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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)