's a speech). Get it at the library if you can and read it, it won't take more than an hour. Also, you can listen to an audio version of the speech at the last link on the page here. In my opinion it's somewhat hard to listen to the talk because Chomsky intermingles a lot of quotes of people in his talk and without the ability to see it separated as you do in a book, or see Chomsky reading from his notes (as you would in a talk), it can be hard to distinguish when he's talking and when he's quoting someone.

Grilled Cheese Virgin Mary Continues to Inspire

2006-06-04T11:22:00.000-07:00

This is a followup to my earlier Virgin Mary grilled cheese related story here. Apparently the lady is getting it tattooed to her chest (video here) She explains herself with "We all believe in certain things okay, and this is what I believe in, and this is what I want close to my heart". It's never felt so good to not be included in her We.

And another thing, for something she loves so dearly it seems odd that she would simply sell it. Well, I suppose she probably consulted with her Savior first and he told her that it was okay. Too bad he didn't tell her to spend that extra dough on some new front teeth though. Bah, what am I thinking, teeth look trashy.

MoveOn Vote Decides on Focus for 2006

2006-06-01T22:38:00.000-07:00

Last week MoveOn coordinated house parties around the country to brainstorm on what issues they could get their members to rally around and support. This week members were emailed and given a chance to vote and decide which 3 out of the 10 listed issues would become the primary focus for MoveOn in 2006. I signed a petition against the genocide in Darfur and ended up being a "member" so I was able to participate. I certainly don't consider myself a Democrat, but MoveOn works for some good causes and I'm glad to help make any difference that I can.

So first, the ten issues that were voted on:

A balanced federal budget

Publicly funded elections

A guaranteed living wage

Solutions to global warming

High quality education for all

Global leadership through diplomacy

Guaranteed accurate elections

Restored constitutional rights

Sustainable energy independence

Health care for all

    I was really hoping that publicly funded elections would win out. This is because if you can get the politicans responsive to the people, which is something we haven't tried in this country before, many of the other reforms would be much easier to achieve. And I was really hoping that "global leadership" and "restored constitutional rights" would lose. That's beause I didn't think these issues were concrete and there's no way you could measure progress. What would you do, ask politicians to promise to honor your constitutional rights? What Bush is doing now is flagrantly illegal, but most politicians say that it's legit or at best that it should be "looked at". Without real politicians in office or without a great deal of public outrage and activism, criminal behavior will never be punished. The same sort of deal with global leadership. Most politicians would tell you we're the global leader now.

    The winners of the poll were sustainable energy dependence, health care for all, and a tie (very close in votes) between restored constitutional rights and guaranteed accurate elections, which they're combining into a single title of "restoring democracy". I think both of the first two are good concrete goals that would be nice if they could achieve. "Restoring democracy" isn't really a concrete goal in the same sense that the others are. But if MoveOn is prepared to use its resources to make a change in the minds of the American people, and get them to realize what democracy is and why it's important, then perhaps this issue could be a good thing as well. I think all these issues would be achieved much easier and much less superficially if progress could be made with campaign finance reform, but perhaps this goal isn't feasible at this time. It'd be pretty easy to produce propaganda against it, along the lines of "George Bush wants YOU to pay for his election party". So maybe we're not ready for that.

    Energy independence is going to be the first issue that they tackle, starting this month, and I'll probably have a post on it later. If you'd like to be get emails from MoveOn just sign up.

    Which issues would you or did you vote for?

Just Click on It to Make it Bigger

2006-05-29T20:56:00.000-07:00

In addition, you should check this christian video game out. Story on it here and the Left Behind Games' website here. The news report on the Left Behind website asks "Is violence in the name of god any better than just plain violence?". Uhmm...I'm going to jump in on this and say holy shit no, it's much, much worse.

And as a reminder, for those of you that get MoveOn.org emails, go vote in the poll to determine the organization's focus for 2006. You can vote until Wednesday at midnight. I'll have a post about the outcome on Thursday.

Book Review: A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn

2006-05-23T19:37:00.000-07:00

     The philosopher George Santayana once wrote "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". Implicit in this statement is that knowledge of history can help us better understand the present and assist us in making good decisions. But as I think of my history education growing up, especially those classes before college, I don't see any aspects of that education which would help me better understand the world today. Let's see, if I become a fascist German dictator I won't attack Russia (at least not in the winter). I also guess I won't settle political arguments with a duel. And if I'm ever a Native American I sure as hell ain't going to trust Whitey. Yes, this information is definitely going to be useful to me.

     Traditional history education leaves one completely unprepared as to how to put into context the political situation in the country today. Reading traditional history gives the impression of a country unified with people of common interests. Internal conflict in minimized or ignored altogether, while conflict with foreigners is given emphasis, helping to instill in American youth a sense of deep patriotism and suspicion of others who happened to be born on dirt that fell inside a different countries invisible borders. Today's conflicts in politics, in war, and in economics seem to be unique if traditional history is all we know. Yet there is much in history that sheds a great deal of light onto these subjects and then one can see the truth behind Santayana's statment.

     Howard Zinn's book A People's History of the United States is a great starting point for this. While traditional histories tell history from the point of view of statesmen or from the wealthy, Zinn tells "America's story from the point of view of-and in the words of-America's women, factory workers, African Americans, Native Americans, working poor, and immigrant laborers". In other words, from the point of view of the average person.

     I finished this fairly long book (700 pages) about 30 minutes ago and I really enjoyed it. I also learned a lot. It starts from the landing of Columbus in 1492 and goes up until the invasion of Afghanistan. I was horrified at exactly how unbelievably cruel the Native Americans were treated. This treatment they faced is many orders of magnitude worse than the impression that I had from high school. I also found it interesting to read about all the class conflict between workers and employers and how often and how unified workers were in their strikes, often during times when the rest of the country was suffering from extreme racism. And it angered me each time as the police, national guard, or army would come in on the side of the owners and break up the strikes, many times shooting workers or forcing them to work against their will. I found it extremely interesting to know how widespread socialism and socialist thought was in the United States, especially before the Espionage Act during WWI landed many prominent socialists in jail for free speech "violations" and of course before the McCarthyism of the 1950s made it illegal to not love capitalism. I learned a lot of details about Vietnam that I hadn't heard before and was glad to have a better understanding of this major part of American history.

     As I read this book I noticed time and again history repeating itself in ways that are helpful to understand today. From the government lying or omitting important information to bring the country to war to the way that the government sets up "investigations" of itself in order to make the public think that it's reforming after some scandal when in actuality the system isn't changing at all, I saw trends that went throughout history and continue in the most blatant way today. Instead of the usual "Paul Revere liked to ride horsies" historical trivia, the book actually contains the type of lessons that increase one's understanding of today's world.

     I highly recommend this book. You can buy it here. And also, on an unrelated note, I just finished up a very busy few weeks and so posts should be more frequent. Thanks for your patience!

Support Net Neutrality

2006-05-12T00:19:00.000-07:00

I've been really busy lately and haven't been reading any of the emails that MoveOn.org has been sending me. But today I looked at one and got a little educated on this Net Neutrality issue. Here's a brief explanation from the FAQ at Save the Internet.

What is this about?>

This is about Internet freedom. "Network Neutrality" -- the First Amendment of the Internet -- ensures that the public can view the smallest blog just as easily as the largest corporate Web site by preventing Internet companies like AT&T from rigging the playing field for only the highest-paying sites.

But Internet providers like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast are spending millions of dollars lobbying Congress to gut Net Neutrality. If Congress doesn't take action now to implement meaningful network neutrality provisions, the future of the Internet is at risk.

What is network neutrality?

Network Neutrality — or "Net Neutrality" for short — is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet.

Net Neutrality ensures that all users can access the content or run the applications and devices of their choice. With Net Neutrality, the network's only job is to move data — not choose which data to privilege with higher quality service.

Net Neutrality is the reason why the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation, and free speech online. It's why the Internet has become an unrivaled environment for open communications, civic involvement and free speech.

Who wants to get rid of Net Neutrality?

The nation's largest telephone and cable companies — including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner — want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all.

They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. They want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video — while slowing down or blocking their competitors.

These companies have a new vision for the Internet. Instead of an even playing field, they want to reserve express lanes for their own content and services — or those from big corporations that can afford the steep tolls — and leave the rest of us on a winding dirt road.

     Also, there's 5 videos here, including an explanation from a ninja, a Halo character, and more. I had no idea what the ninja was talking about. The last few videos are probably the best in terms of information.

    I think this is a very dangerous situation. An absolutely free internet is crucial for all that is rational, fair, and democratic. It is the only means by which people can communicate to large numbers of other people and avoid the mainstream media which spouts nothing but propaganda. If we lose the internet, we lose our voice, and with it, our hope.

    So get involved. Or at least educated yourself. Without knowing what it's about, you might fall victim to a video like this which gives a very inaccurate representation of the situation.

Update Actually, the ninja makes a very compelling argument. I recommend that one.

MUST SEE VIDEO

2006-04-30T15:17:00.000-07:00

Yesterday Stephen Colbert, host of the TV show The Colbert Report on Comedy Central, hosted the White House Correspondents Dinner. Almost everyone was there: the president, first lady, the outgoing and incoming press secretary, Scalia, everyone, well, except for Cheney. Anyhow, Colbert was outrageously candid and hard hitting in his jokes. So much that watching the video you can see and really feel the awkwardness (since most of the people he was making fun of were in the room). The highest quality version of this video is here (there's two parts~15 min). If this is laggy, try YouTube.

I have so much respect for Colbert after doing this. It's one thing to speak truth to power, but another to do it with them sitting a few seats away from you. Colbert could have just done a few lighthearted jokes. This is what almost anyone else would have done. But no, he used this opportunity to really make a statement. If you read about the story in the corporate media they'll really shift the focus off of Colbert and onto some stupid Bush look-alike, but after you watch this video you'll see that this is really the interesting story. So watch this and pass it along to your friends, otherwise they won't hear about it. And please don't pity Bush while watching this, he deserves much more than public humiliation.

Update- If you'd like to thank Stephen, there is now a site up so that you can do so. As of this posting 36,000 people have posted a thank you!

Free Market Fantasies

2006-04-28T21:18:00.000-07:00

    It seems that any discussion of politics ends up involving some sort of debate about economic systems. Since most atheists tend to identify themselves as liberal or libertarian, I thought that it'd be interesting to address these perspectives. I disagree with the liberal point of view because I believe that governments, much less powerful ones, can be very dangerous to people's freedoms. I also do not personally like the idea that someone who refuses to work will enjoy the fruits of labor of those who do. However, in this post I want to talk about the libertarian point of view. This is because while the liberal point of view is something that I don't personally like, the libertarian point of view is generally based upon the idea of a "free market", and this idea is one which I think is a complete fantasy.

     So first off, I'd like to say to those that think a free market is the best way to run an economy that I don't necessarily disagree with you. You may be right. I haven't put too much thought into it, and the reason for this that I don't think free markets can exist in actuality, and so talking about how nice it would be is a waste of time. Additionally, slight deviations from a truly free market result in a situation which I think is hard to argue for since essentially all of the redeeming characteristics of a free market are lost.

    The good thing about a free market economy is that products that are the best value succeed. If someone is charging too high of a price, someone else can come in and sell lower and still make a profit. The competition drives prices down and productivity up. However, this is not how markets work. When someone succeeds in business, they don't go back to square one. They're more wealthy now. This gives them an advantage which they can exploit to make their products, even if vastly inferior, succeed. If I'm wealthy I can simply drive my competitors out of business by operating at a loss, since I can sustain that while newcomers can't. Moreover, I have the money to advertise while others do not, and people might buy my inferior quality products for a higher price. This and other factors lead to the result that it's not the best quality products that succeed, but generally those who have previous wealth who succeed. Their previous success gives them current success, which gives them future success, and so on. Because the "game of capitalism" doesn't start anew, it overwhelmingly favors those whose are already wealthy. While some may or may not have a problem with this, the point is that this advantage destroys the level playing field and makes the market less competitive and thus not free.

    Another criticism of a free market is the existence of externalities, which create costs to the consumer that are not reflected in the purchase price. Pollution is a good example of this. A company which has the lowest costs can sell for lower, thereby giving their product an advantage in the marketplace. They can lower costs by mishandling the pollutants that product production creates. The market rewards this sort of behavior with a competitive edge, yet the actual price of their products is much higher than those of a competitor who doesn't pollute. Now it's true that you could hold people responsible for learning about the companies they buy products from. While this would be very difficult to do, I'm not entirely against this argument, although I think it's doubtful that people would be able to adequately judge what the businesses were up to.

    So to me, a free market is to economists what a massless string is to physicists. It's a nice idealization to help teach people basic concepts, but please don't build anything with it.

How hopeful are you for the future?

2006-04-22T11:32:00.000-07:00

    I've had a lot of trouble blogging the past few weeks, and besides my busy schedule, I think the big reason is that I just don't feel that the situation in the world and in the U.S. is going to get better in both the near and distant future and it really sucks the motivation out of me.

     I hear a lot of people talking about how things are going to change after the 2006 midterm elections, but I really don't think it's going to make a difference. The Republicans might lose a few seats, but that's probably it. And in my opinion, it wouldn't even make a difference if the Democrats won a ton of seats. The Democrats don't even have the moral and intellectual clarity to call out the Republicans on all the crazy ass shit they do. Think it's because the dems don't have a backbone? On the contrary, I think they do, it's just that they really don't differ too much from the Republicans on these issues. Both are pro-business, pro-war parties who are in the hands of the wealthy. Sometimes you hear rumors that the Democrats are for giving gays the right to marry, funding stem cell research, and pulling the troops out of Iraq. But these are usually just quiet murmurs, and few Democrats take an actual strong stand that would be necessary to infuse enthusiasm into the issue. Not supporting scientific advances and equal rights for people of different sexual preferences SHOULD make it utterly impossible to get elected in a free, democratic society. And lying to the public to start a war of aggression is a war crime by the Geneva conventions. However, the current administration and mainstream media have made war crimes "patriotic" and dissent "treason". In a poll conducted in March, only 38% of the American public thought that the President should be censured for war crimes, much less impeached. Hell, this guy's approval ratings are still in the 30s! It would be utterly impossible for the remaining people to disapprove of him it seems, and these people are a large enough group that they themselves can almost get someone elected.

     If the Democrats take back a lot of seats this year, what will we get to look forward to? Well, maybe they'll start the process on stem cell research and gay marriage. After a few years perhaps we'll have those things. Big deal, we'll still be sprinting toward disaster because of our utter disregard for any issue that's important to our civilization's survival. And even if they allow gay marriage, I'm going to have to wait forever until the slippery slope allows me to marry that deer in the woods I've always had the hots for.

    So I'm curious, how hopeful are you for the future?

At Best, Prayer Doesn't Work

2006-04-09T11:10:00.000-07:00

The blogging has been pretty light lately. Sometimes I wish I didn't imply a certain timescale for posts in my blog title. Maybe Freethought Sporadically would be more appropriate. Anyway, I have an interesting video clip you will probably like. Some of you may have heard of the study done on heart patients where some were prayed for, some weren't, etc, in order to see if prayer affected anything. Turns out that those who were prayed for had a slightly higher risk of complications, but other than that of course nothing was different. Jon Stewart recently covered this in a funny segment on the Daily Show. Just go here and click on the video "Votive or Die". LBBP has a funny post about this as well.

Virgin Mary Tags Another Bridge

2006-03-27T08:06:00.000-08:00

Last night I caught part of the local news and I'm glad I did. Apparently another miracle has happened-the Virgin Mary put an image of herself on a bridge in Illinois (you can also go to CNN and there's a video showing the image as well as some very creepy christian chanting which I had trouble linking to). Now personally I think it's inappropriate for someone to draw their image everywhere and litter the country with grafitti. Just take a look at some of the images we've been blessed with in the past year.

This last one is the image of Jesus, in case you don't see the obvious. So this brings me to my next question. Why the fuck can't any of these christian dieties draw worth anything?!? I mean, shit, if I had supernatural powers and I was going to put up an image to bring hope and increase the faith of my followers I'd make a beautiful picture on the moon, or in the sky. And the quality would be better than anyone's ever seen. But putting some crappy sketch of yourself in someone's toast? C'mon, how am I supposed to fear an all-powerful god when apparently he can't even make a half-decent sketch on an overpass?

But you know, maybe I just don't have enough faith. Maybe I'm using my brain too much and think that I know what Jesus and Mary look like. But perhaps I don't, and they are trying to correct my perception. This theory sounds pretty rock solid so I don't feel nervous jumping the gun and proclaiming my discovery. Behold, the following is what Jesus and Mary really looked like.

Please contact your local church and make them aware of all the false images they're helping to advance.

Highlighting a Few Good Blogs

2006-03-26T23:37:00.000-08:00

I intended to write something tonight, but I'm feeling a little under the weather. Goat STDs....Santorum was right, who would have guessed? So instead I'm going to just going to highlight a few blogs and interesting posts I saw on the web today.

Jesus' General-This blog is probably my favorite. Updated on a daily basis and generally very funny. If you're not reading it already, you should really check it out.
Rationality-This is a relatively new blog and today he had a post describing the breakup of he and his girlfriend of 2 years. Why did she break up with him? Because he wasn't a christian. So go on over there and let him know how he's much better off now.
Boxer the Brown Horse-Another new blog that I discovered. He started the blog less than a week ago and has posted almost every day since. He recently thanked me for taking his "comment virginity". Go get some sloppy seconds!

America-Global Defender of Christianity

2006-03-23T12:47:00.000-08:00

Yesterday Bush addressed the case of an Afghan man who might be given the death penalty for converting from islam to christianity, saying that he found it "deeply troubling that a country we helped liberate would hold a person to account because he chose a different religion over another". Right on Mr. President! I mean yeah, it's okay in the United States when christian and other faith-based organizations are given special funding and attention, when it is essentially a prerequisite for Americans to be christian in order to become president, and to allow religious bullshit to get in the way of science and the health of the country's citizens, but the death penalty, that steps over the line! Actually, can you imagine Bush giving a damn if it were a Muslim who was going to become an atheist? I doubt we'd hear anything about it. Hell, maybe we'd even supply them with the bullets. We know that Bush's dad doesn't like atheists. As he said in 1987 in an interview

Reporter: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.

Reporter: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Reporter (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.

     So our leaders believe that religiousity should be required for citizenship....hmmm....what's the difference between us and them again? Oh yeah, we don't kill atheists yet. We're so civilized.

     It's funny, we've "liberated" many countries before and their governments subsequently massacred their own people. We officially call those "struggling democracies". But if they're going to put a christian to death, well then, intervention must be necessary.

     But to be sure, killing someone from going from one silly superstition to another is an absolutely horrible thing. However, I do agree with the Muslim government on one issue. In the judicial proceedings they are questioning the christian's sanity =)

The Inferiority of the Two-Party System

2006-03-19T21:09:00.000-08:00

I remember back in middle/high school being in my history and political science classes and learning about the differences between the two party system that we in the US have and about the proportional representation system that exists in many other countries. Most of the class, including myself, found the two-party system to be clearly superior. When I look back at the "advantages" of the two-party (2P) system today, I am shocked at what I used to believe. But then again, I guess that's patriotism for ya. So let me go through the arguments that I found on a variety of websites in support of the 2P system and quickly note why none of it supports or even remotely justifies the 2P system.

In a 2P system, the ruling party is always voted in with a majority of the popular vote.

Lol, I had to start with this one. Besides being true by the very nature of the system, it means nothing. Hell, a dictator is voted in unanimously.
Unconventional ideas remain non-influential.

Again a true statement, but why should this be desirable? It basically says that unless you are in the mainstream, your opinion doesn't count. In a PR system minority opinions would be represented in proportion to how many people held those opinions. Sounds like that's the way it should be. This is especially important because those who are on the extreme side of an issue can also be the ones who are most correct. My fellow atheists should sympathize with this especially.
Policies and government do not change rapidly.

Public opinion doesn't generally change rapidly so I don't think this is an issue. Besides, this argument is basically that it is advantageous for a government to not be responsive to its people. Also, stability is definitely not a virtue if the thing in question is bad. Dictatorships are also pretty stable.
The dynamics of a 2P system drive both parties toward the middle of the political spectrum.

This statement would be true if it weren't for the fact that both political parties are in the pockets of the wealthy and so are both right-wing (the problem of financing a campaign makes this a necessity for them to even get elected). An example of how the parties pander to the wealthy at the expense of almost all Americans is health care. Roughly 80% of Americans favor universal health care, even if it would raise taxes. However, when it is discussed in the media it is often called "politically impossible". Days before the 2004 election, the New York Times reported that "there is so little political support for government intervention in the health care market in the United States that Senator John Kerry took pains in a recent presidential debate to say that his plan for expanding access to health insurance would not create a new government program", which is exactly what the people want. But of course they don't matter, the insurance and pharmaceutical companies have spoken. So in reality the 2P system is driven to the right of center by other forces. A PR system would make this more difficult as there would be more parties for the companies to have to buy off, and if they managed to buy them all, it wouldn't be difficult to introduce a new party into the system.

But for sake or argument, let's assume that the 2P system actually does drive politicians to the center of the political spectrum. This is still inferior to the PR system for the same reason that in elementary calculus it's better to approximate the area under a curve with more rectangles than with fewer.

This is the 2P system, with only two parties (rectangles) attempting to represent the roughly bell-curve of American political feeling.

Ouch, that sucks.

Here is a PR system with 8 parties participating.

Now that's much better!
2P systems make it easier for the voter.

Bullshit, Americans can juggle voting for a dozen or so Idols, top models, etc. every week. They can handle a few options every couple of years.

    There are also many advantages to the PR system, including a much higher voter turnout. This of course because people can vote for candidates that represent them and they do not feel powerless politically as many in America do. But I won't go into any of these here.

    I really don't even know how someone would argue in favor of the 2P system unless they were to employ some sort of elitist "the people don't know what's best for them" authoritarian apologetics. Yet it continues to be the law of the land...

    So what can we do? You can't really contact your local representative and complain because they aren't going to help you with it. I guess all one can do is to get involved in educating others and hopefully inspiring them to want a more representative democracy. Maybe one day enough people will care about it that they could force the government to take action and get the laws changed. Or what would be even cooler, we could distribute a bunch of Guy Fawkes masks and descend on the Capitol (for those of you who have seen V for Vendetta, which was awesome btw).

Stabbing the Homeless is the Lord's Work

2006-03-14T09:01:00.000-08:00

     Have you ever taken a nice stroll in the park and out of the corner of your eye you see a homeless man sleeping? Ever had that thought "damn, I'd like to kill that man in his sleep, just for the hell of it"? Sure, we all have. But what keeps many of us from doing it is the thought that if we were caught, we'd go to jail and even if we got out, it'd be impossible to find a job. Well, no need to worry any longer, because christians have made it very clear this past week that they will welcome you with open arms.

    James Tramel, a man who got out of prison on Sunday after serving nearly 20 years for he and his friend's participation in the stabbing of a sleeping man in a park (the police described it as a "thrill kill"), went straight to the Episcopal Church of the Good Shepherd in Berkeley to become an assistant pastor. The church and its members were extremely excited to have him come to teach them about morality and the way to live their lives. Linda Hicks, an older member of the church, said,"God came through!" Yep, congrats to you God. You had to kill a homeless man to do it, but you finally succeeded.

     I mean, it's one thing to forgive and forget and accept the man into the community again, but to ask him to teach you about ethics, now that's another thing. This just goes to show that christians will excuse any behavior as long as they send up the praise to Jesus, who incidentally, was also a homeless man.*

*In popular mythology of course.

got PRopaganda?

2006-03-03T00:01:00.000-08:00

In today's world the public relations industry is huge and its impact on society is undeniable. From convincing us that our razor with 3 blades isn't enough and that any decent man would use 5+1 to selling us our leaders as "one of us" and "compassionate", they are continuously affecting our thinking. Over half a million people serve in the public relations and marketing related industries in the United States alone. I think if you look carefully at the public relations industry, the news media, and many other sources of information that is available today you will notice that it is essentially complete propaganda which serves to advance the interests of the powerful elite, those who actually run our so-called democracy and who "own" a great portion of this world's resources. But rather than cite examples today I'd like to explore the origins of the PR industry, which I think suggest a great deal to its nature.

Public relations really got its start during WWI. Edward Bernays, known as the "father of public relations" got his start during this period. Bernays, a nephew of Sigmund Freud, talks about his realization that this kind of industry could be useful, saying

When I came back to the United States, I decided that if you could use propaganda for war, you could certainly use it for peace. And propaganda got to be a bad word because of the Germans....using it. So what I did was try to find some other words, so we found the words Council on Public Relations.

Bernays was always strikingly clear in what the role of PR would be in our society in the several books that he published, including Crystallizing Public Opinion, Propaganda, and The Engineering of Consent. In Propaganda, for instance, Bernays writes

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country

That doesn't sound like a democracy to me. Another great quote from the book is

If we understand the mechanism and the motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it? The recent practice of propaganda has proved that it is possible

Bernays also realized that politicians could get their interests served by the media as well. He notes

The newspaperman looks for [the politician] for news. And by his power of giving or withholding information the politician can often effectively censor political news. But being dependent, every day of the year and for year after year, upon certain politicians for news, the newspaper reporters are obliged to work in harmony with their news sources

These quotes are a very good representation of what is in Propaganda, page after page.

Now of course, just because the founder of the PR industry is extremely explicit in how its purpose is to spread propaganda and to be used as a tool for the powerful few to control everyone else does not mean that we are awash in propaganda today. But I certainly hope this makes you look at the issue more carefully. If you'd like to learn a little about how the media is used for propaganda, both by the government and by powerful business interests (as if they were two different things!), I recommend Manufacturing Consent-The Political Economy of the Mass Media by Noam Chomsky. If Chomsky is new to you, you should really look into his writings and speeches. I really believe that until you recognize the propaganda that bombards you on a daily basis as such you will cease to make progress in your understanding of the world, at least in the political and economic aspects of it. And I don't simply mean Fox News, and it's a sick joke to call it a news station. There's a better fucking case for Christ. I mean all major media outlets, and I urge you to look into it.

Random Interesting Media

2006-02-16T18:41:00.000-08:00

Just a few things to entertain you.

First, this song has been stuck in my head today. And secondly, you should check out a clip from the Daily show titled This Week In God:Limbo. It's hilarious. Rarely does something relatively mainstream make a joke like that that makes religion look absolutely ridiculous and completely made-up.

Actually, while you're watching Daily Show videos, check out this one also. Corddry's segment is very funny.

Documentary: Why We Fight

2006-02-13T16:54:00.000-08:00

I just got done watching the documentary Why We Fight and enjoyed it much more than I had thought I would. I had seen some fairly poor documentaries on related topics before and thought that this one might be similar, but it was definitely better. You can view the trailer here. It's basically about the military-industrial complex and the forces that bring America into war. Here's the synopsis from their website

WHY WE FIGHT, the new film by Eugene Jarecki which won the Grand Jury Prize at the 2005 Sundance Film Festival, is an unflinching look at the anatomy of the American war machine, weaving unforgettable personal stories with commentary by a “who’s who” of military and beltway insiders. Featuring John McCain, William Kristol, Chalmers Johnson, Gore Vidal, Richard Perle and others, WHY WE FIGHT launches a bipartisan inquiry into the workings of the military industrial complex and the rise of the American Empire.

Inspired by Dwight Eisenhower’s legendary farewell speech (in which he coined the phrase “military industrial complex”), filmmaker Jarecki (THE TRIALS OF HENRY KISSINGER) surveys the scorched landscape of a half-century’s military adventures, asking how – and telling why – a nation of, by, and for the people has become the savings-and-loan of a system whose survival depends on a state of constant war.

The film moves beyond the headlines of various American military operations to the deeper questions of why – why does America fight? What are the forces – political, economic, ideological – that drive us to fight against an ever-changing enemy?

“Frank Capra made a series of films during World War II called WHY WE FIGHT that explored America’s reasons for entering the war,” Jarecki notes. “Today, with our troops engaged in Iraq and elsewhere for reasons far less clear, I think it’s crucial to ask the questions: ‘Why are we doing what we are doing? What is it doing to others? And what is it doing to us?’”

If you have the opportunity to watch it, I would encourage you to do so. Only if you live in a very open-minded community will you be able to find it in theatres or for rent. You might be able to buy it online somewhere but I didn't find it at first glance (nothing on Amazon except a book by the same title which criticizes those who dissent on the everlasting "war on terror"). There's various places to download it online, including ChomskyTorrents.org.

The Church of Patriotism

2006-02-09T21:44:00.000-08:00

     There’s been a lot of discussion this past week about Muslims getting upset about the cartoons published in the Danish newspapers. People have noted that it is absolutely horrible to threaten violence on other human beings simply because a non-living symbol that you hold very dear is insulted. And of course it is, but I don’t think that many of the people who criticize the Muslims realize that they are guilty of the very same sort of behavior themselves.
     And no, I’m not talking about other theists, but the characteristics are very similar to a religion. I’m talking about patriotism. Patriotism of one’s country will allow a normally sane person to support their country even while it does harm to others. Patriotism invites an “us” vs “them” mentality that usually resorts to “us” being superior in at least a moral sense. Patriotism allows one to believe that the occupation of another’s country is for their own good. These things are all very similar to the beliefs that Christians would have.
     I feel like I have a good understanding of the similarities between religion and patriotism because I used to be an extremely hard-core patriot. And I mean fucking hard-core. Even when I knew of US involvement in propping up dictators in foreign countries which subsequently massacred their people, my faith in the country didn’t waver. I felt that while the events were unfortunate, it was necessary for us to secure countries which we had strategic interests in because we were the country that was going to spread freedom over the globe (“Spread the Word”, so to speak). I found the national anthem to be amazing, and sometimes I would feel so moved my skin would tingle (“I could feel Jesus”). When I was young I looked forward to the day when I would be wealthy and could give more than my fair share of taxes to support the country that I love. And I bought the Desert Storm trading cards and supported our military like it was a sports team.
     But back to the issue at hand. Outrage at the mocking of a religious symbol. Threatening or committing violence against those who do. In some way this is similar to those who wish to ban the burning of the American flag. It’s a revered item for many people and they think that protecting it is worth the infringement on freedom of expression and free speech. But this similarity isn’t that big of a deal, definitely not worth me making a post about, but it was when I saw this. A Republican representative from Missouri has introduced a bill which would authorize the use of force against someone who was about to desecrate the flag. And no, I’m not talking about the use of force by a police officer, but by anyone who suspects that someone is about to dishonor the flag. The person committing the violence could also not be charged with assault or theft as a result of them defending the flag. But don’t worry, the bill won’t allow the use of deadly force to stop the burning of the flag, but I bet you could argue it as an act of self-defense after the fight got underway.

     Anyone who would support this or even the banning of burning the American flag has no business criticizing Muslims for their anger over the cartoons of their beloved "prophet".

Documentary: WAL-MART-The High Cost of Low Price

2006-02-05T22:54:00.000-08:00

    This past week I finally got around to seeing WAL-MART-The High Cost of Low Price. Trailer here. Overall I think it was pretty well-made. The beginning had a fair amount of small "mom and pop" store people talking about how they were put out of business by Wal-Mart, and because of the lack of really any argument at all during this portion, I didn't find it very convincing. But I can understand that if they want the documentary to appeal to a broad range of people, especially to the everday person, emotional "arguments" are an important component of anything that's going to motivate people to do something.
     It got better though. Discussion started to focus less on emotional issues and more on data, such as the amount of money that local and state governments have to pay to support the employees of Wal-Mart, as well as the amount that the Walton family gives to charity (they are all in the top 10 richest people in the US, I believe, but give less than 1% to charity; compare this to Bill Gates' ~50%). The Walton family is definitely out to help the rich get richer. One thing that deeply disturbed me was the fact that the Walton family had built themselves an underground bunker compound in case of a nuclear attack. In a world where corporations decide who, when, and why we fight, it's a scary thing to think that those who are calling the shots might be less than deathly afraid of a nuclear showdown.
     I also didn't realize how aggressive Wal-Mart is in fighting the formation of unions. Former Wal-Mart regional trainers talked about the extensive measures that Wal-Mart employs in order to combat union formation. This can often include cameras in-store, a rapid reaction force that will fly in from Bentonville (HQ) within a day's notice, and sometimes even a spy van which parks outside the building to listen to employee conversations. When talk of a union being needed starts to pop up, those in the response force from corporate headquarters take charge of the store and begin to fire people in the attempt to decrease the proportion of "union-minded" employees.
    And then the documentary moved to Wal-Mart's Chinese factories. Sometimes I hear people argue that while Wal-Mart may not pay its employees much, it overall is a force for good because it provides goods at a lower price to the consumer. I believe this segment on the overseas factories shows that any price benefit that Wal-Mart gives to Americans, it takes much more than that from those who are economically forced to work in its factories overseas. They interviewed a few people who worked in those factories, who gave some insight into the horrible working and living conditions (they have a "dorm" on-site, which they pay for out of their paycheck regardless if they choose to live there or not) as well as how they are told to lie to inspectors when they come to examine the conditions. And of course all this while they flood the TV channels with their propaganda of being a good, wholesome company.
    All in all, I thought it was a good documentary. Out of the many documentaries I've seen recently, this is the one that would probably be most persuasive to the largest amount of people. If anyone is interested in buying it, you can buy it from Amazon for $12.95, plus shipping. Alternatively, you can buy it directly from the producers for the same price by clicking on this link, and I receive $5 as a result! Plus, in order to help the documentary sell more copies, I'll send you back 4 of those dollars via mail (minus $1 for the stamp & envelope).

In Solidarity With Those Who Support Free Speech

2006-02-04T12:09:00.000-08:00

The Gradual Transformation of American Society

2006-01-31T22:05:00.000-08:00

Before you read this, I think it'd be helpful for you to go read at least the first half of this article. I have a few issues with the way she presented some things later on, but during the first half she's quoting a book They Thought They Were Free:The Germans, 1933-45 by Milton Mayer, which is an account of the Nazi takeover by a German citizen of the time. It discusses how life in Germany transformed from what it was to the Nazi Germany that we are all so familiar with. And I think it sheds some light on the dangerous situation we face here in the United States.

For those of you who didn't read it, the article talks about how the changes in Germany happened so slowly, so imperceptibly. The change occurred with each step not being too radical from the position previously held, so that there was never that one event which was so outrageous that the German people would be shocked and put an end to it. The situation is actually very similar now.

Sure, to you everything seems pretty much as usual. The Super Bowl is going to be on this Sunday, your local pizzeria still makes that great pizza that you love, your son won his soccer game this week, work is going well, and people on the streets seem like they're happy. Things, to you, appear "good". Certainly no mass graves anywhere, so what is their to be so upset about?

The thing is, while you may have not noticed, things have changed dramatically. Those smiling faces you see on the street now have quite a few new ideas in their head that they either agree with or accept as normal. They think that it's important for the government to be able to torture, to spy on American citizens, to give huge tax breaks to the rich while we're fighting a war and running a huge deficit. They think that those who are against the war are simply "America-haters" and "blame America firsters" Unless they think it's a liberal lie, they believe that corruption is prevalent on both sides of the spectrum and are beginning to simply accept that as normal. They think that Alito's views are nothing to be upset about, certainly nothing to warrant a filibuster. To want peace is to betray your country and let the terrorists win. To bring up the issue that companies with political ties shouldn't receive no-bid contracts is also unpatriotic. The media is liberal, and they must shift the news to the right if they want to get the truth. And so on.

Point is, things have changed. One tiny issue at a time. The torture issue came up and the media pundits "debated" it for a few days. None of the guests on the show were outraged, and all of them were smiling. Must not be that big of a deal then, thinks the average American. Next issue, same story. The nature of society is changed continually, but only by little amounts at a time. Mayer writes

Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, regretted, that . . . one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.
Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. . . . You wait for the one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. . . .

But the one great shocking occasion . . . never comes. . . . That's the difficulty.

Often I think that as long as America doesn't have concentration camps where we're gassing Jews, most Americans will be completely unable to see the similarities between a fascist society and that which America is starting to create. And so they will remain silient, as ideas of what is right and wrong, true and untrue are distorted to drastic proportions. Their foods, favorite sports, and daily life remain "normal", so they don't worry about it. And besides, aren't Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie having a baby?

A Man Lied to Oprah!

2006-01-26T19:15:00.000-08:00

I don't know if you all are as torn up about this story as I am, but it was just on 4 different news stations when I turned on the TV. Apparently this man lied to Oprah about some things in a book that he wrote! The media is really tearing him apart. Can you imagine what they'd do if one of our elected leaders lied about something (everything) and continued to cover it up with lies (and start a war)?

An Educational Time Killer

2006-01-20T17:05:00.000-08:00

If anyone's looking to kill some time, there's a pretty elaborate anti-Bush game here. The game also has educational portions which discuss things such as the budget, taxes, the environment, employment, religion, and terrorism.

Are Americans happy prisoners or progressives without strategies?
	Happy prisoners
	Progressives without strategies
	Both, but more of the former
	Both, but more of the latter

pollcode.com free polls

Political Idealogy
	Anarchism
	Christian Democracy
	Communism
	Communitarianism
	Conservatism
	Fascism
	Feminism
	Green Politics
	Islamism
	Liberalism
	Capitalist Libertarianism
	Nationalism
	Social Democracy
	Socialism

Free polls from Pollhost.com