A few months ago, the triggers were just starting set off alarm bells at systemicide and elsewhere. The edge of the financial crisis was just beginning to show its true colors, the presidential primaries were still at a fire pitch, and the depths of the Bush administration's mismanagement of the United States government prompted many to have simultaneous attacks of rage and panic. The America we had once imagined seemed far from reach, a distant and utopian cousin of the demented reality that lay around us.
And yet now, as we are beginning to get a fuller sense of the darkness which is about to enshroud our great nation in the form of economic suppression, there is a budding of optimism and renewal not often associated with the brisk winds of November. There cannot be a derision of the crisis we now face in the financial markets, markets that have reflected the childish and flippant attitude of policy makers and business people alike. The next administration will inherit a bevy of problems, all characteristic of a wholly unsustainable culture that will continue to face serious challenges in a rapidly changing world.
Barack Obama is poised to become the first black President of a country whose grandparent generation remembers segregation as commonplace and racism as policy. The false equation of progress and profit has revealed itself to be a great hoax, and the simple truths of ethics and humanity are proving themselves again to be the most important guidelines for our behavior. There was a great sense of guilty glee involved in the recent bubble, as young hedgefunders absconded with money they knew was essentially artificial and mortage giants continued to turn their backs on worst case scenarios and tested the limits of deregulation and modern market mechanics. The nature of this economic trend upward and downward will be taught in business classes for a long, long time.
Obama will, if he succeeds, have the unique and impossible task of leading a post-modern nation state embedded in a global economy into a new era of prosperity, sustainability, and dignity. Within this duty he will have to engage with and re-create nearly every major institution of our current systems of government and production, taking a mandate from the people of the United States. And he will be compensated with the most intense scrutiny ever directed at an executive figure in this country.
Because the nature of the task ahead is so gargantuan, so indescribably enourmous, Obama will be sure to fall short by the measures of some, and he will struggle at times to match the ideals of the public with the realities of their implementation. That all Americans believe in universal heath coverage as an ideal does not mean they are ready or willing to accept the fiscal and cultural implications of a working solution - higher taxes and the chance of a "socialist" tag.
Even in crises, however, there is opportunity. Rising from eight years of American deterioration, what we have stumbled upon in Barack Obama is a man of pragmatism and belief - a man whose judgment arises from a commitment to accurate information, prescient and competent advice, and a moral and ethical code that has been hardened and tested empirically and philosophically, in varied experience and careful contemplation. Yes, he is well-educated, in the traditional sense. He may even be guilty of the "intellectual" label often placed upon him by detractors and skeptics. But Barack Obama is a man who understands thorough preparation and vigorous study. He is also a man firmly grounded in the realities of American life, and as President of the United States his talents and methods will be employed in the service of the American people, and utilized to their fullest extent in the most pressing matters of our time.
On this election night, in this crucible of history, we will witness a change that has been too long coming. For those Americans who have been hurt, and wounded - you will be healed. To those Americans who have been swindled and lied to - you will be redeemed. To those Americans who have been marginalized and silenced - you will be heard. To those Americans who have been belittled, and disempowered - you will lifted up. To those Americans who have been disappointed and disenchanted - you will be vindicated. And to all of us - Americans - we will be gifted with a chance to recreate our nation in the image of its founders, to lift ourselves above the mire of warfare and the anxiety of recession, and to make for ourselves an America that once again may serve as a beacon of light and freedom that casts a reassuring, confident, and inspirational glow across our oceans and into the farthest reaches of the globe.
May God Always Bless America.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
A New American Manifesto
The Struggle Against the System
We must use the vantage point we have attained to look back upon our past and out further over our future, holding those most personal freedoms of life and liberty closest to the bosom in perfect union with the collective values of a human race. The day has come again when we must usher America into a new age of honesty and cooperation; we must see her through this transition with the utmost of collectivism and reassurance. We must open the floodgates of public discourse and shed the burdens of political correctness. We must talk openly and honestly about the problems between us and the problems beyond us. We must address our failures as a society and work towards mutually beneficial relations of security in peace, harmonious social interactions, and concordance with natural law. A day has dawned upon a new century of Americans, a people who will lead the world into a brightening epoch of collective human consciousness based on our commonalities and not our differences; when we become the most forward-thinking society in history, built upon the foundations of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and conducted by the most basic rules of human interaction: honesty, empathy, and survival.
We must use the vantage point we have attained to look back upon our past and out further over our future, holding those most personal freedoms of life and liberty closest to the bosom in perfect union with the collective values of a human race. The day has come again when we must usher America into a new age of honesty and cooperation; we must see her through this transition with the utmost of collectivism and reassurance. We must open the floodgates of public discourse and shed the burdens of political correctness. We must talk openly and honestly about the problems between us and the problems beyond us. We must address our failures as a society and work towards mutually beneficial relations of security in peace, harmonious social interactions, and concordance with natural law. A day has dawned upon a new century of Americans, a people who will lead the world into a brightening epoch of collective human consciousness based on our commonalities and not our differences; when we become the most forward-thinking society in history, built upon the foundations of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and conducted by the most basic rules of human interaction: honesty, empathy, and survival.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Much Thunder, Little Rain
Sarah Palin speaks. And says nothing.
Despite the appearance of what is being lauded as a "home-run" speech by Sarah Palin last night, the truth of the matter is that she had little to say about anything that will matter to the American people in her possible role as vice president. Aside from mocking quips and underhanded shots at Senator Obama, Palin gave voters no reason to suggest that she is ready to run the nation in a time of crisis. In fact, for those concerned with her foreign policy record, the message was downright scary.
Political analysts seem to be in agreement about the changing nature of the Vice Presidency itself; and in the last two administrations it has been an office of considerably more influence than perhaps was originally intended. For good or ill, the VP has taken on the role of foreign policy front-person, dealing with crises and often being dispatched to volatile regions on short notice. Able to maintain a schedule that is more flexible than the chief executive's, the Vice President in the twenty-first century may often be the first point of contact for foreign leaders seeking U.S. assistance or shunning U.S. influence. After a speech in which she compared herself to a pitbull, emphasized her fear-stricken love of firearms, and actively embraced her simpleton, down-home Americanism, the prospect of sending Sarah Palin to the Middle East is terrifying.
What we should have learned from 9-11 is that our way of conducting business has brought the ire of millions across the world. Yes, there are extremists who seek only to destroy order. Yes, there are terrorists in the world whose plans are directed against all those who don't share their radical views, and these are not men who are likely to be dissuaded by a lovey-dovey approach to international relations. But to ignore the fact that our actions and patterned behaviors are alienating much of the developing world will only perpetuate the resentment that has been building for years. While I respect Gov. Palin's achievements and find her toughness and candor a refreshing departure from politics as usual, the thought of her brash and unrefined political tact being employed as the voice of American diplomacy is unsettling, to say the least.
Shifting gears to domestic policy, Gov. Palin's message last night was full of the same misleading rhetoric the McCain camp has reverted to since it became obvious they could not win an issues-based campaign. Instead of discussing policies in specific detail and making comparisons to Sen. Obama's proposals, we heard a simple-minded scare tactic approach. "Obama will raise taxes," "Obama will take your jobs," "Obama has no experience." It's the oldest trick in politics, and it amounts to nothing less than a smear campaign that deliberately and knowingly misleads the public. The messages are aimed at those voters who will watch one or two speeches a campaign season, to those whose educational backgrounds prevent them from understanding the complexities beyond these vapid assertions, and to those whose fears about a black President make them ready and willing to latch on to any reason to oppose him. For all her jabs at the opposition candidate (whom she neglected to call by name), Palin failed to explain how her ticket might help the same people she sought to scare.
Yet despite all this low-minded rhetoric and lack of principled speaking points, it was something entirely different that outed Palin as a completely ignorant and downright stupid candidate. Alongside the vomit inducing "drill baby drill" chant that had Rudy Guiliani cackling like the soulless mongrel he is, Palin's promise to expand drilling and open more "clean coal" coal plants by the end of January in a McCain-Palin administration was infuriating for an environmentalist. This is fatalistic talk. Clean coal? Seriously? How can the most polluting and unhealthy of fossil fuels come anywhere close to being called clean? And the assertion that we've "got lots" of oil and natural gas on American soil misses the point entirely. "Lots" is an outright lie - the amount of oil on U.S. soil would be exhausted in less than 20 years at the current rate of consumption. And the thought that it's as easy as drilling a standard well to find it is a gross simplification of the level of exploration necessary to find oil and natural gas that may be nearly impossible to extract. The scale and scope of environmental destruction that goes along with this type of raping and pillaging cannot be underestimated. This is not the talk of a tree-hugging, bird-loving hippie but a practical and pragmatic assessment of cost versus benefit. In classic Republican style, if the costs outweigh the benefits, the course should be abandoned. It seems when Big Oil is involved, however, the equation changes. Drilling in ANWAR and other environmentally sensitive regions is not a surefire way to produce more oil, but is a surefire way to keep enormous profits flowing from government contracts directly into the pockets of oil profiteers. If Americans want to see us stuck in the twentieth century and want their grandchildren to suffer the effects of an administration that continued to destroy our natural environment until it was nearly unliveable, then by all means, they should vote McCain/Palin.
Though it's hard to imagine a presidential campaign lowering itself to the high-school prom committee level the McCain camp now finds itself staring at head on, something tells me we haven't seen the worst. Expect all-out attacks on Sen. Obama, outright lies about his past and experience, and more deriding attacks on his Ivy-League education and ability to talk without using the phrase y'all or stumbling over his own words like a blundering idiot. We have turned to corner on this election, and the homestretch will see the re-emergence of all the tactics of dirty politics. It is my prediction that the Obama camp is preparing itself a suit of fine rhetorical armour, and I can only hope that this time the American people will realize they are being duped by a republican party which has no interest in their most basic needs.
Despite the appearance of what is being lauded as a "home-run" speech by Sarah Palin last night, the truth of the matter is that she had little to say about anything that will matter to the American people in her possible role as vice president. Aside from mocking quips and underhanded shots at Senator Obama, Palin gave voters no reason to suggest that she is ready to run the nation in a time of crisis. In fact, for those concerned with her foreign policy record, the message was downright scary.
Political analysts seem to be in agreement about the changing nature of the Vice Presidency itself; and in the last two administrations it has been an office of considerably more influence than perhaps was originally intended. For good or ill, the VP has taken on the role of foreign policy front-person, dealing with crises and often being dispatched to volatile regions on short notice. Able to maintain a schedule that is more flexible than the chief executive's, the Vice President in the twenty-first century may often be the first point of contact for foreign leaders seeking U.S. assistance or shunning U.S. influence. After a speech in which she compared herself to a pitbull, emphasized her fear-stricken love of firearms, and actively embraced her simpleton, down-home Americanism, the prospect of sending Sarah Palin to the Middle East is terrifying.
What we should have learned from 9-11 is that our way of conducting business has brought the ire of millions across the world. Yes, there are extremists who seek only to destroy order. Yes, there are terrorists in the world whose plans are directed against all those who don't share their radical views, and these are not men who are likely to be dissuaded by a lovey-dovey approach to international relations. But to ignore the fact that our actions and patterned behaviors are alienating much of the developing world will only perpetuate the resentment that has been building for years. While I respect Gov. Palin's achievements and find her toughness and candor a refreshing departure from politics as usual, the thought of her brash and unrefined political tact being employed as the voice of American diplomacy is unsettling, to say the least.
Shifting gears to domestic policy, Gov. Palin's message last night was full of the same misleading rhetoric the McCain camp has reverted to since it became obvious they could not win an issues-based campaign. Instead of discussing policies in specific detail and making comparisons to Sen. Obama's proposals, we heard a simple-minded scare tactic approach. "Obama will raise taxes," "Obama will take your jobs," "Obama has no experience." It's the oldest trick in politics, and it amounts to nothing less than a smear campaign that deliberately and knowingly misleads the public. The messages are aimed at those voters who will watch one or two speeches a campaign season, to those whose educational backgrounds prevent them from understanding the complexities beyond these vapid assertions, and to those whose fears about a black President make them ready and willing to latch on to any reason to oppose him. For all her jabs at the opposition candidate (whom she neglected to call by name), Palin failed to explain how her ticket might help the same people she sought to scare.
Yet despite all this low-minded rhetoric and lack of principled speaking points, it was something entirely different that outed Palin as a completely ignorant and downright stupid candidate. Alongside the vomit inducing "drill baby drill" chant that had Rudy Guiliani cackling like the soulless mongrel he is, Palin's promise to expand drilling and open more "clean coal" coal plants by the end of January in a McCain-Palin administration was infuriating for an environmentalist. This is fatalistic talk. Clean coal? Seriously? How can the most polluting and unhealthy of fossil fuels come anywhere close to being called clean? And the assertion that we've "got lots" of oil and natural gas on American soil misses the point entirely. "Lots" is an outright lie - the amount of oil on U.S. soil would be exhausted in less than 20 years at the current rate of consumption. And the thought that it's as easy as drilling a standard well to find it is a gross simplification of the level of exploration necessary to find oil and natural gas that may be nearly impossible to extract. The scale and scope of environmental destruction that goes along with this type of raping and pillaging cannot be underestimated. This is not the talk of a tree-hugging, bird-loving hippie but a practical and pragmatic assessment of cost versus benefit. In classic Republican style, if the costs outweigh the benefits, the course should be abandoned. It seems when Big Oil is involved, however, the equation changes. Drilling in ANWAR and other environmentally sensitive regions is not a surefire way to produce more oil, but is a surefire way to keep enormous profits flowing from government contracts directly into the pockets of oil profiteers. If Americans want to see us stuck in the twentieth century and want their grandchildren to suffer the effects of an administration that continued to destroy our natural environment until it was nearly unliveable, then by all means, they should vote McCain/Palin.
Though it's hard to imagine a presidential campaign lowering itself to the high-school prom committee level the McCain camp now finds itself staring at head on, something tells me we haven't seen the worst. Expect all-out attacks on Sen. Obama, outright lies about his past and experience, and more deriding attacks on his Ivy-League education and ability to talk without using the phrase y'all or stumbling over his own words like a blundering idiot. We have turned to corner on this election, and the homestretch will see the re-emergence of all the tactics of dirty politics. It is my prediction that the Obama camp is preparing itself a suit of fine rhetorical armour, and I can only hope that this time the American people will realize they are being duped by a republican party which has no interest in their most basic needs.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Palin in the Face - The Long-Awaited Death of the G.O.P.
Boy Oh Boy.
As Sarah Palin prepares to speak at the RNC tonight, and as millions of people prepare to tune in an judge her, we are confronted with an appalling reality. Not since the selection of Dan Quayle as Bush 41's running mate have we seen such a bizzare twist of events, and not since Monica Lewinsky have we seen so much attention paid to the personal escapades of a political figure or his or her relatives. Such is the dirty game of politics.
So who is Sarah Palin?
The question of the hour, it seems. Why, in his wildest dreams, would John McCain have passed up Mitt Romney, who seems like the only viable candidate for a campaign that is mired in the filth of a dirty election, the legacy of an unpopular president, and the stigma of an elderly candidate? Despite what may be said about Gov. Palin herself, the move is at best reactionary, at worst desperate.
If the selection of Palin is meant to curry favor with supporters of HIlary Clinton, then the McCain camp failed to realize that her proponents were so staunchly loyal that they took great offense at the prospect of throwing support behind her party's own candidate. What makes them think they will be ready and willing to defect to a campaign that throws her most important issues under the bus? While Palin's appointment to the ticket was certainly aimed at quieting the anti-choice cohort, it appears as if the McCain campaign forgot that abortion rights are one of Senator Clinton's biggest issues, alongside healthcare reform and equal pay for equal work. As much as Clinton supporters can be said to represent perhaps the most annoying, aggressive, and abrasive contingents in the history of American politics, they are not stupid. They understand that the Republican party will stop at nothing to curry favor amongst the very populace they love to exploit. They understand pandering tactics when they see them, and they understand that Gov. Palin's nomination represents an attempt to categorically qualify all women as a single demographic. I have faith that they will reject this debasing and sexist assumption on the part of the McCain campaign.
Putting aside her gender, Gov. Palin's selection could be explained as a move to satisfy the social conservatives who so emphatically rejected the nomination of Tom Ridge (R-NJ) or Joe Lieberman (R - Conn.), the two figures it is widely reported were Senator McCain's first choices. And yet her limited track record and skimpy political resume make it uncertain what she would do if pressed into duty. The recent revelations about her family's personal life, including the completely botched handling of daughter Bristol's pregnancy, will call her conservative values further into question, even if we agree that such matters are of a baser nature that ought not to be considered. This is the American political machine, however, and if the McCain camp is going to use negative ads and Karl Rove -style tactics, it should expect nothing less of its opponents. Had the GOP nominee caught wind of an unfaithful Obama, there is no doubt that its subversive hit men would have staged nothing less than a complete character assassination before the verdict of truth could even begin to be examined. While some conservatives, particularly in the South, will be drawn to Gov. Palin's story and that of her daughter, there are opinions floating in the dark somewhere, being whispered in back rooms and private parlors. I suspect they will take on the same grotesque nature as the unmentionable but tangibly present characterizations about Barack Obama that go on behind closed doors. And in the voting booth, there are no censors, no politically correct gauges, no collective shame.
The third argument for Gov. Palin centers around her supposed reputation as a reformer, an agent of change. The party line paints a picture of a superstar mom who conquered the PTA en route to a fiery and aggressive mayoral stint that changed the nature of her hometown's politics. Once becoming governor, she pursued a reformist agenda that put Alaska back into the hands of its citizens and beyond the behest of special interests that sought to exploit it. Very convincing rhetoric. Really good stuff. Yet the McCain campaign managers didn't have the benefit of time in the task of preparing their remarks, and the media has punched a number of holes in this oh-so-appealing facade. Palin was once part of a movement to force a vote on Alaska's secession from the union. She was a key player in the Bridge-to-Nowhere debacle that saw Alaska's resources become a bargaining chip for corporate interests. She has repeatedly played to the whims of Big Oil, and is an avid proponent of drilling in the Alaskan wilderness, even as the arctic ice shelf disappears on a new daily basis (News today shows an alarmingly large portion of the ice sheet has broken into the Arctic sea, a trend that not only confirms global warming but has the potential to accelerate it. Gov. Palin has said that "the jury is still out" on climate change). While these allegations don't necessarily mean that Palin isn't a reformer (she certainly is a "Washington outsider), it does cast a strange light on this year's Republican ticket, a ticket that is, in a word, fuckin' confusing.
What is this ticket? What does it represent? Experience, or New Blood? Is it Women's Rights, or Pro-Life? Is it for Tradition, or for Change? The choice of Palin as VP was a calculated gamble - and it has failed. What's left is a Party divided that doesn't know what it stands for, has no idea what it wants to be, and can't find an issue to stand on. A geriatric candidate and an unqualified vice-president seem to have little chance against the most impressive grassroots organizing machine ever seen. We have heard little if anything from the Obama camp since the announcement of Palin's nomination, and the silence is no mistake. Barack is hard at work on the campaign trail in Ohio, courting voters on a one to one basis, listening to the working people who the Republican party is targeting. But the G.O.P. is living up to only to the last two letters of its acronym, and have outed themselves as severely out of touch with what the nation wants. There is no time in 2008 to fuddle with political gimicks and radical gambles. The democratic party has presented a candidate who is viable, eloquent, and prepared. He has delivered a consistent and comprehensive message that appeals to voters of all ages, classes, and genders. We have seen the face of a candidate and a campaign that is organized, directed, and thoughtful. We have seen the rebirth of a politics that shuns the character assassinations, mudslinging, and interest lobbying of the recent past. We have seen a candidate with the ability to lead a new American into a new century - a century that will be defined by our collective integrity and conviction and marked by the unusual American capacity for innovation and evolution. No matter what Sarah Palin says tonight, she has been dragged onto a sinking boat - and brought with her some seriously heavy baggage.
If the RNC has seemed to you like a sideshow, you are not alone. A flat crowd, a slew of white, wrinkled faces, and a complete disregard for the issues at hand. The G.O.P. is crumbling before us, victim of an uncertain strategy, an unspectacular candidate, and a frightening adherence to the politics of the past. Like a washed up prize fighter struggling to his feet, the Republican Party is calling on the ghost of Reagan to win it one last fight - but this time it's too late. The inbred swine have failed to realize the folly of their ways, and they will sit be sitting at their television sets on November 8th with their bottles of swill when the new dawn shines on an America represented by hard work and integrity that is healthy, smart, and sustainable.
So enjoy your sideshow, G.O.P. - but the real deal is here to stay.
As Sarah Palin prepares to speak at the RNC tonight, and as millions of people prepare to tune in an judge her, we are confronted with an appalling reality. Not since the selection of Dan Quayle as Bush 41's running mate have we seen such a bizzare twist of events, and not since Monica Lewinsky have we seen so much attention paid to the personal escapades of a political figure or his or her relatives. Such is the dirty game of politics.
So who is Sarah Palin?
The question of the hour, it seems. Why, in his wildest dreams, would John McCain have passed up Mitt Romney, who seems like the only viable candidate for a campaign that is mired in the filth of a dirty election, the legacy of an unpopular president, and the stigma of an elderly candidate? Despite what may be said about Gov. Palin herself, the move is at best reactionary, at worst desperate.
If the selection of Palin is meant to curry favor with supporters of HIlary Clinton, then the McCain camp failed to realize that her proponents were so staunchly loyal that they took great offense at the prospect of throwing support behind her party's own candidate. What makes them think they will be ready and willing to defect to a campaign that throws her most important issues under the bus? While Palin's appointment to the ticket was certainly aimed at quieting the anti-choice cohort, it appears as if the McCain campaign forgot that abortion rights are one of Senator Clinton's biggest issues, alongside healthcare reform and equal pay for equal work. As much as Clinton supporters can be said to represent perhaps the most annoying, aggressive, and abrasive contingents in the history of American politics, they are not stupid. They understand that the Republican party will stop at nothing to curry favor amongst the very populace they love to exploit. They understand pandering tactics when they see them, and they understand that Gov. Palin's nomination represents an attempt to categorically qualify all women as a single demographic. I have faith that they will reject this debasing and sexist assumption on the part of the McCain campaign.
Putting aside her gender, Gov. Palin's selection could be explained as a move to satisfy the social conservatives who so emphatically rejected the nomination of Tom Ridge (R-NJ) or Joe Lieberman (R - Conn.), the two figures it is widely reported were Senator McCain's first choices. And yet her limited track record and skimpy political resume make it uncertain what she would do if pressed into duty. The recent revelations about her family's personal life, including the completely botched handling of daughter Bristol's pregnancy, will call her conservative values further into question, even if we agree that such matters are of a baser nature that ought not to be considered. This is the American political machine, however, and if the McCain camp is going to use negative ads and Karl Rove -style tactics, it should expect nothing less of its opponents. Had the GOP nominee caught wind of an unfaithful Obama, there is no doubt that its subversive hit men would have staged nothing less than a complete character assassination before the verdict of truth could even begin to be examined. While some conservatives, particularly in the South, will be drawn to Gov. Palin's story and that of her daughter, there are opinions floating in the dark somewhere, being whispered in back rooms and private parlors. I suspect they will take on the same grotesque nature as the unmentionable but tangibly present characterizations about Barack Obama that go on behind closed doors. And in the voting booth, there are no censors, no politically correct gauges, no collective shame.
The third argument for Gov. Palin centers around her supposed reputation as a reformer, an agent of change. The party line paints a picture of a superstar mom who conquered the PTA en route to a fiery and aggressive mayoral stint that changed the nature of her hometown's politics. Once becoming governor, she pursued a reformist agenda that put Alaska back into the hands of its citizens and beyond the behest of special interests that sought to exploit it. Very convincing rhetoric. Really good stuff. Yet the McCain campaign managers didn't have the benefit of time in the task of preparing their remarks, and the media has punched a number of holes in this oh-so-appealing facade. Palin was once part of a movement to force a vote on Alaska's secession from the union. She was a key player in the Bridge-to-Nowhere debacle that saw Alaska's resources become a bargaining chip for corporate interests. She has repeatedly played to the whims of Big Oil, and is an avid proponent of drilling in the Alaskan wilderness, even as the arctic ice shelf disappears on a new daily basis (News today shows an alarmingly large portion of the ice sheet has broken into the Arctic sea, a trend that not only confirms global warming but has the potential to accelerate it. Gov. Palin has said that "the jury is still out" on climate change). While these allegations don't necessarily mean that Palin isn't a reformer (she certainly is a "Washington outsider), it does cast a strange light on this year's Republican ticket, a ticket that is, in a word, fuckin' confusing.
What is this ticket? What does it represent? Experience, or New Blood? Is it Women's Rights, or Pro-Life? Is it for Tradition, or for Change? The choice of Palin as VP was a calculated gamble - and it has failed. What's left is a Party divided that doesn't know what it stands for, has no idea what it wants to be, and can't find an issue to stand on. A geriatric candidate and an unqualified vice-president seem to have little chance against the most impressive grassroots organizing machine ever seen. We have heard little if anything from the Obama camp since the announcement of Palin's nomination, and the silence is no mistake. Barack is hard at work on the campaign trail in Ohio, courting voters on a one to one basis, listening to the working people who the Republican party is targeting. But the G.O.P. is living up to only to the last two letters of its acronym, and have outed themselves as severely out of touch with what the nation wants. There is no time in 2008 to fuddle with political gimicks and radical gambles. The democratic party has presented a candidate who is viable, eloquent, and prepared. He has delivered a consistent and comprehensive message that appeals to voters of all ages, classes, and genders. We have seen the face of a candidate and a campaign that is organized, directed, and thoughtful. We have seen the rebirth of a politics that shuns the character assassinations, mudslinging, and interest lobbying of the recent past. We have seen a candidate with the ability to lead a new American into a new century - a century that will be defined by our collective integrity and conviction and marked by the unusual American capacity for innovation and evolution. No matter what Sarah Palin says tonight, she has been dragged onto a sinking boat - and brought with her some seriously heavy baggage.
If the RNC has seemed to you like a sideshow, you are not alone. A flat crowd, a slew of white, wrinkled faces, and a complete disregard for the issues at hand. The G.O.P. is crumbling before us, victim of an uncertain strategy, an unspectacular candidate, and a frightening adherence to the politics of the past. Like a washed up prize fighter struggling to his feet, the Republican Party is calling on the ghost of Reagan to win it one last fight - but this time it's too late. The inbred swine have failed to realize the folly of their ways, and they will sit be sitting at their television sets on November 8th with their bottles of swill when the new dawn shines on an America represented by hard work and integrity that is healthy, smart, and sustainable.
So enjoy your sideshow, G.O.P. - but the real deal is here to stay.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Solid as Barack - The Candidate and Foreign Policy
"Obama's resume on foreign policy is thin."
True. But how does a junior senator gain an extensive resume in this arena? Without being appointed to the Senate Foreign Relations committee, it's hard to imagine what experience he might cite to show how seasoned in these matters he is. And yet there are millions of political science professionals whose resumes are equally thin, and yet somehow manage to predict correctly the interactions of nation-states and international institutions. There are patterns to international relations (aka foreign policy) and a limited number of basic tools to be used when solving complex problems that occur between states and governments. Each situation is different and requires any number of myriad techniques to solve it. I find it hard to believe that just because Obama hasn't sat on the same number of congressional hearings as his opponent, his decision-making ability is any less adept. In fact, exactly because Obama isn't tied to a particular way of doing things, I think that he will be able to react in a more thoughtful, probably more effective and less violent manner.
Another thing to think about is the role that perceptions play in international politics. A state must act based on the information it has available ( i.e. intelligence reports, statistics, and historical tendencies), but it must also act on the basis of its perceptions of what the other state in question is likely to do. Gauging the level of action to be taken necessarily requires a calculation (or at least educated guess) of the reaction. Therefore, any state choosing to interact with America will gauge its actions based on its perceptions of how America will react to that action. Is it not safe to say that an Obama-led government will be perceived differently than a Bush/McCain-led America?
Take the example of the current situation in Georgia. The U.S. is coming down hard on Russia for invading a smaller, democratic neighbor whose strategic importance revolves largely around oil production and transportation. If not for the wafer-thin veil of democratization, the conflict in Iraq is exactly that - except that country is far from being our neighbor, and isn't full of people who identify themselves as "American." This is not a justification of Russia's behavior - I believe that the sanctity and sovereignty be respected at all times unless human rights are being violated on an immense scale. But Russia's behavior is clearly an attempt to show the world - and the United States - that unilateral action isn't a right reserved for the U.S. and only the U.S. I have a feeling that Barack Obama's response to the crisis in Georgia would reflect this reality, and take steps toward finding a compromise that was in the best interest of both Georgia and Russia. Ethnic Russians may very well desire to be part of Russia, and not Georgia. Despite the rhetoric of John McCain (who sounds like he would have already issued an Executive Order to start WWIII when he talks about this) there is more to this conflict, and to all others, than a simple response of "we must protect young democracies." Yes, we should aspire to promote democratic government across the globe. But we must realize first hat democracy doesn't always take an American form, and second, that sometimes democratic methods reveal unrest and division within a state like Georgia, one that has been drawn together and pressed into a single mold like glass lamp glued back together. It looks fine on the table as long as nobody touches it.
Just because Barack hasn't been immediately involved in the official decision making process doesn't mean he won't understand these intricacies. Furthermore, his only high-profile foreign policy experience is marked by his refusal in 2003 to vote for the Iraq war. Like Mike Tyson after his first fight, Obama's record may be thin, but the one thing on it is a knockout. And what's more, it seems apparent that Obama will realize the need to be thoroughly and independently informed when a crisis does occur. A more efficient Security Council, alongside a cabinet appointed on merit and not party affiliation will serve him well. While the President is ultimately charged with the success of failure of any diplomatic or military action, there are more than a few hands on every policy question, a plethora of opinions to be weighed and considered. Imagine that scenario in the White House for each candidate:
McCain, sitting in the Oval Office, grinding his teeth when Iran or some other nuclear power makes a push to invade some bullshit country or otherwise upset the established order. Fighting his gut instinct to fire the missiles, he begins to steam ever-more as advisor after advisor pushes into the office with his or her informed opinion. Like an autistic fourth-grader, I'm willing to bet that McCain will flip out, start shitting in drawers, and get so mad that his bulldog-esque jowells swell up like watermelons. Getting so mad and frustrated by this flood of information, McCain kicks all of his aids out and makes the decision on his own, cackling madly as he puts on his camouflage facepaint and prepares to invade North Korea and Iran simultaneously, setting off a round of nuclear retaliations that makes Hiroshima look like Newton Center. A little far fetched, perhaps, but you get the Idea.
Barack, on the other hand, has called all of his advisors in together, and stands in front of his desk in a contemplative but strong stance. Asking each of his consultants for all the information they can provide in their relative areas of expertise, he begins to formulate several possible response options. When each of his advisors has spoken, he dismisses them all but a few close aides and the joint chiefs. Together, they come up with between three and five possible responses, each of which utilizes a number of different approaches. Ranking them from most aggressive to least aggressive, they then present these options to the re-assembled specialists and ask them to identify the immediately obvious flaws in each proposal. Narrowing the options down to one or two hybrid responses, Obama dismisses the crowd, asks for one last opinion from each of his most trusted three or four advisors, and then makes the decision he sees fit, based on the evidence that has been provided. This is the difference between a thinking, articulate, well-trained lawyer and political science, and an entrenched politician and military man whose thinking is restricted by age, habit, and interests.
One solution is reasonable and logical and provides the best chance of a non-violent resolution; the other is a predictable , hair-trigger response designed to fit the needs of a out-dated and out-moded system of international relations that sees force as the basis of all relationships between states.
Which option sounds better to you?
True. But how does a junior senator gain an extensive resume in this arena? Without being appointed to the Senate Foreign Relations committee, it's hard to imagine what experience he might cite to show how seasoned in these matters he is. And yet there are millions of political science professionals whose resumes are equally thin, and yet somehow manage to predict correctly the interactions of nation-states and international institutions. There are patterns to international relations (aka foreign policy) and a limited number of basic tools to be used when solving complex problems that occur between states and governments. Each situation is different and requires any number of myriad techniques to solve it. I find it hard to believe that just because Obama hasn't sat on the same number of congressional hearings as his opponent, his decision-making ability is any less adept. In fact, exactly because Obama isn't tied to a particular way of doing things, I think that he will be able to react in a more thoughtful, probably more effective and less violent manner.
Another thing to think about is the role that perceptions play in international politics. A state must act based on the information it has available ( i.e. intelligence reports, statistics, and historical tendencies), but it must also act on the basis of its perceptions of what the other state in question is likely to do. Gauging the level of action to be taken necessarily requires a calculation (or at least educated guess) of the reaction. Therefore, any state choosing to interact with America will gauge its actions based on its perceptions of how America will react to that action. Is it not safe to say that an Obama-led government will be perceived differently than a Bush/McCain-led America?
Take the example of the current situation in Georgia. The U.S. is coming down hard on Russia for invading a smaller, democratic neighbor whose strategic importance revolves largely around oil production and transportation. If not for the wafer-thin veil of democratization, the conflict in Iraq is exactly that - except that country is far from being our neighbor, and isn't full of people who identify themselves as "American." This is not a justification of Russia's behavior - I believe that the sanctity and sovereignty be respected at all times unless human rights are being violated on an immense scale. But Russia's behavior is clearly an attempt to show the world - and the United States - that unilateral action isn't a right reserved for the U.S. and only the U.S. I have a feeling that Barack Obama's response to the crisis in Georgia would reflect this reality, and take steps toward finding a compromise that was in the best interest of both Georgia and Russia. Ethnic Russians may very well desire to be part of Russia, and not Georgia. Despite the rhetoric of John McCain (who sounds like he would have already issued an Executive Order to start WWIII when he talks about this) there is more to this conflict, and to all others, than a simple response of "we must protect young democracies." Yes, we should aspire to promote democratic government across the globe. But we must realize first hat democracy doesn't always take an American form, and second, that sometimes democratic methods reveal unrest and division within a state like Georgia, one that has been drawn together and pressed into a single mold like glass lamp glued back together. It looks fine on the table as long as nobody touches it.
Just because Barack hasn't been immediately involved in the official decision making process doesn't mean he won't understand these intricacies. Furthermore, his only high-profile foreign policy experience is marked by his refusal in 2003 to vote for the Iraq war. Like Mike Tyson after his first fight, Obama's record may be thin, but the one thing on it is a knockout. And what's more, it seems apparent that Obama will realize the need to be thoroughly and independently informed when a crisis does occur. A more efficient Security Council, alongside a cabinet appointed on merit and not party affiliation will serve him well. While the President is ultimately charged with the success of failure of any diplomatic or military action, there are more than a few hands on every policy question, a plethora of opinions to be weighed and considered. Imagine that scenario in the White House for each candidate:
McCain, sitting in the Oval Office, grinding his teeth when Iran or some other nuclear power makes a push to invade some bullshit country or otherwise upset the established order. Fighting his gut instinct to fire the missiles, he begins to steam ever-more as advisor after advisor pushes into the office with his or her informed opinion. Like an autistic fourth-grader, I'm willing to bet that McCain will flip out, start shitting in drawers, and get so mad that his bulldog-esque jowells swell up like watermelons. Getting so mad and frustrated by this flood of information, McCain kicks all of his aids out and makes the decision on his own, cackling madly as he puts on his camouflage facepaint and prepares to invade North Korea and Iran simultaneously, setting off a round of nuclear retaliations that makes Hiroshima look like Newton Center. A little far fetched, perhaps, but you get the Idea.
Barack, on the other hand, has called all of his advisors in together, and stands in front of his desk in a contemplative but strong stance. Asking each of his consultants for all the information they can provide in their relative areas of expertise, he begins to formulate several possible response options. When each of his advisors has spoken, he dismisses them all but a few close aides and the joint chiefs. Together, they come up with between three and five possible responses, each of which utilizes a number of different approaches. Ranking them from most aggressive to least aggressive, they then present these options to the re-assembled specialists and ask them to identify the immediately obvious flaws in each proposal. Narrowing the options down to one or two hybrid responses, Obama dismisses the crowd, asks for one last opinion from each of his most trusted three or four advisors, and then makes the decision he sees fit, based on the evidence that has been provided. This is the difference between a thinking, articulate, well-trained lawyer and political science, and an entrenched politician and military man whose thinking is restricted by age, habit, and interests.
One solution is reasonable and logical and provides the best chance of a non-violent resolution; the other is a predictable , hair-trigger response designed to fit the needs of a out-dated and out-moded system of international relations that sees force as the basis of all relationships between states.
Which option sounds better to you?
Sunday, May 25, 2008
An Ode To The Loop, 25 G, and the Legendary P
When we spoke it came out in waves, push after push of thought and expression without a hint of cynicism, critics of our world from the inside out. there was a distinct feeling that we were on the brink of something real, a constant aching for the engines of social change. there was no real explanation for our feelings - we had it all - but there was a strange and persistent twinge inside each of us, a splinter in our collective side that reminded us, somehow, of that which we could not account for. there were days ahead that we could not predict, and we were wary of the system they might place us in. the shackles of adulthood we becoming real, just as we were beginning to understand the expansive freedom of youth. so, naturally, we threw them aside with force and waded deeper into our lives, determined to emerge unscathed, as if walking through a waterfall dry.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
To Retrofit or Rebuild
In 1960, there were slightly more than three billion people living on planet Earth. In less than fifty years, that population has more than doubled. The size of the Earth and its bank of resources, of course, has not experienced such remarkable growth. This fundamental conundrum presents our species with a challenge that would doom any other creature we know of to population decline and near-certain extinction: too many people, not enough food.
Yet because our species has been given the power of the rational mind and the ability to anticipate the future we may be able to accomplish in the impossible, turn back the clock on our collective doom, and salvage a pattern of existence for our species that is communal, sustainable, and healthy. The key word, however, is may. Our planet is wounded, the victim of an overaggressive carnivore species who has battered its fragile systems, the offenses myriad and scattered like so many bits of destructive shrapnel. Each of these wounds, the isolated environmental abuses we see mounting in size and scope each day, deserve our dedication attention. But as with a slashed artery, attending to these before stopping the bleeding seems to skip past unwise toward downright foolish.
The task is, by nature, too broad, too basic, too general. It will not be accomplished by traditional means, must not be approached as other problems have been, for one simple reason. The methods we have of solving international dilemmas – depression, world war, nuclear standoff, genocide – are incompatible with the environmental emergency we face today. The basis for international law and regulation, the basis from which we derive a system of global capitalization, and the basis for most of our social institutions (perhaps with the interesting exception of spiritual ones) is predicated on a paradigm of exploitation, use-value, and profit. These institutions and practices not only encourage environmental degradation; they cannot survive without it. How can we solve problems from within the very system that mandated their existence?
This view does not mean that the entire system of regulation, distribution, and domination must be torn down in some sort of grand expression of rebellious anarchy, nor does it mean that such measure are entirely unwarranted. Everything that can be done from within must be tried, and with haste. But it must be understood that ultimately these solutions will fail unless they are overwhelmed in the reasonably near future by a shift in mindset that transcends all systems of power and classification, be they monetary, national, racial, gendered, or otherwise. There are ways to make the current system more efficient, but as with retrofitting and existing building or machine, nothing can replace that gains to be made by rethinking the entire process from the ground up. What follows is an examination of some of the most successful attempts at piecemeal reform, what I’ll call retrofitting capitalism, and a few ideas for how to start fresh where and when we get the chance, called building a new humanism.
Retrofitting Capitalism
There are several successful examples of how to make capitalism less detrimental to the environment or how to use market principles to mitigate the destruction. While some are more successful than others, they provide insight into the type of reform necessary in the short term as we struggle to shift toward a sustainable human lifestyle.
The first and perhaps most appealing is the internalizing of externalities, most notably in the form of a carbon tax but extending to other reforms like higher tariffs on imports and more emphasis on transportation expenses passed on to the consumer. Because capitalism essentially fails to compute the worth of natural resources, the price point of the goods they are used for rarely reflects their actual human value. Not only does this encourage exploitation of resources at a grand scale, it promotes processes that create waste, what businessman Ray Anderson calls “throughput” – that portion of resources which is used but creates no value. Internalizing the cost of this throughput would mean higher production costs and higher prices at the purchase point – a boon to the consumer and producer alike. But as profits decrease capitalism can become our ally; firms will find ways to become more efficient and waste less or they will perish, victims of perfect competition. As the European Union’s carbon taxes and trading programs extend in scope and size, businesses are become increasingly aware of their CO2 emissions, as they would be any other increase in total costs. While the system has been only mildly successful at achieving significant reductions in total emissions (more credits have been allocated than necessary) , the ability to implement and enforce a such a system has been effectively proven. Excellent results are certainly possible within this approach, but they will be dependent still on the ability of the market to police itself through government regulation and enforcement. While providing the possibility for immediate reforms the ultimate effectiveness of the a cap and trade system is inherently limited because it seeks only to curtail current practices and makes little effort to create new ones. We must, wherever possible, strive to create change that is holistic and interdisciplinary, making new roads instead of retooling old ones.
Building a New Humanism
When we are presented with opportunities redefine the way we live in the world as a set of sustainable relationships with our environments and each other, we must understand how large and valuable the opportunities for wholesale change in lifestyle and process can be. We are given few chances to start fresh and must capitalize on them if we want a noticeable redemption of the natural environment.
The physical construction of new buildings, communities, and cities is perhaps the most obvious arena to enact these kinds of wholesale change, and yet it may also be the most effective and important way to begin a larger movement. As demographics continue to shift toward urban living arrangements and populations continue to grow, the way we structure our built spaces will have enormous repercussions for our physical and social patterns of behavior, our mental and spiritual relationship with the natural environment, and the size and type of impression our species leaves on the planet with each passing generation. If we can structure our living spaces to reflect a worldview and lifestyle that is sustainable, healthy, and integrated with our natural surroundings, the results can be enormous. The concept, though it may sound flighty and optimistic, is far from abstract.
The technology exists to create buildings that not only do less harm to the environment, but none at all. In fact, we have found the techniques to build homes and offices that actually create energy surpluses that can be fed back into the main grid. Greenhouse and hydroponic technology allows the cultivation of produce at latitudes and seasons previously unconscionable. A wide of array of environmentally friendly products and services are now available for construction and development projects, their costs decreasing every day. In simple terms, the opportunity for a sustainable future is on the table in front of us, we must use every tool we can find to make it a reality.
New buildings alone will not be enough – of that much we can be certain. By structuring built environments in ways that promote community, activity, and connection with natural elements, however, we can hope to move beyond physical change to social change. Imagine an inner city neighborhood in Calcutta or Hong Kong or New York. Imagine the same city with buildings that allow light to filter into the street, a park every two blocks, a solar bank and turbine on every roof next to a community garden. Imagine a passive heating and cooling system that allows fresh air naturally into the buildings’ corridors and common areas. Imagine terraces with plants, wide streets with bike lanes and a zero-emissions system of public transit, and imagine universal access to the rivers, lakes, parks, and shorefronts that a sustainable lifestyle values and protects. These are changes that can be made now, with each new building and community we construct. To choose otherwise – and make no mistake, it is our choice – is a fatal mistake.
We have reached a precipice, a point from which we can see two options and must decide for ourselves. We have the resources, the technology, and reasonable judgment to envision, plan, design, and build a new humanism that puts people ahead of profit, understands that nature and man will always be intrinsically linked, and pursues new and innovation solutions to complex problems. So far, however, we have chosen to follow a path that leads to expanding, accelerating destruction of the natural environment for capital gains – a pursuit of more for more’s sake that is fundamentally opposed to the reality of a finite planet. We can re-tool it, retrofit it, and slow it down with regulation, enforcement, subsidies, and the like. Yet until we are able to change our the pattern of our collective human habits, to realize the fundamentally integrated functioning of our species and its reliance on natural systems, we will be unable to rule out a catastrophic collapse, and eventually, extinction. If we are to survive, we must say goodbye to René Descartes, reconnecting the mind to the body and the body to the earth, once and for all.
Yet because our species has been given the power of the rational mind and the ability to anticipate the future we may be able to accomplish in the impossible, turn back the clock on our collective doom, and salvage a pattern of existence for our species that is communal, sustainable, and healthy. The key word, however, is may. Our planet is wounded, the victim of an overaggressive carnivore species who has battered its fragile systems, the offenses myriad and scattered like so many bits of destructive shrapnel. Each of these wounds, the isolated environmental abuses we see mounting in size and scope each day, deserve our dedication attention. But as with a slashed artery, attending to these before stopping the bleeding seems to skip past unwise toward downright foolish.
The task is, by nature, too broad, too basic, too general. It will not be accomplished by traditional means, must not be approached as other problems have been, for one simple reason. The methods we have of solving international dilemmas – depression, world war, nuclear standoff, genocide – are incompatible with the environmental emergency we face today. The basis for international law and regulation, the basis from which we derive a system of global capitalization, and the basis for most of our social institutions (perhaps with the interesting exception of spiritual ones) is predicated on a paradigm of exploitation, use-value, and profit. These institutions and practices not only encourage environmental degradation; they cannot survive without it. How can we solve problems from within the very system that mandated their existence?
This view does not mean that the entire system of regulation, distribution, and domination must be torn down in some sort of grand expression of rebellious anarchy, nor does it mean that such measure are entirely unwarranted. Everything that can be done from within must be tried, and with haste. But it must be understood that ultimately these solutions will fail unless they are overwhelmed in the reasonably near future by a shift in mindset that transcends all systems of power and classification, be they monetary, national, racial, gendered, or otherwise. There are ways to make the current system more efficient, but as with retrofitting and existing building or machine, nothing can replace that gains to be made by rethinking the entire process from the ground up. What follows is an examination of some of the most successful attempts at piecemeal reform, what I’ll call retrofitting capitalism, and a few ideas for how to start fresh where and when we get the chance, called building a new humanism.
Retrofitting Capitalism
There are several successful examples of how to make capitalism less detrimental to the environment or how to use market principles to mitigate the destruction. While some are more successful than others, they provide insight into the type of reform necessary in the short term as we struggle to shift toward a sustainable human lifestyle.
The first and perhaps most appealing is the internalizing of externalities, most notably in the form of a carbon tax but extending to other reforms like higher tariffs on imports and more emphasis on transportation expenses passed on to the consumer. Because capitalism essentially fails to compute the worth of natural resources, the price point of the goods they are used for rarely reflects their actual human value. Not only does this encourage exploitation of resources at a grand scale, it promotes processes that create waste, what businessman Ray Anderson calls “throughput” – that portion of resources which is used but creates no value. Internalizing the cost of this throughput would mean higher production costs and higher prices at the purchase point – a boon to the consumer and producer alike. But as profits decrease capitalism can become our ally; firms will find ways to become more efficient and waste less or they will perish, victims of perfect competition. As the European Union’s carbon taxes and trading programs extend in scope and size, businesses are become increasingly aware of their CO2 emissions, as they would be any other increase in total costs. While the system has been only mildly successful at achieving significant reductions in total emissions (more credits have been allocated than necessary) , the ability to implement and enforce a such a system has been effectively proven. Excellent results are certainly possible within this approach, but they will be dependent still on the ability of the market to police itself through government regulation and enforcement. While providing the possibility for immediate reforms the ultimate effectiveness of the a cap and trade system is inherently limited because it seeks only to curtail current practices and makes little effort to create new ones. We must, wherever possible, strive to create change that is holistic and interdisciplinary, making new roads instead of retooling old ones.
Building a New Humanism
When we are presented with opportunities redefine the way we live in the world as a set of sustainable relationships with our environments and each other, we must understand how large and valuable the opportunities for wholesale change in lifestyle and process can be. We are given few chances to start fresh and must capitalize on them if we want a noticeable redemption of the natural environment.
The physical construction of new buildings, communities, and cities is perhaps the most obvious arena to enact these kinds of wholesale change, and yet it may also be the most effective and important way to begin a larger movement. As demographics continue to shift toward urban living arrangements and populations continue to grow, the way we structure our built spaces will have enormous repercussions for our physical and social patterns of behavior, our mental and spiritual relationship with the natural environment, and the size and type of impression our species leaves on the planet with each passing generation. If we can structure our living spaces to reflect a worldview and lifestyle that is sustainable, healthy, and integrated with our natural surroundings, the results can be enormous. The concept, though it may sound flighty and optimistic, is far from abstract.
The technology exists to create buildings that not only do less harm to the environment, but none at all. In fact, we have found the techniques to build homes and offices that actually create energy surpluses that can be fed back into the main grid. Greenhouse and hydroponic technology allows the cultivation of produce at latitudes and seasons previously unconscionable. A wide of array of environmentally friendly products and services are now available for construction and development projects, their costs decreasing every day. In simple terms, the opportunity for a sustainable future is on the table in front of us, we must use every tool we can find to make it a reality.
New buildings alone will not be enough – of that much we can be certain. By structuring built environments in ways that promote community, activity, and connection with natural elements, however, we can hope to move beyond physical change to social change. Imagine an inner city neighborhood in Calcutta or Hong Kong or New York. Imagine the same city with buildings that allow light to filter into the street, a park every two blocks, a solar bank and turbine on every roof next to a community garden. Imagine a passive heating and cooling system that allows fresh air naturally into the buildings’ corridors and common areas. Imagine terraces with plants, wide streets with bike lanes and a zero-emissions system of public transit, and imagine universal access to the rivers, lakes, parks, and shorefronts that a sustainable lifestyle values and protects. These are changes that can be made now, with each new building and community we construct. To choose otherwise – and make no mistake, it is our choice – is a fatal mistake.
We have reached a precipice, a point from which we can see two options and must decide for ourselves. We have the resources, the technology, and reasonable judgment to envision, plan, design, and build a new humanism that puts people ahead of profit, understands that nature and man will always be intrinsically linked, and pursues new and innovation solutions to complex problems. So far, however, we have chosen to follow a path that leads to expanding, accelerating destruction of the natural environment for capital gains – a pursuit of more for more’s sake that is fundamentally opposed to the reality of a finite planet. We can re-tool it, retrofit it, and slow it down with regulation, enforcement, subsidies, and the like. Yet until we are able to change our the pattern of our collective human habits, to realize the fundamentally integrated functioning of our species and its reliance on natural systems, we will be unable to rule out a catastrophic collapse, and eventually, extinction. If we are to survive, we must say goodbye to René Descartes, reconnecting the mind to the body and the body to the earth, once and for all.
Monday, April 14, 2008
On The State of Media: 2008
What follows is the first in a series of attempts to transcribe in, real time, the institutions that dominate civil (and uncivil) society in the United States, in the first half of 2008. The breeze of history, it seems, has begun to stir again, as one political and social front displaces another, and so the recording must begin in earnest.
"2008 wants open-source art."
A bold statement, perhaps. And yet despite the high-minded academic attitude those of us who grew up before the internet was an afterthought (the "I still like a real newspaper" crew), in 2008 the printed word is becoming obsolete. The newspaper business, once in the most powerful position in private-sector American, is on the ropes, choking to death on slack circulation, decreasing readership, and lackluster advertising revenue. In 2008, as private liquidity deteriorates, many of the major conglomerates will find it increasingly hard to prosper in a rapidly changing market. The current stirrings at CBS, the recent News Corp. takeover, and the long-standing massacre of local radio will all continue to suffer as time marches by. You can bank on it, because everyone under the age of 15 is already better at the internet than you. You probably didn't even know it was a competition.
2008 wants open source art. Imagine what 2018 might want! To even describe the state of the media reveals how much it has changed; we must begin by redefining the term itself. No longer the static, printed, painted word; media has become an inclusive, organic, dynamic word. Media now lives up to its broadest sense: "the production of intellectual capital," or "the tangible expression of thought or feeling," or maybe even "the cultivation of human impulse." Those are now the only rules. Newspapers, magazines, television - are trying to adjust to this shift in audience personality, and trying hard. Live commenting on online editions, featured blogs like NYTimes' DotEarth and The Lede , and mini-slide show integration are only a few of the examples. These techniques are useful and entertaining, and provide excellent information. Most of them are simple and appear cleanly on the page providing ease-of-operation and a continuous aesthetic. But their success is also their failure. It's not as though readership has demanded more information from the newspaper because they can't find it themselves; in fact, the attitude is reversed. Readers demand information because they already have it. In other words, the NY Times finds itself competing with every local blogger on the internet - and with the exception of precious few stories, rarely reporting information the little guy can't.
What's more, the blogosphere and other new media outlets like YouTube, Flikr, and even Facebook now provide instant access to a thousand perspectives, not just a single account. Unlike the 20th century, 2008 has taken back the monopoly on truth. The claim to be made for newspapers, radio, and to a lesser extent, broadcast television, is that they still bear the burden of reporting only the News, capital N - that professional, unbiased, objective reporting we love to think of as a true American icon. 2008 has said both "good night" and "good luck" to that sort of thing, and instead of a single boiled down truth Americans are choosing the human mosaic instead, a digital rendering of our cultural promiscuity splattered across the internet. In the world of webcams, video phones, and the ubiquitous blog, the universality of the newspaper, once its claim to fame, becomes conformity in the minds of a multi-media, user-driven generation.
We have 3G cell phones, full featured iPhones, and a new Google interface that is likely to shift the mobile information market another 90 degrees or so. We have bandwidth auctions, the conversion to all-digital broadcast, and the are on the cusp of blanket wireless internet access. In twenty years, it is likely that every kid in the world will have instant, handheld access to the exact same information at the exact same time. Globalization has its failures, but this exponential expansion of opportunities for human-to-human contact is certainly not one of them.
The traditional media in 2008 is alive, if not well. Newspapers and radio are adjusting, slowly, but the outlook is grim. How does an American-based NYTimes compete with a global Yahoo! News? How does an independent radio station compete with internet streams, Aires, and Pandora? How does TV and film keep up with iTunes? How do small NPR stations compete with free podcasts? How does Playboy compete with YouPorn? Only time will tell, but you can be sure that tomorrow's kids won't want last second's news, let alone yesterday's paper.
"2008 wants open-source art."
A bold statement, perhaps. And yet despite the high-minded academic attitude those of us who grew up before the internet was an afterthought (the "I still like a real newspaper" crew), in 2008 the printed word is becoming obsolete. The newspaper business, once in the most powerful position in private-sector American, is on the ropes, choking to death on slack circulation, decreasing readership, and lackluster advertising revenue. In 2008, as private liquidity deteriorates, many of the major conglomerates will find it increasingly hard to prosper in a rapidly changing market. The current stirrings at CBS, the recent News Corp. takeover, and the long-standing massacre of local radio will all continue to suffer as time marches by. You can bank on it, because everyone under the age of 15 is already better at the internet than you. You probably didn't even know it was a competition.
2008 wants open source art. Imagine what 2018 might want! To even describe the state of the media reveals how much it has changed; we must begin by redefining the term itself. No longer the static, printed, painted word; media has become an inclusive, organic, dynamic word. Media now lives up to its broadest sense: "the production of intellectual capital," or "the tangible expression of thought or feeling," or maybe even "the cultivation of human impulse." Those are now the only rules. Newspapers, magazines, television - are trying to adjust to this shift in audience personality, and trying hard. Live commenting on online editions, featured blogs like NYTimes' DotEarth and The Lede , and mini-slide show integration are only a few of the examples. These techniques are useful and entertaining, and provide excellent information. Most of them are simple and appear cleanly on the page providing ease-of-operation and a continuous aesthetic. But their success is also their failure. It's not as though readership has demanded more information from the newspaper because they can't find it themselves; in fact, the attitude is reversed. Readers demand information because they already have it. In other words, the NY Times finds itself competing with every local blogger on the internet - and with the exception of precious few stories, rarely reporting information the little guy can't.
What's more, the blogosphere and other new media outlets like YouTube, Flikr, and even Facebook now provide instant access to a thousand perspectives, not just a single account. Unlike the 20th century, 2008 has taken back the monopoly on truth. The claim to be made for newspapers, radio, and to a lesser extent, broadcast television, is that they still bear the burden of reporting only the News, capital N - that professional, unbiased, objective reporting we love to think of as a true American icon. 2008 has said both "good night" and "good luck" to that sort of thing, and instead of a single boiled down truth Americans are choosing the human mosaic instead, a digital rendering of our cultural promiscuity splattered across the internet. In the world of webcams, video phones, and the ubiquitous blog, the universality of the newspaper, once its claim to fame, becomes conformity in the minds of a multi-media, user-driven generation.
We have 3G cell phones, full featured iPhones, and a new Google interface that is likely to shift the mobile information market another 90 degrees or so. We have bandwidth auctions, the conversion to all-digital broadcast, and the are on the cusp of blanket wireless internet access. In twenty years, it is likely that every kid in the world will have instant, handheld access to the exact same information at the exact same time. Globalization has its failures, but this exponential expansion of opportunities for human-to-human contact is certainly not one of them.
The traditional media in 2008 is alive, if not well. Newspapers and radio are adjusting, slowly, but the outlook is grim. How does an American-based NYTimes compete with a global Yahoo! News? How does an independent radio station compete with internet streams, Aires, and Pandora? How does TV and film keep up with iTunes? How do small NPR stations compete with free podcasts? How does Playboy compete with YouPorn? Only time will tell, but you can be sure that tomorrow's kids won't want last second's news, let alone yesterday's paper.
Friday, March 7, 2008
An Anonymous Candidate Named Barack Obama
It's time to get ready.
2008 is full upon us - surveillance, campaigns, mudslinging, recession, war, global warming, terror in Gaza, Euros, and the Death Gasp of the Terror Presidency.
Framework: Election
Record crowds are turning out to vote in Democratic primaries for a white woman and a black man, the Republicans have chosen a candidate who doesn't strike morbid fear into the hearts of moderates. We might, it seems, have the makings of a legitimate election on our hands, might just maybe end up with a functioning government that represents the populace from whom its power is derived.Amazing.
But before jumping to such a rosy depiction of 2008, let's remember that George Bush is still in office, and who knows what kind of new policy loopholes he'll enact as a lame duck. One would hardly be surprised if the traditional role of peacemaker is replaced by 9 months of continuous dismantling of the executive branch's accountability. We've already seen the bullying of Congress, the gutting of federal agencies like FEMA and the EPA, a mockery made of the Budget process, and the partisan siege of the Department of Justice. Before the year is over, we could see liberal internment camps, drilling in Yellowstone, and tax credits for personal 18-wheelers. At this point, anything's possible.
November does promise a change in management, however, and if it isn't the political equivalent of Mother Teresa replacing Adolf Hitler, (even Obama isn't a saint...yet), the result will be something like jumping from boiling water to warm bathtub. We will not be able to avoid the impending doom of an economy that is in desperate need of a major attitude adjustment. Markets are going to wither and close to American dollars, the China juggernaut will continue to churn, and the Euro is beginning to look like the best vehicle for international investment. Make no doubt about it, however idealistic the next president may be, there are serious problems that will require techniques as serious and sophisticated as they are idealistic and visionary. There are giants about us in the political world, and we have skeletons in the closet that go back nearly a century. The American Empire is face to face with its day of reckoning, and will fall on the shoulders of the next president to codify the legacy of this country's one great century.
A war rages on that is transparent and seems juvenile in 2008, a small bandaid pasted on a hotspot of widespread insurrection. There is an awakening of global realities and a burgeoning consensus that 20th century means of domination and subjugation must become obsolete if we are to avoid collective collapse, socially and environmentally as well as economically and politically. The next president will be unable to prevent this collapse alone, but he or she must at least begin to address these challenges in ways that are constructive, inclusive, and reflective of global realities.
There are a few concrete "must-do" items waiting on the desk in the Oval Office for whoever the duty falls upon:
- Sign a multi-national agreement on GHG emissions that includes a provisional goal of 50% reduction by 2050 by the United States. And mean it.
- Cut the D.O.D. budget by 20% across the board. Start at the top.
- Create an effective, efficient, and enforceable immigration policy that allows foreign workers to arrive with dignity and remembers that the United States evicted millions of indigenous peoples in its quest for North American dominance.
- Fix health care, at least for children, the elderly, and our veterans. Believe it or not, these groups are the cream of the crop; it's time we remembered to treat them as such. And ban television advertisements for prescription drugs; they serve only to artificially inflate prices.
- Make gay marriage, marijuana possession under 1oz., and jaywalking legal. Raise the driving age to 17 nationwide.
- Make college education tax deductable and set a federal limit on student loan interest rates at 6%.
- Begin the process of drafting a comprehensive debt-reduction strategy that addresses the rampant abuse of consumer credit as well as our national financial quagmire.
This is, obviously, a beginning. Many of these reforms and policy guidelines are, at best, piecemeal. But in order to do positive work in his or her term(s), the next president must understand that the American political machine is a slow-moving behemoth in a lighting quick world. He or she must constantly approach the process with the realization that radical suggestions become moderate policies. So let's pick someone with the experience that counts: the experience to know that hopeful rhetoric and audacious tactics may run the risk of being called naive, but they are often the necessary to effect even slight changes in course. A degree or two to the left in 2008 may eventually result in twenty or thirty degrees in as may years, just as the Reagan administration plotted the neo-con course that's lasted since the mid-1980s. This is a turning point; a vertex of political balance that has consequences for the entire world. Choose accordingly. Choose Obama.
2008 is full upon us - surveillance, campaigns, mudslinging, recession, war, global warming, terror in Gaza, Euros, and the Death Gasp of the Terror Presidency.
Framework: Election
Record crowds are turning out to vote in Democratic primaries for a white woman and a black man, the Republicans have chosen a candidate who doesn't strike morbid fear into the hearts of moderates. We might, it seems, have the makings of a legitimate election on our hands, might just maybe end up with a functioning government that represents the populace from whom its power is derived.Amazing.
But before jumping to such a rosy depiction of 2008, let's remember that George Bush is still in office, and who knows what kind of new policy loopholes he'll enact as a lame duck. One would hardly be surprised if the traditional role of peacemaker is replaced by 9 months of continuous dismantling of the executive branch's accountability. We've already seen the bullying of Congress, the gutting of federal agencies like FEMA and the EPA, a mockery made of the Budget process, and the partisan siege of the Department of Justice. Before the year is over, we could see liberal internment camps, drilling in Yellowstone, and tax credits for personal 18-wheelers. At this point, anything's possible.
November does promise a change in management, however, and if it isn't the political equivalent of Mother Teresa replacing Adolf Hitler, (even Obama isn't a saint...yet), the result will be something like jumping from boiling water to warm bathtub. We will not be able to avoid the impending doom of an economy that is in desperate need of a major attitude adjustment. Markets are going to wither and close to American dollars, the China juggernaut will continue to churn, and the Euro is beginning to look like the best vehicle for international investment. Make no doubt about it, however idealistic the next president may be, there are serious problems that will require techniques as serious and sophisticated as they are idealistic and visionary. There are giants about us in the political world, and we have skeletons in the closet that go back nearly a century. The American Empire is face to face with its day of reckoning, and will fall on the shoulders of the next president to codify the legacy of this country's one great century.
A war rages on that is transparent and seems juvenile in 2008, a small bandaid pasted on a hotspot of widespread insurrection. There is an awakening of global realities and a burgeoning consensus that 20th century means of domination and subjugation must become obsolete if we are to avoid collective collapse, socially and environmentally as well as economically and politically. The next president will be unable to prevent this collapse alone, but he or she must at least begin to address these challenges in ways that are constructive, inclusive, and reflective of global realities.
There are a few concrete "must-do" items waiting on the desk in the Oval Office for whoever the duty falls upon:
- Sign a multi-national agreement on GHG emissions that includes a provisional goal of 50% reduction by 2050 by the United States. And mean it.
- Cut the D.O.D. budget by 20% across the board. Start at the top.
- Create an effective, efficient, and enforceable immigration policy that allows foreign workers to arrive with dignity and remembers that the United States evicted millions of indigenous peoples in its quest for North American dominance.
- Fix health care, at least for children, the elderly, and our veterans. Believe it or not, these groups are the cream of the crop; it's time we remembered to treat them as such. And ban television advertisements for prescription drugs; they serve only to artificially inflate prices.
- Make gay marriage, marijuana possession under 1oz., and jaywalking legal. Raise the driving age to 17 nationwide.
- Make college education tax deductable and set a federal limit on student loan interest rates at 6%.
- Begin the process of drafting a comprehensive debt-reduction strategy that addresses the rampant abuse of consumer credit as well as our national financial quagmire.
This is, obviously, a beginning. Many of these reforms and policy guidelines are, at best, piecemeal. But in order to do positive work in his or her term(s), the next president must understand that the American political machine is a slow-moving behemoth in a lighting quick world. He or she must constantly approach the process with the realization that radical suggestions become moderate policies. So let's pick someone with the experience that counts: the experience to know that hopeful rhetoric and audacious tactics may run the risk of being called naive, but they are often the necessary to effect even slight changes in course. A degree or two to the left in 2008 may eventually result in twenty or thirty degrees in as may years, just as the Reagan administration plotted the neo-con course that's lasted since the mid-1980s. This is a turning point; a vertex of political balance that has consequences for the entire world. Choose accordingly. Choose Obama.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)