Today the Senate debated (and I use that term loosely) a number of amendments to the FISA Amendment Act aimed at increasing transparency and public oversight, shooting down every single one.
Coincidentally, I just started watching the 2008 BBC mini-series The Last Enemy, a political drama that centres around a man who returns to London from China after the death of his brother and "enters a society now obsessed with surveillance," eventually finding himself in the midst of an international conspiracy and the target of the "omnipresent and menacing eye of the government" he's been hired to sell to the public and using on the side to dig into his brother's death.
The underlying theme of security vs. privacy not only reminds me of Glenn Greenwald's relatively recent speech, "How America's Surveillance State Breeds Conformity and Fear," but relates to today's debate on the FISA Amendment Act, particularly Sen. Feinstein's vociferous defense of the secretive act and the Senate's clear opposition to any additional oversight and privacy safeguards.
From that perspective, it kind of strikes me as an Orwellian version of life imitating art imitating life, albeit unintentionally.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
lincoln
So I finally went to see Lincoln today, and I agree with everyone who said that it's a good movie. It was everything a movie should be: entertaining, engaging, thought-provoking, and at times, even somewhat moving. I also agree with the critics who say that Daniel Day-Lewis makes a fantastic Lincoln.
That said, I also agree with a lot of the criticisms directed at the film, such as the fact that black characters play a noticeably minor and passive role in a film centred on the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, as well as the way it glosses over many of the more controversial (and arguably equally as dramatic) aspects of Lincoln's presidency, like his suspension of habeas corpus and his shifting stance (or at least rhetoric) on the issues of abolition and racial equality.
They're alluded to, of course, but only briefly, and with the latter downplayed so much that Spielberg's Lincoln appears as a man hell-bent on abolishing slavery, both in order to end the war and to end a moral evil, instead of the Lincoln who wrote in 1862, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that."
I was also a bit annoyed by the numerous references to men 'enlisting' and essentially zero references to those 'drafted,' or the wealthy who were able to avoid it by shelling out a $300 commutation fee (NOT TO MENTION THE LADY WHO TALKED THROUGH THE ENTIRE FUCKING FILM CAUSING ME TO CHANGE MY SEAT).
All in all, though, the film itself is well-made and well-acted. And despite some of the personal issues I have with certain elements within it, I think it's a good, solid film that's definitely worth seeing—the only caveat being to watch it with a grain of salt and do a bit of digging into the actual history on which it's based.
That said, I also agree with a lot of the criticisms directed at the film, such as the fact that black characters play a noticeably minor and passive role in a film centred on the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, as well as the way it glosses over many of the more controversial (and arguably equally as dramatic) aspects of Lincoln's presidency, like his suspension of habeas corpus and his shifting stance (or at least rhetoric) on the issues of abolition and racial equality.
They're alluded to, of course, but only briefly, and with the latter downplayed so much that Spielberg's Lincoln appears as a man hell-bent on abolishing slavery, both in order to end the war and to end a moral evil, instead of the Lincoln who wrote in 1862, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that."
I was also a bit annoyed by the numerous references to men 'enlisting' and essentially zero references to those 'drafted,' or the wealthy who were able to avoid it by shelling out a $300 commutation fee (NOT TO MENTION THE LADY WHO TALKED THROUGH THE ENTIRE FUCKING FILM CAUSING ME TO CHANGE MY SEAT).
All in all, though, the film itself is well-made and well-acted. And despite some of the personal issues I have with certain elements within it, I think it's a good, solid film that's definitely worth seeing—the only caveat being to watch it with a grain of salt and do a bit of digging into the actual history on which it's based.
a very buddhist christmas
I had a pretty nice Christmas this year, despite not having any official plans, spending almost the whole day at Miao Fa Chan Temple hanging out with a Buddhist monk from Thailand who was born at midnight on Dec. 24th and was originally named Christmas, his niece, Paddy, and three of his students, Junko, Alan, and Sally.
A couple of days before, during the Sunday service, Ajahn Fa Thai invited those of us who wanted to join him for evening chanting and meditation, which he usually does every Tuesday from 6:30-8:30pm, to do so since the 25th is also his birthday. I ended up going over at 10am, however, to help him make food for a local homeless shelter, which he does whenever they get a lot of food donations, especially on holidays (three of us also helped the day before to make a big pot of curry to take to the shelter, and I donated some cans of soup and toiletries I bought earlier, as well).
As it turned out, he didn't really need that much help as he started cooking early and a lot of other people showed up since it was his birthday. A couple of Thai families came by to offer food, as well, and we ended up having a big potluck lunch. I was actually planning on going back home after the meal and the food for the shelter was delivered, but I was invited by everyone to stay for tea and cookies and to just hang out (which is when I found out his original name was Christmas, although he eventually had his dad change it because he was teased so much about it).
Around 4:30pm, we all went to Bay Leaf, a local vegetarian restaurant, and were treated by Junko, Alan, and Sally to a vegetarian Christmas dinner. After that, we went back to the temple for the evening chanting and meditation. All in all, it was a nice way to spend the day; and because of all the time we spent together, I think they consider me part of the family now.
A couple of days before, during the Sunday service, Ajahn Fa Thai invited those of us who wanted to join him for evening chanting and meditation, which he usually does every Tuesday from 6:30-8:30pm, to do so since the 25th is also his birthday. I ended up going over at 10am, however, to help him make food for a local homeless shelter, which he does whenever they get a lot of food donations, especially on holidays (three of us also helped the day before to make a big pot of curry to take to the shelter, and I donated some cans of soup and toiletries I bought earlier, as well).
As it turned out, he didn't really need that much help as he started cooking early and a lot of other people showed up since it was his birthday. A couple of Thai families came by to offer food, as well, and we ended up having a big potluck lunch. I was actually planning on going back home after the meal and the food for the shelter was delivered, but I was invited by everyone to stay for tea and cookies and to just hang out (which is when I found out his original name was Christmas, although he eventually had his dad change it because he was teased so much about it).
Around 4:30pm, we all went to Bay Leaf, a local vegetarian restaurant, and were treated by Junko, Alan, and Sally to a vegetarian Christmas dinner. After that, we went back to the temple for the evening chanting and meditation. All in all, it was a nice way to spend the day; and because of all the time we spent together, I think they consider me part of the family now.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
gender needs to be a part of the debate
Great article by Meghan Murphy arguing that gender, particularly the prevalence of male privilege embedded in our patriarchal society and the negative aspects of socially-constructed, male gender norms (what some call 'toxic masculinity'), needs to be a part of the gun debate and any discussion about mass shootings in American society:
But what about the men? On masculinity and mass shootings
Unfortunately, the existence of social gender hierarchy itself is something that's difficult for many of us to see, especially white, heterosexual males since were often not aware of the relative level of privilege we enjoy within American society, primarily because it manifests itself as a lack of discrimination that isn't always readily apparent until we take a broader look at American society as a whole, or the historically classist, racist, and sexist socio-economic paradigm this country was founded upon, which from the start was created by, and mainly for, white, heterosexual, Christian, male property owners. And while there's certainly been progress towards a more egalitarian society, the structural roots of social inequalities that create hierarchies of privilege are still buried deep within the makeup of our society and culture, hidden in plain sight.
Whether you agree with the idea or not, I think the article is worth reading and thinking about.
But what about the men? On masculinity and mass shootings
Unfortunately, the existence of social gender hierarchy itself is something that's difficult for many of us to see, especially white, heterosexual males since were often not aware of the relative level of privilege we enjoy within American society, primarily because it manifests itself as a lack of discrimination that isn't always readily apparent until we take a broader look at American society as a whole, or the historically classist, racist, and sexist socio-economic paradigm this country was founded upon, which from the start was created by, and mainly for, white, heterosexual, Christian, male property owners. And while there's certainly been progress towards a more egalitarian society, the structural roots of social inequalities that create hierarchies of privilege are still buried deep within the makeup of our society and culture, hidden in plain sight.
Whether you agree with the idea or not, I think the article is worth reading and thinking about.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
dear god, your memes are lame
As has become popular, people are posting the 'things like this happen because we've kicked God out of x' meme. One popular version is in the form of a letter:
To be honest, the whole 'I'm not allowed in schools anymore so kids will get shot' meme really, really pisses me off. It's so absurd that it's hard for me to create a rational argument against it. For one, this kind of thing has nothing to do with religion; it has to do with the things mentally unstable and/or distraught individuals are capable of. Beyond that, however, God (if you believe in such things) isn't limited by human policies and institutions (as if the state has the power to remove the presence of God from specific areas of civil society).
If God exists, God is everywhere and could theoretically stop anybody from doing anything by nature of being God. If God doesn't, it's because God chooses not to. It's kind of a funny argument when you think about it because, if it were true, it seems like when people who ask God to be in their lives ask God not to do something, like not let them die from a painful disease or a terrible disaster, for example, God often doesn't seem to listen; but when people tell God to stay out of schools, God apparently listens and GTFO for some reason. Why is that exactly? It doesn't make for a very nice sounding God, in my opinion.
As for public school themselves, they're places for kids to learn about English, history, math, science, etc., not to be indoctrinated by religion—that's what places like church and Catholic schools are for.
I wish this fucking meme would die already.
Dear God,
Why is there so much violence in schools?
- A Concerned Student
...
Dear Concerned Student,
I'm not allowed in school.
- God
To be honest, the whole 'I'm not allowed in schools anymore so kids will get shot' meme really, really pisses me off. It's so absurd that it's hard for me to create a rational argument against it. For one, this kind of thing has nothing to do with religion; it has to do with the things mentally unstable and/or distraught individuals are capable of. Beyond that, however, God (if you believe in such things) isn't limited by human policies and institutions (as if the state has the power to remove the presence of God from specific areas of civil society).
If God exists, God is everywhere and could theoretically stop anybody from doing anything by nature of being God. If God doesn't, it's because God chooses not to. It's kind of a funny argument when you think about it because, if it were true, it seems like when people who ask God to be in their lives ask God not to do something, like not let them die from a painful disease or a terrible disaster, for example, God often doesn't seem to listen; but when people tell God to stay out of schools, God apparently listens and GTFO for some reason. Why is that exactly? It doesn't make for a very nice sounding God, in my opinion.
As for public school themselves, they're places for kids to learn about English, history, math, science, etc., not to be indoctrinated by religion—that's what places like church and Catholic schools are for.
I wish this fucking meme would die already.
Friday, December 14, 2012
bumper-sticker propaganda
A friend of mine was driving to work today when they saw a pickup/SUV crossover with a bumper sticker that said "Fuck Your Prius!" They said, "I get that many people are gratified by driving large vehicles, even though I don't get it. But how do you spite fuel economy?" That's a good question. What contributes to the mentality of people who actively scoff at something that's come to represent things like fuel efficiency and trying to lesson our impact on the environment, and who are vocal about wanting big gas-guzzlers over more economical and environmentally friendly alternatives? Why spite something like fuel economy when oil causes us so many political problems, and automobiles in the US account for nearly half of the greenhouse gases emitted by automobiles globally?
In my opinion, it's due in part to an ideology that holds consumerism and individualism sacrosanct — an ideology that's been fed to us for generations from all directions — and the idea that we consciously consider how our actions affect society (i.e., the dreaded 'collective') is entirely anathema to this. It's the Other, the boogeyman, the things we've been taught since children to fear and fight against even though it often doesn't make any logical sense to do so. Part of this is because it's what drives our economy. It's the ideology of consumption, growth, and private ownership—the ideology of capitalism. It's the same reason we have a society where many people are coaxed into thinking it's better to buy their own car than fight for more efficient and comprehensive public transit systems, that it's their right even. It's why many chose to turn a blind eye to global climate change, or deny it completely, instead of fighting for more alternative energy research and forcing large corporations to limit their greenhouse emissions.
Or maybe not. It's something to think about, at any rate.
In my opinion, it's due in part to an ideology that holds consumerism and individualism sacrosanct — an ideology that's been fed to us for generations from all directions — and the idea that we consciously consider how our actions affect society (i.e., the dreaded 'collective') is entirely anathema to this. It's the Other, the boogeyman, the things we've been taught since children to fear and fight against even though it often doesn't make any logical sense to do so. Part of this is because it's what drives our economy. It's the ideology of consumption, growth, and private ownership—the ideology of capitalism. It's the same reason we have a society where many people are coaxed into thinking it's better to buy their own car than fight for more efficient and comprehensive public transit systems, that it's their right even. It's why many chose to turn a blind eye to global climate change, or deny it completely, instead of fighting for more alternative energy research and forcing large corporations to limit their greenhouse emissions.
Or maybe not. It's something to think about, at any rate.
gun violence: a symptom of a larger disease?
Jesus. Apparently there was a shooting an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, today where at least twenty six people were killed, eighteen of them children. Just three days ago, a guy walked into one of our local malls and started shooting, killing two people and seriously injuring another before turning the gun on himself. It's pretty fucked up, especially considering the recent shootings at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin and a theatre in Colorado were only a few short months ago.
I know some will say that if more people were armed and able to defend themselves (as well as others), things like this would happen less and/or would be more easily prevented by armed citizens. But the statistics seem to show the opposite to be true, e.g., a study done at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found that "states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide," while data from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime shows that the US has the highest rate of gun ownership per capita of any nation, yet also has a higher rate of gun violence resulting in death than any other developed country.
The way I see it, there's no easy solution, really. A combination of things like better funded and easily accessible mental healthcare, stricter gun control laws, and gun safety programs may help to reduce incidents like this, but they'll never be able to completely stop them. Part of this is because the roots of much of this kind of violence within society goes much, much deeper than crazy people or prevalence of guns, and they won't be uprooted until we take a long, hard look at the society of fear and violence we've created, or that we've allowed to be created for us—a society where things like a basic guaranteed income and universal healthcare (including better funding of, and easier access to, mental healthcare) are fought against tooth and nail, and starting wars in the name of peace and dropping bombs that routinely kill innocent civilians seems as easy as buying a gun at Walmart.
As a friend of mine put it on Facebook in response to the news, "No amount of gun control will do anything but make the problem worse until we change the culture. The United States has been in a perpetual state of violent war, both domestic and abroad, since it was founded." Which reminded me of something Martin Luther King, Jr. said in a speech he gave in 1967, called "Beyond Vietnam," that seems as relevant today as it did then:
As well as a similar, and perhaps even more directly relevant, line from a eulogy he gave in 1963 for four young girls who were killed when members of the Ku Klux Klan bombed the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama:
Unfortunately, in the grand scheme of things, these deaths are just a drop in the bucket. According to the US Census Bureau, approximately 150,000+ people, including children, die every day all over the world for a variety of reasons, from wars, accidents, and random acts of violence by poor, opportunistic, sadistic, or mental unstable and distraught individuals, to more easily preventable things like starvation, lack of clean drinking water and access to basic healthcare. In essence, it's partially a structural problem, and that aspect is something that'll take a long time to work out, especially when taking a broader look at human progress and seeing the cycle of revolutionary and reactionary ways we change and deal with the dialectical processes of history. The more consciously we do this, and the less reactionary we are in the process, however, the better and quicker I think our evolution towards a more cohesive and peaceful society will be.
It's sad that this happened, and I really hate hearing about things like this. So I'll continue to support things like universal healthcare in the short term, and fight for a healthier and less volatile society via progressive socio-economic changes in the long term. Beyond that, though, I don't know what else I can do. And yes, I'm politicizing this issue because the way I see it, it is a political issue.
I know some will say that if more people were armed and able to defend themselves (as well as others), things like this would happen less and/or would be more easily prevented by armed citizens. But the statistics seem to show the opposite to be true, e.g., a study done at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found that "states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide," while data from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime shows that the US has the highest rate of gun ownership per capita of any nation, yet also has a higher rate of gun violence resulting in death than any other developed country.
The way I see it, there's no easy solution, really. A combination of things like better funded and easily accessible mental healthcare, stricter gun control laws, and gun safety programs may help to reduce incidents like this, but they'll never be able to completely stop them. Part of this is because the roots of much of this kind of violence within society goes much, much deeper than crazy people or prevalence of guns, and they won't be uprooted until we take a long, hard look at the society of fear and violence we've created, or that we've allowed to be created for us—a society where things like a basic guaranteed income and universal healthcare (including better funding of, and easier access to, mental healthcare) are fought against tooth and nail, and starting wars in the name of peace and dropping bombs that routinely kill innocent civilians seems as easy as buying a gun at Walmart.
As a friend of mine put it on Facebook in response to the news, "No amount of gun control will do anything but make the problem worse until we change the culture. The United States has been in a perpetual state of violent war, both domestic and abroad, since it was founded." Which reminded me of something Martin Luther King, Jr. said in a speech he gave in 1967, called "Beyond Vietnam," that seems as relevant today as it did then:
My third reason [for speaking out against the Vietnam War] moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettoes of the North over the last three years -- especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they ask -- and rightly so -- what about Vietnam? They ask if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.
As well as a similar, and perhaps even more directly relevant, line from a eulogy he gave in 1963 for four young girls who were killed when members of the Ku Klux Klan bombed the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama:
They say to us that we must be concerned not merely about who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced the murderers. Their death says to us that we must work passionately and unrelentingly for the realization of the American dream.
Unfortunately, in the grand scheme of things, these deaths are just a drop in the bucket. According to the US Census Bureau, approximately 150,000+ people, including children, die every day all over the world for a variety of reasons, from wars, accidents, and random acts of violence by poor, opportunistic, sadistic, or mental unstable and distraught individuals, to more easily preventable things like starvation, lack of clean drinking water and access to basic healthcare. In essence, it's partially a structural problem, and that aspect is something that'll take a long time to work out, especially when taking a broader look at human progress and seeing the cycle of revolutionary and reactionary ways we change and deal with the dialectical processes of history. The more consciously we do this, and the less reactionary we are in the process, however, the better and quicker I think our evolution towards a more cohesive and peaceful society will be.
It's sad that this happened, and I really hate hearing about things like this. So I'll continue to support things like universal healthcare in the short term, and fight for a healthier and less volatile society via progressive socio-economic changes in the long term. Beyond that, though, I don't know what else I can do. And yes, I'm politicizing this issue because the way I see it, it is a political issue.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
rtw legislation a raw deal for michigan
Michigan just got a raw deal with the signing of two bills "sharply limiting labor rights." This is exactly the opposite of what we, while coming out of a severe recession, should be doing to move forward, in my opinion. If anything, we should be trying to repeal things like the anti-union Taft–Hartley Act, not utilizing it to pass even more laws limiting labour rights that ultimately serve to weaken already beleaguered unions and drive down wages, e.g., according to the Economic Policy Institute, wages in right-to-work states are 3.2% lower than those in non-RTW states.
Even from the point of view of capital, it's counterproductive. Workers are consumers, and if workers get paid less, they have less with which to consume. Less consumption means less demand, which translates into less growth (and that's bad for capitalism). The small advantage capital and employers will get by restricting the ability of unions to collect fees from employees who benefit from union-negotiated contracts and prohibiting closed shops (i.e., places requiring employees at unionized workplaces to be members of the union as a condition of employment) will ultimately turn around and bite them in the ass, although it'll be the working class that suffers the most as usual.
What we really need, however, is more militant and radicalized unions that are not only more focused on organizing and agitating workers than simply acting as a mediator between capital and labour that negotiates contracts, but that are also willing to continuously fight for their demands, striking if need be and agreeing to return to work only when their demands are met. Until then, unions will not only continue to decline while losing battle after battle, but they’ll find themselves completely irrelevant since it’s their role as an organized and unbending challenge to capital that they’re truly useful to the working class.
Even from the point of view of capital, it's counterproductive. Workers are consumers, and if workers get paid less, they have less with which to consume. Less consumption means less demand, which translates into less growth (and that's bad for capitalism). The small advantage capital and employers will get by restricting the ability of unions to collect fees from employees who benefit from union-negotiated contracts and prohibiting closed shops (i.e., places requiring employees at unionized workplaces to be members of the union as a condition of employment) will ultimately turn around and bite them in the ass, although it'll be the working class that suffers the most as usual.
What we really need, however, is more militant and radicalized unions that are not only more focused on organizing and agitating workers than simply acting as a mediator between capital and labour that negotiates contracts, but that are also willing to continuously fight for their demands, striking if need be and agreeing to return to work only when their demands are met. Until then, unions will not only continue to decline while losing battle after battle, but they’ll find themselves completely irrelevant since it’s their role as an organized and unbending challenge to capital that they’re truly useful to the working class.
the absurdity of scalia's defense of anti-sodomy laws
For US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the Constitution is dead yet flexible, kind of like his arguments and use of logic when it comes to defending his comparison of laws banning sodomy with those barring bestiality and murder:
Antonin Scalia Defends Legal Writings Some View As Offensive, Anti-Gay
When Duncan Hosie, a gay student, questioned Scalia's defense of laws banning sodomy by comparing them to laws barring bestiality and murder, Scalia replied, "It's a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the 'reduction to the absurd' ... If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?" (One could just as easily have retorted, "It's a logical fallacy that I thought you would have known, which is called false equivalency.") Unsurprisingly (except to Scalia), Hosie wasn't convinced by Scalia's dead-yet-flexible anti-gayideology logic.
Somehow Scalia is not only able to 'draw parallels' between laws banning a consensual, sexual act between individuals that doesn't harm anyone (sodomy) and laws banning a violent act that ends the life of another (murder) in his use of reductio ad absurdum, but he also manages to completely ignore the fact that this very same argument was once used to support the legality of laws banning interracial marriages (i.e., If we can't have moral feelings against or objections to interracial marriages, can we have it against anything?). It didn't hold up to scrutiny then, and it sure as hell shouldn't be allowed to remain unchallenged now.
Another consequence of his argument, which I sincerely doubt Scalia bothered to consider, is that a prudish enough society could just as easily decide that all forms of sexual intercourse should be banned, promoting celibacy instead. And by his logical, society should have that ability too, even though its absurdity should clearly illustrate why this kind of logic is flawed. They way I see, this kind of argument comes more from a place of privilege and discrimination than anything else. For Scalia, the morality and legality of heterosexual sex (and marriage) is never questioned, and he obviously doesn't believe the reverse of his argument is possible (i.e., a legal challenge to vaginal sex), therefore it's not even a consideration while he attempts to support his views on anti-sodomy laws.
I say good on Hosie for not being persuaded by such a lackluster argument.
Antonin Scalia Defends Legal Writings Some View As Offensive, Anti-Gay
When Duncan Hosie, a gay student, questioned Scalia's defense of laws banning sodomy by comparing them to laws barring bestiality and murder, Scalia replied, "It's a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the 'reduction to the absurd' ... If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?" (One could just as easily have retorted, "It's a logical fallacy that I thought you would have known, which is called false equivalency.") Unsurprisingly (except to Scalia), Hosie wasn't convinced by Scalia's dead-yet-flexible anti-gay
Somehow Scalia is not only able to 'draw parallels' between laws banning a consensual, sexual act between individuals that doesn't harm anyone (sodomy) and laws banning a violent act that ends the life of another (murder) in his use of reductio ad absurdum, but he also manages to completely ignore the fact that this very same argument was once used to support the legality of laws banning interracial marriages (i.e., If we can't have moral feelings against or objections to interracial marriages, can we have it against anything?). It didn't hold up to scrutiny then, and it sure as hell shouldn't be allowed to remain unchallenged now.
Another consequence of his argument, which I sincerely doubt Scalia bothered to consider, is that a prudish enough society could just as easily decide that all forms of sexual intercourse should be banned, promoting celibacy instead. And by his logical, society should have that ability too, even though its absurdity should clearly illustrate why this kind of logic is flawed. They way I see, this kind of argument comes more from a place of privilege and discrimination than anything else. For Scalia, the morality and legality of heterosexual sex (and marriage) is never questioned, and he obviously doesn't believe the reverse of his argument is possible (i.e., a legal challenge to vaginal sex), therefore it's not even a consideration while he attempts to support his views on anti-sodomy laws.
I say good on Hosie for not being persuaded by such a lackluster argument.
Monday, December 10, 2012
noble friendship
This past weekend, I attended another meditation retreat at Wat Atam. This time, however, the retreat was led by Sakula (Mary Reinard), the spiritual director and teacher of Portland Friends of the Dhamma. The retreat itself was relatively similar to the one I attended at the end of September, but it was unique for me in that it was the first retreat I've been to that's been led by a lay teacher instead of a monastic. It was also special in that it was the first retreat Sakula herself has led, and it was nice to be a part of that, especially because this particular retreat has helped to form a relationship between the communities of Wat Atam and Portland Friends of the Dhamma.
While Ajahn Ritthi, the abbot of Wat Atam, gave a couple of Dhamma talks during the retreat, Sakula ran the show, and this retreat was as fruitful for me as the previous one. Sakula is an experienced meditator who's led Portland Friends of the Dhamma for a number of years, and I think that experience served all of the retreatants well. She created an atmosphere conducive to practicing meditation, and gave guidance that was simultaneously encouraging, gentle, strict, and applicable to all types of meditators. Some, for example, really benefited from her talks on having a friendly attitude towards ourselves and how that can impact our practice and those around us, while others (like myself) benefited from her suggestions to hold our posture as long as possible and resist the mind's tendency to exaggerate and proliferate around painful sensations.
Being a somewhat regular member of Portland Friends of the Dhamma myself (I usually try to make it to the Friday night meditation session and Dhamma talk), I was happy to see that Ajahn Ritthi and the organizers of the retreat were impressed with the retreat and the conduct of the retreatants, many of which were also from Portland Friends of the Dhamma. Ajahn Ritthi said that it's not just the job of monastics to teach the Dhamma, that it's also the duty of lay followers to teach, and that he and Sakula were relatives in the Dhamma. It's that kind of sentiment that I think will help further strengthen the growth of lay groups like Portland Friends of the Dhamma, as well as help breakdown the resistance of some to seeing lay teachers as legitimate Dhamma teachers.
In short, the retreat was a success on many levels, and I'm glad that I had the opportunity to attend. It was the first retreat led by Sakula and another step forward in her evolution as a Dhamma teacher. It acted as a bridge, connecting two Buddhist communities in the Pacific Northwest together and helping open up new opportunities for Portland Friends of the Dhamma by expanding their presence and giving them a well-organized venue for Sakula to possibly teach more retreats in the future. And on a personal level, it was successful in helping me learn more about what I need to do in order to improve my meditation practice while bringing me closer to the Portland Friends of the Dhamma community.
While Ajahn Ritthi, the abbot of Wat Atam, gave a couple of Dhamma talks during the retreat, Sakula ran the show, and this retreat was as fruitful for me as the previous one. Sakula is an experienced meditator who's led Portland Friends of the Dhamma for a number of years, and I think that experience served all of the retreatants well. She created an atmosphere conducive to practicing meditation, and gave guidance that was simultaneously encouraging, gentle, strict, and applicable to all types of meditators. Some, for example, really benefited from her talks on having a friendly attitude towards ourselves and how that can impact our practice and those around us, while others (like myself) benefited from her suggestions to hold our posture as long as possible and resist the mind's tendency to exaggerate and proliferate around painful sensations.
Being a somewhat regular member of Portland Friends of the Dhamma myself (I usually try to make it to the Friday night meditation session and Dhamma talk), I was happy to see that Ajahn Ritthi and the organizers of the retreat were impressed with the retreat and the conduct of the retreatants, many of which were also from Portland Friends of the Dhamma. Ajahn Ritthi said that it's not just the job of monastics to teach the Dhamma, that it's also the duty of lay followers to teach, and that he and Sakula were relatives in the Dhamma. It's that kind of sentiment that I think will help further strengthen the growth of lay groups like Portland Friends of the Dhamma, as well as help breakdown the resistance of some to seeing lay teachers as legitimate Dhamma teachers.
In short, the retreat was a success on many levels, and I'm glad that I had the opportunity to attend. It was the first retreat led by Sakula and another step forward in her evolution as a Dhamma teacher. It acted as a bridge, connecting two Buddhist communities in the Pacific Northwest together and helping open up new opportunities for Portland Friends of the Dhamma by expanding their presence and giving them a well-organized venue for Sakula to possibly teach more retreats in the future. And on a personal level, it was successful in helping me learn more about what I need to do in order to improve my meditation practice while bringing me closer to the Portland Friends of the Dhamma community.
Admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life. (SN 45.2)
Thursday, November 22, 2012
thanksgiving at miao fa chan temple
This year, I spent part of the day at Miao Fa Chan Temple, where they had a vegetarian Thanksgiving lunch. No turkey, but plenty of hot pots, pumpkin pie, and metta. Everyone who came pitched in, bringing and/or cooking food, setting up the eating area, taking out the garbage, washing dishes, and even cleaning toilets. It was definitely a nice way to spend Thanksgiving. Even though I hardly knew anyone there, I felt as if I were among old friends.
After the meal, Ajahn Fa Thai made a huge pot of soup to take down to one of the local homeless shelters for all the people who have nowhere to go and nobody to spend the day with. That simple gesture really touched me for some reason, maybe because so few of us would think to do something like that, being so caught up in our own, cloistered lives (myself included). Sometimes it's the simplest acts of kindness that can inspire the deepest reverence.
happy thanksgiving
For me, like many others, Thanksgiving is a time to give thanks and (more importantly) share a delicious meal with those around me in the spirit of generosity and kindness. And while I love to stuff my face full of delicious, home-cooked food as much as the next stereotypical American, I think it's worthwhile to reflect on the history of Thanksgiving.
Much like Columbus Day, this holiday is marred by a grim and bloody past, from the mythologized 1621 celebration at Plymouth to the 1863 proclamation by President Lincoln for a national day of "Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens" during the midst of the Civil War.
The former belies the tragic fate of the Native Americans that unfolded under Manifest Destiny and the 19th century policy of Indian removal, while the latter was set within the context of what many consider to be the deadliest war in American history.
So for me, today isn't just about being thankful, overeating, and maybe watching some football. It's also about remembering the rather somber and often overlooked history underlying this holiday with the intention to learn from the past and strengthen my resolve to try and make this world a better place. As George Santayana famously wrote, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Much like Columbus Day, this holiday is marred by a grim and bloody past, from the mythologized 1621 celebration at Plymouth to the 1863 proclamation by President Lincoln for a national day of "Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens" during the midst of the Civil War.
The former belies the tragic fate of the Native Americans that unfolded under Manifest Destiny and the 19th century policy of Indian removal, while the latter was set within the context of what many consider to be the deadliest war in American history.
So for me, today isn't just about being thankful, overeating, and maybe watching some football. It's also about remembering the rather somber and often overlooked history underlying this holiday with the intention to learn from the past and strengthen my resolve to try and make this world a better place. As George Santayana famously wrote, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Friday, November 16, 2012
meal offering
Went to a meal offering and impromptu house blessing today, which is sort of a Thai Buddhist tradition where someone invites a monk or a group of monks to accept their daily meal at their house, especially after just moving in. Occasions like this are often festive affairs, with people bringing all kinds of dishes to offer and share. It's basically like a big potluck with a bit of Pali chanting thrown in for good measure. It's always a pleasant experience, and the food is always wonderful. One of the ladies even offered to teach me how to cook traditional Thai dishes sometime after Thanksgiving, and I'm definitely going to take her up on that.
As far as I can recall, this was my first meal offering outside of a monastery or meditation hall, and I'm glad that I was able to make it. I almost missed out because I wasn't paying as much attention as I should've been while looking up the directions and took the wrong bus, jumping on the 4 instead of the 14. If nothing else, today was at least a good lesson on the importance of mindfulness.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
gaza: deja vu
When it comes to the ongoing violence in Gaza, most mainstream media reports always seem to focus on Israel's right to defend itself, yet rarely do they ever seem to consider what rights the Palestinians have, essentially ignoring the crisis Palestinians have been facing for decades, a situation so dire that former president Jimmy Carter likened it to South African apartheid.
They also seem to do their best to avoid talking about the civilian casualties on the Palestinian side and glossing over the provocative acts of the IDF, instead focusing on 'militant' casualties and the home-made rockets coming out of Gaza, an area that's smaller than Portland, Oregon, with twice the population, which in reality is more like a giant prison than a state, with Israel controlling their airspace and territorial waters, as well as the Gaza-Israel border (the only other access point is the Gaza-Egypt border, which itself is protected by concrete and steel walls).
As with most things of this nature, the situation isn't necessarily as simplistic or as one-sided as it's often made out to be. But whatever the case, there's little doubt that when the dust settles, the majority of casualties will be on the Palestinian side and the West will have done nothing to stop the carnage, as was the case almost four years ago with Operation Cast Lead. Sadly, instead of resolving anything, it'll merely sow the seeds for more violence in the future.
They also seem to do their best to avoid talking about the civilian casualties on the Palestinian side and glossing over the provocative acts of the IDF, instead focusing on 'militant' casualties and the home-made rockets coming out of Gaza, an area that's smaller than Portland, Oregon, with twice the population, which in reality is more like a giant prison than a state, with Israel controlling their airspace and territorial waters, as well as the Gaza-Israel border (the only other access point is the Gaza-Egypt border, which itself is protected by concrete and steel walls).
As with most things of this nature, the situation isn't necessarily as simplistic or as one-sided as it's often made out to be. But whatever the case, there's little doubt that when the dust settles, the majority of casualties will be on the Palestinian side and the West will have done nothing to stop the carnage, as was the case almost four years ago with Operation Cast Lead. Sadly, instead of resolving anything, it'll merely sow the seeds for more violence in the future.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
we should honour veterans with more than just words
Veterans Day, a day to honour the men and women who have placed their lives in danger for the sake of others. For my own part, I respect those who join the military and place their lives in danger for the sake of others despite my own philosophical disagreements with war and the reasons we fight them; and I respect the hellish things that many of them are forced to endure in the course of their service, as well as the sacrifice of those who lose their lives while serving.
But for me, today isn't just about honouring their service; it's also about remembering the toll that war takes on its survivors and the heavy burdens than many veterans bear from their time spent in war, physical and mental scars that take lifetimes to heal, if at all. Whether they fight for things like freedom and justice, or simply find themselves in harm's way while trying to make a better life for themselves and their families, they are as much victims as they are heroes—victims of a political-economic system in which the ruling class declares the wars that the working class and poor must fight. As Eugene Debs famously said in his 1918 Canton, Ohio, speech:
War is hell, and many of those who come out on the other side of it are changed forever. As human beings caught in the tangled web of geopolitics and the machinations of plutocrats who treat human lives more like commodities in their lust for wealth and power than people, I think our veterans deserve to be honoured and cared for just as much as any other victims of war, not forgotten and left to shoulder their physical and psychological burdens alone as they often are, cast aside by the ruling class like broken playthings discarded by a spoiled and thankless child.
How should we honour our veterans, then? With flag-waving and solemn words by politicians one day a year? With parades and empty promises? No. By making sure that veterans receive the emotional support and medical care they need is how we should honour them. By helping homeless veterans get off the streets and into safe, warm homes is how we should honour them. And most of all, we should honour them as WWII veteran and political activist Howard Zinn suggested, by renouncing war and vowing "No more war victims on the other side; no more war veterans on our side."
But for me, today isn't just about honouring their service; it's also about remembering the toll that war takes on its survivors and the heavy burdens than many veterans bear from their time spent in war, physical and mental scars that take lifetimes to heal, if at all. Whether they fight for things like freedom and justice, or simply find themselves in harm's way while trying to make a better life for themselves and their families, they are as much victims as they are heroes—victims of a political-economic system in which the ruling class declares the wars that the working class and poor must fight. As Eugene Debs famously said in his 1918 Canton, Ohio, speech:
They have always taught and trained you to believe it to be your patriotic duty to go to war and to have yourselves slaughtered at their command. But in all the history of the world you, the people, have never had a voice in declaring war, and strange as it certainly appears, no war by any nation in any age has ever been declared by the people. And here let me emphasize the fact—and it cannot be repeated too often—that the working class who fight all the battles, the working class who make the supreme sacrifices, the working class who freely shed their blood and furnish the corpses, have never yet had a voice in either declaring war or making peace. It is the ruling class that invariably does both. They alone declare war and they alone make peace.
War is hell, and many of those who come out on the other side of it are changed forever. As human beings caught in the tangled web of geopolitics and the machinations of plutocrats who treat human lives more like commodities in their lust for wealth and power than people, I think our veterans deserve to be honoured and cared for just as much as any other victims of war, not forgotten and left to shoulder their physical and psychological burdens alone as they often are, cast aside by the ruling class like broken playthings discarded by a spoiled and thankless child.
How should we honour our veterans, then? With flag-waving and solemn words by politicians one day a year? With parades and empty promises? No. By making sure that veterans receive the emotional support and medical care they need is how we should honour them. By helping homeless veterans get off the streets and into safe, warm homes is how we should honour them. And most of all, we should honour them as WWII veteran and political activist Howard Zinn suggested, by renouncing war and vowing "No more war victims on the other side; no more war veterans on our side."
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
give the whole 'lazy minorities want free hand-outs' meme a rest already
As it became clear Obama was going to win by a large margin, conservative pundits were already decrying the death of traditional America and the rise of freeloading minorities. Sadly, this idea seems to be a common perception among many. Bill O'Reilly, for example, apparently went on a racist rant last night about non-whites and women wanting stuff and voting for Obama because they know he'll give it to them unlike 'white establishment' Romney and 'traditional America' (conservative, white males, I'm guessing).
Honestly, it drives me crazy and I can't stand it. I can't stand the classism and racism underlying it. I can't stand the lack of understanding of our history and the systemic discrimination embedded into many of our institutions and psyche. I can't stand the lack of compassion. And I can't stand the blatantly negative attitudes surrounding minorities, the poor, and anyone receiving government assistance in general, as if they're all just a bunch of lazy pieces of shit. There are ways to fix these problems, but that'll never happen if people continue to pretend that there isn't a problem, or that the problem is that blacks and poor people are simply lazy leeches who abuse the system and need to be cut off.
Taking a broader look at American history, however, I think it's hard to miss the fact that systemic discrimination has been embedded into many of our institutions and psyche; and even though things are more equal now than in the past, there's still a lot of work to be done. Sure, slavery is no more and women can now vote; but women still get paid less than men and blacks still face disproportionate police discrimination (e.g., our local police bureau recently admitted that racism may be a factor behind the persistent disparity between how often whites and blacks in Portland are stopped and then searched).
In essence, to say what O'Reilly said while seemingly ignoring systematic problems and social prejudices (problems that many don't even think exist) gives an incomplete picture of the problem, which I believe will distort the effectiveness of any proposed solutions. Cutting people off of government assistance at a certain time, for example, which is something many conservatives favour, won't make it any easier for those people to get a decent education or a job that can actually support them without any additional assistance in a society that still makes it more difficult for some than others.
To take just one example, the unemployment rate among black college graduates is almost double that of whites, and I sincerely doubt it's because all those black grads are just lazy, so just imagine how difficult it must be for someone without a college degree who also happens to be black to find work. And many of those who do manage find employment, regardless of their gender, race, etc., aren't being paid enough to support themselves without help. Minimum wage just isn't enough.
Another issue I see besides these negative attitudes surrounding minorities, the poor, and anyone receiving government assistance is that many Americans are adverse to a lot of the things that can potentially help change the structure of the current political-economic system for the better, like stricter lobbying laws, instant runoff voting, an amendment ending corporate personhood (which currently gives corporations many of the same rights as citizens) and the institution of campaign finance reforms, tougher banking regulations, truly universal, single-payer healthcare, solidly-funded K-college education for all, and even more radical things like a universal basic income, etc.
Historically speaking, less taxes on the wealthy, more privatization and deregulation, and supply-side economics haven't really worked that well for us in the past. And for all the negative talk about things like the evil, socialist Scandinavian welfare states, they're actually pretty prosperous all-around and are weathering the current crisis relatively well, which is arguably due in part to their strong safety nets and smarter/tougher regulations on the banking sector (same for Canada).
But leaving the economic aspect of the discussion aside, I think the prevalence of racist and/or negative attitudes towards minorities, the poor, and anyone receiving government assistance in general, exemplified by people like O'Reilly, are ultimately an impediments to our material and spiritual growth as a nation. And for all their talk about fiscal conservatism and 'makers and takers,' this is the kind of thing that people like O'Reilly, Trump, and Limbaugh seem to be really afraid of: "Barack Obama And The Death Of Normal."
The times they are a-changin'.
Honestly, it drives me crazy and I can't stand it. I can't stand the classism and racism underlying it. I can't stand the lack of understanding of our history and the systemic discrimination embedded into many of our institutions and psyche. I can't stand the lack of compassion. And I can't stand the blatantly negative attitudes surrounding minorities, the poor, and anyone receiving government assistance in general, as if they're all just a bunch of lazy pieces of shit. There are ways to fix these problems, but that'll never happen if people continue to pretend that there isn't a problem, or that the problem is that blacks and poor people are simply lazy leeches who abuse the system and need to be cut off.
Taking a broader look at American history, however, I think it's hard to miss the fact that systemic discrimination has been embedded into many of our institutions and psyche; and even though things are more equal now than in the past, there's still a lot of work to be done. Sure, slavery is no more and women can now vote; but women still get paid less than men and blacks still face disproportionate police discrimination (e.g., our local police bureau recently admitted that racism may be a factor behind the persistent disparity between how often whites and blacks in Portland are stopped and then searched).
In essence, to say what O'Reilly said while seemingly ignoring systematic problems and social prejudices (problems that many don't even think exist) gives an incomplete picture of the problem, which I believe will distort the effectiveness of any proposed solutions. Cutting people off of government assistance at a certain time, for example, which is something many conservatives favour, won't make it any easier for those people to get a decent education or a job that can actually support them without any additional assistance in a society that still makes it more difficult for some than others.
To take just one example, the unemployment rate among black college graduates is almost double that of whites, and I sincerely doubt it's because all those black grads are just lazy, so just imagine how difficult it must be for someone without a college degree who also happens to be black to find work. And many of those who do manage find employment, regardless of their gender, race, etc., aren't being paid enough to support themselves without help. Minimum wage just isn't enough.
Another issue I see besides these negative attitudes surrounding minorities, the poor, and anyone receiving government assistance is that many Americans are adverse to a lot of the things that can potentially help change the structure of the current political-economic system for the better, like stricter lobbying laws, instant runoff voting, an amendment ending corporate personhood (which currently gives corporations many of the same rights as citizens) and the institution of campaign finance reforms, tougher banking regulations, truly universal, single-payer healthcare, solidly-funded K-college education for all, and even more radical things like a universal basic income, etc.
Historically speaking, less taxes on the wealthy, more privatization and deregulation, and supply-side economics haven't really worked that well for us in the past. And for all the negative talk about things like the evil, socialist Scandinavian welfare states, they're actually pretty prosperous all-around and are weathering the current crisis relatively well, which is arguably due in part to their strong safety nets and smarter/tougher regulations on the banking sector (same for Canada).
But leaving the economic aspect of the discussion aside, I think the prevalence of racist and/or negative attitudes towards minorities, the poor, and anyone receiving government assistance in general, exemplified by people like O'Reilly, are ultimately an impediments to our material and spiritual growth as a nation. And for all their talk about fiscal conservatism and 'makers and takers,' this is the kind of thing that people like O'Reilly, Trump, and Limbaugh seem to be really afraid of: "Barack Obama And The Death Of Normal."
The times they are a-changin'.
Monday, November 5, 2012
happy birthday, eugene
Partially thanks to the popularity of Alan Moore's V for Vendetta, most people think of Guy Fawkes on November 5th, a member of the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 who was arrested while guarding explosives placed beneath the House of Lords. But today is also the birthday of Eugene V. Debs, one of the greatest Americans to ever have lived, in my opinion. He was a champion of the working class if there ever was one. Happy Birthday, comrade.
"Your Honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free" (Eugene V. Debs, upon being convicted of violating the Sedition Act for giving the speech read above by the Incredible Hulk).
"Your Honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free" (Eugene V. Debs, upon being convicted of violating the Sedition Act for giving the speech read above by the Incredible Hulk).
Thursday, November 1, 2012
what madison refused to do during the war of 1812
Saw this on Twitter today via Glenn Greenwald and thought I'd share it here:
James Madison, Presidential Power, and Civil Liberties in the War of 1812
It's an interesting look at James Madison's relatively unique deference to civil liberties and tolerance for dissent during wartime. While being far from perfect, as evidenced by everything from his ownership of slaves to his use of covert and duplicitous methods to acquire West and East Florida from Spain, Madison displayed a rare level of restraint during the War of 1812 that few presidents, if any, have replicated, not only denying the authority to detain American citizens in military custody or try them in military tribunals, but also refusing to repress dissent or suspend the writ of habeas corpus despite facing unprecedented political dissent and active opposition during a time of war.
I was unaware of most of this myself, not having studied Madison's presidency or the War of 1812 in much detail, and think it's worth checking out.
James Madison, Presidential Power, and Civil Liberties in the War of 1812
It's an interesting look at James Madison's relatively unique deference to civil liberties and tolerance for dissent during wartime. While being far from perfect, as evidenced by everything from his ownership of slaves to his use of covert and duplicitous methods to acquire West and East Florida from Spain, Madison displayed a rare level of restraint during the War of 1812 that few presidents, if any, have replicated, not only denying the authority to detain American citizens in military custody or try them in military tribunals, but also refusing to repress dissent or suspend the writ of habeas corpus despite facing unprecedented political dissent and active opposition during a time of war.
I was unaware of most of this myself, not having studied Madison's presidency or the War of 1812 in much detail, and think it's worth checking out.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Monday, October 29, 2012
just say no [to austerity measures]
Almost a year ago, I read an article in the Nation about the rise of the 'austerity class' and the growing popularity of deficit reduction measures in political discourse called "How the Austerity Class Rules Washington." It got me thinking about how 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 with this type of approach, however, 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 goods and services 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 else 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. But instead of the latter, all I've been hearing during the current election cycle is a lot of austerity talk, much of it directed towards social programs like Medicare and Social Security.
I'm not really a huge fan of Paul Krugman, but I think he brings up a fairly decent (albeit obvious) point in an op-ed he wrote earlier in the year called "The Austerity Agenda" that was originally made by John Maynard Keynes 75 years ago: that by pumping money into the system during slumps, the government can stimulate aggregate demand and help put people back to work in times of economic decline, and their subsequent spending will further help speed economic recovery. And conversely, that 'starving the beast' (i.e. the government) will most likely do little besides prolong and/or exacerbate the slump of an already depressed economy.
The bottom line is that austerity measures, particularly in combination with lower taxes on the wealthy and fewer regulations for corporations, ultimately hurt the working class and poor, eroding years of hard won gains by the latter while strengthening the former's capacity to accumulate more profit, as well as letting them off the hook for their greed and irresponsible behaviour. By "using deficit panic as an excuse to dismantle social programs," then, capital and the oligarchical ruling class have essentially found a way to utilize austerity measures as a means of privatizing gains and socializing losses under the guise of, ironically, fiscal responsibility.
The financial crisis of 2008 and the ensuing recession did a lot of damage the economy, from destabilizing financial institutions and the housing market, leading to failures and foreclosures, to creating chronic unemployment across the country. And the impact from that was further exacerbated by a federal deficit largely created by two unfunded wars and tax cuts for the wealthy (thanks, GWB!). But instead of attacking the bloated military budget in any significant way, raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations (which are at historically low levels), and instituting strong financial reforms (instead of lukewarm reforms like Dodd-Frank), the trend has been to gradually take it out on the backs of the elderly, the poor, students, and the working class via austerity measures aimed at cutting spending on things like education, healthcare, transportation, etc.
I think that's the wrong approach, and I urge everyone else who also thinks it's the wrong approach to be more vocal about it. Vote for candidates who'll stand with working people to oppose these kinds of measures. Start writing your current representatives and tell them that you oppose these kinds of measures and want them to support different solutions. And if you have the time, join other like-minded individuals demonstrating against austerity cuts and for things like an end to war and a smaller military budget, an end to the Bush-era tax cuts, higher taxes on large corporations and capital gains, and other solutions that don't target an already beleaguered working class or the members of our society who need government help the most.
The problem with this type of approach, however, 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 goods and services 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 else 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. But instead of the latter, all I've been hearing during the current election cycle is a lot of austerity talk, much of it directed towards social programs like Medicare and Social Security.
I'm not really a huge fan of Paul Krugman, but I think he brings up a fairly decent (albeit obvious) point in an op-ed he wrote earlier in the year called "The Austerity Agenda" that was originally made by John Maynard Keynes 75 years ago: that by pumping money into the system during slumps, the government can stimulate aggregate demand and help put people back to work in times of economic decline, and their subsequent spending will further help speed economic recovery. And conversely, that 'starving the beast' (i.e. the government) will most likely do little besides prolong and/or exacerbate the slump of an already depressed economy.
The bottom line is that austerity measures, particularly in combination with lower taxes on the wealthy and fewer regulations for corporations, ultimately hurt the working class and poor, eroding years of hard won gains by the latter while strengthening the former's capacity to accumulate more profit, as well as letting them off the hook for their greed and irresponsible behaviour. By "using deficit panic as an excuse to dismantle social programs," then, capital and the oligarchical ruling class have essentially found a way to utilize austerity measures as a means of privatizing gains and socializing losses under the guise of, ironically, fiscal responsibility.
The financial crisis of 2008 and the ensuing recession did a lot of damage the economy, from destabilizing financial institutions and the housing market, leading to failures and foreclosures, to creating chronic unemployment across the country. And the impact from that was further exacerbated by a federal deficit largely created by two unfunded wars and tax cuts for the wealthy (thanks, GWB!). But instead of attacking the bloated military budget in any significant way, raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations (which are at historically low levels), and instituting strong financial reforms (instead of lukewarm reforms like Dodd-Frank), the trend has been to gradually take it out on the backs of the elderly, the poor, students, and the working class via austerity measures aimed at cutting spending on things like education, healthcare, transportation, etc.
I think that's the wrong approach, and I urge everyone else who also thinks it's the wrong approach to be more vocal about it. Vote for candidates who'll stand with working people to oppose these kinds of measures. Start writing your current representatives and tell them that you oppose these kinds of measures and want them to support different solutions. And if you have the time, join other like-minded individuals demonstrating against austerity cuts and for things like an end to war and a smaller military budget, an end to the Bush-era tax cuts, higher taxes on large corporations and capital gains, and other solutions that don't target an already beleaguered working class or the members of our society who need government help the most.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
why voting alone isn't enough
Something a friend of mine said about average people never gaining control of our government without literally, physically, taking it back because it's been bought and paid for by the wealthy inspired this relatively short, 15-point argument that simply engaging in electoral politics (i.e., voting) isn't enough to change the system on its own:
1. We live in a predominately capitalist political-economic system.
2. Capitalism is a process in which money is taken to produce commodities (e.g., goods, services, etc.) that can be sold for a profit (M-C-M).
3. This process leads to capital accumulation (i.e., the accumulation of wealth) on the part of capital as opposed to labour due to their ownership of the means of production and finance.
4. Money, as a representation of value and medium of exchange, is a form of social power.
5. Money is considered Constitutionally-protected free speech within our system.
6. Money is a driving force in the political process (which now allows unlimited campaign spending by corporations and other collective entities).
7. The more money one possesses, the more influence one potentially has in this system.
8. The capitalist class, then, logically has a disproportionate advantage within our system, especially when it comes to influencing and shaping our representative form of government, than the working class and poor.
9. Those in power make the rules (i.e., laws and loopholes) and tend to do so with a view to their own preservation and well-being.
10. Their own preservation and well-being depends upon serving the interests of capital and finance.
11. It follows, therefore, that substantive changes in the political-economic arena that benefits the working class and poor rather than capital and finance needs to come from the bottom up, not the top down.
12. This form of political-economic opposition requires the working class and poor to expand their class consciousness, unite in common cause, and use their superior numbers and indispensable place in the capitalist mode of production to offset the disproportionate (and essentially undemocratic) influence of monied interests.
13. The greater the solidarity amongst the working class and the dispossessed, the greater the potential opposition.
14. The greater the opposition, the greater the potential for substantive, systematic change that favours the majority of the citizenry (the 99%) rather than the wealthy, ruling elite (the 1%).
15. Radical change, then, necessitates a concerted, working-class mass movement, particularly one geared towards more fully democratizing our economic system and institutions.
1. We live in a predominately capitalist political-economic system.
2. Capitalism is a process in which money is taken to produce commodities (e.g., goods, services, etc.) that can be sold for a profit (M-C-M).
3. This process leads to capital accumulation (i.e., the accumulation of wealth) on the part of capital as opposed to labour due to their ownership of the means of production and finance.
4. Money, as a representation of value and medium of exchange, is a form of social power.
5. Money is considered Constitutionally-protected free speech within our system.
6. Money is a driving force in the political process (which now allows unlimited campaign spending by corporations and other collective entities).
7. The more money one possesses, the more influence one potentially has in this system.
8. The capitalist class, then, logically has a disproportionate advantage within our system, especially when it comes to influencing and shaping our representative form of government, than the working class and poor.
9. Those in power make the rules (i.e., laws and loopholes) and tend to do so with a view to their own preservation and well-being.
10. Their own preservation and well-being depends upon serving the interests of capital and finance.
11. It follows, therefore, that substantive changes in the political-economic arena that benefits the working class and poor rather than capital and finance needs to come from the bottom up, not the top down.
12. This form of political-economic opposition requires the working class and poor to expand their class consciousness, unite in common cause, and use their superior numbers and indispensable place in the capitalist mode of production to offset the disproportionate (and essentially undemocratic) influence of monied interests.
13. The greater the solidarity amongst the working class and the dispossessed, the greater the potential opposition.
14. The greater the opposition, the greater the potential for substantive, systematic change that favours the majority of the citizenry (the 99%) rather than the wealthy, ruling elite (the 1%).
15. Radical change, then, necessitates a concerted, working-class mass movement, particularly one geared towards more fully democratizing our economic system and institutions.
callous joe
While talking about the collateral killing of civilians in the use of drone strikes to assassinate terror suspects, Joe Klein said: "The bottom line, in the end, is: Whose four-year-old gets killed? What we're doing is limiting the possibility that four-year-olds here are going to get killed by indiscriminate acts of terror."
I guess killing four-year-olds abroad is apparently kosher to Klein as long as it limits the vague possibility of four-year-olds being killed here by "indiscriminate acts of terror." Never mind the fact that by doing so, we run the risk of radicalizing even more people who may eventually carry out said acts of terror; or how chilling it is that someone can seem so nonchalant when talking about the killing of four-years-olds anywhere for any reason. I hope I never become that callous.
I guess killing four-year-olds abroad is apparently kosher to Klein as long as it limits the vague possibility of four-year-olds being killed here by "indiscriminate acts of terror." Never mind the fact that by doing so, we run the risk of radicalizing even more people who may eventually carry out said acts of terror; or how chilling it is that someone can seem so nonchalant when talking about the killing of four-years-olds anywhere for any reason. I hope I never become that callous.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
i can't believe i agree with penn on something, but...
I'm not a big fan of Penn Jillette as a political commentator, but on one of his weekly podcasts of Penn Sunday School he said, "I don't know how people can get so outraged about PBS, and Big Bird, and children's television when we are killing children with drone strikes overseas. I mean, those children will never see Big Bird because we killed them." And I think he makes a good point.
Out of the last two presidential debates, two of the most substantive things that have come out of them are new internet memes involving Big Bird and 'binders full of women.' While humorous, it seems that the focus and outrage over Romney's desire to cut federal funding for PBS and his idiotic remark about hiring women as governor of Massachusetts out of "binders full of women" brought to him by women's groups is overshadowing other serious and pressing matters, such as our ongoing military actions around the world and the use of unmanned drones to assassinate targets in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen that routinely kill civilians, including children.
It's not that I think the issues underlying these memes are unimportant (they are); it's just that I find it hard to fathom why people seem to be putting so much energy into defending Big Bird from funding cuts and not people's lives. Children are dying overseas. Our soldiers are still dying overseas. And considering both side's hawkish stance on Iran, these things need to be a part of the discussion too, even if they don't make the best memes.
Out of the last two presidential debates, two of the most substantive things that have come out of them are new internet memes involving Big Bird and 'binders full of women.' While humorous, it seems that the focus and outrage over Romney's desire to cut federal funding for PBS and his idiotic remark about hiring women as governor of Massachusetts out of "binders full of women" brought to him by women's groups is overshadowing other serious and pressing matters, such as our ongoing military actions around the world and the use of unmanned drones to assassinate targets in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen that routinely kill civilians, including children.
It's not that I think the issues underlying these memes are unimportant (they are); it's just that I find it hard to fathom why people seem to be putting so much energy into defending Big Bird from funding cuts and not people's lives. Children are dying overseas. Our soldiers are still dying overseas. And considering both side's hawkish stance on Iran, these things need to be a part of the discussion too, even if they don't make the best memes.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
this is what [the illusion of] democracy looks like
Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein and her running mate Cheri Honkala were prevented from entering the grounds of tonight's presidential debate and arrested for "obstructing traffic":
Jill Stein, Cheri Honkala arrested, call tonight's debate a "mockumentary"
The sad thing is, she (and candidates like her) could probably have a decent chance of winning if all the people claiming they like her and/or her platform actually supported her and her party financially and voted for her in November. Most of the people I know say they like her and wish she was 'more electable' or 'had a chance,' yet only a small handful are actively supporting her or planning on voting for her in November. I'm probably one of the few who will.
I understand the reasons why people are so reluctant to vote for her, especially the fact that her chances of winning are so slim. But that would obviously change if she had the support of all the people saying they like her, side with her, etc. It's such a catch-22, and it drives me crazy, mainly because our outdated electoral system actively makes it so difficult for independents and third party candidates like Stein to compete with Democrats and Republicans, particularly in federal elections. And yet, if nobody is willing to help support these alternatives and make it easier for them to get on ballots, in debates, etc., how will they ever get a national platform?
The two dominate parties make this extremely difficult, and simply supporting these two parties in elections with votes and donations instead of independent and third party candidates like Stein only makes it that much harder for the latter to compete nationally. The way I see it, we'll be stuck with a two-party system until we get off our collective asses, organize, and push for electoral changes while also supporting alternative parties/candidates. If we don't support them now, they'll never have a chance. Parties and candidates don't just magically become nationally popular and electable, nor do they do so on their own. Their failure is in some respects our failure too.
As difficult as building a viable alternative to the status quo and changing election laws is, it's not impossible. But it'll only be possible when people like you and me put our time and effort into organizing it because it is such an uphill battle. I don't see why this is so hard to understand. It's not like electoral politics is a free market. The Democrats and the Republicans essentially have a monopoly, and they make it disproportionately difficult for independents and third parties to compete. To counter that, we need more citizen support, not less.
Jill Stein, Cheri Honkala arrested, call tonight's debate a "mockumentary"
The sad thing is, she (and candidates like her) could probably have a decent chance of winning if all the people claiming they like her and/or her platform actually supported her and her party financially and voted for her in November. Most of the people I know say they like her and wish she was 'more electable' or 'had a chance,' yet only a small handful are actively supporting her or planning on voting for her in November. I'm probably one of the few who will.
I understand the reasons why people are so reluctant to vote for her, especially the fact that her chances of winning are so slim. But that would obviously change if she had the support of all the people saying they like her, side with her, etc. It's such a catch-22, and it drives me crazy, mainly because our outdated electoral system actively makes it so difficult for independents and third party candidates like Stein to compete with Democrats and Republicans, particularly in federal elections. And yet, if nobody is willing to help support these alternatives and make it easier for them to get on ballots, in debates, etc., how will they ever get a national platform?
The two dominate parties make this extremely difficult, and simply supporting these two parties in elections with votes and donations instead of independent and third party candidates like Stein only makes it that much harder for the latter to compete nationally. The way I see it, we'll be stuck with a two-party system until we get off our collective asses, organize, and push for electoral changes while also supporting alternative parties/candidates. If we don't support them now, they'll never have a chance. Parties and candidates don't just magically become nationally popular and electable, nor do they do so on their own. Their failure is in some respects our failure too.
As difficult as building a viable alternative to the status quo and changing election laws is, it's not impossible. But it'll only be possible when people like you and me put our time and effort into organizing it because it is such an uphill battle. I don't see why this is so hard to understand. It's not like electoral politics is a free market. The Democrats and the Republicans essentially have a monopoly, and they make it disproportionately difficult for independents and third parties to compete. To counter that, we need more citizen support, not less.
Monday, October 15, 2012
chandrakirti and wittgenstein: similarities in east/west thought
It's always interesting seeing the (often little known) similarities between Western and Eastern philosophy. In reading about Wittgenstein and his ideas about language presented in Philosophical Investigations, for example, I'm reminded a lot of the early Prasangika Madhyamikas. For example, the Wikipedia article on Philosophical Investigations summarizes one of Wittgenstein's arguments about language, meaning, and use as "meaning is use"—i.e., "words are not defined by reference to the objects they designate, nor by the mental representations one might associate with them, but by how they are used." This is reminiscent of a famous line by Chandrakirti in Clear Words (composed sometime in the 7th century CE): "Words are not like policemen on the prowl: we are not subject to their independence. On the contrary, their truth lies in their efficacy; they take their meaning from the intention of the one using them."
In addition, the idea that one of the consequences of Wittgenstein's argument is that "there is no need to postulate that there is something called good that exists independently of any good deed" is similar to the logical consequence of Chandrakirti's argument, which is that in debate, "It follows that we have merely invalidated our adversary's thesis. We need not accept the antithesis of the logical fault we have exposed" due to the fact that Prasangikas advance no thesis of their own. So just as one doesn't need to postulate that there's something existing on its own side called 'good' that exists independently of good deeds, one doesn't have to accept or advance a thesis of their own in order to invalidate that of another; and whereas Wittgenstein's argument can be seen as a rejection of Platonic realism, Prasangika in general can be seen as a rejection of the notion that all things and phenomena possess some kind of inherent, self-existing identity or essence (not unlike the Platonic idea of forms) without at the same promoting or being forced to accept the notion that things and phenomena are inherently nonexistent.
Just something I found interesting and that was worth sharing.
In addition, the idea that one of the consequences of Wittgenstein's argument is that "there is no need to postulate that there is something called good that exists independently of any good deed" is similar to the logical consequence of Chandrakirti's argument, which is that in debate, "It follows that we have merely invalidated our adversary's thesis. We need not accept the antithesis of the logical fault we have exposed" due to the fact that Prasangikas advance no thesis of their own. So just as one doesn't need to postulate that there's something existing on its own side called 'good' that exists independently of good deeds, one doesn't have to accept or advance a thesis of their own in order to invalidate that of another; and whereas Wittgenstein's argument can be seen as a rejection of Platonic realism, Prasangika in general can be seen as a rejection of the notion that all things and phenomena possess some kind of inherent, self-existing identity or essence (not unlike the Platonic idea of forms) without at the same promoting or being forced to accept the notion that things and phenomena are inherently nonexistent.
Just something I found interesting and that was worth sharing.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
to dox or not to dox
I honestly don't know much about Reddit, but I thought this article was interesting, particularly the subject of anonymous free speech and how far people's identities should be protected.
It seems that a longtime poster/moderator, who pushed the boundaries of free speech by posting racist, misogynistic, pornographic, etc. material under an anonymous screen name while championing the site's 'free-speech culture,' was recently outed by a reporter for Gawker. And it appears that many members are coming to his defense since, "To them, the 'doxing' of Violentacrez—'doxing' is hacker slang for publishing someone's personal information in order to intimidate or punish them—is an assault on the very structure of Reddit itself."
But should tolerance always be tolerated? Or should society make a distinction between what should be tolerated and what should be discouraged or suppressed? Should we tolerate racism, for example, or should we confront it whenever and wherever it rears its head? Should we allow people who promote racist ideology to remain anonymous, or should they be exposed?
It reminds me of when local anti-fascists out the identities of local neo-Nazis, posting their personal info online and all over town, and the questions it raises about privacy, free speech, and tolerance. At first, I was uncomfortable with the idea of outing someone's identity and releasing their personal info simply because you don't like the things they're saying; but the more I think about it, the more it seems like an effective tactic in countering what Herbert Marcuse called indiscriminate or repressive tolerance, which serves to minimize or absolve prevailing intolerance and suppression, and a potential consequence of exercising one's free speech, especially content that promotes things like hatred and violence, or sexually exploits minors.
To me, the main moral of this story is, if you don't want to be associated with the things you're expressing, maybe you shouldn't be expressing them because the world is filled with people who make it their duty to bring to light what's hidden in darkness.
It seems that a longtime poster/moderator, who pushed the boundaries of free speech by posting racist, misogynistic, pornographic, etc. material under an anonymous screen name while championing the site's 'free-speech culture,' was recently outed by a reporter for Gawker. And it appears that many members are coming to his defense since, "To them, the 'doxing' of Violentacrez—'doxing' is hacker slang for publishing someone's personal information in order to intimidate or punish them—is an assault on the very structure of Reddit itself."
But should tolerance always be tolerated? Or should society make a distinction between what should be tolerated and what should be discouraged or suppressed? Should we tolerate racism, for example, or should we confront it whenever and wherever it rears its head? Should we allow people who promote racist ideology to remain anonymous, or should they be exposed?
It reminds me of when local anti-fascists out the identities of local neo-Nazis, posting their personal info online and all over town, and the questions it raises about privacy, free speech, and tolerance. At first, I was uncomfortable with the idea of outing someone's identity and releasing their personal info simply because you don't like the things they're saying; but the more I think about it, the more it seems like an effective tactic in countering what Herbert Marcuse called indiscriminate or repressive tolerance, which serves to minimize or absolve prevailing intolerance and suppression, and a potential consequence of exercising one's free speech, especially content that promotes things like hatred and violence, or sexually exploits minors.
To me, the main moral of this story is, if you don't want to be associated with the things you're expressing, maybe you shouldn't be expressing them because the world is filled with people who make it their duty to bring to light what's hidden in darkness.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
design week portland
So apparently there's this thing called Design Week Portland going on right now, which is essentially a week-long event at various locations around the city highlighting designers in all fields. Events include everything from studio open houses and presentations by individuals showcasing their innovative creations to hands-on craft-making activities and fashion shows.
Oblivious as usual to local events like this, I stumbled upon it last night when a friend visiting from out of town was invited to one of the events, which happened to be a collection of presentations at Instrument, a digital creative agency. I missed the first couple of presentations, but the ones I saw ranged from a guy developing a cheap and easy way to produce homemade CD cases and a cute mobile app called Kaleidoscope to a new music app for slicing and dicing beats and something that did something cool with pics and tweets and stuff. They also had free beer and pizza.
In the back, they had an area where they were showing their 15min stop-motion scenes for Star Wars Uncut (which collectively won an Emmy) and the upcoming The Empire Strikes Back Uncut, including the set for The Empire Strikes Back Uncut and figures from Star Wars Uncut.Right across the hall from Fashionbuddha is Sockeye, which specializes in creative branding. They had a collection of things they've done set up in their conference room, including a congratulatory MVP commercial for Derrick Rose commissioned by Adidas, assorted media from their "It's Our Nature" campaign, and a variety of printed material for clients like the University of Oregon, Portland State University, Pittock Mansion, and Ruby Receptionists.
Monday, October 8, 2012
happy indigenous peoples' day (my yearly columbus day rant)
Sigh. Another year, another Columbus Day.
Out of all our national holidays, I think this one pisses me off the most. Essentially, it celebrates a man who not only 'discovered' land that was already inhabited (Hispaniola), but a person who helped to literally wipe that land of its original inhabitants, the peaceful Arawaks, through his unbelievable cruelty, and that of those who followed him to the 'New World' (which itself is a very Eurocentric designation).
The Arawaks initially greeted Columbus and his crew with gifts and open arms. Of them, Columbus himself writes things like, "They are the best people in the world and above all the gentlest—without knowledge of what is evil—nor do they murder or steal ... they love their neighbors as themselves and they have the sweetest talk in the world ... always laughing" and "They are very simple and honest and exceedingly liberal with all they have, none of them refusing anything he may possess when he is asked for it. They exhibit great love toward all others in preference to themselves." As well as things like, "They would make fine servants. With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want."
While simply passing judgment upon the actions of people long since dead doesn't serve much of a purpose, I think it's important to at least remember them and accept that they form an integral part of our nation's history, and a truly ugly part at that. I think this is especially important since the trend (particularly in school textbooks) has been to mythologize people like Columbus and their accomplishments while downplaying many of the negative things they also did, some of which were truly heinous acts. But these things shouldn't be glossed over, in my opinion; they should be reflected upon so that they're never forgotten—a reminder of the terrible price exacted by Mammon.
What happened to these poor people, and what eventually happened to numerous other tribes in the Americas, was nothing short of genocide; and I don't think we should celebrate the main architect of this inaugural (not to mention extremely brutal) land-grab as a hero with his own a national holiday. It not only dishonours the memory of the Arawaks and the other indigenous inhabitants who directly suffered at the hands of Columbus, his men, and those who followed, but I think it dishonours the descendants of all of the Americas' native inhabitants as well. If anything, today should be renamed Indigenous Peoples' Day in their honour.
And for anyone reading this who may be unfamiliar with the full history behind Columbus Day, I recommend checking out this excerpt from Howard Zinn's Columbus and Western Civilization, as well as this clip from The Canary Effect.
Out of all our national holidays, I think this one pisses me off the most. Essentially, it celebrates a man who not only 'discovered' land that was already inhabited (Hispaniola), but a person who helped to literally wipe that land of its original inhabitants, the peaceful Arawaks, through his unbelievable cruelty, and that of those who followed him to the 'New World' (which itself is a very Eurocentric designation).
The Arawaks initially greeted Columbus and his crew with gifts and open arms. Of them, Columbus himself writes things like, "They are the best people in the world and above all the gentlest—without knowledge of what is evil—nor do they murder or steal ... they love their neighbors as themselves and they have the sweetest talk in the world ... always laughing" and "They are very simple and honest and exceedingly liberal with all they have, none of them refusing anything he may possess when he is asked for it. They exhibit great love toward all others in preference to themselves." As well as things like, "They would make fine servants. With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want."
While simply passing judgment upon the actions of people long since dead doesn't serve much of a purpose, I think it's important to at least remember them and accept that they form an integral part of our nation's history, and a truly ugly part at that. I think this is especially important since the trend (particularly in school textbooks) has been to mythologize people like Columbus and their accomplishments while downplaying many of the negative things they also did, some of which were truly heinous acts. But these things shouldn't be glossed over, in my opinion; they should be reflected upon so that they're never forgotten—a reminder of the terrible price exacted by Mammon.
What happened to these poor people, and what eventually happened to numerous other tribes in the Americas, was nothing short of genocide; and I don't think we should celebrate the main architect of this inaugural (not to mention extremely brutal) land-grab as a hero with his own a national holiday. It not only dishonours the memory of the Arawaks and the other indigenous inhabitants who directly suffered at the hands of Columbus, his men, and those who followed, but I think it dishonours the descendants of all of the Americas' native inhabitants as well. If anything, today should be renamed Indigenous Peoples' Day in their honour.
And for anyone reading this who may be unfamiliar with the full history behind Columbus Day, I recommend checking out this excerpt from Howard Zinn's Columbus and Western Civilization, as well as this clip from The Canary Effect.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
love is the law
Of course, there are certainly many Christian ideals and theological aspects that I don't like and will probably never agree with; but I respect Christianity and the Christian community for what it is or potentially could be to people. It's a guiding light in times of darkness, and a source of comfort and a place of refuge in difficult ones. It's a journey towards wholeness for those who feel incomplete. It's a celebration of life and happiness in a world filled with sadness and death. It's a philosophy, a riddle, a vehicle for gnosis. And deep down, it can be characterized by one simple commandment, which Jesus gave to his Apostles at the Last Supper: love one another.
It's hard not to appreciate this commandment and the spirit it was given, or the people who sincerely endeavour to follow it. It speaks to the salvific power of love, and reflects the idea that there's something special, something divine, in our interactions with other people—an idea that's mirrored in Bible passages such as, "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love," and echoed by Church Fathers like Augustine of Hippo: "Once for all, then, a short precept is given you: Love, and do what you will: whether you hold your peace, through love hold your peace; whether you cry out, through love cry out; whether you correct, through love correct; whether you spare, through love do you spare: let the root of love be within, of this root can nothing spring but what is good."
Monday, October 1, 2012
my 3-day vipassana retreat experience at wat atam
I spent this past weekend at Wat Atammayantarama (or Wat Atam for short) in Woodinville, WA, for a meditation retreat that was led by Ajahn Sudanto from the Pacific Hermitage (a branch monastery of Abhayagiri) in White Salmon, WA. While relatively short as far as retreats go, it was exactly what I needed. It's been a few years since I've attended a meditation retreat at a Thai Buddhist monastery, and I forgot how much I enjoy spending time at monasteries and emulating the monastic life, even if for just a few days.
The monastery itself is nice and consists of a large, yellow house that serves as the monks' residence, the newly constructed meditation hall that includes an adjoining kitchen, activity room with library (where they eat and receive visitors), and a couple of bathrooms, and spacious grounds that supply ample places to sit, walk, and take pictures of. It's also nice in that it's close to Seattle, but still in a relatively rural location, giving it a more peaceful and secluded feel. Their neighbor, for example, had what appeared to be a horse ranch, and both Friday and Saturday I saw hot air balloons leisurely passing by.
Like most Thai temples, they chant every morning and evening in Pali; although, this place was rather unique in that they used a shorter chanting guide containing just the Dedication of Offerings, Preliminary Homage, Homage to the Buddha, Homage to the Dhamma, Homage to the Sangha, Salutation to the Triple Gem, and Closing Homage, and did both the Pali and the English translation. (I'm not sure if this is normal, or if it was because the retreat was being led by a visiting monk from Abhayagiri, a predominately Western Thai forest monastery in Ukiah, CA; but most temples I've been to usually throw in more, like Reflection after Using the Requisites, Five Subjects for Frequent Recollection, Verses on the Noble Truths, etc.)
At 7am, immediately following the meditation session, we all congregated in the kitchen for some chai tea and a light breakfast, mostly consisting of croissants, barley and rice with heated soy milk, and fruit, which, after everyone got their food and sat down, we ate mindfully in the 'activity room,' paying attention to each sensation and experience as it arose. As I slowly bit into a grape, for example, I noticed perceptions arising like 'firm,' 'juicy,' 'slightly tart'; and I observed how my mind/body (since they're both intimately connected) reacted to all the various sensations, such craving one taste or texture more than another, imaging what something was going to taste like, and comparing that with how it actually tasted (generally a back and forth between satisfaction and disappointment). When the meal was done, we washed our dishes outside at a specially prepared station as the kitchen sink was too small to accommodate the 50+ meditators including the volunteer staff.After breakfast, it was right back to mediation followed by a Dhamma talk. The theme centred on a comparison between the process of building a fire using the bow method and the process of developing mindfulness, and how consistency of effort and the right materials are the key. Essentially, our minds aren't really conditioned to focus on a single object for long periods of time, and are easily distracted, especially by what are called the five hindrances in Buddhism: sensual desires (covetous or greed for pleasurable sense experiences), anger/ill will, sloth and torpor, restlessness and worry, and skeptical doubt/uncertainty. Ajahn Sudanto gave the image of them (taken from Ajahn Sona) as things pulling the mind, pushing the mind, the mind rising up, the mind sinking down, and the mind spinning around.
To counter these mental states, which are like trying to use wet, rotten logs and grasses to start a fire, the meditator seeks to develop the five factors of the first jhana, i.e., applied thought, sustained thought, happiness, joy, and one-pointedness of mind, which are like using nice, dry logs and grasses to start a fire when consistent effort and energy is put into vigorously sawing the drill until it starts to heat up and ignites the kindling, which here represents using applied and sustained thought with consistent effort and energy to keep the meditation object, the breath, in mind. And the smoke in the analogy is the beginning of mindfulness and the accompanying joy and happiness that arise when the mind starts to become one-pointed, a combination of mental and bodily pleasure that can eventually be used to develop even more refined states of concentration and enjoyment, free the mind of the hindrances, and open it up for arising of insight.When the talk was over, Ajahn Sudanto gave a brief description of walking meditation methods, and then had us do that until 11am. One method was to mark a path about 50ft in length, and mindfully walk back and forth while focusing on the sensation of the feet as they rise, touch the ground, and so on. An alternate method is to focus on the breath instead, and try to walk at a pace that matches, such as take 3 steps with the in-breath and 3 with the out, which takes a bit more effort. I prefer to walk repeating a mantra while focusing on the sensation of my steps myself, breaking each word of the mantra in half, one for the right foot and one for the left: bud-dho, dham-mo, san-gho, par-ents, tea-chers, something I picked up from Ajahn Prasert in Fremont, CA, when I used to spend retreats there.
At 11am, we had lunch, which is always the biggest (and usually the last) meal at Theravada monasteries. There was the usual assortment of Thai food, rice, curries, noodles, etc., as well as fruit and a few other odds and ends. Most of the food was vegetarian, and they made sure to mark anything that wasn't, which is rather unusual compared to other Thai monasteries I've stayed at, where the food is usually made with some kind of meat or another (some of them a delicious mystery). As with breakfast, we didn't start until everyone got their food and sat down in the activity room, and Ajahn Sudanto reminded us to eat mindfully. I noticed that the closer I got to finishing, the faster and less mindfully I ate. All that conditioning from years of 30min lunch breaks is hard to overcome it seems.
We had about 45min of free time after lunch and before our 5hr block of meditation. I took the time to lie down in my tent for about 30mins since my back was being pissy.From 1pm-6:00pm, we alternated between sitting and walking meditation. The first hour, we all sat together in the meditation hall, then we were given the option of staying and sitting longer or going outside to practice walking meditation; and so as not to disturb the people sitting in the meditation hall, whoever wanted to go in or out were asked to try and switch every half hour. I decided to walk for 30min, then sit another hour, then alternate between walking and sitting for 30min so that I finished with walking meditation. By the end, my knees hated me, and my back was plotting with them to do me in.
From 6pm-6:30pm, we had a tea break. I had some more of their homemade chai and cup of coffee, which gave me the energy for evening chanting and meditation, as well as the Dhamma talk and Q&A that followed. I honestly can't remember much besides bits and pieces, but one thing that stood out was when he mentioned his first years practicing in the jungles of Thailand and not being able to sleep because of all the sounds he wasn't used to hearing. By 9pm, I was physically sore and tired, but my mind was full of interesting experiences and insights that had popped up along the way, which made the pain worth it. I went back to my tent reflective, peaceful, and sad that the next day would be my last.
I awoke at 2am to the sound of what I assumed to be a sizable number of coyotes barking, yipping, and howling/screaming. It was unlike anything I'd ever heard before, and they sounded close. I also heard a number of other sounds that got my mind spinning, proliferating, and eventually convinced there were probably bears in the area that could smell my Clif Bars and would be visiting me soon. At 4:50am, Ajahn Santidhammo came through with the bell, and I awoke to find myself and my Clif Bars intact.Sunday began the same as Saturday, with everyone meeting in the meditation hall for the 5:30am morning chanting and meditation, which again, much to my surprise, I didn't fall asleep during. Out of all the sittings, in fact, this was one of the most fruitful. My mind had finally become used to the seclusion from the stimuli of my normal, day-to-day life, and was beginning to settle down. When things popped up that pulled my mind along with them, or when aversion was pushing my mind away from the pains of my body and the present moment, it was easier to simply note this and then let them go by mentally saying 'These things are impermanent,' These things aren't important right now,' 'I don't need to follow that,' etc.
At one point, my posture was actually quite comfortable, and the breath became a very pleasant sensation, and I was mindfully able to follow it as it flowed all the way in and out until a subtle feeling of pleasure arose in my mind and spread throughout my body. Sadly, I wasn't able to develop and spread the feeling further, and I began to be distracted by pain in my knees and other intruding thoughts. If this had been a week-long retreat, I probably would have had more chances to get my fire of mindfulness going; but the end of the retreat was drawing near.
(A version of this post also appears as an article on newbuddhist.com.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)