how to manipulate voters: the DNC performs salome's dance

The RNC horror show has passed and given way to Salome’s Dance AKA the DNC. This is the phase in a presidential election cycle in which the distinctions drawn between presidential candidates – often sharply – during the Democrats’ primaries are hypocritically (but seductively) erased in favour of a mystical “party unity.” Hence, Hillary Clinton’s coronation in the most hyperbolic terms, laced with a disturbing appropriation of Ronald Reagan and right-wing cheerleading. DNC malconduct? What malconduct?

For Sanders supporters and everyone else who hoped that Democrats would be bold enough to field a candidate not named Clinton, the re-alignment has been jarring. But following tradition, Lesser Evil Logic has nevertheless taken hold among those who don’t accept Clinton’s merits as a presidential candidate with Clinton cast as the Lesser Evil to Trump’s Huge Evil. To which I say this:

The more honest of these Lesser Evil voters will at least heave heavy sighs with every proclamation that Trump must be defeated, after which Clinton and Democrats can be held accountable for implementing progressive policies. Meanwhile, a strong counter-reaction has arisen directed towards the Bernie or Bust folk or anyone else rejecting Clinton’s Lesser Evil Logic. At a convention hostile to Sanders delegates, Clinton supporters are directed to drown out vocal dissenters with counter-chants. Wealthy Clinton donors gripe about Sanders supporters who won’t go away. Third parties like the Green Party are dismissed as having no chance, and a vote for Jill Stein is considered equivalent to a vote for Trump.

When instilling fear of the Bogeyman doesn’t work, the shaming of non-conformist voters becomes personal. Among the various condescending attempts to lock the rabble into step is a pastime favoured by aging adults:  blaming “kids these days,” in this case those viewed as spoiled bratty narcissists unwilling to make the hard self-sacrificing choices like mature adults. Characterizing an entire generation based on anecdotal experience reflects precisely the sort of prejudiced attitude we condemn in right-wingers, but groupthink is a universal human failing. (Personally, I can think of many Millenials who are far from lazy; social entrepreneurs who use business for socially valuable work.)

If you’re not a lazy Milennial unwilling to adult-up and accept reality, commentators like Rolling Stone’s Joshua Holland (RNC and DNC Showed There Are Two Teams in America – Choose Wisely) will gladly bludgeon you with reminders that there only two sides to America, and you’d better prove your political sophistication by A) accepting the polarity and B) picking the right one or else – Trump!

Almost as galling as the repeated attempts to present Hillary Clinton as someone her record says she isn’t is the persistent description of American politics as a two-party system. From a propagandist perspective, promoting this myth makes sense for both the establishment right and left as each side can use the other to motivate their bases with the Monstrous Other that must be stopped. The media, of course, embraces the polarity with enthusiasm since it allows them to turn politics into sports and reality TV. It all works to delegitimize dissent and erase criticism.

Here’s what establishment politicians and the media don’t want people to think about too deeply, lest it upset the balance of power: America is not a two-party state. There’s nothing in the Constitution that limits the number of political parties to two, nor has congress passed any legislation to that effect. What we have is bad math in the way votes are counted, a system that intrinsically allows paradoxical and undemocratic results. For example, suppose we have four presidential candidates in the running. The votes split 43%, 34%, 16%, and 7%. Under the current system, the victor wins with 43% even though 57% of voters did not vote for him/her. It is precisely this sort of problematic outcome that ranked voting / instant runoffs methods are intended to eliminate.

We saw in 2000 how a simple majority-wins voting system doesn’t work. Instead of admitting that the system is inherently flawed, however, the media gave us instead the Nader Effect (which is itself based on a misunderstanding that Democrats and their media enablers willingly exploit for their own benefit – see Truthdig’s Don’t Fall for It: The Nader Myth and Your 2016 Vote). Enter the spoiler, the result of distinguishing between “correct” and” incorrect” votes in a system judged by its outcome and not for the information it provides us about voter preferences across the board. Of course, “spoiler” is just tantrum-speak for “you didn’t vote the way I wanted you to, so you’re a bad voter.” We could just as easily describe Al Gore as the spoiler for Nader’s presidency. It’s an arrogant peer pressure tactic, one of many intended to bully voters into supporting the Democratic Party when they believe their political interest lie elsewhere. (Another tactic is mockery of the kind practiced by celebrities like Sarah Silverman and Samantha Bee). But here’s the rub: partisan Democrats use the same arguments at every election: elect a Democrat or flush the Supreme Court, Civil Rights, and any chance of progress down history’s privy. (Republicans, of course, have their own versions centered on “freedom” and money.) It’s an argument they make regardless of who the Republican nominee is. Granted, Trump brings a special kind of crazy, but a Cruz, Rubio, or Kasich would be equally problematic in terms of achieving progressive goals. Unfortunately, political campaigns have a desensitizing effect, which prompts greater and greater hysteria to achieve the desired fearfulness.

Which brings me to the biggest con of this whole election: the demand that voters surrender their reason and pay the price for craven leadership and political failures on the part of Democrats and mainstream Lefties. Democrats have had plenty of chances to reform; rigging the system against Sanders, who is meaningfully distinguishable from Republicans unlike Clinton, is but one example of their refusal to do so. The mainstream Left has had plenty of time, particularly since 2000, to form a non-partisan movement that could have pivoted, for example, to the Green Party (which has long promoted a platform intended to address structural inequalities and achieve progress on key issues spanning electoral reform and campaign financing, the environment and health care, and economic relief) in the event of Democratic intransigence. But complacency between elections on the part of party and community leaders has only fueled the desperate, deceptive, and manipulative logic of Lesser Evilism. It shouldn’t be a surprise that some voters are fed up and willing to act against the groupthink.

vote for a third party or don’t vote – or else

While discussing Sanders’ endorsement of Clinton with a friend the other day – a friend who thinks Clinton would be a “solid president” – I was surprised to be dismissed with a charge familiar to marginalized radicals: it’s all just talk unless you vote (and perhaps even work on behalf of your candidate of choice).

Before even considering the underlying vote fetish in our civic culture that sees the act of voting in-and-of-itself as legitimizing political opinion, the dismissal ignores the political reality American citizens aren’t the only ones with a vested interested in who occupies the Oval Office. Given the United States’ global influence, the entire world has a stake in American presidential politics; their interpretation of US policy is surely more than “just talk.” More directly, permanent residents (e.g. non-citizen green card holders) who pay taxes have as much of a directly vested interest in the country’s governance as citizens do. After all, their tax money goes towards funding the government just like an American citizen’s. So if you’re going to take my money in taxes, you’re going to take my opinion on how it’s being spent – and if you don’t like hearing my opinion you can give me my money back.

There’s more than taxation with and without representation to consider, however. The decision to vote or not vote relates to the decision to become a citizen or remain a permanent resident, which is a political decision in and of itself. Political chauvinists may denounce the non-voter, like the non-citizen, as politically irrelevant but that’s a self-serving way to avoid the uncomfortable truth that declining to vote, like declining to become a citizen, is a considered and purposeful response to political realities in the United States.

To unpack the voting issues, I’d direct you to CounterPunch, where Jason Goldfarb ably dismantles the arguments levied against non-voters.

The question asked is always “how do we bring the non-voters into our political process?” or “how can we engage voters?” but rarely “why are these voters not engaged” and never “is their disengagement correct? Should we join them in solidarity?”
…
Not only does the condescending attitude towards non-voters only further alienate them but such an attitude is also un-democratic. In the place of logical discussion are patronizing platitudes. The injunction Vote!” as an obvious, self-evident, truth masks the fact that there is no evidence to support such a claim. When every statistical indicator tells us that majorities are not happy with the state of democracy it is alarming that such a position is never taken seriously.

He then takes on several myths about not voting, many in the context of the 2016 presidential election. The piece is well worth reading on its own, along with others written from a specifically anarchist perspective over at infoshop.org, but the general point is that the decision not to vote is just as much a political decision as choosing to vote. While it can be an act of protest and an expression of political ideology, it can equally be a manifestation of indifference to a system undeserving of validation through participation.

For Bonus Points …

To provide context, however, it’s worth considering the fundamental quality of being a citizen as represented by voting. Underlying the injunction that voting isn’t just a right to be exercised or not at one’s discretion but a responsibility, nay, a sacred duty is the assumption that citizens have given their consent to the system. And by system, I refer to the entire apparatus of government-driven social organization – the nation-state. Lysander Spooner’s treatise No Treason comes to mind, calling into question the right of any nation to exist beyond the consent of the governed and pointing out how governments both democratic and despotic do not actually rest on consent but rather force.
Spooner is rather long-winded, so here’s a key idea in regards to the US Constitution:

The necessity for the consent of "the people" is implied in this declaration. The whole authority of the Constitution rests upon it. If they did not consent, it was of no validity. Of course it had no validity, except as between those who actually consented. No one's consent could be presumed against him, without his actual consent being given, any more than in the case of any other contract to pay money, or render service … The most that can be inferred from the form, "We, the people," is, that the instrument offered membership to all "the people of the United States;" leaving it for them to accept or refuse it, at their pleasure.
...
Furthermore, those who originally agreed to the Constitution, could thereby bind nobody that should come after them. They could contract for nobody but themselves. They had no more natural right or power to make political contracts, binding upon succeeding generations, than they had to make marriage or business contracts binding upon them. [Emphasis added.]

And therein lies the point: if people haven’t consented to the electoral system in the first place, then by what justification can refusing to participate in it (for whatever reason), while nevertheless discussing and critiquing it, be considered politically illegitimate? Therein lies the rub for the system’s defenders, and why it is important for political skeptics to be steadfast in their critiques even when pressured to conform.

So vote, if you like, and vote for whoever you want for whatever reason. If Hillary Clinton is your candidate, vote for her. If you remain suspicious of establishment politics in general and Clinton in particular, for your own sake check out an alternative like the Green Party (or the libertarian party, if you skew conservative). But don’t buy into the psychological manipulation telling you that refusing to vote isn’t a valid political action. After all, when we don’t like a company’s product, we don’t buy it. And if we seriously object to a company’s business practices, we agitate for a boycott. So how shall we respond to a political system that is so clearly broken?

farewell to the revolution - part 1

When Bernie Sanders announced his campaign to run against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, a cynical scenario came to mind: Sanders would talk a grand progressive game, sweep up all the people frustrated by President Obama’s neoliberal administration, and deliver his supporters to a candidate whose progressiveness in everything but social issues can be charitably described as Republican-lite. It would be a neat shell game of establishment politics driven once again by fear of the Republican presidential candidate.

The surprise was that Sanders ran a campaign that seemed authentically revolutionary in the limited scope allowed by the American political system. Although not a socialist in the technical sense of the word, his New Deal liberalism was a fresh drink of water in a political system parched of everything but corporate and military-industrial interests.

Naturally, the system conspired against him. The media and political elites (e.g. the DNC), championing a de facto Clinton nomination, consistently (and with great condescension) echoed the narrative of Sanders as political outlier and usurper. Throughout all this, Trump was made to play the role of Democrat’s bogeyman better than the media could have hoped, although Ted Cruz would have been equally noxious. Naturally, it became even easier for establishment politicians and their media cheerleaders to rally around Clinton. With the dismissive and reluctant coverage provided to Sanders – in contrast to the obsessive reality-TV coverage of Trump and the sycophantic support for Clinton – it’s no surprise that Sanders ultimately didn’t win the nomination.

Regardless of Sanders’ policy difference with Clinton and Republicans, there were reasons at the outset not to feel the Bern too deeply. There was, of course, the matter of his so-called socialism, which remains a provocative label misapplied to old-school liberalism more than an expression of radical anti-capitalist politics. For committed socialists, the mislabeling was rather jarring. There was also the fact that his record didn’t neatly fit in with the values and policies espoused by deep progressives. Apart from his willingness to criticize Israel and put in a good word for Palestinian dignity, Sanders’ voting record on foreign policy issues is a bit dodgier than his reductive assertion that, unlike Clinton, he voted against the Iraq War. The same could be said of his voting on domestic issues, although in this respect he is better than most politicians. See Ron Jacobs’ The Problem with Bernie at CounterPunch.) But the most obvious omen of Sanders eventual capitulation were his own words. Most notably, Sanders was adamant about third-party candidacies as spoilers, making it clear when asked about running as an independent candidate that “I made the promise that I would not, and I will keep that promise.” (See “No, Bernie Sanders still isn’t going to run as an independent” at the Washington Post )

It was there all along – but it’s easy to see why Sanders’ supporters glossed over it as the primaries picked up momentum.

(to be continued)

social movements of conservation and evolution

If we were to distill society into a dichotomy of impulses, one that underlies not only cultural attitudes but the narrative structure that defines political discourse, the poles would have to be conservatism and progressivism. With each generation, both in terms of government and population, as well as paradigm shifts brought about by advances in science and technology, the fundamental challenge for any society is learning to adapt to changing circumstances without losing its core character. That is, without losing its core character in a sudden, cataclysmic change that can create social unrest – as opposed to the change in character that can occur gradually over the course of a society’s unfolding history. Although by no means the only possible or necessary dichotomy, it thus seems reasonable to interpret societal dynamics on the basis of the ideas and practices society conserves and those it changes in an effort to maintain stability.

Unfortunately, the discussion about these two inherent impulses is too often reduced to the simplistic all or nothing confrontation of Right vs Left, Conservative vs Liberal, and the straw tigers (the metaphor is deliberately mixed) that emerge from both. Although there are differences between how each “side” presents the other (to be partly glib, liberals rail against social injustice while conservatives rail against liberals), interprets policy, and governs in practice, it is the massing of partisan ideological forces that creates the problem.  

The point isn’t to call a plague on both these houses, however well deserved, or to repeat reasons why the partisan divide is antithetical to good reasoning, but to suggest that the rhetorical trappings of the Conservative vs Liberal distinction ultimately obscures the character of the conservative and progressive impulses by focusing on rigid idealistic categories. Dogma, in other words. And what is being obscured is not the product of a dialectic but the way in which conservation and progress essentially occupy the same space and time while simultaneously delineating opposing movements. Conservation and progress function as opposing forces that nevertheless come together in the end.

To understand what this means in practical terms, we can begin by sketching how the rhetorical manifestation of these impulses ultimately shares a similar set of assumptions. In the simplistic pundit terms, conservatives are right to be suspicious of government excess, to emphasize personal responsibility, and to value family and community. Interestingly, these are also liberal values albeit in a context rejected by conservatives, namely, the view that inequality is in itself a social problem. There is a risk, of course, in drawing that contrast. Definitions of conservatism and liberalism are all too easily adjusted for the sake of scoring rhetorical points. However, it seems sensible to enough to suggest that there is agreement when it comes to the basic human goals of safety, happiness, and social harmony – the difference is methodological, and ideological differences coagulate around differences in method.

Consequently, the idea of conservation, narrowly defined as preservative function, is necessary to keep within society those ideas and practices that work. To this is opposed progress, which strives to develop new ideas and practices as solutions to existing problems. Both serve as a counterpoint, in that conservation rejects change for its own sake, and thus the false positives of progress, while progressiveness rejects the movement from function to dysfunction when tradition is ossified into the status quo. What we are left with is something evolutionary, but not in the sense of “social Darwinism,” and certainly not in the misapplied conception of evolution as a kind of teleological process. Rather, it is a matter of adapting to circumstances that are sometimes variable, even volatile, and sometimes persistent. While I don’t want to suggest some sort of societal dynamic that is homeostatic in its effect – that would imply that a given society has a natural balance to which it returns to when disturbed, an implication that is upended by historic examples of large-scale upheavals (think French Revolution) – I do think we need a better conceptual framework to encapsulate the tension between conservation and progress that is necessary for society to exist.

As a point of clarification, it’s worth noting here that I define “society” narrowly, to some extent, as the numerical aggregate of individuals. Yet it is also necessary to account for the fact that the dynamics of the aggregate can in turn influence the individual. So while I would reject the idea of society as an emergent organism that is greater than its constituent individuals, I would suggest that insofar as individuals have common needs, shared cultures, and political/economic cohesion there is a construct we could refer to as “society.”

Returning to an organizing concept that brings together conservation and progress (or evolution) while also refuting the often vaguely articulated partisan distinction of conservative versus liberal, it might helpful to shed to idea of social engineering that is implicit in policy. Although the term is unpleasant, as it suggests an active and mechanistic manipulation of society towards a particular goal, that is nevertheless what goes on when governments pass laws. Certain behaviours are punished, others are rewarded or, at least, tacitly accepted simply by not being disallowed.

But what if instead of engineering, with all the rigidity that comes with the concept, we turned towards design as a conceptual model? As an active disciplines informed by give and take, a feedback loop between problem, solution, context, and the way in which the solution itself alters the context thereby altering the overall system, design offers a useful analogy to interpreting policy. To borrow a cliché, the concern is on figuring out how to fit society’s form to the various functions we want it to perform, recognizing that it’s not a question of function then form, or form vs function, but that good design is the result of function and form working through each other.

Thus, among the qualities of a desired conceptual framework are:

• Seeing society, its strengths and weaknesses, as it is.
• A focus on practical rather than ideologically pure solutions.
• Working with the fluidity inherent in social organization.

So: fact-based (“reality” based), practical, and adaptive, resulting in the wisdom to know what to conserve and maintain in society and what to reform or revolutionize. Is it even worth labeling this to distinguish it from the pop-punditry terms “liberal” and “conservative?” If so, what word would be suitable?

Ideas, comments, suggestions ?

If You Value Freedom, Make Pot Legal : THE FRONT PAGE ONLINE

Note: This was a quick editorial written in anticipation of the November 2 elections in which Proposition 19 aimed to legalize pot. Alas, the measure did not pass.

You don’t have to smoke pot or approve of smoking to make it legal because the issue isn’t really about that controversial little plant. The issue is freedom. That sounds melodramatic, I know, but bear with me. If the government said you can’t play sports, would you agree? I’m guessing you wouldn’t. If the government decided to ban all cars, wouldn’t that be tyrannical? I think so, and I’ll bet you do, too. So why should we let pot be illegal?

Read the rest of...If You Value Freedom, Make Pot Legal : THE FRONT PAGE ONLINE

Praise for a Conservative Manifesto : THE FRONT PAGE ONLINE

Are pigs flying? Has the sky fallen? Is this a sign of the apocalypse? It must be, because this week's column is all about...

Praise for a Conservative Manifesto : THE FRONT PAGE ONLINE

TFPO column: a second look at the man from plains

Who is Jimmy Carter? A failed president? An Israeli hater? A statesman? The documentary film Jimmy Carter: the Man from Plains prompted a second look at an easily dismissed, and still relevant, figure in American - global - politics. And so, at TFPO...

A Second Look at the Man From Plains

TFPO column: fake anarchists, useless politicians, and fox news

Three pet peeves:

Fake Anarchists, Useless Politicians, and Fox News

TFPO column: there's no healthcare signal in the noisy debate

The title says it all for this week's rant at The Front Page Online:

There's No Healthcare Signal in the Noisy Debate

TFPO column: playing with the budget...and getting burned

There's no winning when it comes to the California budget, especially when we remain so confused about the status of the "public" in our political ideologies. Find out for yourself with some cool, but disturbing, budget balancing tools.

Playing with the Budget...and Getting Burned

What do you think California's Powers That Be should do about the budget? What choices did you make in regards to California's budget? I'd love it if you sounded off in the comments directly below.

TFPO column: the healthcare debate - no stomach for anarchy

In the ongoing debate over healthcare, it's quite frustrating to watch as the PTBs dance - if that inelegant foot stomping can be called dancing - around universal, public coverage. At least non-centrist Democrats are pushing in the right direction.

And while I still haven't gotten to the point I want to arrive at - the California budget - I stand entirely by my accusations of philosophical cowardice. Because before we can discuss healthcare, there's still some detritus to clear away in regards to the notion of the "public."

The Healthcare Debate: No Stomach for Anarchy

TFPO column

The debate around healthcare is irritating to a large part because of the confusion within American culture - a kind of schizo schism in which the "public good" is automatically equated with the evils of fascism. Even socialism, which isn't identical to communism, is the second deadliest epithet after "liberal." Yet, as someone who has experienced both Canadian and American healthcare, I still prefer the Canadian model even though I have to admit that it's not perfect and needs overhauling. There's actually more to it than the reason why "public" is a dirty word, but there's only so much room in a column. This week, then, is sort of an unofficial first part to a multiple-part series on the notion of the public.

The Healthcare Debate: Who's Afraid of the Public?

TFPO column: ralph nader - an inconvenient man?

I’m currently reading Simulacra and Simulation by Jean Baudrillard, a book I’ve been meaning to read for some time. Baudrillard’s concept of hyperreality in particular intrigues me. So far, it’s a bit like swimming in quicksand. He is not an especially analytical writer/philosopher/theorist, in that his text does fall into the traditional reason/evidence-supported thesis model. For example, he declares that Disneyland is a simulation of America, to the point that America is, itself, Disneyland – a simulacrum that replaces reality.

Disneyland exists in order to hide that it is the "real" country, all of "real" America that is Disneyland (a bit like prisons are there to hide that it is the social in its entirety, in its banal omnipresence, that is carceral). Disneyland is presented as imaginary in order to make us believe that the rest is real, whereas all of Los Angeles and the America that surrounds it are no longer real, but belong to the hyperreal order and to the order of simulation. It is no longer a question of a false representation of reality (ideology) but of concealing the fact that the real is no longer real, and thus of saving the reality principle.

Interesting, but he doesn’t really elaborate or prove his idea through logical or empirical means. Maybe he’s not playing with a full alphabet of letters. There’s a glimmer of something, though, but considering that Baudrillard tends to write obscurely, it’s hard not to suspect that this is why postmodernism gets such a bad rap. Perhaps even more so than Derrida, Baudrillard’s writings need explanation from in order to extract something sensible. (Although, even these “explanations” tend to be declarative, of the order that “Baudrillard says X,” which doesn’t help.) After all, what are we do with sentences like “If one envisions the entire cycle of any act or event in a system where linear continuity and dialectical polarity no longer exist, in a field unhinged by simulation, all determination evaporates, every act is terminated at the end of the cycle having benefited everyone and having been scattered in all directions.”

Derrida, I can understand. Baudrillard, however, has yet to be proven. Simulacra and Simulation is a carnival of free-association. Having said that, I’m rather interested in the transformation of Ralph Nader from public hero to public pariah. Although you won’t find a hint of Baudrillard in this week’s column, I’m wondering if perhaps Ralph Nader doesn’t exist…replaced, as it were, by a simulation of Nader manipulated through the media to serve various political and economical interests. From the heroic to the destructive, Nader is lost as an agency, replaced instead with a monetized sign-value whose currency trades at various, mostly decreasing, values depending on one’s agenda. But there I go, getting weird. I’ll stop and refer you back to normal speak in this week’s column, in which I truly come to appreciate Ralph Nader and his efforts to better the country.

Ralph Nader: An Inconvenient Man?

And I highly recommended seeing "An Unreasonable Man."

TFPO column: conservative and liberal reactions to Obama: now that's irony

It's been open season on Obama ever since he's been elected. For the most part, I've been trying to withhold judgment despite misgivings about some of the things he has and has not done. This week, I join in the fray...although I'm really after the whole discussion and set of expectations dominating the national conversation.

Conservative and Liberal Reactions to Obama: Now That's Irony

California's message to Sacramento

It’s no surprise California voters rejected all the budget ballot measures save one – the restriction on legislators’ raises during times of fiscal crisis. Beyond the general problem of asking voters to make decisions on issues they have neither the expertise to interpret effectively nor the time to research thoroughly, these were lousy measures. 1A had uncertain fiscal effects according to the legislative analyst. 1B’s effects depended on how the constitution would be interpreted – a structural ambiguity that is very worrying. 1C borrowed against theoretical future lottery earnings – a gamble that those earnings would, in fact, materialize. 1D and 1E were convoluted shell games that maybe screwed over children and the mentally ill or maybe not. Who knows? The point is that despite the apocalyptic warnings that not voting for these bad measures was worse than approving, there would still be a major deficit ($15 billion vs. $21 billion) and it was uncertain whether would sacrifice the long-term in favour of a quick fix. The message from voters to Sacramento is, essentially: quit fucking around.

If the legislature were serious, they would immediately put forth an amendment to get rid of the supermajority since clearly the high requirement isn’t helping to achieve consensus. I’ve been receiving eMails from various campaigns pushing for that. When neither rock nor hard place will budge, deadlock after deadlock and delay after delay is inevitable and one of the world’s largest economics just can’t take the strain. I don’t like getting rid of the supermajority requirement, but at least there is still some accountability in the form of the general election. Next, there has to be the acceptance that getting out of this hole is going to be painful. Either we cut spending or increase revenues. It’s time to take some radical, long overdue measures:

• Decriminalize pot and other drugs, as well as prostitution. Enforce health standards and establish taxation guidelines.
• Diminish the prison population, and thus the cost of maintaining said population, by reducing/removing prison terms for non-violent offenders.
• Allow the hemp industry to flourish.
• Expand gambling. (Note to self: find out if Larry Flynt still wants to be governor.)

These aren’t new ideas. I’m certainly not the first to put them out there. And there’s nothing revolutionary about pointing out that unless the State is willing to take innovative steps towards addressing the budget crisis instead of hiding behind the Republican cut-all-taxes cookie cutter or the Democratic money-tree growth formula. But perhaps the prospect of a total meltdown will finally get things moving in the right direction. Unless, of course, Naomi Klein’s shock doctrine applies and the PTBs use this “opportunity” to bend the middle and lowers classes over again and have their way.

how we eat is critical to both healthcare and the environment

An interesting interview over at Democracy Now! with the author of In Defense of Food, Michael Pollan.

The gist of it is:

Goodman: [Y]ou wrote a long letter to President Obama, to the “Farmer-in-Chief,” as you put it. What’s the most salient point in it?

Pollan: The most salient point is simply, you are not going to be able to tackle either the healthcare crisis or climate change unless you look at our food system. In the case of climate change, food is responsible for about a third of greenhouse gases, the way we’re growing food, the way we’re processing it and the way we’re eating. And the healthcare crisis, as I’ve talked about. So we need to address it. It’s really the shadow issue over these other two issues.

Pollan is correct, in my opinion, to point out how the way in which we feed ourselves is a critical underlying issue of both healthcare and environmental sustainability. It’s a bit like chaos theory, in which small changes in apparently simple systems can yield incredible complexity. But there is, perhaps, a more fundamental issue than food and that is economics – the way in which products and services are exchanged along with the mediums of that exchange. True, if we were to eat local, only food, mostly plants, there would be a cascading effect in terms of our food supply and nutrition. However, we have to deal with a capitalist economy in which the goal is to make money – and to persuade people to spend their money. (How many edible food-like products does Big Food create an appetite for through marketing? All to make money, not to provide us with the nutrition we need.) This means, of course, that companies don’t necessarily have a vested interest in giving people what they need, but in manufacturing want to perpetuate a cycle of spending. Add to this the fact that we price things based on value and not cost, and we’ve added another variable that adds to the overall complexity.

The point is that as long as the economy allows profit to be the defining factor of success, it will be extremely difficult to get the corporation to change their ways of doing business. It would, in fact, take a massive boycotting effort on the part of consumer – an effort that is certainly desirable. The key make profit dependent on other factors, such as environmental sustainability. Perhaps it’s the familiar question of redefining what profit means – the holistic view of economy that defines wealth and success beyond the material terms of money. Perhaps it’s a question of developing a new kind of economic system, an idea I personally favour (two words: Josiah Warren).

Regardless, it’s good to hear a back-to-basics analysis like Pollan’s. It’s certainly in line what people like Dr. McDougall have been saying; change our nutrition and we create a healthier population. Create a healthier population, drive healthcare costs down. Boom goes the dynamite.

TFPO column: plan b and the (hidden) nature of pop-conservatives

In a piece over at Alternet, Tom Jacobs discusses the work of psychologist Johnathan Haidt, who posits that liberals and conservatives have different moral priorities. In a banal sense, this is true. However - and I'm saying this based on Jacob's description of Haidt's work - the whole distinction is a bit, well, contrived. Neither liberalism nor conservatism are fixed, defined ideologies, nor are there really liberal or conservative personality types beyond the silly pop-psychology distinctions made by media pundits. (For example, liberals' affirmative action goes counter to Haidt's characterization of liberals as anti-authoritarian, and conservative support of the military-industrial complex also goes against the perceived "small government" fixation of conservatives.) And beyond all of this, despite differences in value-priorities, how those values translate into actionable policy does follow logical or illogical reasoning. This week, news regarding the morning-after pill dubbed Plan B illustrates the self-contradiction that haunts the pop-conservatism as presented by a cartoon media.

Plan B and the (Hidden) Nature of Pop-Conservatives

a question of torture

Even if we grant that interrogators who employed "enhanced techniques" (that's one of the worse euphemisms ever) should not be prosecuted on account of their actions within a legal framing authorizing said techniques, what does it say about these interrogators that they were willing to use these techniques? Answer: click here. At the very least, these people shouldn't be put near a new-born puppy let alone a person in an interrogation room. There must be consequences for everyone who participated in the torture, especially in light of revelations such as:

Senate Report: Torture Planning Preceded Prisoners’ Capture, Legal Approval

An explosive congressional report has revealed new details about the Bush administration’s torture program on foreign prisoners. According to the Senate Intelligence Committee, military and intelligence officials began developing the torture program in December 2001, well before any high-level al-Qaeda suspects had been caught. Bush administration officials have long maintained the so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” were authorized only after standard questioning failed to yield intelligence. The report also shows the torture program was developed well before it received legal approval in the 2002 Justice Department memos declassified last week. The report singles out top Bush administration officials for the torture of US prisoners, saying they “solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques” and “redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality.”

And:

Military Psychologist Proposed “Exploitation Facility”

The report also documents the role of the military psychologists James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen in developing the torture program. A memo written by Jessen in 2002 proposes creating what he calls an “exploitation facility” where prisoners would be subjected to a number of prescribed abuses, including physical violence, sleep deprivation and waterboarding. Some of the techniques were based on torture used on American captives during the Korean War. Jessen proposed making the facility off-limits to outside observers, including the Red Cross. Soon after the memo, the suspected al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah was sent to a CIA prison, where he was subjected to intense torture. Zubaydah’s attorneys have long contended the Justice Department memos were written in part to retroactively authorize the techniques used against him.

Both quotes are headline news from Democracy Now!

TFPO column: prop. 8 - freedom to discriminate

It's hard to say which way the California Supreme Court will swing on the issue of overturning Prop. 8. Personally, I'm not entirely optimistic - the "will of the people" is an alluring shield to hide behind. Freedom, however, means accepting that not everyone will behave or think the way we would prefer. Which makes me wonder if someone really are interested in freedom, or if freedom simply means the freedom to comform.

Prop. 8: Freedom to Discriminate

TFPO column: who owns Jerusalem? an explosive solution

The endless cycle of violence in Israel and Palestine, in a way, brings to mind Watchmen and, earlier still, an SF book called Tesseract in which an outside force essentially blackmails the world into order. It's a bit tacky, I suppose, to indulge the comparison, and yet it seems clear that neither side has the political will to achieve a lasting peace. Jerusalem, holy to three major religions, is but the flashpoint.

Who Owns Jerusalem? An Explosive Situation