Just read this extremely interesting article from New Scientist:
Rats free each other from traps, then share chocolate
More evidence that rats (and potentially other animals, particularly mammals) exhibit levels of compassion, empathy, and generosity previously thought to be unique to primates; as well as further corroboration of Peter Kropotkin's theory that cooperation and mutual aid are factors of evolution at least as important as competition, if not more so.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
the media's blackout of the national defense authorization act is shameful
I couldn't agree more with this article that Section 1031 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012 needs to be covered, and widely:
The Media's Blackout Of The National Defense Authorization Act Is Shameful
Unfortunately, most media outlets haven’t covered it (and probably won't), at least not in any great detail. Part of the problem, I suspect, is that the vast majority of what we call the 'mainstream media' is really a conglomeration of roughly six main corporations. What gets reported by these major multimedia outlets is arguably limited in many cases to what's in the interest of the owners, controllers, and shareholders of these companies, which themselves are part of the ruling class.
This Orwellian piece of legislation, on the other hand, with its ambiguous language about covered persons including "any person who has committed a belligerent act," would make it easier for the government to put down and indefinitely detain 'nuisances' like Occupy protesters who the state and others of the ruling class deem as 'terrorists'; and the state is already in the habit of labelling peaceful protesters as terrorists (e.g., Max Obuszewski).
I think this piece of legislation is both scary and troubling; but the lack of media coverage is scarier and more troubling because it puts us, the working class, even more in the dark as to what's really going on in this country. More importantly, it highlights the need for average, working-class individuals to continually educate themselves and turn towards alternative sources of media.
The Media's Blackout Of The National Defense Authorization Act Is Shameful
Unfortunately, most media outlets haven’t covered it (and probably won't), at least not in any great detail. Part of the problem, I suspect, is that the vast majority of what we call the 'mainstream media' is really a conglomeration of roughly six main corporations. What gets reported by these major multimedia outlets is arguably limited in many cases to what's in the interest of the owners, controllers, and shareholders of these companies, which themselves are part of the ruling class.
This Orwellian piece of legislation, on the other hand, with its ambiguous language about covered persons including "any person who has committed a belligerent act," would make it easier for the government to put down and indefinitely detain 'nuisances' like Occupy protesters who the state and others of the ruling class deem as 'terrorists'; and the state is already in the habit of labelling peaceful protesters as terrorists (e.g., Max Obuszewski).
I think this piece of legislation is both scary and troubling; but the lack of media coverage is scarier and more troubling because it puts us, the working class, even more in the dark as to what's really going on in this country. More importantly, it highlights the need for average, working-class individuals to continually educate themselves and turn towards alternative sources of media.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
secret fed loans gave banks $13 billion undisclosed to congress
According to a recent Bloomberg article, the Federal Reserve allegedly gave out approximately $7.77 trillion in secret loans and guarantees to banks throughout the financial crisis of 2007 to 2009.
What I found even more interesting, however, is the article also notes that, among other things, "Total assets held by the six biggest U.S. banks increased 39 percent to $9.5 trillion on Sept. 30, 2011, from $6.8 trillion on the same day in 2006, according to Fed data." Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown is quoting as saying: "When a few banks have advantages, the little guys get squeezed... That, to me, is not what capitalism should be." Except that's precisely how capitalism is, and always has been.
The capitalist mode of production, which forms the economic base of our society, is, in effect, the process of commodifying, privatizing, and monetizing goods, service, ideas, etc.; and which, by its very nature, promotes the concentration of wealth and power, primarily into the hands of the owners/controllers of capital. It's working exactly as it's supposed to work, and the Fed is merely one of the institutionalized tools capital uses to displace inherent contradictions within the system in an effort to limit and/or stave off crises.
If this article doesn't piss you off and start to make you question whether we can do better, it probably should.
What I found even more interesting, however, is the article also notes that, among other things, "Total assets held by the six biggest U.S. banks increased 39 percent to $9.5 trillion on Sept. 30, 2011, from $6.8 trillion on the same day in 2006, according to Fed data." Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown is quoting as saying: "When a few banks have advantages, the little guys get squeezed... That, to me, is not what capitalism should be." Except that's precisely how capitalism is, and always has been.
The capitalist mode of production, which forms the economic base of our society, is, in effect, the process of commodifying, privatizing, and monetizing goods, service, ideas, etc.; and which, by its very nature, promotes the concentration of wealth and power, primarily into the hands of the owners/controllers of capital. It's working exactly as it's supposed to work, and the Fed is merely one of the institutionalized tools capital uses to displace inherent contradictions within the system in an effort to limit and/or stave off crises.
If this article doesn't piss you off and start to make you question whether we can do better, it probably should.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
occupy detroit: faith in the future
I went down to St. Aloysius with my friend Dave today to meet with some of the members of the church who were interested in learning more about what the Occupy movement, and Occupy Detroit in particular, is all about; and it was a pretty enlightening experience. It's been a little over two months since the emergence of the Occupy movement in New York, and taking a broader look at the phenomenon itself, I can see a lot of similarities between it at the Catholic social justice movement, which itself has always focused on things like equality, fairness, and a strong sense of community.
Listening to some of the older parishioners and social activists who were present for this informal gathering, it struck me that today's younger generation may be subconsciously looking for a sense of community that has been lost over the past few decades, and a return to more community-based activism and creating more community-based (as opposed to purely political) organizations. The cultural trend over the past few decades has been towards extreme individualism and the fetishizing of privatization, as if 'private' somehow automatically equals 'better' or 'more efficient.' This has led, in my opinion, to a culture of blaming the victim, when the victim (the economically declining 99%) is actually a symptom of a much larger systematic problem.
For example, if you're underwater on your mortgage or student loan debt, it's your fault and your problem (you shouldn't have taken out more than you could afford). If you and your family are getting evicted from your home, it's your fault and your problem (you should have kept up with the payments). If you're laid-off and unemployed, it's your fault and your problem (you should have found a new job already). If you don't make enough money to pay all your bills and you don't have any health insurance, it's your fault and your problem (you should have gone to college to get a better paying job). If you get sick and go bankrupt because of all the medical bills, it's your fault and your problem (you shouldn't have gotten sick in the first place, or had a job with a good insurance plan).
Instead of looking around and seeing these people as our neighbors and members of our community (or just fellow human beings) who might need our help, we have a tendency to see them as merely irresponsible and/or lazy strangers who need to 'man up' and take responsibility for everything that happens, regardless of whether there's 'extenuating circumstances' or bad luck involved. "It's your fault and your problem, not mine. Deal with it!" And, sadly, the number of victims has been growing at an increasingly alarming rate, in no small part due to the actions of arguably 'irresponsible' people and financial institutions on Wall Street.
Both the Occupy movement and religious-based social justice movements in general, on the other hand, are, at their core, about coming together as a community (which is really what organizing is all about) and trying to make things better for everyone, gathering whatever money, time, and experience we, as individuals, have to offer into a single entity that's dedicated to fighting things like economic inequality and poverty in our society. For some, like many involved in predominately religious-based social justice movements, this collective fight against inequality is something that's part of their spiritual calling in life; while for others, like myself, it's simply the most rational way to combat these social failings (neither of which are mutually exclusive). And regardless of where we each of us may stand on other issues, this is one battle we can all agree is worth fighting.
But exactly how to go about fighting this battle is something the fledgling Occupy movement is still trying to figure out for itself, especially here in Detroit, where a large portion of occupies are relatively young and inexperienced. And I think a lot of us newbie activists can potentially learn a lot from people like we met at St. Aloysius, many of whom spent their earlier years participating in the civil rights movement, and are still active in things like the anti-war movement, the economic justice movement, volunteering at soup kitchens and homeless shelters, etc. More importantly, many in the religious community already have access to resources and social networks in these areas, and linking them together with occupiers could go a long way in furthering the work we're trying to do to strengthen and rebuild our community.
Listening to some of the older parishioners and social activists who were present for this informal gathering, it struck me that today's younger generation may be subconsciously looking for a sense of community that has been lost over the past few decades, and a return to more community-based activism and creating more community-based (as opposed to purely political) organizations. The cultural trend over the past few decades has been towards extreme individualism and the fetishizing of privatization, as if 'private' somehow automatically equals 'better' or 'more efficient.' This has led, in my opinion, to a culture of blaming the victim, when the victim (the economically declining 99%) is actually a symptom of a much larger systematic problem.
For example, if you're underwater on your mortgage or student loan debt, it's your fault and your problem (you shouldn't have taken out more than you could afford). If you and your family are getting evicted from your home, it's your fault and your problem (you should have kept up with the payments). If you're laid-off and unemployed, it's your fault and your problem (you should have found a new job already). If you don't make enough money to pay all your bills and you don't have any health insurance, it's your fault and your problem (you should have gone to college to get a better paying job). If you get sick and go bankrupt because of all the medical bills, it's your fault and your problem (you shouldn't have gotten sick in the first place, or had a job with a good insurance plan).
Instead of looking around and seeing these people as our neighbors and members of our community (or just fellow human beings) who might need our help, we have a tendency to see them as merely irresponsible and/or lazy strangers who need to 'man up' and take responsibility for everything that happens, regardless of whether there's 'extenuating circumstances' or bad luck involved. "It's your fault and your problem, not mine. Deal with it!" And, sadly, the number of victims has been growing at an increasingly alarming rate, in no small part due to the actions of arguably 'irresponsible' people and financial institutions on Wall Street.
Both the Occupy movement and religious-based social justice movements in general, on the other hand, are, at their core, about coming together as a community (which is really what organizing is all about) and trying to make things better for everyone, gathering whatever money, time, and experience we, as individuals, have to offer into a single entity that's dedicated to fighting things like economic inequality and poverty in our society. For some, like many involved in predominately religious-based social justice movements, this collective fight against inequality is something that's part of their spiritual calling in life; while for others, like myself, it's simply the most rational way to combat these social failings (neither of which are mutually exclusive). And regardless of where we each of us may stand on other issues, this is one battle we can all agree is worth fighting.
But exactly how to go about fighting this battle is something the fledgling Occupy movement is still trying to figure out for itself, especially here in Detroit, where a large portion of occupies are relatively young and inexperienced. And I think a lot of us newbie activists can potentially learn a lot from people like we met at St. Aloysius, many of whom spent their earlier years participating in the civil rights movement, and are still active in things like the anti-war movement, the economic justice movement, volunteering at soup kitchens and homeless shelters, etc. More importantly, many in the religious community already have access to resources and social networks in these areas, and linking them together with occupiers could go a long way in furthering the work we're trying to do to strengthen and rebuild our community.
Thursday, November 24, 2011
happy wopila
While I love to stuff my face full of delicious, home-cooked food and watch football as much as the next stereotypical American, I think it's worthwhile to reflect on the history of Thanksgiving — from the mythologized 1621 celebration at Plymouth to the 1863 proclamation celebrating the Union victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg — and what it means to each of us who celebrate it. For me, like many others, Thanksgiving is a time to give thanks and share a meal with those around me, friends, family, and strangers alike, in the spirit of generosity and kindness. But, given what I know, it's also a time to remember with somber clarity the bloody history this national holiday commemorates, and in doing so, strengthen my resolve to try and make this world a better place.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
imperial overstretch: is a bloated defense budget weakening the u.s.?
Interesting article suggesting that the US's economic decline, as well as its decline as a major power in the world, is directly tied to its bloated defense budget:
Imperial Overstretch: Is A Bloated Defense Budget Weakening the U.S.?
In The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, Prof. Kennedy argues that empires can extend themselves beyond their ability to maintain or expand their military and economic commitments in what he calls 'imperial overreach' or 'imperial overstretch'; in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Lenin argues that modern day imperialism is actually the highest form of capitalism, a distinct, developmental phase or stage of capitalist economy as opposed to merely a policy preferred by finance capital.
Incidentally, considering the recent report about record lobbying spending by banks and the massive consolidation of banks since the '90s, number two in his list of basic features of imperialism seems especially relevant today, i.e., "the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this 'finance capital', of a financial oligarchy." Looking at the present state of things, as well as the way they've been trending for at least the past few decades, and comparing that to what Lenin wrote about the evolution of capitalism, I think there's ample reason to take his analysis seriously.
The US's actions and polices, as well as its current economic structure in general, seem to indeed be more or less imperialistic in the sense that Lenin defined it, and follow much the same pattern as he laid out in his 1916 pamphlet. That doesn't mean, of course, that I believe Lenin's analysis to be 100% correct, but I do think both Prof. Kennedy's and Lenin's ideas have merit, and are worth considering in tandem. Not only to see where we're potentially headed, but to start a conversation about what, if anything, we can do about it.
Imperial Overstretch: Is A Bloated Defense Budget Weakening the U.S.?
In The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, Prof. Kennedy argues that empires can extend themselves beyond their ability to maintain or expand their military and economic commitments in what he calls 'imperial overreach' or 'imperial overstretch'; in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Lenin argues that modern day imperialism is actually the highest form of capitalism, a distinct, developmental phase or stage of capitalist economy as opposed to merely a policy preferred by finance capital.
Incidentally, considering the recent report about record lobbying spending by banks and the massive consolidation of banks since the '90s, number two in his list of basic features of imperialism seems especially relevant today, i.e., "the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this 'finance capital', of a financial oligarchy." Looking at the present state of things, as well as the way they've been trending for at least the past few decades, and comparing that to what Lenin wrote about the evolution of capitalism, I think there's ample reason to take his analysis seriously.
The US's actions and polices, as well as its current economic structure in general, seem to indeed be more or less imperialistic in the sense that Lenin defined it, and follow much the same pattern as he laid out in his 1916 pamphlet. That doesn't mean, of course, that I believe Lenin's analysis to be 100% correct, but I do think both Prof. Kennedy's and Lenin's ideas have merit, and are worth considering in tandem. Not only to see where we're potentially headed, but to start a conversation about what, if anything, we can do about it.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
ebenezer newt
Apparently, Newt Gingrich (who, for some inexplicable reason, is still seeking the Republican presidential nomination) thinks that poor kids should be put to work as things like school janitors because, well, you know, they're poor and child labour laws are 'stupid' and stuff. Not to mention the fact that it'll help get rid of unionized janitors, which is always a bonus for conservatives. (Just don't let the kids unionize, because that'll make them into little socialists!):
Gingrich: Laws preventing child labor are 'truly stupid'
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with young adults trying to make some extra money by working part-time if that's what they really want to do, and I doubt that many people would. But saying that we should put poor kids 14 and under to work as school janitors simply because they're poor (and because it'll help boot unionized janitors out of a job in the process) is as fucking herpy derpy as it get, in my opinion.
For one thing, it's not as if all you have to do is just throw out a couple of garbage bags at the end of the day; it's pretty physically demanding work. Janitors (or custodians as they're often called) routinely work 8 hours a day. For example, one listing that came up on my job search back in May lists hours as 2-10pm for high school and 3-11pm for grade school. The job itself entails "moderate to extensive degree of physical stamina and frequent lifting up to 50 pounds" and "frequent and prolonged standing, walking and bending." Plus, the job also includes a great deal of repetitive motion and the use of some seriously heavy-duty cleaning products. I've been a janitor before, and it's not something I really think kids 14 and under should probably be doing.
It should also be pointed out that 14+ year olds are already allowed to work limited non-school hours if they want. Child labour laws are essentially there to prevent kids under 14 from being put into the workforce, and limit the amount of hours a minor can work (so they have time to learn and play and do all the things kids should be doing instead of being janitors). What Gingrich wants is for poor kids 14 and under (which in most areas are statistically minorities) to be allowed and encouraged to work a physically demanding and dirty job, while at the same time taking those jobs away from actual, adult janitors (and specifically unionized janitors).
Basically, what I hear Newt saying is: "Instead of actually fixing (or better yet, supplanting) a system where so many people are left in poverty, let's just go back to the early 1900s and get rid of child labour laws. Because poor people are just lazy; and if we get their kids working sooner, maybe they'll develop a better work ethic and not be poor like their parents. In the meantime, we'll let them take their parents' jobs because we can pay them less. It's a win-win!"
If the multiple reasons why this is a bad idea aren't readily apparent, I'm not sure what else there is to say. The whole thing brings to mind an exchange between Ebenezer Scrooge and two unnamed gentlemen from Charles Dickens' classic, A Christmas Carol:
Gingrich: Laws preventing child labor are 'truly stupid'
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with young adults trying to make some extra money by working part-time if that's what they really want to do, and I doubt that many people would. But saying that we should put poor kids 14 and under to work as school janitors simply because they're poor (and because it'll help boot unionized janitors out of a job in the process) is as fucking herpy derpy as it get, in my opinion.
For one thing, it's not as if all you have to do is just throw out a couple of garbage bags at the end of the day; it's pretty physically demanding work. Janitors (or custodians as they're often called) routinely work 8 hours a day. For example, one listing that came up on my job search back in May lists hours as 2-10pm for high school and 3-11pm for grade school. The job itself entails "moderate to extensive degree of physical stamina and frequent lifting up to 50 pounds" and "frequent and prolonged standing, walking and bending." Plus, the job also includes a great deal of repetitive motion and the use of some seriously heavy-duty cleaning products. I've been a janitor before, and it's not something I really think kids 14 and under should probably be doing.
It should also be pointed out that 14+ year olds are already allowed to work limited non-school hours if they want. Child labour laws are essentially there to prevent kids under 14 from being put into the workforce, and limit the amount of hours a minor can work (so they have time to learn and play and do all the things kids should be doing instead of being janitors). What Gingrich wants is for poor kids 14 and under (which in most areas are statistically minorities) to be allowed and encouraged to work a physically demanding and dirty job, while at the same time taking those jobs away from actual, adult janitors (and specifically unionized janitors).
Basically, what I hear Newt saying is: "Instead of actually fixing (or better yet, supplanting) a system where so many people are left in poverty, let's just go back to the early 1900s and get rid of child labour laws. Because poor people are just lazy; and if we get their kids working sooner, maybe they'll develop a better work ethic and not be poor like their parents. In the meantime, we'll let them take their parents' jobs because we can pay them less. It's a win-win!"
If the multiple reasons why this is a bad idea aren't readily apparent, I'm not sure what else there is to say. The whole thing brings to mind an exchange between Ebenezer Scrooge and two unnamed gentlemen from Charles Dickens' classic, A Christmas Carol:
"At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge," said the gentleman, taking up a pen, "it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and Destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."
"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.
"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"
"They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."
"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge.
"Both very busy, sir."
"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it."
"Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude," returned the gentleman, "a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?"
"Nothing!" Scrooge replied.
"You wish to be anonymous?"
"I wish to be left alone," said Scrooge. "Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned -- they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there."
"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."
"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides -- excuse me -- I don't know that."
"But you might know it," observed the gentleman.
"It's not my business," Scrooge returned. "It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)