my thoughts on a bunch of tech-industry drama i don't really know anything about, but feel like commenting on anyway

Here's my take on this whole Penny Arcade vs. Ocean Marketing thing, as this op-ed is the first I've heard about any of it:

Some corporate bigwig (or at least someone who fancies himself one) named Paul sends a few condescending replies to a customer named Dave — who has a legitimate question/complaint regarding his order of 2 Avenger controllers — and when the customer gets frustrated, becomes even more unprofessional, verbally abusive/insulting, and threatening.

Mike (a.k.a, Gabe), an artist for Penny Arcade and co-founder of Child's Play, steps in after being Cc'd by Dave and tells him that this guy won't get a booth at the next Pax East because of his conduct (which I think understandable). The customer, on the other hand, feels bad that his 'pissing match' may ultimately prevent people who could really use this product from getting it, asking Mike to not cancel his booth (a very nice and mature thing to do, I might add).

Apparently, Mike has already done so, however, as Mr. Bigwig now starts to send Mike extremely condescending, abusive, and tasteless emails that increasingly become threatening as Mr. Bigwig begins to name drop and listing off his credentials, contacts, etc., telling Mike that he'd better side with the company rather than the customer "unless you're his boyfriend." (Classy.)

To his credit, once Mr. Bigwig figures out who Mike is, he tries to smooth things over, admitting that he fed "into [Dave's] emails a little bit too much," and stressing that it's only one person (as if that somehow makes the shit he said to him OK). But Mike obviously doesn't like this guy (who can blame him?), and asks to be removed from his mailing list despite the unapologetic apology.

And here's where Mr. Bigwig truly shines, shitting on Mike's website, and overtly threatening to put his 125 person marketing team "on a smear campaign of you and your site and your emails." (Shit just got real.)

All things considered, I think Mike's best option under the circumstance was to go public. For one, the legal authorities probably wouldn't do a damn thing about Mr. Bigwig's threats of launching an all-out smear campaigns, and I'm sure Mike was a little scared about it, as well as angry. I think preemptively going public with the emails was a smart defensive strategy on his part. He was simply utilizing a resource at his disposal.

From a purely strategic point of view, having the solidarity and support of his readers put him in a much stronger position, one where he felt safer. It's the exact same principle behind unions and other kinds of organizations, i.e., alone, you're at a disadvantage against your employer or whomever; but together, workers or whomever have the strength to address grievances, bargain, be protected from threats by someone more powerful, etc.

In this situation, I find nothing wrong or unethical about what Mike did — who was not only trying to stand up for the 'little guy,' but protect his own career and reputation — and I'd probably do the same thing if I were his position. That said, I do think that putting an end this would be the more skillful thing to do.

Mr. Bigwig has been publicly shamed and lost his position that got him into this mess; Dave, the archetypal 'lowly, individual consumer' has won a victory over the 'condescending corporate bigwig'; and Mike doesn't have to worry about being hit with a massive, corporate smear campaign—at least not by Mr. Bigwig, who's now just a humbled and humiliated Paul at this point.

To encourage any further actions against Paul at this point is, in my mind, excessive; and lowers the probability that Paul will take this whole experience as a 'lesson learned' and grow from it. Instead, he'll very likely continue to feel persecuted (because he is) and become even bitterer about the whole affair, which won't help Mike, Dave, or anyone else for that matter.

That's my unenlightened two cents, anyway.

salo

I watched Pier Paolo Pasolini's last film, Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom, tonight. The genius of Salo is also its downfall and why it was banned in several countries. It's one of those films that, if we let it, succeed in forcing us to confront what we fear the most—the evil that lurks in the depths of the human heart, a horror that's all the more terrifying because it's real.

It was tough to watch. But, after thinking about it and learning a little bit about the director and the book it was loosely based on when I got home, I quickly started to appreciate what it does and how it was made. Movies like this make me want to get more into film theory, which I generally scoff at. It's horrible, yet there are so many genius elements in it that I can't help but admire such a vile thing.

Much of Salo's intensity stems from the unflinching way it addresses the darker side of humanity, the side that enjoys and even revels in the vilest of human transgressions; the side that has the ability to derive pleasure from indulging in what Freud called the 'death drive,' with its psychological pressure towards self-destruction and death arising out of a seeming "urge inherent in organic life to restore an earlier [i.e., inorganic] state of things."

In this, Salo exceeds in showing us too much; it takes us over the edge with its stylistic parade of nihilistic sex, violence, and depravity; often all three at the same time. It shows us the kinds of dehumanizing monsters we can truly be, while the entire time wearing a human face. It shows us the extent with which we can desensitize ourselves to even the most extreme acts of violence and cruelty, particularly when continually escalated and viewed over time—one horror becoming so common that another, more extreme horror must take its place in order to produce the same levels of shock, revulsion, and excitement.

Worst of all, in the midst of the film's climax, where the crescendo of torture, rape, and murder become the focal point of overt voyeurism, we're forced to realize, if we can allow our shocked psyche to reflect upon the construction of the scene itself, that by the very act of watching this film, we've become voyeurs ourselves, and have unwittingly allowed ourselves to be entertained by the very same acts of violence — even if not in the exact same way — that we abhor.

It can be difficult, especially if you are extremely sensitive to scenes of graphic sexual violence and degradation like I am, to fully appreciate the masterful way in which this film explores its themes, from the psychology of fascism and the dangers of passivity to the growing ills of bourgeois society we'd rather ignore. But if you can see beyond its nonchalant brutality, you'll find something deeply disturbing yet brilliant, an existential social commentary that doesn't pull a single fucking punch.

merry christmas, comrades

You know, if you think about, the modern-day version of Santa Claus is not unlike a Gilded Age industrialist, a philanthropic, fantasyland robber baron. He's essentially an imaginary, white, 'chubby and plump' old man who 'employs' an entire race of other imaginary beings in some frozen, unregulated tundra sweatshop to make the gifts he then gives and gets all the credit/cookies and milk for. Maybe some class-conscious kid should slip a copy of the Communist Manifesto in with their letter next year, because I bet Santa doesn't bother to read them all himself: "Let Santa Claus tremble at a Communistic revolution. Santa's helpers have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Elves of the world, unite!"

At least I think it's funny. Merry Christmas, comrades. :)

the complexity of freedom, part deux

Average, working-class people are usually shocked and outraged by stories about sweatshops and child labour, like the recent allegations surrounding the Kardashian clothing lines, as I think they should be. But few realize that global capitalism thrives upon, and even logically defends, this kind of exploitation, generally utilizing the classic 'it's better than the alternative, like x' defense that's perfectly exemplified here by Prof. Ben Powell:



"Hey, eating this turd on a bun with mustard is WAY better than just eating a plain ol' turd; and since you're starving and have no other options but these two turds I'm offering you, I think the better choice is obvious."

Some, like Prof. Powell, at least have the balls to admit that they unambiguously support sweatshops and child labour. However, it often seems to be the case that, instead of being forced to confront and potentially question the logic of a system where the road to higher wages and better working conditions is paved with sweatshops and child labour, free-market advocates and capitalist apologists in general find it easier to simply gloss over the problem, or else blame it on specific offenders, like China, rather than the 'invisible hand' that guides production in global capitalism and directs "industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value."

And this is how 'freedom' (e.g., of the market) can actually be used to justify exploitation, which is precisely the argument George Monbiot makes in his recent article in the Guardian.

the complexity of freedom

George Monbiot makes an interesting yet surprisingly little-made point about the one-sidedness of many of the pro-free market arguments about freedom, i.e., that the state isn't the only entity or social institution that intrudes on our liberties:

This bastardised libertarianism makes 'freedom' an instrument of oppression

As a result, it also begins to reveal some of the underlying contradictions that are rarely brought to the surface in these superficially seductive arguments about freedom and liberty, e.g., there's obvious tension between freedom and equality, where complete freedom doesn't necessarily lead to equality when some have the freedom to exploit, oppress, or otherwise take advantage of others because of their particular situation in life, and where full equality means potentially limiting or even denying some their freedom to do things that negatively impact others.

It's contradictions like these, for example, that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution attempt to balance to varying degrees of success. Definitely broadens the argument, I think.

tax inequality

Ian Ayres, a professor of law at Yale, and Aaron S. Edlin, a professor of law and economics at UC Berkeley have an interesting idea on how to "to end the continued erosion of economic equality in our nation" with a "tax that would limit the after-tax incomes of this club to 36 times the median household income":

Don’t Tax the Rich. Tax Inequality Itself.

I'd certainly support something like this — with the caveat that the revenue generated from this new tax be expressly allocated to social welfare programs like food stamps, low-income housing, Medicaid, Pell grants, and unemployment insurance — especially in combination with a modest 0.25% tax on stock trades and a 0.02% tax on the purchase of credit default swaps (raising an estimated $100-150 billion per year according to economists Dean Baker, Robert Pollin, and Marc Schaberg), and getting rid of the Bush tax cuts (netting an additional $72 billion per year according to Citizens for Tax Justice).

All these things together in conjunction with targeted spending cuts not only have the potential to help limit the rising rate of income inequality, but to help reduce the deficit that everyone's been squawking so much about recently, as well.

how the austerity class rules washington

Just read an interesting article in the Nation about the rise of the 'austerity class,' and the growing popularity of deficit reduction measures in political discourse:

How the Austerity Class Rules Washington

The way I see it, the inherent contradictions within capitalism that give rise to crises always seem to put government into a tricky position. On the one hand, it makes sense, especially from the point of view of a household, to have a 'balanced budget,' i.e., to be 'austere' today and save any discretionary income for future hardships, invest it for future returns, or both. And, utilizing this rather 'common sense logic,' people want their government to be 'responsible' and have a balanced budget just like any household should.

The problem is that, if everyone is saving and investing on a national scale (i.e., not consuming), or if they have little in the way of discretionary income to begin with, especially in the midst of an economic downturn, higher unemployment will result due to lack of demand, and the value of any investments will be greatly reduced since no one's consuming the products being produced. When this inevitably happens, people begin to scream at the government to do something, which either means some kind of conservative austerity plan to reduce spending and increase investments, or some kind of liberal stimulus plan to promote aggregate demand and boost employment.

Unfortunately, neither solution can eliminate the contradictions within capitalism that naturally lead to boom and bust cycles and financial crises; but the latter makes far more sense to me in that it helps boost employment, which further stimulates demand and speeds recovery, and doesn't come at the expense of people who need help the most in the form of cuts to things like food stamps, low-income housing, Medicaid, Pell grants, and unemployment insurance, which is precisely the kind of spending conservative austerity plans tend to target.

the credit union myth

Admittedly, I was one of those who thought that simply switching over to a local credit union, especially if it was done by a large number of people, would make a real statement and 'stick it' to the big banks, depriving them of the use of our money to finance their irresponsible lending practices, and disrupting the continued merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and by extension, weakening the stranglehold of the these financial monopolies. I got rid of my own Chase account two years ago, in fact.

But, according to an article by Doug Henwood, it turns out that it doesn't really make that much of a difference, that our money still greases the wheels of these financial juggernauts, especially considering how credit unions and small banks actually end up investing a lot of their money in things like Treasury bonds and federal agency securities (including things like mortgage-backed securities), which in turn get fed via the federal funds market to, wait for it, larger banks like Chase. As Henwood concludes at the end of his article, "Getting banks under control is a matter of politics, not individual portfolio allocation decisions," and I'm reluctantly inclined to agree.

Of course, there are still a lot of good reasons to bank locally, but 'sticking it' to big banks isn't one of them.

r.i.p., vaclav havel

In honour of Vaclav Havel's passing this weekend, here's Slavoj Zizek's 1999 review of John Keane's book, Vaclav Havel: A Political Tragedy in Six Acts:

Attempts to Escape the Logic of Capitalism

In the spirit of full-disclosure, half-way through the review, I found myself thinking, "Wow, that's pretty genius," being impressed by the way Zizek's analysis (influenced by a combination of Hegel, Marx, and Lacan, among other things) actually helped broaden my admittedly poor understanding of how and why some of these events took place, while at the same time raising, and then connecting them to, questions I've been struggling with myself recently.

The conclusion reached by Zizek at the very end, however, doesn't satisfy me; and I wonder whether that's because I'm unconsciously worried that 'the direct ethical foundation' of my own politics (arising out of my Buddhist practice, and influenced by a mixture of radical liberalism, Marxism, and Plato) will 'sooner or later turn into its own comic caricature,' or whether there's something missing here, as if I intuit the bulk of his analysis pointing in a slightly different direction, but am unable to articulate precisely what that direction is (although, I suspect it's probably mainly the former).

the future direction of organized labour

With organized labour once again on the ropes, it may time for labour to rethink modern-day contract unionism, which relies on bloated bureaucracies and effectively neuters unions with its no-strike clause, and go back to the more 'radical' roots of the American labour movement—a time when, in the words of Stanley Aronowitz, "Workers ... used to fight for their demands continuously and agree to return to work only when they were met."

One option could be, as some within the IWW have recently argued doing themselves, for unions to move in the direction of 'direct unionism', where the focus isn't on contracts, workplace elections, or legal procedures, but building "networks of militants in whatever industry they are employed" who'll then "agitate amongst their co-workers and lead direct actions over specific grievances in their own workplaces." The goal essentially being to start small and "build up leadership and consciousness amongst other workers" that'll eventually lead to "large scale industrial actions that address issues of wages and conditions across entire regions or even whole countries" rather than just "union recognition from a single boss" and the signing of contracts that ultimately seek to de-radicalize workers.

Whether or not it's a direction labour wants to take, I think it's definitely time to try something new. The current direction is going nowhere fast.

the making of the american 99%

This article by Barbara Ehrenreich (author of Nickel and Dimed) and John Ehrenreich presents an interesting look at the coalescence of the 99%:

The Making of the American 99%

It suggests to me that, among other things, what we often call 'class' is ultimately a social relationship, which, in the words of Edward Thompson, "happens when some [people], as a result of common experiences (inherited or shared), feel and articulate the identity of their interests as between themselves, and as against other [people] whose interests are different from (and usually opposed to) theirs." The implication being that, for the Occupy movement to continue to grow and truly become "a force to change the world," divisions within the 99% need to be patiently confronted and resolved (or at least put aside), and common interests need to be identified and made into an increasingly more conscious, unifying force.

obama to sign indefinite detention bill into law

When I've said in the past that there's not much difference between Republicans and Democrats in practice, it's things like this that I'm referring to, where the current Democratic president is continuing, and even expanding, the previous Republican president's policies, going so far as to enshrine indefinite detention without trial into US law:

Obama to sign indefinite detention bill into law

Ultimately, I don't think the problem lies within the two dominant political parties themselves so much as within the structure of the system itself, which actively promotes a two party duopoly, produces toxic accumulations of both wealth and power (which seem to go hand in hand in politics), and serves to protect the economic, legal, and political hegemony of the ruling class. That's why it seems to me that, even when people who have the best interests of the citizenry in mind get elected to office, the system often forces their hand and they end up being like every other politician, or else the system just runs them over (metaphorically speaking, of course).

Hence, the candidate in 2008 who, assuming he was genuine, strongly criticized what he called "the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo," now continues where his predecessor left off by being a proponent of, and codifying into law, what the Bush administration argued the original 2001 AUMF against terrorism already empowered them to do, i.e., to, in the words of Greenwald, "imprison people without charges, use force against even U.S. citizens without due process (Anwar Awlaki), and target not only members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban (as the law states) but also anyone who 'substantially supports' those groups and/or 'associated forces' (whatever those terms mean)."

In my opinion, once people start to realize that voting for one party or the other (an electoral version of the 'lesser of two evils' principle) doesn't really make that much of a difference, that there's something inherently wrong with the system itself, the better off we'll be.

if i were a poor black kid

A friend of mine posted this Forbes article by Gene Marks on Facebook yesterday, and I couldn't help but read it:

If I Were A Poor Black Kid

What it sounds like he's trying to say is, "I know things are harder for poor, black youths in this country, but there are tools out there that can help you succeed. If I were in your place, knowing what I know, here's what I'd do." What I'm actually hearing, however, is, "If you're poor and black, you have to work a million times harder than any white kid from the suburbs, and that's just the way it is. Deal with it."

I think the sentiment is genuinely sympathetic; but the presentation is terribly condescending, and essentially glosses over the roles things like class and race play in keeping minorities from succeeding in our society, not to mention ultimately placing the blame on 'poor black kids' for not succeeding instead of questioning a system that makes it so disproportionality difficult in the first place.

In other words, I think we need to be challenging this historically classist, racist, and sexist socio-economic paradigm instead of simply accepting it as a fact of life—a sentiment that's seemingly echoed by, surprisingly enough, fellow Forbes contributor Charles Green:

You conclude by saying, “…the opportunity is still there in this country for those that are smart enough to go for it.”

So, if poor black kids seem to be disproportionately not going for it, your conclusion would be, what–they’re just dumb? Come on, spell out what you’re trying to suggest here!

Viktor Frankl emerged from Nazi death camps stronger for the experience. That doesn’t justify prison camps.

The fact that a few people can escape overwhelming social forces doesn’t prove much of anything. The much more important question is, if millions of people are doing worse than millions of others, what the heck is going on? And to suggest the answer lies in IQ is simply disgusting.

Social mobility is measurable, and is measured. And social mobility in this country is declining. We are less socially mobile than almost every country in Europe now except for Britain and Italy. The land of opportunity–defined as the chance to do better than your parents–is now demonstrably better in a lot of what Americans like to call “socialist” countries.

We need to stop listening to ignorance like this and get a grip.

led by the child who simply knew

Just read this extremely touching article about Nicole, a transgender teen:

Led by the child who simply knew

I know this story may be difficult for some people to read, especially for many social and religious conservatives; but I think it's important to understand some of the struggles transgender individuals have to go through, and that they need our support rather than our scorn.

It's heartening to see such a relatively positive story; but many transgender children (as well as adults) aren't as lucky as Nicole, and many suffer lives of intense abuse, bullying, discrimination, and ostracization, often leading to suicide or ending in murder.

It makes me incredibly sad that we live in a world where intolerant and insecure people harass and hurt others simply because of their gender or sexuality or anything else for that matter. In my opinion, we'll never truly be a 'civilized society' until we stop hating and hurting others simply for being who they are.

support occupy the ports

I understand why some people are critical of the port shutdowns. For one, it ends up financially hurting front-line workers like longshoremen and truck drivers. That said, the plight of the working class is generally ignored unless something big happens, and drastic actions such as port shutdowns and strikes seem to be the only way to get people's attention.

Nobody seems to take notice or care, especially the 1%, until the flow of commodities and capital stop, or at least is impeded. One of the few nonviolent tactics the working class has at its disposal is to withhold its labour and/or impede the flow of noncritical goods and services. Yes, it hurts the working class more in the short-term; but it also makes enough noise to really get people's attention and make them realize that the 99% is serious about addressing pressing socio-economic issues.

Furthermore, purely electoral solutions are limited. The logic of the present system itself seems to produce toxic accumulations of debt, wealth, and power (especially in the sense that money equals social power). That's why it seems to me that, even when people who profess to have the best interests of the 99% in mind gain political office, the system often forces their hand and they end up being like every other politician, catering to the needs of the 1%, or else the system just runs them over (metaphorically speaking, of course).

So, in the end, I support these kinds of tactics, and I hope to see them spread to more than just ports. The working class needs to unite in this fight. That way, maybe we'll actually see some real solutions to these problems instead of business as usual in Washington and Wall Street, which, for all intents and purposes, are practically one and the same.

my body, my rules: a case for rape and domestic violence survivors becoming workplace organizers

This emotionally raw yet well-written article/essay has been making the rounds pretty quickly on the interwebs, and I can see why:

My body, my rules: a case for rape and domestic violence survivors becoming workplace organizers

It presents an interesting (and horrifying) perspective on the unequal social relations created by a system where one class of people is forced to sell their labour in order to survive while another thrives by exploiting that labour; as well as powerful a reminder that the right to organize is one of the few tools workers have to shift the (in my opinion, unfair) balance of power in their favour.

The main lesson I take from it, however, is that we shouldn't let the proverbial (or even literal) 'pizza party' make us forget where our strength lies, or pacify our struggle for workplace democracy.

rats free each other from traps, then share chocolate

Just read this extremely interesting article from New Scientist:

Rats free each other from traps, then share chocolate

More evidence that rats (and potentially other animals, particularly mammals) exhibit levels of compassion, empathy, and generosity previously thought to be unique to primates; as well as further corroboration of Peter Kropotkin's theory that cooperation and mutual aid are factors of evolution at least as important as competition, if not more so.

the media's blackout of the national defense authorization act is shameful

I couldn't agree more with this article that Section 1031 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012 needs to be covered, and widely:

The Media's Blackout Of The National Defense Authorization Act Is Shameful

Unfortunately, most media outlets haven’t covered it (and probably won't), at least not in any great detail. Part of the problem, I suspect, is that the vast majority of what we call the 'mainstream media' is really a conglomeration of roughly six main corporations. What gets reported by these major multimedia outlets is arguably limited in many cases to what's in the interest of the owners, controllers, and shareholders of these companies, which themselves are part of the ruling class.

This Orwellian piece of legislation, on the other hand, with its ambiguous language about covered persons including "any person who has committed a belligerent act," would make it easier for the government to put down and indefinitely detain 'nuisances' like Occupy protesters who the state and others of the ruling class deem as 'terrorists'; and the state is already in the habit of labelling peaceful protesters as terrorists (e.g., Max Obuszewski).

I think this piece of legislation is both scary and troubling; but the lack of media coverage is scarier and more troubling because it puts us, the working class, even more in the dark as to what's really going on in this country. More importantly, it highlights the need for average, working-class individuals to continually educate themselves and turn towards alternative sources of media.

secret fed loans gave banks $13 billion undisclosed to congress

According to a recent Bloomberg article, the Federal Reserve allegedly gave out approximately $7.77 trillion in secret loans and guarantees to banks throughout the financial crisis of 2007 to 2009.

What I found even more interesting, however, is the article also notes that, among other things, "Total assets held by the six biggest U.S. banks increased 39 percent to $9.5 trillion on Sept. 30, 2011, from $6.8 trillion on the same day in 2006, according to Fed data." Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown is quoting as saying: "When a few banks have advantages, the little guys get squeezed... That, to me, is not what capitalism should be." Except that's precisely how capitalism is, and always has been.

The capitalist mode of production, which forms the economic base of our society, is, in effect, the process of commodifying, privatizing, and monetizing goods, service, ideas, etc.; and which, by its very nature, promotes the concentration of wealth and power, primarily into the hands of the owners/controllers of capital. It's working exactly as it's supposed to work, and the Fed is merely one of the institutionalized tools capital uses to displace inherent contradictions within the system in an effort to limit and/or stave off crises.

If this article doesn't piss you off and start to make you question whether we can do better, it probably should.