Great Discussion Stemming from Rand Paul Comments

Me: The Rand Paul debate is interesting. Paul is basically saying that it is a bad business decision to discriminate against people on the basis of their race, sexuality, etc. but private businesses should be allowed to do it nonetheless. His argument is that our votes as consumers will be cast and these businesses will suffer which will discourage businesses from discriminating; essentially it will all come out in the wash. That does make sense. However, would America's collective consciousness be where it is- where Americans have become civilized enough to boycott such businesses- if it weren't forced to confront racism for the last 50 years as a result of the very government intervention that he deplores?

Comment: i think it's an extremely privileged perspective to think that the "market" will correct any sort of bias or [...isms]. people are not without bias. it takes some sort of legal rule (and developed social standards) to actually confront oppression that may be tolerated or even applauded in mainstream society. the supreme court has played this vital role...in order to uphold justice. without key court decisions, our country would be very different than it is today...

Me: I didn't say the market would correct any sort of bias and I don't think he did either. He is saying that the market would discourage explicit discrimination based on "isms." Whether it's because of our politically-correct paradigm or for more benevolent reasons, that is undeniably true. But he ignores the history and the resulting evolution of ... See Moresocial standards that have, among other much more important things, changed the way people consume. By ignoring that history- which includes but is not limited to the Civil Rights Act of '64 and the court decisions you alluded to- he is hoping to avoid some key arguments FOR government intervention which has, as you said, forced Americans to confront oppression.

Comment: It is possible, perhaps, to look at consumption as central to Civil Rights in America. For example, businesses began advertising and marketing to African-Americans through magazines, the radio, etc. Businesses started to recognize AA purchasing power and brought them more into America's mainstream. But the power of the markets has severe limits, I ... See Morethink. At the same time, real estate companies still excluded African-Americans from white neighborhoods. I think Chad's question is a good one and I think Rand Paul, like most libertarians, underestimates the importance of government intervention in remaking America's social, cultural, and economic life. This has been a reality since at least 1880 and 1890 and progressives forced government to become more active in the face of industrializing.

Comment: The appropriateness of his statements just depends on one's view of markets (spoken like a true capitalist, I know). Obviously, for a long time in certain regions of the country, markets and economic incentives (i.e., opening your business to larger audiences and thus larger profits) were unable to compensate for social norms and human behavior to ... See Morethe detriment of a great many individuals (and businesses).

In the years since the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the economy of those regions has greatly improved. Calling the current markets in the U.S. "free" would be a mistake, but this is one example of a scenario where government regulation helped change not only economic circumstances but helped reform social norms.

But what about those businesses with an interest in discriminating certain individuals? The 7/11 clerk whose sign reads "no more than two students in the store at a time," or the casino owner with a valid business interest in kicking out card-counters from the blackjack table? The Act did a good job at identifying certain suspect classes and providing them with protection, but certain businesses can - and should - discriminate for any number of reasons other than those enumerated in the Act.

Bottom line, the guy put his foot in his mouth big time. But if he's going for the Libertarian and Tea Party vote, I guess he's got to stick to his guns. Just a poorly-handled situation by him and whoever is running his PR. I'm sure he doesn't think we should go back to segregated water fountains and buses.

On a side note, when the story broke I actually thought Ron Paul had named his son after Ayn Rand. Turns out "Rand" is just short for "Randal," which was kind of a bummer.

Comment: You've got a good point, Chad. Would the market have discouraged a restaurant owner in the 1960s Deep South from discriminating against black people? Of course not - in some places, restaurants could have gone out of business if they DIDN'T discriminate. Markets are great for some things - like allocating economic resources efficiently in the short... See More term - but if you want long-term social change, sometimes the government needs to step in. Just like if you want the social costs of pollution to be factored into business decisions, you need cap and trade, and if you want consumer protection factored in you need a legal system that allows for major punitive damages. Rand Paul's argument may have a certain internal logical consistency, but he's as poor a student of economics as he is the Constitution if he's can't wrap his head around the economic concept of "market failure."

Me: Couple of things: (1) How does the market do a good job of allocating economic resources in the short term? The minimum wage is still embarrassingly low and who knows the limits of exploitation if there weren't a minimum wage (and basic labor laws). Since under Capitalism, a corporation has to maximize profit by law at the expense of all other ... See Moreconsiderations, the *fair* allocation of resources is of no concern to the "market." Maybe I was confused as to what you meant. (2) Some(I) would argue that long term social change is a result of movements that make the change popular enough for politicians to get involved without fear of losing votes among their constituency and therefore their power. (3) If you want the social costs of pollution to be factored into business decisions, you need to charge $5 a gallon and aggressively pursue alternative energy sources to dirty ones. My cell phone can do everything but teleport me home after a long night of drinking; you're telling me that efficient, clean energy is beyond our reach. It's not, but because politicians are devout capitalists, they are by nature, shortsighted, or just plain greedy.

You know we think along the same lines, Brendan, and you probably expected me to take everything a step further, or a step too far (as far as you're concerned). I like the way you described Paul's argument as having "certain internal logical consistency." I couldn't quite wrap my head around why I was taking it seriously and thought it warranted a serious response.

I do think that a forward-thinking politican can push a movement over the top, but I was saying that most of the time the govt. is forced to catch up by an angry electorate. The Vietnam War protests are the most obvious example of that in modern times.

Real Democracy = Equal Representation

From DemocracyNow.org
Record $3.47 Billion Spent on Federal Lobbying in 2009

Despite President Obama’s call to curtail the power of lobbyists in Washington, new figures show a record amount of money was spent on federal lobbying in 2009. The Center for Responsive Politics puts the total at nearly $3.5 billion, a five percent increase over 2008. The pharmaceutical and health products industry spent nearly $267 million on lobbying, the greatest amount ever spent on lobbying efforts by a single industry. The Chamber of Commerce spent over $144 million dollars on lobbying, a 60 percent increase over 2008. Other big spenders on lobbying included Exxon Mobil, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or Pharma, General Electric, Pfizer, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, AARP, American Medical Association, Chevron, the National Association of Realtors, and the American Beverage Association. Sheila Krumholz of the Center for Responsive Politics said, “Lobbying appears recession proof. Even when companies are scaling back other operations, many view lobbying as a critical tool in protecting their future interests.”

Capitalism and MJ

After listening to a podcast with Bill Simmons and Chuck Klosterman and starting to read Slavoj Zizek's new book, I thought of a disturbing similarity between Michael Jordan and Capitalism.

When Jordan appeared petty and sad during his HOF speech, public perception came to his aid and these negative qualities were turned into positives; they somehow reinforced his image as a winner and the ultimate competitor with a killer instinct etc. etc. Likewise, when Capitalism sputters and collapses and the government has to subsidize the system to keep it afloat, proponents claim that it's because we were living under a perversion of capitalism and we need to return to the basic principles if we're ever to recover from this mess. Capitalism, like MJ, has entered the rare "air" of appearing stronger the weaker it actually becomes. How did this happen?

Gay Marriage Cont.

We've written back and forth with lengthy responses but this is a good representation of what has gone down since my first post. His thoughts are in quotes with my response to follow.

“My point: Unrestrained sexual behavior has huge socio-economic consequences. At the Johns Hopkins University School of Health and Hygiene, the basic course in public health proposes that 80% of our healthcare dollars are spent on conditions related to alcohol & drugs, tobacco, violence and unrestrained sexual behavior.”

"If you do some research on the effectiveness of condom use in anal intercourse for the prevention of disease, you'll find the 'fail' rate is abysmal. You'll also find that anal intercourse, in and of itself, is far more traumatic and more conducive to the transmission of deadlier diseases. In short (and again, comparing risky behaviors), having repeated anal intercourse with multiple partners AND using a condom is like driving drunk with your seat belt fastened or smoking filtered cigarettes. The idea of 'safe sex' is part of the lie that the American society has been told for the last two generations. From a public health perspective, the only absolutely 'safe' sex is no sex -- David Carradine demonstrated that its not even safe if you're a do-it-yourselfer. A monogamous, lifelong, heterosexual relationship is by far the safest sex, next to 'no sex' (which I'm not even considering)."

He goes on to say:

”the best way to stem the epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases - especially among young people - and to reduce childhood poverty is to uphold a standard of sexual behavior that reduces the risk of sexually transmitted diseases and creates a stable economic environment for raising the next generation. I believe that standard to be a monogamous, heterosexual lifelong union. I just can't see where the two relationships are exactly the same and believe the term 'marriage' should only apply to the latter.”

"We all have desires, but when we choose to over-indulge in risky behaviors, is that healthy? How many of these health and socio-economic trends do you think are acceptable in this new paradigm of unrestrained sexual behavior?"

My response:

The fundamental difference between us is that you view homosexuality as some kind of fringe behavior, while I just see it as different from what some people are used to. The fact is we cannot ask homosexuals to not be attracted to one another, and to not desire same-sex sexual relationships, any more than we could ask heterosexuals to do the same with respect to the opposite sex. Knowing this to be true, we need to move on and address the issues you have brought up by expanding sexual education to address homosexual issues. Sure, if an infected male has sex with numerous partners, even while using a condom, he is selfish and irresponsible, knowing what we know about the increased risk of infection through anal intercourse. But you’re ignoring the ability of every person, gay or straight to be educated and to get tested.

Again, nothing about the institution of marriage these days is lifelong since half end in divorce. So the ideal you’re fighting to protect DOES NOT exist in the first place. Then looking at marriage in a purely functional way, doesn’t it just make sense, for your argument, that homosexuals are able to join in a monogamous lifelong union. Here’s why. In an earlier response, you said “any two people entering into a relationship where they share financial resources and living quarters, having some sort of contractual agreement is prudent to clarify expectations and to financially protect each individual.” Plus, in order to curb the spread of sexually transmitted disease, doesn’t it just make sense for two homosexuals who are free of STDs to join in attempt at a lifelong monogamous union. Isn’t this the standard for homosexuals as well according to your argument? Then the only issue becomes, what will the economic, legal, social, and religious implications of that union be? So my question remains the same: Why should homosexuals have to settle for a separate but equal institution?

Gay Marriage

The following is a conversation I have been having about gay marriage. Someone on facebook had a status that said, "The California Supreme Court got it right! Marriage will always be one man and one woman, for life!" Knowing this person was an evangelical, I chimed in on the hateful nature of religion in situations like this. After going back and forth with any takers on this guy's wall, someone sent me the following message. My response follows his.

* * * *

The words 'marry' and 'marriage' were derived in about the 12th century from the Latin word 'maritare'. Maritare literally meant the joining of a 'mari' (young female) with a 'maritus' (young male) with the intent of producing an offspring. Originally applied to animal husbandry, the terms were later employed by the Catholic church for the rite of uniting a man and a woman in the hopes of producing offspring. Later, the nomenclature was used in civil courts and legal processes to clearly identify lawfully dependent relationships. As such, the construct of 'marriage' has been determined by custom and generally accepted cultural norms. Over the years, laws have been enacted to govern the construct of the public institution of marriage. Qualifiers such as age, consanguinity, presence of sexually transmitted diseases, qualifications of officiant and others have all been determined as rule of law to protect the man, woman and subsequent offspring and have been determined by each governing domain, such as a state or county. In consideration of the lawful dependencies created by raising children, some institutions, such as medical insurance companies and employers, have afforded special considerations to individuals legally classified as 'married'.

Dictionaries generally define a 'right' as an abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature. The framers of the U.S. Constitution took the abstract nature of 'rights' into consideration when they enacted the first amendment to the Constitution - The Bill of Rights. Article 10 of the Bill of Rights states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". In other words, anything not specifically spelled out in the U.S. Constitution is to be determined on a state-by-state basis and is under the authority of the democratic will of the people. On these premises, several questions arise;

1) Can the conjugal union of same-sex individuals with no possibility of naturally producing offspring fit into the historical, legal, and publicly accepted definition of 'marriage' or would the word 'marriage' require a totally new legal definition?

2) Since, by its very nature, marriage is the public declaration and public acceptance of a social construct, and that social construct produces legal, economic and social ramifications on the entire community, doesn't the community have the authority to govern the public institution of marriage?

3) Are the special considerations offered by various institutions to relieve some of the burden of supporting lawful dependencies 'rights', entitlements, or benevolent allowances?

4) Is the formal public recognition of the conjugal union of two individuals a 'right' or is it a social construct based on custom and only legally recognized as a benefit of residing in a country that governs by the rule of law?

5) If the people of California legally voted on the governance of the public institution of marriage and the Supreme Court of California ruled that the people of California had the legal authority to do so, doesn't that just represent the democratic process in action?

* * * *

Everyone is well aware that “marriage” has historically meant the joining of a man and a woman, and this has been based on, as you said, “custom and generally accepted cultural norms.” But people don’t change or resist change based solely on semantics. Popular languages have remained so because they changed to accomodate progress, sophistication, and cultural acceptance. So to say that the meaning of a word, legal or otherwise, would have to be fine-tuned is not uncommon much less without precedent.

Because semantics are not unalterable, the issue then becomes the natural changing of the public perception of marriage over time to include the joining of same-sex partners so that language and law will have no choice but to adapt as they have in the past. The masses are becoming more and more comfortable with same-sex relationships as we learn more and ultimately become more sophisticated. The diffusion of American mainstream culture by same-sex relationships also speaks to the “normalization” of the issue. So the question becomes, what makes marriage, a social construct, impervious to this obvious paradigm shift? What’s stopping the majority of our “democracy” from altering their perception of marriage to include same-sex partners?

This is where religious groups have taken the authority over deciding what “marriage” is and has always been. This is why you were able to refer to the meaning of “marriage” matter-of-factly and the meaning of “right” as an abstract idea. But marriage has transcended religious significance and become, as you said, a social construct. So my question is, with so many economic, social, and legal considerations, why should the religious significance of a word have any weight at all?

The most abstract and popular answer is, because homosexuality is seen as immoral by conservative Christians, opponents think that allowing gays to marry will somehow poison or dillute the term,”marriage” inevitably threatening the institution it symbolizes, an insitution that disintegrates 50% of the time in the U.S. among heterosexual partners (much less so in Massachusetts, the only state with legalized gay-marriage laws for much of the last 5 years).

If you mean this to be a conversation about the democratic process or lawmaking from the bench, then you are not going to get much of an argument from me. This is not because I put a whole lot of faith in our so-called democratic process, or really care about defending it when it is convenient, but because I don’t feel like it is the fundamental issue here.

There is no doubt in my mind that gay marriage will pass in California and elsewhere eventually, and it will be done up to the democratic standards you describe. The only question is, how long will detractors (religious conservatives) keep this from happening?

* * * *

I'm looking forward to his response and I will post it here as soon as I can. If anyone still reads this, please join in.

Some Rambling on Religion and Choice

On Real Time this week, author Jon Meachem said that there has been a long-standing tradition based on a precedent set by God himself not to force obedience. In other words, God gives us the freedom to choose and man should give the same freedom. When Meachem says "long-standing tradition" he refers to freedom of religion in America. I think he’s giving God and the U.S. too much credit. It is true, God does technically give humans a choice. You can believe in God and submit to the bible's teachings, or burn in hell for all of eternity with weeping, teeth gnashing and all the rest. That’s not much of a choice. The same is true to a lesser extent for freedom of religion and the separation of church and state in the United States. Is it even possible to imagine an atheist being elected to major national office? And doesn't the Judeo-Christian God pervade every corner of society from "God Bless America" at baseball games to presidents being sworn in on the bible. It doesn't matter that I, and a growing number of Americans, feel awkward when thousands of fans sing "God Bless America" or ashamed when our president's memos are covered with religious propaganda because Christianity in one form or another is the de facto American religion.

While we’re on the subject of godly obedience, I think this also brings to light a fundamental inconsistency between God and Jesus, who was part of the trinity, namely god in the flesh, or one and the same entity. If Jesus was God in the flesh, and he was this selfless impoverished miracle worker, and God on the other hand, demands that people praise him, obey him, and put nothing above him for fear of everlasting pain described in the "good book"; how is that selfless? The Christ of the new testament taught an exemplary moral system based on helping others and turning the other cheek. This is vastly different from the God who made his first four commandments revolve around his own vanity and jealousy. Isn’t this enormously inconsistent?

On a side note, it is impossible not to see the parallels between the aforementioned arrangement between God and people and the arrangement the United States has with the rest of the world; mainly, do what we say or we place economic sanctions on you, or occupy your country and murder your citizens making them collateral damage in our “spread of democracy.” Again not much of a choice. I warned it was rambling.

The Value of Human Life

Number of deaths from 9-11 attacks: 2,974

Estimated number of civilian deaths in Iraq since occupation started in 2003: Between 86,863-94,781 (according to iraqbodycount.org) Other sources including a study by the World Health Organization (WHO) estimate 151,000, 50 times the death count from the twin tower attacks.

Democracy Now!'s Amy Goodman Arrested at RNC

http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2008/9/1/amy_goodman_and_two_democracy_now_producers_unlawfully_arrested_at_the_rnc

Proud Member of "Ingrate" Nation

The following is an excerpt from an op-ed by Jonah Goldberg, National Review contributor. Not surprisingly, he's the most read columnist in the U.S. under 40. I wanted to go paragraph by paragraph systematically dismantling his flawed logic but I settled for attacking his basic premise which is not new in articulation or delivery, much less principle. Here are the first couple paragraphs:

"It's an old story. Loving parents provide a generous environment for their offspring. Kids are given not only ample food, clothing and shelter, but the emotional necessities as well: encouragement, discipline, self-reliance, the ability to work with others and on their own. And yet, in due course, the kids rebel. Some even say their parents never loved them, that they were unfair, indifferent, cruel. Often, such protests are sparked by parents’ refusal to be even more generous. I want a car, demands the child. Work for it, insist the parents. Why do you hate me? asks the ingrate[...] And so it goes, I think, with capitalism generally. Capitalism is the greatest system ever created for alleviating general human misery, and yet it breeds ingratitude. People ask, “Why is there poverty in the world?” It’s a silly question. Poverty is the default human condition. It is the factory preset of this mortal coil. As individuals and as a species, we are born naked and penniless, bereft of skills or possessions."

Is that so? But Jonah, you were born to a wealthy executive and an already entrenched member of the Washington establishment. Was poverty your “default position?” Were you born “penniless,” “bereft of possessions?” Hardly. And treating the situation you describe in the opening anecdote as if it applied to everyone is blind ignorance, and proves how disconnected you are from real life.

As I said, this manifesto isn’t much different from the usual pro-capitalist rhetoric. The central idea is that capitalism provides wealth for those who are willing to work for it. Like all capitalists who make this argument, Goldberg naively assumes that all men and women are created equal, or better put, that all men and women toed the same starting line. He also assumes that the fruits of our labor are our own. This is simply not the case. According to the Office for Social Justice (2005 numbers I think), every year, over 730,000 babies are born into poverty, with 80% of poor children living in working households or with families “willing to work.” And this number is based on the official poverty line, which is far too low, meaning many more children in this country are poor. Couple this with the fact that every year the percent of people below the poverty line living in extreme poverty continues to increase. On top of all of this, let’s remember that real wages (adjusted for inflation) have been stagnating or falling over the past 35+ years while today, the top 1% makes the largest percent of total income since 1929.

With all of this in mind, what could Goldberg possibly mean when he later writes “the fruits of your labor are your own?” Does this mean that capitalists are holding all of our labor surplus value (profit) to give to us at a later date? Of course not. The surplus-value of workers’ productivity (capital) is held be capitalists, not workers. In fact, I do not hesitate for a second to make the following generalization: the more money you make, and the more power you have, the less labor-value (work/productivity) you actually create, and vice versa. There are exceptions, but there’s a reason why an archetype exists for the office executive who spends his “work” days doing nothing (see Office Space, American Psycho, and even Costanza sleeping under his desk to name a few). The fruits of working class labor make this possible, helping to sustain growing inequality and flat lining wages. Of course Jonah defends against Americans' "what have you done for me lately" attitude by saying our complaints grow louder when capitalism "momentarily stutters in spinning its gold." When's the last time capitalsm "spun gold" for the majority of the population? When do these crises seize to be "momentary sputtering," and prove to be what Zizek calls "the point at which the truth of the system becomes visible?"

All that being said, this is what really pisses me off about the piece: Not only do pro-capitalists like Goldberg continue to push this false work ethic which keeps the oppressive system afloat, they insist that we’re grateful to the same system. Who wouldn't be thankful for a system which privatizes profits and socializes costs (pollution, poverty, human rights violations, govt. subsidies, consumerism, imperialism, etc.). I don't know about you, but I sure do feel bad for being so unappreciative.

Here's a link to the full editorial:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDdiYTgxOGE0ZjNiZTEzZmI3OGQwMzBmYWFlNWE1MDg=

"We're Losing the Ability to Think"

The following are a couple of excerpts from today's op-ed by Leonard Pitts Jr., a columnist from the Miami Herald. It's the perfect follow up to my last post, which continues on the theme of Americans' stupidity and their flat-out reluctance to think:

"[...] And then tell me you don't feel the nation's collective IQ dropping like stocks.

I am not talking about ignorance. Ignorance is a lack of information; we're all ignorant in one way or another. Nor am I talking about people prone to punctuation or spelling errors; we all make mistakes.

No, I'm talking about stupidity, which I define as an inability to analyze, draw conclusions from, or otherwise use information even when one has it. And stupidity is often characterized by smug indifference.

For as much as we obsess over black vs. white and red vs. blue, I suspect the defining division of this technology-driven era will be between those who have and can exploit information and those who do not and cannot. Between intelligence and its opposite. One wonders how long we can continue to equate stupidity with ''keeping it real,'' being a regular Joe or Jane, and hope to continue leading the world.

In recent years, we have seen intelligence demonized as the sole province of the ''elite,'' a term that once described accomplishment, but is now used to condemn anyone who looks like he might have accidentally cracked a book or had a thought."

The column can be found in its entirety here:
http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/leonard-pitts/story/618348.html

Why Isn't Intelligence an American "Virtue?"

When Republicans (and people more generally) are confronted about their uninformed opinions, they react with a condescending laugh as if having ideals is naïve or somehow we just don’t get it. This is coming from the same people who believe that the defense budget is more than every other country combined because we need to “spread freedom throughout the world.” And even when Republicans concede the point that you are smarter than them, they are still unwilling to budge on positions they can’t clearly explain much less substantiate. At the very least, this means they do not have sound reasoning behind their stances, and most of the time they know they are wrong but are afraid to face reality lest it inconvenience them in some way. People prefer “truthiness” to truth, where truthiness is truth through the lens of self-interest. Adam Miller writes:

“What tends to matter most to us, whatever our political persuasion, is simple self-interest […] self-interest is the lens that warps our perception of truth, bends facts to meet our preferences, and disconnects us from the possibility of creating good that is genuinely shared in common. Only that which is shared in common can center us in a truth beyond truthiness […] We no longer see things as they are, and so we are no longer able to connect meaningfully with other people or truthfully with ourselves.”

The ironic thing is that truth isn’t hard to discern. Most so-called political issues can be boiled down to a simple question: Do you care more about money or people? That’s really it. I would much rather Republicans looked the American public in the eyes and said they don’t care about poor people than simultaneously claim benevolence while pushing for policies they know will crush them. If they tell the truth, we will know they’re bad people, and if they don’t, we'll know they're frauds. Worse yet, if they don't believe the truth, then we’ll know they’re delusional and at the very best, mildly retarded. In short, they continue to make the case for ignorance or plain stupidity as the overriding American “values.” As the old adage goes, “Ignorance is bliss.” But like Bill Maher said in Milwaukee last week, “Ignorance means you’re in the dark, and when you’re in the dark you’re scared.” I would take Maher’s line of reasoning a step further and say that when you’re scared, you make irrational decisions (believing in religious superstitions, or supporting Republican hawks like Bush and McCain).

Shedding ignorance and picking up a book can be “inconvenient.” The fact is, the status quo is depressing, and with knowledge comes the responsibility to act. People often ridicule me for my views (if not just for having them), and to a person their reaction is more or less the same: “One person can’t make a difference, so have fun changing the world.” This patronizing attitude is endemic in America from those whose political stance (conservative, corporatist, nationalist) or lack of one, is already the status quo, which implies a kind of socio-political inertia. But if Republicans can support jingo-nationalistic fascism, and believe that Noah built an ark and Jonah lived inside a whale, I can believe in liberty and equality, no matter how "naive" that vision might be.

No Risk / High Reward

"The working man's a sucker."
-Cologero
A Bronx Tale

My aunt just switched cable providers and on her first bill she was overcharged for services and hardware she never received. This made me think about how many people pay their bills and don't catch "mistakes" like this on a monthly basis. When consumers notice these "mistakes," someone in India apologizes and removes the extra charge from the bill, without the corp. taking on any fiscal responsibility. Is this not a microcosm for the way all mega-corps. operate under Western-capitalism? No risk with the possibility of high reward. The largest banks in America are being bailed out by the government after making mistakes with their stockholder's money. They took what should have been huge risks for the opportunity to make lucrative amounts of money. Only under our current system, apparently there is no monetary risk involved in being fiscally irresponsible. When are CEOs and politicians going to have to answer to the people for their "mistakes?" Their answer is likely to be more deregulation and "free" market ideology right? That way corporations can continue to exploit vulnerable consumers without answering to anyone. So in the end, the consumers foot the bill either way: they either rip us off or we have to pay to bail them out anyways. That's how the land of opportunity really rewards the hard-working majority. It's also how the myth of the American dream has turned the U.S. into a nation of suckers.

And for those who still believe that "free-market" capitalism is our mode of production or that Western-style capitalism is unquestionably synonomous with democracy: http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

Untitled Photo Project by Pat Ryan

Here is a small sample from my friend Pat's final photo project at the Art Institute of California-Los Angeles. Pat is set to graduate next year with an emphasis in film. When he told me about this project I was excited to see what he came up with. As long as Pat keeps incorporating thoughtful socioeconomic commentary into his artwork, I will be happy to post it here. Nice work Pat.

I Recommend...

4/4 Stars: I don't know how to write movie reviews. I always have too much to say and I can't find a common thread to tie it all together. I can tell you that "The Dark Knight" needs to be watched, thought about, then talked about for a long time. This is true because of what it says, but more so for what it almost says, but is not allowed to. Dissent in this country is at its all time highest and the new Batman installment reflects this in content and tone. There has been a lot of hype around the film mostly because of Heath Ledger's turn as the Joker. Ledger's performace is nothing short of incredible, and the character written for the actor is one of the most radical and complicated to come out of mainstream-American cinema in recent memory; and the best villian/anti-hero I have ever seen on the big screen. Even though he is not given a cause to fight for, as writers probably feared this would make his nothing-to-lose approach to terrorism admirable, I'm still surprised this character made it past the indoctrinated censors that preside over Hollywood. Pay attention to everything he is allowed to say, and think about everything he is not. "The Dark Knight" is not only emblematic of the way mainstream American art voices dissent, but its invisible ideological limits as well.

This is not a review section, because again, I don't really know how to speak the languag, but once in awhile I will give films a star rating with a rationale if I feel like it. With that said, I also recommend "Be Kind, Rewind," Michel Gondry's imaginative ode to independent film, and in a clever trick in the end, silent films as well. I watched "Be Kind" alone in my basement in a less-than-average mood for watching a movie. When it was over, I was much happier in general after having laughed out-loud several times. Jack Black and Mos Def have great chemistry, and everything about the film is modest and sincere. 3 1/2 Stars. I loved both of these movies.

State Capitalism and the Myth of the Free Market

"Downturn Gains Steam as Inflation Roars Ahead"
"Bernanke: Economy faces 'numerous difficulties"
"Report: 150 Banks Could Fail Over Next 18 Months"
"Bush Administration Moves to Bail Out Mortgage Companies"

With headlines like this everyday across the country, are advocates of globalization and “free-market” ideology ready to admit that something is wrong, or at the very least, that there is nothing “free” about the market. For those that champion it, the market is “free” only when it continues to make the richest people in this country richer while keeping the rest content enough not to raise hell. But now it has gotten so bad that what the government has always done, which is subsidize large corporations who then keep the profits for themselves, has gotten national attention. If the free market existed, wouldn’t the so-called “invisible hand” of capitalism have drowned corporations like Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac? Without the government’s help, and taxpayer’s money, these companies would sink. The rationale given by politicians is that if these companies were to go under, the economy would collapse. Doesn’t that mean that this system, which proponents claim is self-sustaining, cannot survive without state intervention. How is this not state capitalism, which in ideology, is precisely the opposite of free-market capitalism? The very same politicians who run on small government are now pushing for billions of dollars in state intervention to save the sinking system that has made them all rich. As is often the case with the United States government there is a double standard at work: state intervention is wrong when it means regulating multinational corporations but ok when it means bailing them out. Where is all the free-market ideology now? This crisis is the result of the capitalist tendency, no necessity, to look no further than the bottom line. Capitalism’s short sightedness and unchecked deregulation has caught up to the United States in what many are calling the worst financial crisis of our lifetime. And still no one challenges or questions the anonymous monster behind it all: state-capitalism. Slavoj Žižek describes this phenomenon:

“when we pass from the notion of crisis as occasional contingent malfunctioning of the system to the notion of crisis as the symptomal point at which the ‘truth’ of the system becomes visible, we are talking about one and the same actual event—the difference is purely virtual, it does not concern any of its actual properties, but only the way this event is supplemented by the virtual tapestry of its ideological and notional background.”

Reading Žižek can sometimes be frustrating. He works out his theories as he goes and reading his work is witnessing this process live. If you try and pick up and understand everything you will get lost, so you have to extract nuggets of insight whenever you can. This quotation perfectly describes how the government/media (the line is blurry) is handling this economic crisis. It is a well-known taboo to question capitalism, in fact it is even taboo to say capitalism anymore. Instead it is the anonymous system to which there is no alternative. I know that some will read this post and say that capitalism works and there’s no better system. They

"claim that Capitalism is today so global and all-encompassing that they cannot ‘see’ any serious alternative to it, that they cannot imagine a feasible ‘outside’ to it [… but] the task is not to see the outside, but to see in the first place (to grasp the nature of contemporary capitalism)—the Marxist wager is that, when we ‘see’ this, we see enough, including how to go beyond it…So our reply to the worried progressive liberals, eager to join the revolution, and just not seeing it having a chance anywhere, should be like the answer to the proverbial ecologist worried about the prospect of catastrophe: do not worry, the catastrophe will arrive…"

This is the conversation I want, and we need to have as Americans. “Although the sphere of the economy appears ‘apolitical,’ it is the secret point of reference and structuring principle of political struggles” and if you're paying attention, it appears that the catastrophe may be arriving sooner than later. A small part of me wants things to get worse before they get just better enough for people to forget that they are being raped by the system. Gas prices are the perfect allegory for how the system operates. People all over America are catching themselves being happy when gas drops to $4 a gallon. They have to remind themselves that a year ago it was under $3, and three years ago it was around $2. Likewise, before we become content with policies that are meant to keep us at bay, we need to remember that in the richest country in the world, inequality grows, wages stagnate and the middle class disapears. Perhaps more importantly we need to remember that the system which is responsible for all of this depends on our compliance, because ironically, we work to maintain these debilitating trends.