Archives for posts with tag: politics

Just as I thought life might return to its former level of roller-coaster hijinks, a pubescent Bambi look-alike left off reading Russian literature just long enough to decide that life was no longer worth living. This paragon of quadrupedal excellence made a lightning-fast decision: death via the right-hand side of my bumper and hood was preferable to facing another post-modern deconstructionist essay on Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina. It was one short leap for Bambi, and one comparatively simple calculation involving a 1134kg of car moving at 80.5kph before braking madly for ~.5s (call it -~8kph?) resulting in a simultaneous giant headache for me and a giant leap for Bambi. To the right, off the hood of my car. (Bambi’s leap was augmented by about 5700 N for anyone curious)

All of this has given me an interesting and mandatory look into the economics of automobiles, and through that a look at some of the problems that have become systemic in the U.S. (probably elsewhere too.) I need not be a scholar of Marx to tell you that capitalism is insane. However, rather than diverging into a useless rant on how communism is a superior economic system and that the lumpen proletariat will rise up against the Imperialist oppressor and the state will wither away and we will all be borne away to paradise in the arms of our new-found communist paradise… Not only has it been taken care of already by countless other dewy-eyed students of liberal arts colleges, (UCSC represent!) but plenty of other people as well, (hi, Vladimir Iyich Ulyanov.)

This is the kind of thing that runs through my head lately. We have to be able to make the distinction between the theoretical model of a system that exists in an ideal vacuum and the reality of it as we have implemented it. So of course that means that I have to be able to make that distinction when I speak or write about the subject to avoid raising the hackles of the rabid defenders of the various economic models. Not that said rabid folks are really even that much of a problem in the grand scheme of things; they at least care about the topic, even if they have invested a comparatively small amount of time and effort into educating themselves about the subject.

No, the biggest hurdle is the mass of people who are ignorant and ignorant of their ignorance. None of these folks is necessarily stupid–but if nobody ever educated them in critical thinking, economics, and government, they start out and will likely remain easily led sheep whose fervor can be nurtured by sound bytes and directed by aesthetically pleasing and vapid talking heads to vote however is convenient for the people with the most money and the least scruples. Unfortunately it seems as though even those people who are interested in doing the right thing are generally drawn into the game, joining the arms race that they are all but guaranteed to lose.

I doubt if any amount of angry, angsty undergraduates is sufficient to change the world if the world is coasting along on its own course and constantly receiving reinforcement in the form of ignorant or apathetic people whose ability to think critically has been starved or beaten into submission by human necessities like a place to live and food to eat–and a job in the present economic system to provide them. The youth of the world sees that the sleeping mass needs waking, but what they cannot wrap their heads around is that the sleeping mass probably did not start out asleep, but more than likely gave churning through the morass of activism a shot and gave up in disgust.

My message to the young (as I am SO elderly myself) is this: do not make the assumption that all you must do is make people aware of something to suddenly trigger the same epiphany you are undergoing. That is easy, emotionally satisfying, and almost completely useless. The project that will make a real and lasting difference is going to involve hardship, discomfort, and misery. We have to push the roots of education through the artificial barriers thrown up by unscrupulous politicians, moneyed interests, and people who have given up and would rather cherish their comforting illusions–treating the symptoms and not the disease.

Even if someone could overthrow the U.S. government, completely dismantle all of the corrupt portions of it, and maintain an absolute mandate by force of arms or popular support–it would last only so long as that unifying force kept it going. The answer is not revolution and destruction but re-imagining and education. Perhaps you will attack me for being too vague. My response is that walking this Golden Path is like walking any other; it is a task that must be undertaken by many and not by only one. There surely will be trailblazers and people who will scout the ground in advance of the main body of civilization, but each individual person must learn to keep their eyes open and carry the responsibility for recognizing the blazes, checking their maps, and putting one foot in front of the other safely.

The fix is not a hero or heroine who will save us from ourselves, show us where to step and coddle us to protect our illusions. The solution to our problems, and indeed most human problems, is for individual people to educate themselves to the point where they can predict the results of small changes in their choices with a fair degree of veracity and use critical thinking and communication to combine their individual efforts to solve difficult human problems. That sort of rampant individualism that claims that everything must be done by the individual is not only nonsensical but actively retards this process, to the benefit of amoral people.



On this day, eleven years ago, five tragic things happened. Unless you have been residing in darkest Peru, or are of the opinion that the deliberate suicide-murder of 3000 people, (and counting,) was laudable rather than tragic, you know what three of them are. The other two are not as immediately shocking, but are most assuredly worse in their outcomes. First, Uncle Sam went from neurotically wary in the manner of a soldier fitfully battling PTSD to suffering outright psychosis mainlined into the political process by a flagpole drafted into double-duty as a needle by the amoral with the support of the oblivious. To put it more bluntly: there were and are those who saw 9/11 not as an act of terror or an agonizingly inhuman crime of almost incomprehensible evil but as a ready opportunity for the seizure of power and wealth, and they took full and ruthless advantage of that opportunity.

The last and most tragic event that happened in the wake of 9/11/01 was that the American people, the beneficiaries of the first secular constitution in the world, made a tremendous mistake. America, or at least some significant subset of her citizenry, decided that the flag itself was more important than what it represents–we bought into the delusion that expedience is its own moral good. The fact that a large majority of those fastidious “patriots” so vigorously agitating the fabric of the Stars and Stripes in the name of American purity seem to have forgotten that the blood, sweat, and tears Theodore Roosevelt spoke of stain the flag not due to the touch of tyranny but in spite of it.

The scars of war, the blood of patriots, and the tears that result from their falling indelibly mark Old Glory but they do not mar her. Far from it, they serve to evoke the words of Thomas Paine: “those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.” Take up the flag then, and carry it forward, and let your hands stain those sacred folds with your blood, your sweat, and your tears as you return it again and again to the sky and the view of all who yearn for freedom and opportunity. But never forget that it is valor, liberty, courage, and unity that those stars and stripes portend, and be eternally wary of those tepid souls who wrap themselves in a flag that remains bright and clean. Their vehement zeal is for their own interests, and the cloth they bear a facsimile.

It is just this sort of person who in past eras we found gleefully coming to the assistance of Joseph McCarthy, John Hathorne, or Tomás de Torquemada. The ideologies were inspiring certainly, but the truth of the matter is that these men offered the legitimization of self-interest through a combination of nationalistic zeal and religious fervor. These men would counsel us to abandon the probity of our better natures in pursuit of a narcissistic and myopic mythology lifted more or less directly from the obdurately smug babblings which attend the notion that present privilege constitutes absolute proof of preeminence.

I say not in my America. I say that if we oblige these hucksters that the result will in time be that the stars and stripes that symbolize our nation’s character will not even receive the dignity of being rent asunder in conflict, but will be broken up and auctioned off to the highest bidder with the mindless thoroughness a cow lavishes on her cud. I refuse to believe such a wrenchingly abhorrent fate befits the legacy we have inherited from Paine, Jefferson,Franklin, Madison, and the succession of other worthies beyond my power to recall or to recount. It lies within our power to repudiate evil, but it is not a thing to be done casually or in comfort–selling our liberty wholesale in the cause of security is not an acceptable answer, no matter how small the increments it is portioned into.

Now, it is important to note that I do not mean to imply that the entire fabric of American freedom has been dissolved and replaced with the sort of Orwellian autocracy that might bring tinfoil hats into fashion. That would be unfeelingly churlish of someone who has been the recipient of a rather serviceable lifestyle quite palatial in comparison with that of many places in the world. The fabric of freedom still exists in large part, even if it is frayed and obscured in places by greed and injustice. What I intend to attack is the casual languor in the hearts of Americans toward those among us who are only too happy to wrap their own purposes in red, white, and blue camouflage and continue business as usual.

The earthly representatives of Wesley’s “gentle Jesus, meek and mild” are among those who cried out most stridently for bloody vengeance. Apparently there was some sort of misunderstanding with regard to the turning of cheeks occurring between the sermon on the mount and the present day. Equally confusing is the miscommunication regarding loving one’s neighbor regarding the exceptions for those who happen to appear vaguely Middle Eastern. Surely there are sound theological reasons for this that I, as a humble member of the ranks of the ungodly, am simply not privy to in the absence of the Holy Spirit. The important part is that these peaceful fishers of men took their mission to spread love, tolerance, and faith very seriously: love of only those like us, tolerance of any trifles like the loss of freedom, and faith that God is fully behind whatever is most convenient for us at the time.

The political leadership on whom we depend to form an utterly dedicated and relentlessly competent vanguard in the service of American citizens and the essential rights and duties that make our nation worth fighting for were struck similarly by a plague of popular expedience. Whether calling loudly for pre-emptive defense, (better known to most of us as, “attack”,) an end to the threat of terrorism or most importantly, something easily visible and emotionally palatable to their constituents, these radiant exemplars fearlessly went forth to seek contracts for their largest campaign donors and selflessly invested their own money in those businesses they knew would benefit from taxpayer largesse.

These two visionary groups of red-blooded, white, and true-blue (but not blue collar, naturally) leaders provided us the political expediency and the metaphysical sophistries we needed to elevate ourselves into the same august strata as the citizens of Oceania, heroically locked in endless and just war against a fearful chimera the likes of which the world will never see. Blood, death, and fear are acceptable, you see. When they serve the cause of justice–our justice. There are doubtless many more such groups with sardonically warranted titles such as the Religio-Industrial Complex, or the more commonly invoked and now wan specters of special interest groups and super PACs, but enough has been said to give one a sense of the sorts to whom I refer.

The sheer monstrous immensity of the mass-murders that took place eleven years ago today defy any real understanding of their eventual consequence to the families and loved ones of those who lost their lives. However, it is not only ludicrous but an actively destructive abnegation of moral responsibility to stop there. If the deaths of those persons who were killed are to have any sort of meaning, we must not let the opportunity to learn our lesson slip away by allowing the unpleasant chill of mortality to deter our rational faculties and our moral rectitude from their purposes.

I challenge you then, American or not, to engage with the horror of terrorism and stay with it in the circle until its blood stains the sand and you can look into a mirror and say with complete honesty that freedom for all humans can never be subsumed by fear, only briefly obscured. The other option is to lower your head permanently to the ground and content yourself that a life lived in acceptance of utter abjection is better than death in the defiance of it. I find this notion contemptible; so long as we are in a position to thoughtfully and responsibly support the cause of freedom, there is no reason sufficient to justify neglect of this most vital duty. At the very least, we owe it to ourselves.

It seems that even a tentative and halting nudge in the right direction was too terrifying a plunge for the Democratic Party to do more than flirt with, and crusading hero Antonio Villaraigosa was required to ride to the rescue of the beleaguered people of faith. Well, the Abrahamic monotheists who happen to be virtually entirely Christian sects, but as nobody who is white, elderly, rich, and has a penis is counting I suppose it is a matter of no significance. It is certainly very lucky for America and the causes of freedom and justice that we have such men as Villaraigosa to rescue us from the rapacious influence of the U.S. Constitution.

This does not mean I have only bad things to say about the man of course. His relentless push for the expansion of public transportation is quite laudable. So laudable, in fact, that executives from company that stands to benefit from the project made a five-thousand dollar contribution to Villaraigosa’s campaign. Our fearless crusader is so fervent in his quest to expand mass transit that the route is now projected to be tunneled under a school. None of this is intended to give credence to the popular conspiracy theory, of course, only a certain level of realpolitik.

Take the equally laudable push for cyclist rights our crusading champion spearheaded in 2010. The safety of Los Angeles’ cyclists is certainly a matter of no small import, given that the increasing population density and development is certain to make both the previously mentioned public transit and cycling better options economically, environmentally, and socially. It is somewhat curious, however, that Mr. Villaraigosa’s attention was drawn to the subject in such coincidental chronological proximity to injuries he sustained as the result of a cycling accident.

Please do not understand me to be calling the man’s policies into question, at least exclusively in terms of their apparent intended effects. Neither do I object to his personal qualifications, except insofar as they can be traced back in some respects to cultural roots that are intrinsically problematic when introduced into the machinery of a system of government intended to balance the needs of the many against the rights of the few. In short, I refer to: Latin machismo, the normativity of nepotism in the South American cultural landscape, and the assumption of privilege as a right rather than the result of and balancing response to responsibility.

The full treatment of these issues is a subject for another time, however. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to consider how they could cause problems, and continue to pursue my humbler agenda: Mr. Villaraigosa’s statements regarding the DNC’s party platform. When questioned by the media with regard to their not having heard a clear two-thirds majority, he was quoted by the L.A. Times as saying: “That’s nice to know. I was the chairman and I did, and that was the prerogative of the chair.” Although I am not saying he is necessarily mistaken, this is the sort of thing that would seem related directly to my earlier comments on Mr. Villaraigosa’s cultural milieu.

Not only do we not need the mention of “God” in the political platform of one of the nation’s two majority parties, we do not need and should as educated citizens of a democratic republic be violently opposed to this sort of casual superciliousness in the face of dissent. Villaraigosa was further quoted as saying, “I can tell you this — the president of the United States said, ‘Wow.’ The president said, ‘You showed why you were speaker of the California Assembly,’” Villaraigosa said. “The president, the vice president, Mrs. Obama, all of them acknowledged the decisive way I handled that.”

I freely concede that Mr. Villaraigosa’s handling of the situation was indeed decisive–but I would further stipulate that it was decisive in the worst of the available ways. In a party claiming such diversity and indeed in some measure possessing it, at least relative to their GOP compatriots, one would think it would be only sensible to maintain a neutral starting point that does not presuppose the existence, or at least the vested normativity, of the singular and specific God of the Abrahamic traditions. Yet the DNC’s chairman for that vote acted, in his own words, “decisively” to quash movement–however inadvertent–in that direction.

Bravo, sir. At one stroke you have alienated not only secular humanists and the “prefer not to say” sort of irreligious, but contrived to do so in a way that almost could not have been more precisely calibrated to prod the blissfully well-meaning Christians into a display of defensiveness and a publicly embarrassing and contentious search for consensus. While it is certainly in some sense factual that such consensus was present at the convention, it is considerably less so to say that it was easy to find, or that it exists within the Democratic party as a whole.

The bold decisiveness of Mr. Villaraigosa’s handling of the situation certainly can be said to have manufactured the appearance of consensus in the limited context of the predominantly religious membership of the DNC’s delegation. It remains to be proven, however, that this tenuous and putative consensus represents a genuinely inclusive position. It is perhaps unfortunate that a simple exercise in imagination is sufficient to extirpate the illusion of unanimity or at least rob it of its efficacy, given the reliance on the Democratic Party on the ideals of egalitarianism and teamwork.

If the DNC wants to capture the roughly fifteen percent of the vote represented by the non-religious, the deliberate injection of explicitly religious and moreover explicitly Judeo-Christian language into the official policy platform was at best poorly considered. Not only is it at least dancing on the line of that separation, but it seems poised to at any time step over a vent and blow the DNC’s red-white-and blue skirt up to reveal her cross-emblazoned petticoats. This sort of mawkish pandering is the very worst kind of realpolitik, managing to be both contemptibly ineffective and pointlessly infantilizing at the same time.

The Democratic Party will never accomplish anything if it spends half its time attempting to present itself as a party of variety and egalitarianism and the other half fastidiously and endlessly laboring to smuggle a single narrow-minded opinion about reality that cannot even be agreed on by the virtually innumerable sects who bogglingly join together to shovel time and money with reckless exuberance  into the ill-concealed shoehorning of their religious beliefs into an explicitly secular government which purports to represent the diverse interests of the entire American people, not simply the comfortable normativity of a creeping de facto theocracy.

Isn’t it time the DNC and America stopped laboring under the Sisyphean curse of trying to make the faithful feel that their beliefs belong in government? God can ride on the bus, but not in the driver’s seat. We tried that already.


So, I bet you’re wondering, “who won the debate last night”? Well, luckily for you I have put together a chart detailing the basic possibilities. It’s not really possible to break it down into JUST two choices, but we can string together a sequence of these tactical choices to get a better idea about the strategies and how they interacted. Have a look for yourself.

A couple of days ago I caught NPRs coverage of the RNC while out on some errands. As it happens I need not have bothered: a gruesome melange of nausea-inducing nonsense spilled out of my car radio, relieved only by the occasional interruption of an NPR announcer reminding latecomers of the identity of the person currently addressing the crowd. After roughly 20 minutes of forcing myself to endure, my patience wore thin and I freed my hand for a moment from the requirements of driving and gently encouraged the radio to fall silent.

Now before anyone on the right gets defensive, let me assure you that the DCCC has only to wait their turn. My objection is not to their politics; not only would I need to do more research, but it would constitute a separate topic. At the moment I object specifically to the lack of politics. The two speeches I listened to praised Mitt Romney for his work as a Pastor in the Mormon Church, and sought only to shower him with praise that is not only unearned but irrelevant.

The praise heaped onto him was unearned in that it is unwarranted. It confirms for me only that an extremely rich, privileged white man who was acting as a religious authority in a church known for its insularity and community in equal measure did his job. Now, it is important to note that doing one’s job can sometimes be praiseworthy, for example, if the person doing the job is a fireman or soldier who risks their life for the benefit of the community, or if the person is a teacher who works 0730 to 1630 plus lesson planning and grading, often paying for materials from their own pocket while making ~$50k a year. To put this into perspective, that means that elementary school teachers who more than likely have a 4-year degree, a two-year credential, and years of experience in their field are making roughly $23 an hour or less for doing one of the most essential jobs in our entire civilization.

Romney on the other hand, is being praised lavishly not merely for doing what any decent person would do, but doing it while he was essentially contracted to do so because of his position in the church. It is the job of a religious leader to provide aid and comfort, and practically the only job at that. Public servants commonly do the sorts of things he did, and do them while making a miniscule fraction of the income, while paying a higher tax rate, without millions to fall back on, while working well over 40 hours a week at difficult jobs. Now, again, I am not attacking Romney for being wealthy, I am simply stating outright that the sort of unctuous piffle being spewed for his benefit tells me nothing of which I was not already aware: he did nice things for people he knew while under an onus to do so.

This might have some relevance to people who desire to put his image up on the wall and imagine themselves a close and personal relationship with a cardboard cutout–and I concede that this would likely not be significantly different from actually having such a relationship with Romney–but to any citizen who actually cares about the direction the nation is headed, this sort of drivel is worse than useless. If he was at least spending his political capital to encourage the populous to educate themselves in some small measure, I could be assured that he was at least serious. Unfortunately, this seems not to be the case, though I readily allow that politics in the United States seem to be full of this sort of nonsense.

I certainly admit that it is useful in one respect however: that of convincing voters that he is, in fact, a member of the species homo sapiens rather than a cunningly wrought simulacrum. Perhaps it is even an advisable strategy, in light of his rather dismal performances up to this point. In all seriousness, however, this sort of appeal to emotion is unrelated to the actual concerns of governance and useless to any citizen informed enough to consider the effects of his proposed policy agenda on our nation. So if I may say to dear ol’ Willard: talk policy, and be prepared to be specific. America is listening, and we are not as ignorant as you, or at least your team at the RNC, seems to think we are.