As I Please

Moving on...

2011-03-23T21:52:00.000-04:00

I have moved on to new digs. Visit me here.

My Trip to Heinz

2008-11-23T10:43:00.009-05:00

I went to the game last Thursday night anticipating a blow out. Of course, the Bengals managed to disappoint--rather than losing easily so I could get drunk without having to focus on the game--they turned in another agonizing loss. The defense, despite not being able to put significant pressure on the QB, actually played pretty well. They need to work on their contain a little, but they really didn't over pursue as much as they usually do against the Steelers and were pretty effective at stopping the run and jamming the passing lanes. Offensively, of course, the game was painful. Fitz was effective on short timing routes, but in obvious passing situations, the protection was poor and Fitz was off. He also suffered from Glen Holt's apparent inability to catch. The running game--almost non-existent. The Steelers special teams were the only thing that made our offense worth watching--we always had good field position.

Overall, I had fun--tailgated from about 6-8, got a few beers, shots of whiskey, jambalaya, and hamburgers in me before the game. Didn't get razzed too much for my Bengals jersey. One of the good things about being a Bengals fan this year is that you pose no real threat to the Steelers, so they kind of see it as a joke. Also, I wasn't the only Bengals fan at the game--

In fact, I met some nice fellows from Dayton who are going to Eagles concert on Saturday.

My tickets were good--40 yard line, 4th row upper deck--as one may be able to tell from this field shot--

And the Pittsburgh Steeler fans were in rare form, this guy fell asleep in the second quarter, woke in the third quarter, yelled "Boo!" then went back asleep.

And here are a couple of my buddies--

Overall a good time, but I would have loved to see a W.

Reflections on the Election and Transformation

2008-11-09T10:30:00.001-05:00

I got my opportunity to vote for Barack Obama a second time and I did and he won. For someone who routinely votes for losers, this alone makes Barack Obama’s election a moment to remember. It is relatively obvious the significance of the first black president in the United States, even if he isn’t an “American Black.” The notion that a person of color, regardless of their specific background, has risen to the highest office in the land is truly a historical moment.

Although many of the criticisms of Barack Obama as being more “celebrity” than political candidate may have some truth, in general, I don’t him being any more different than most politicians that aspire to high office. Image often trumps reality—the difference is that Obama’s image is divergent from the conventional images of Presidential candidates. Wealthy candidates from elite backgrounds like the Bush’s carefully craft “folksy” images—nothing new. Of course, McCain’s “selfless war hero” is another standard image. For Obama, his image is of a black man who transcends race--a post-racial president in a country where the spectre of race still weighs upon us like a nightmare. This, combined with his youth appeal, savvy use of the internet, and ability to invoke high ideals, has garnered him “rock star” status.

Of course, celebrity status is often a fleeting thing. Obama’s honeymoon will not last long and may not even survive until January 20th. At which point, Obama will have to find ways to address the many problems he is inheriting, hopefully to do so in a way that helps “main street” as he has promised, helps to preserve and expand civil liberties and economic opportunity, and in a manner that will hold his nascent political coalition together. No small challenge.

Obama’s campaign has promised “change”—exactly what that means, of course, is nebulous. Obama’s plans have been relatively specific, however, executing them is a different matter. And of course, “change” isn’t always good. Many Americans have been living through a change over the past 20 years, a change that was meant longer hours, lower pay, shrinking savings, greater debt and endless war.

Obama has also promised to be a “uniter.” This typically implies that he will “reach across the aisle” and bring Republicans into his administration and attempt to work with Republican Congressional leaders. Although the former seems likely, at least in the short term, the latter I am less sure about. Part of the problem is that being both a “uniter” and an advocate for change may be mutually irreconcilable. If one examines the truly transformative Presidents, “unity” was not their strong suit. Lincoln and Roosevelt created just as many enemies as friends. The challenge is the balancing act between the two. Moreover, “breaking with the past” must mean breaking with the neo-conservative/neo-liberal dichotomy if it is to mean anything—reaching out to Republicans—even moderates, isn’t going to achieve that.

The media has labeled the election of Obama as “transformational.” It truly is in the cultural sense—an African American president is significant because of the long history of racial oppression and antagonism in the United States. And although many, particularly on the right, have argued that Obama’s election is proof that racism is dead, at best it suggests that appealing to white racial identity and fear, an American political tradition, may be waning as an effective political tactic—at least in national contests. But in order for Obama’s election to be truly transformational, the transformation must come away from Washington—it must come in the communities, churches, union halls, and civic groups that have been clamoring for change--a break with neo-conservative/neo-liberal dichotomy of the past 30 years in favor of a new American social contract.

The question is whether Obama will provide the necessary space for this transformation to occur and will support those on the ground who are trying to make those changes. Transformational Presidents historically have been associated with the ascendancy of new voting blocs that have altered the political demographics and discourse for a generation or more. Again, invoking Lincoln and Roosevelt, both were elected in time of turmoil, riding the tide of social change. Both offered themselves as pragmatic moderates, but over the course of their Presidency, became more willing to align themselves with new voting groups and grassroots organizations, even one’s considered “radical” or otherwise untouchable. Obama captured nearly two-thirds of the new voters this election, as well as two thirds of non-Black people of color. This suggests the making of a new Democratic coalition. If Obama, and more importantly his millions of young and politically active supporters, can pull this off, we may be witnessing a political realignment which will shape American politics for the next 30 years—a truly new Democratic Party governed by some sort of post-modern center-left coalition.

Marginally Competent Office Schmuck

2008-10-24T12:26:00.005-04:00

(Originally posted on MySpace)

As most of you know, I don't have a job. Over the summer, the university where I was employed didn't renew my contract. I was not surprised as I had more or less come to the conclusion that finishing my dissertation was not in the cards or in my heart. Over the summer, I began my job search. I did all the things that you are supposed to do. Crafted multiple versions of my resume, sent resumes for job postings, sent resumes cold, sent resumes to companies, temp agencies, recruiters, followed up with phone calls, called in favors for recommendations, applied to dream jobs, realistic jobs, and jobs for which I was over qualified.

he silence was deafening. I got one interview (which has yet to make an offer) and a sum total of three rejection letters out of dozens of resumes.

As it became clear that a professional job was not in the immediate offing, I started a job at a retail music store. The pay sucked, but it had the potential for commission. The work environment was chaotic, but tolerable, the hours were horrible, but it was pretty cool to play a $3000 Les Paul through a $1500 Egnater tube amp on my break. Once it became obvious that the "big commission check" was akin to the tears of the Virgin Mary--existing solely as a legend, but if you believe hard enough, you might just see it, if only briefly and you'll never be able to prove it afterwards—I quit.

More recently, I have placed my faith in temp agencies. After all, temp agencies are always looking for presentable people with good office skills and with potential for a permanent hire. Right? I applied with three temporary agencies over the past six weeks. All of them had me present a resume, come in for an interview and take evaluations in MS Office and typing speed. At it turns out, I am proficient (woo-hoo!) in MSWord, Excel, PowerPoint, and can type 59 words a minute (my actual scores have been 52, 57, 59—I have yet to break the 60 barrier, but I have high hopes). So I am pretty much the perfect employee. Right?

WRONG! I went to my fourth interview today at a temp agency—lets call it PenisPower. I got the interview after sending in my resume, having a brief phone interview, and doing some online evaluations (no, I did not break 60 wpm, however you'll be glad to know I remain "proficient" otherwise). Although I spent almost two hours jumping through these various hoops, the interview lasted all of 15 minutes—that is how long it took the placement coordinator to tactfully inform me that she didn't feel comfortable sending me on any available jobs because I was too good for PenisPower. Although I appreciated her honesty, I was stunned. I explained to her that placing me on a job that was "beneath me" was a ménage a trois of wins because I get a job, the client gets a solid employee which they could easily hire and move up, and PenisPower gets the reputation of placing the most rock solid penises in the right spot. Moreover, without sounding desperate, I used the phrase "I need a job" more than John McCain uses the word "maverick."

She coyly smiled, no doubt dazzled by my logic, but then quickly reassured me that "in today's job market companies aren't looking for people like you." I am not exactly sure what that means—assuming "people like you" are people who meet or exceed the qualifications for a specific job, take the time to go through the various weeding out procedures, and travel 45 minutes to show up 10 minutes early to a 15 minute interview—what kind of people are they looking for?

At this juncture, I briefly thought I may have to return to the music shop and plead for my job back. However, the conversation would most likely go like this—

Goffchile: Hey, I have had second thoughts about quitting, I really love it here, I miss the low pay, hearing botched versions of "Enter Sandman" and "Eruption" 20 times a day, the Dollar Store Beef Jerky, and working every minute of every weekend---and I know I will hit commission soon. Can you find it in your big rock 'n' roll hearts to rehire me?

Manager: Good to see you dude. Dude, I know we said that you were re-hirable, but based on your performance, we can't bring you back, dude.

Goffchile: Performance? What was wrong with my performance?

Manager: Dude, do you realize that in your first month, you were tenth in sales out of a staff of thirty and outsold established veterans and even manager dudes? Do you realize that in the first two weeks of October, you moved up to sixth, passing four other dudes? We simply can't tolerate that.

Goffchile: But isn't a good thing that I was outselling veterans with established customers?

Manager: Duuuuuuude, no! That sort of competence is unacceptable. Your too good for us. Don't you know we have worked hard to establish ourselves as the Wal-Mart of the music business—we aren't gonna mess that up by hiring dudes with potential like you.

Goffchile: (Puts fist through Marshall stack and runs out the door)

Manger: Dude, wait! You vandalized equipment—maybe we can use you after all!

Apparently, I have fucked up seriously. Being proficient (meaning qualified) makes you over qualified for jobs. Having an impressive resume is a bad thing. Being able to type, spell, and put a sentence together makes you un-hirable.

Therefore, I am beginning a sociological experiment for which I am enlisting the aid of my friends. Most folks inflate their resumes, I want to deflate mine faster than the McCain's post-convention bounce. I am creating an alter-ego which I am calling "marginally competent office schmuck." I am going create an entire resume, back story, and persona that will allow me to get a job ASAP. What I need is some aid in how to do this. I am absolutely serious about this! I want my resume to scream "marginally competent office schmuck."

So here is my question, "What are the things that most people would avoid having on their resume, but which 'MCOS' wouldn't mind or see as a badge of honor?"

A few ideas so far—

A few well placed misspellings. Nothing horrible, but just commonly misspelled words like "recieve." (any other words come to mind)

Multiple colleges, no degrees (need some help with the colleges that scream "marginal competence"—University of Phoenix?)

Bouncing from job to job—suggestions?

"Bad jobs"—any job that you have had which you would be to embarrassed to put on a resume but which "MCOS" wouldn't think twice about

Anything else?

Keep in mind, the purpose is it get job—but a job which my resume suggests I am not qualified.

I may also need "former supervisors" and "references." Volunteer and I will let you know what to do.

Sinceerely,

MCOS

The Heart of Darkness--A Bengals Fan in Pittsburgh

2008-10-24T12:21:00.005-04:00

(Previously posted on CincyJungle)

Due to my crazy work schedule, this was the first game I have actually been able to watch. Since I only have read of the horror and not seen it, I'll post some thoughts.

I watched it in typical surroundings (for me), in the home of a Pittsburgh Steelers fan with my Bengals jersey on (Who Dey!). This week was particularly interesting because the guy who was hosting was my buddy Tom, the head chef for Heinz Field (thanks Tom--the omelets, wings, and shrimp were great!). I tried to convince him to poison Rooney's food, but he wasn't in to it.

As far as the game went, obviously the Bengals are awful across the board. To pick out the negatives would take a while, so I want to highlight some positives. Although the offense was anemic, when Benson got going, he actually looked decent. He hit the whole quick and hard and delivered blows to get extra yardage. He may be a guy we should consider resigning. I don't see him as bell-cow, but he could be a good between the tackles/situational back. Benson and a healthy Watson complemented by a mid-round draft pick could make a decent RBBC next year. Obviously, with no real deep passing threat and a weak running game, it isn't difficult to defend against the Bengals--given that, Fitz had his moments. His biggest problem is the incessant pass rush and his "happy feet" in the pocket. Given the weak pass protection, some of that is understandable, but sometimes he would be better off just standing in the pocket and throwing rather than running. He just can't read the defenses adequately to find the open guy.

I see what people are saying about the defense. They looked a lot better. Although there is no excuse for giving up 38 points--a lot of it can be attributed to the offense's inability to sustain a drive (beyond the last drive of the first half ). The secondary, aside from Pope's blown coverage and Joseph's fourth quarter breakdown, looked decent. The lack of pass rush was disconcerting, but if we had a decent pass rush, our secondary could be a strong group. The front seven came up big several times in short yardage situations, which was heartening. In the fourth quarter, they clearly broke down---partially from exhaustion--partially from lack of will in a game they weren't going to win.

Caldwell looked really good on kick returns and I hope they get both him and Simpson in the mix more often.

Although Pittsburgh fans are typically a very (over) confident bunch, at the end of the first half, I noticed a little perspiration on the brow--it could have been a splash from the Iron City Beer--but I am going with sweat. The rational centers of my brain knew the Bengals probably wouldn't win, but after the closing drive of the first half--my heart lifted, because it seemed like they were actually playing as a team on both sides of the ball. I stayed quiet, however--Pavlovian conditioning from the Bengals pathetic record against the Steelers--but inside I was chanting WHO DEY!

Of course, in a manner that I could have scripted from watching too many years of Bengals football, Cincy unraveled in the second half--with Hines Ward's blow on Rivers being the symbolic moment of the game---physical Steelers football blindsiding the Bengals once again.

The Bengals are a bad football team (newsflash!). But I don't think they are nearly as bad as their record indicates. The rest of the season could be rough. If they decide to sit Palmer, we may be lucky to win a game. This is an eventuality for which I am prepared.

What's really upsetting is that I am depending on the Bengal's front office to correct the myriad of problems.

The horror! The horror!

Why no posts goffchile?

2008-10-24T12:11:00.005-04:00

As my minions of readers may have noticed, I haven't posted in a while. I started off blogging as a way to keep up my writing skills, post some ideas, and perhaps get some discussions going. The first two things were successful, the latter not so much on this site, but I do post regularly on others. However, I did stop abruptly. The reason I stopped was because I lost my job. And although that in theory should give my tons of time to post, it in fact placed me in a funk like no other.

Aside from ardently looking for another job, I have been basically too depressed to read, write, or do any of the things that typically give me much joy. Recently, I have tried to get back to posting on various sites and have become determined to begin posting here. I have lot of good ideas, but it will take some time to get back up and going. Obviously, with the election upon us, I want to get caught up on that. Also, football season is here--so I am going to try to get some posts out on that topic.

As far as the job hunt goes, it has been one of the most horrible and confidence shattering experiences of my life. I have a satirical piece which I will post on that subject as well. I am sure there will be more reflection on unemployment as well.

And if anybody hears about a great job, let me know!

George Carlin--RIP

2008-06-23T16:04:00.009-04:00

I saw George Carlin when I was in high school and he immediately became my favorite stand up comedian. He died yesterday. I am drinking one to you today George. A few of his skits courtesy of Youtube:

His comedic genius speaks for itself--you gave me a lot of good laughs and made me think. Thanks George.

On the Turntable: The Black Keys, Attack and Release

2008-06-09T16:55:00.005-04:00

Thought that riff rock was dead? Well think again. The Black Keys recent effort, Attack and Release, brings that 70s rock sound back with a flair. Reminiscent of Jethro Tull, Led Zeppelin, and Robin Trower, the Black Keys weave together driving rhythms with catchy, yet simple melodies—the formula that gave birth to a multitude of rock anthems.

The Black Keys are an Akron based duo comprised of Dan Auerbach (guitars and vocals) and Patrick Carney (drums). Attack and Release was produced by Danger Mouse (Gnarls Barkley, Gorillas). According to the band website, the record was largely recorded in a "haunted house that hadn't been updated since 1973." Attack and Release is definitely haunted by the spectre of early 1970s hard rock.

“Strange Times” is the most radio friendly song and gets airplay on my local independent station. It features a simple driving riff and a melodic chorus. “I Got Mine” sound like it could have come off of Robin Trower’s Bridge of Sighs release. "The Same Old Thing," which features a flute in the background, could easily be mistaken for an early Jethro Tull song. Although the elements of 70s rock anthems are present, there are no gratuitously long guitar solos as few of the song are longer than four or five minutes. I have not seen them live, but can’t help but wonder if that situation is remedied on stage. Nonetheless, the Black Keys have put together a nice, listenable, rock album. And oh yeah, Disco Sucks.

Why I Love Baseball

2008-06-09T16:43:00.007-04:00

I was recently asked to blog at the NL Central blog, part of a new sportsblog network. This prompted me to reflect on why I love sports so much, in particular the sport of baseball. To many non-sports fans, I am sure watching professional athletics seems like a great waste of time. It is a form of entertainment, a distraction, no different from any other TV show, movie, or other hobby. Why do folks spend so much time and energy discussing and debating sports? I can’t speak for others, but I can speak for myself.

I grew up in a very athletically oriented household. My father played basketball (briefly) at Indiana University and was a Green Bay Packer fan during their great years in the 1960s. Sports were always important to him and it reflected in our household. Both my sister and I were strongly encouraged to play organized sports. As a young person, I played baseball, soccer, basketball, football, and ran track for community and school teams. I was never the best, but I was usually good enough to start and had my share of the thrill of victory. Additionally, I picked up golf and volleyball along the way. Sports were a family event and one in which we could all participate in some way.

Watching sports was also important. As one might expect, we were huge Indiana University fans, and became Reds and Bengals fans. We even hit a few Cincinnati Stingers games. As with many households, sports are a gendered affair, not so when I was growing up. I would put both my mother and my sister (as well as many of the female members of my extended family) up against any guy in a contest of sports knowledge. It was a powerful force of bonding in my family.

Part of it was just the culture of our family. But as I grew older, I became increasingly aware that sports was one way in which folks debate issues of right and wrong, morality, and instruct their children in issues of basic fairness. It is an oft stated cliché that sports “build character” whether they do or don’t, I don’t know, but they are certainly a cultural form through which cultural values are transmitted—for better or worse. Although I can’t recount all the lessons I learned from sports, generally, it taught me about commitment, teamwork, cooperation. On the negative side, it showed me how bullies can take advantage of the weak. Although one can take many lessons from these experiences, I always viewed sports as an arena of competition, but one in which there are agreed upon rules. It also taught me there is little joy in winning if you cheat; and that after the game is over, your opponent is not your enemy and can be your friend. In different ways, I apply these lessons to my life.

Baseball in particular has a special place in my heart. Much of it is due to its cultural significance to America. Baseball is one of America’s oldest organized professional sports. Loosely based on Britain’s cricket, the game took on a life of its own in the US. Because it requires a large space to play, baseball has always had a rural heartland feel to it—the smell of the grass, the smell of the hot dogs, the feel of the sun on your face, the crack of the bat, and the taste of a ice cold beer. Growing up in Cincinnati, it was easy to become enthralled with baseball. We had the first professional team—something the city is very proud of and in the 1970s fielded one of the best teams ever.

Although baseball if often considered a “traditional sport,” I have thought that this isn’t really correct. It is true that baseball has been around for a long time, but it has been hardly “traditional” in its practice. Baseball’s rules have been constantly in flux, attempting to accommodate fans tastes. Through the 1890s to the 1920s, baseball changed the rules about foul strikes, the definition of an error, the design of the ball, and the location of the fences to help promote run scoring. Baseball racially integrated itself in 1947, a risky move to say the least, seven years before Brown v. Board and seventeen years before the civil rights act. Rule changes continued through the 1960s—altering the elevation of the mound and introducing designated hitters. Most recently, baseball has increasingly become a truly international sport—I just looked at my fantasy team and over half the guys are either Hispanic or Japanese. Although one can debate the effects of these upon the game (and in the case of integration, society), it is hard to argue that baseball is reluctant to change with the times.

Of course, baseball is hardly without its problems. Recently, changing with the times has been all that great. Baseball has become a mega-business, like most entertainment industries. The biggest stars are paid gratuitous salaries, teams charge astronomical amounts of money for tickets, food, and paraphernalia, and often hold hostage their fan base for new stadiums and sweetheart deals regarding taxes. These problems seem particularly acute in baseball. Baseball has led the way with the corporate sponsorship of stadiums, has no salary cap, and has become increasingly uncompetitive because of it—the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. This trend has led many baseball fans to become more interested in local semi-pro teams (Go Washington!)

Even with all these problems, there are few things that compare than a day at the ball park. Baseball still retains its Americana feel and somehow no hot dog tastes any better, no beer is any colder than one from the ballpark.

NFL Owners Void NFLPA Contract--Mike Brown Vindicated?

2008-05-21T19:12:00.012-04:00

Mike Florio and Mark Crunette have both argued that the recent decision of NFL owners to void the current Collective Bargaining Agreement is vindication of Mike Brown. Brown, along with the Bills owner Ralph Wilson, opposed the current contract which imposes a salary cap but requires teams to pay 60% of their revenues to the players and that allows players to secure signing bonuses (guaranteed money) over the term of the contract. Recently, more owners have chaffed at the arrangement—the main rub being the 60% allotment to the players. Owners claim that this percentage is too high and hurts their “ability to invest.” Other issues include the inability of teams to recoup signing bonuses if a player refuses or is unable to complete their contract.

Let me get this straight. These owners, who are upset at their inability to invest, are the same owners that periodically hold their fan base hostage, claiming that if the public doesn’t come up with some money (typically in the form of higher consumption taxes) for the construction of a new stadium that they are going to move their team to a new city. These are the same owners that have invented “seat license fees” and sell more and more seats to corporations in the form of luxury boxes. Is it any wonder I feel no sympathy for the owners? Once owners actually take responsibility for building their own stadiums and stop gouging the fans, I will listen—but of course I will charge an “ear fee.”

Moreover, the current CBA has worked pretty well. Revenues are up. Fan interest is up. Attendance is up. For both owners and players, these are good things. You could make a pretty strong case that in the past 15 years, football has surpassed baseball as “America’s pastime.” The current CBA has facilitated this by creating greater parity and a relatively predictable career path for most players. It is pretty much win-win.

If anything, I would argue that the players are getting the short end of the stick, at least compared to baseball players. In reality, all football contracts are one year deals, any player can lose his job at anytime. And given football’s short career span, many players have to face that reality. The players have two points of leverage—the signing bonus, and the refusal to play. The owners want to take those away, and seem willing to risk the salary cap to do it. And be certain, if the salary cap disappears, it is never coming back.

Florio snidely blames players for signing “bad contracts.” But it isn’t the players junking the current CBA, it’s the owners. Perhaps the owners are the ones who keep signing “bad contracts” and are forced to live with them—or at least forced to live with the public relations nightmares they create.

The good news is that the NFLPA and the owners have until 2009 to negotiate a new contract. But if negotiations fail and we get a capless season followed by a strike , will Mike Brown be vindicated?

Mugged by Reality: Neocons, Paleocons and other Cons

2008-05-09T14:24:00.008-04:00

A former class mate jokingly asked me, “What is the difference between a Trotskyist and Stalinist?” I said “What?” He responded “Stalinists have power.” Granted it is not very funny, but leftists are rarely known for their sense of humor. Nevertheless, it does speak to a certain truth about the relationship between ideology and power. Ideologies are historical constructs, and contested ones at that. This is what makes them a slippery phenomenon. Moreover, ideological labels are often misleading, making them even more ambiguous. For political reasons, individuals may conceal their true ideological leanings, and their opponents may try to make their ideology a “bad word.” Ideologies are therefore products of conflict. Typically, they are born in opposition to an established order, compete with other oppositional ideologies, evolve as the order evolves, and then either fade into oblivion or become the “New Order.” American conservatism is no different and is the subject of this piece.

What is Conservatism?

That is a damn good question. European conservatism owes much to the legacy of Edmund Burke and the remnants of the ancien regime. In reaction to the excesses of the Jacobin period of the French Revolution, Burke argued that classical liberalism and the democratic impulse is best tempered by traditional forms of authority—aristocratic privilege, the church, and the patriarchal family rooted in community. Burke was not an advocate of feudalism, but he believed that these the remnants of feudal authority provided stability and counter-balanced the revolutionary aspects of liberalism and democracy. England’s constitutional monarchy and established church are examples of Burkean conservatism in action.

Needless to say, these traditional values garnered little sympathy in the United States. The American Revolution ended the rule of kings, did not establish a church, and the westward movement and steady flow of immigrants assured that the United States would be an evolving and multi-cultural country—and one not prone to Burkean conservatism. Louis Hartz, in the Liberal Tradition in America, argued that there is only one legitimate political tradition in the United States—Lockean liberalism. So much so that Americans are “irrational” liberals, liberalism is so naturalized that we fail to even recognize it.

So what is an American conservative to do? Historically, the buckets of American conservatism have drawn from three wells. The American tradition lacks a king, but it does have a constitution—and many conservatives hold the constitution up as the “King”—the mystical authority which knows all. The closest thing to King under the constitution is the executive, and therefore, conservatives have often placed a great deal of emphasis on the executive branch. Although the strict constitutionalist argument gets traction from time to time, the problem is that the constitution is a political document, making it an imperfect text, created by imperfect humans in a revolutionary moment. Moreover, the document is probably more liberal than conservative and is constantly evolving—therefore it doesn’t make a very good “traditional authority.” The second well has been a homegrown American elitism. John Adams made the case for the “natural aristocracy,” an elite few who rise because of birth, grace, skill or happenstance. Adams watered down Burkeanism rebuked “titles” but reflected a deep distrust of the leveling impulses of democracy. Not surprisingly, this weak brand of conservatism never had a broad of an appeal beyond elite sectors. The final well is racism, xenophobia, and sexism. The US was founded as a slave nation, a settler nation, and an immigrant nation—structuring racial, ethnic, and cultural antagonism into our social realty and making white supremacy, religious intolerance, and anti-immigrant sentiment almost constant features of our society. This latter well has proven to be more fruitful in mobilizing public opinion around tradition based conservatism. Simply identify the socio-cultural traits of an extant group as being “foreign” (too Catholic, Irish, Jewish, Black, Indian) and have at it. On this point, Hartz, as with many political analysts, too readily dismiss or ignore an unsavory aspect of American society and its relationship to political conservatism. According to Rogers Smith in Civic Ideals, the US legal code has been replete with ascriptive laws, suggesting a persistent (and ugly) anti-liberal tradition. When conservatism has been its most powerful, it has rested upon this xenophobic base.

Therefore, American conservatism has always struggled to cobble together a sustainable political coalition, which, in part, accounts for its factionalism. John Dean in Conservatives Without Conscience identifies 10 strains of conservatism in the current period. In the earlier twentieth century, conservatives were split not only among class, cultural, and regional lines, but along party lines—some voting Republican, some refighting the Civil War. In the 1950s, the potential for a workable coalition began to develop around opposition to the New Deal and Cold War anti-communism. Nevertheless, the cultural, class, regional, and party divisions remained. Which party would be the new conservative party? Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, and Barry Goldwater all tried to answer this question, but it would not be until the Reagan Revolution that conservatives would have their day (and their party).

Neo-Conservatism

The rise of Reaganism coincided with the rise of neoconservatism. The term neo-conservative, like so many ideological labels is a loaded one. One can take it to mean a “new conservative”—someone who had been something else but has moved into the conservative camp. In this respect, many rank and file Republicans fit the definition of “neocon”—they supported the liberal economic policies of the New Deal Order, until those policies seemed to fail and then they jumped ship. It can also mean a new type of conservatism, markedly different from the old. This latter point is much more contentious.

Paleoconservatives and other traditional conservatives claim that neo-conservatism is a foreign animal, imported by Trotskyists and liberals who changed conservatism from what it once was. Many liberals accept this. Robert Kennedy Jr., in his afterword of Barry Goldwater’s reissued Conscience of a Conservative, argues that today’s conservatives have perverted the goals of Goldwater conservatism. Liberal radio talk show hosts like Rhandi Rhodes are also amenable to distinguishing between “true” conservatives and neocons. How much justification there is for this distinction is highly debatable.

So what is neoconservatism? The consensus among both it critics and its adherents is that is “neo” translates into “new” in both the aforementioned ways. The godfather of neoconservatism is Irving Kristol. As a young man he was a Trotskyist, later a social democrat, then a liberal, and finally a conservative. According to Kristol, it took him half his life to realize he was “a conservative all along.”

The reasons for his move rightward are complex, but are relatively well documented in his work Neoconservatism: An Autobiography of an Ideal. Kristol was always a virulent opponent of Stalinized Communism and critical supporter of the Cold War because of it. In the 1940s, Kristol became frustrated with Marxism, primarily because he did not think that it “worked” as ideology. His primary reason for this was his experience as a Trotskyist and, later, in the military. What the Trotskyists were selling the working class was not buying, which raised questions about the working class’s ability to engage in the type of revolution that Marx predicted. His suspicion of the working class’s revolutionary potential was confirmed while he was in the Army, where he discovered that a lot of his working class compatriots were “thugs,” and he found the authority of the Army to be refreshing.

In the 1950s, Kristol became influenced by the writings of John Burnham and Friedrich Hayek. He saw the “managerial revolution,” the ascendency of the “New (middle-administrative) class” around him and it alarmed him. This development alone, however, wasn’t sufficient for him to completely break with the Left. The emergence of the “New Left” was. The Cultural rebellion of the 1960s, “free love,” drug culture, rejection of traditional cultural forms and mores, compelled Kristol to totally reevaluate his analysis of capitalism.

Kristol, heavily influenced by the writings of Leo Strauss, came to see capitalist democracy as the best system available for humanity. But, it was also an imperfect system, which tended to sow the seeds of its own destruction. In contrast to Marx, Kristol did not see the working class as the gravediggers of capitalism. According to Kristol, the working class is reflexively bourgeois because bourgeois society has allowed the working class to steadily improve its economic position. This was the brilliance of Keynesian liberalism and internationalism; it provided the solution to class struggle in the form of economic growth and material abundance. The problem group is the “New Class”—or at least the portion Kristol calls “intellectuals.” These folks work in “helping professions,” universities and the arts (as opposed being business managers or accountants). Although these folks are privileged, they feel no attachment to the system that grants these privileges, and thus are prone to criticism and forming political opposition.

For Kristol, the problem of the dissident intellectual traces its origins to the very nature of capitalism. Capitalist democracy has historically demonstrated its success to “deliver the goods.” But this materialist success is not sufficient. Enduring civilizations of the past have also satiated the spirit of the people. Typically, they have done this through religion. The raison d’être of a given society is a means to a greater (often otherworldly) end for the people. For capitalism, material abundance is means to an unknown end—thus the cultural malaise, ennui, decadence, and rebellion.

If the crisis of capitalism is primarily cultural and spiritual, then it calls for cultural and spiritual responses. In the 1970s and 1980s, the neoconservatives joined with traditional and cultural conservatives in opposition to the excesses of liberalism and the New Left in their call for a return to traditional (religious) values and for economic policies that would solve the economic crisis of the 1970s through economic growth. Kristol and other neoconservatives spared no ink attacking environmentalists, feminists, and multiculturalists—often red baiting them—as enemies of American democracy. They also developed very close relationships with neo-evangelicals and other social conservatives who criticized New Deal policies for their cultural effects (out of wedlock births, welfare dependency, family breakdown). And thus, the Reagan Revolution.

Paleocons, “True” Conservatives, and other Variants

One of the ironies of paleoconservatism is that it is newer than its neoconservative kin. The term neoconservatism was coined in the early 1970s by Michael Harrington, critiquing the move rightward of former leftists. Kristol accepted the label in 1979, on the eve of the Reagan Revolution. Paleoconservatism is a product of the late-1980s. Originally the term referred to southern agrarians, hard line Catholic anti-communists and older Republicans associated with William F. Buckley and the National Review. The term took on a new meaning after the end of the Cold War. The fall of the Berlin Wall took away one of the uniting factors of the conservative coalition (anti-communism) and eight years of Reaganomics made conservatism the new ideology of power, raising questions about what “anti-statist conservatives” do with the state at their disposal.

Although there are number of key figures in the paleoconservative movement, few are better known than Pat Buchanan. Buchanan, a staunchly Catholic anti-communist, was political strategist for the Nixon Administration and helped to develop the social conservative revolt against the Democrats. An equally devout Cold Warrior, he was a firm supporter of the Reagan administration. Subsequently, he ran for the Republican nomination for president in 1992 and 1996. Although a lifelong Republican, he ran on the Reform Party ticket in 2000, doing abysmally (which probably helped Bush win), then rejoined the Republican Party.

Buchanan's paleoconservatism is distinguished by its strident criticism of neoconservatism. According to Buchanan, in Where the Right Went Wrong, neocons have “subverted” the Reagan revolution. They are “leftists” and Jews who are using conservatism to forward an agenda antithetical to actual conservatives. He is particularly critical of neoconservatives aggressive foreign policy organized around “democracy promotion,” their free trade policies, and their apparent tolerance of illegal immigration.

So what are the differences between paleocons and neo-cons? Let’s start with what is not different. Both neocons and paleocons claim Ronald Reagan; both are convinced that the radical Left has taken over the Democratic Party (I wish!); both are opposed to recent cultural changes including the tolerance of homosexuality, feminism, abortion, multiculturalism; both support “traditional” family values;, neither believe in “coddling” criminals and welfare moms; both are pro-capitalist and pro-corporate; both support a strong US military; and neither dispute the United States proper role is the preeminent economic and military power in the world. So what is the problem?

Historically, American politics have been characterized by ethnic, religious and regional conflict, so there is no reason to think that conservatism would be any different. Paleocons are dived regionally, between latter day southern partisans and northern social/cultural conservatives. Paleocons also tend to be xenophobes. As neocons are often Jewish, the ascendency of the neocons could prove that the World Jewish Conspiracy has finally seized the most powerful nation in the world. Additionally, many northern paleocons are Catholic, producing a nice little Catholic-Jewish rivalry. And finally, most theocons are protestant and side with the Jews rather than the Catholics (so much for not getting involved in internecine European religious conflicts). At least part of the problem can be explained by these differences.

There are some significant differences that go beyond ethno-religious-regional conflict. There are significant tactical differences between neocons and paleocons. Neocons believe that it is in the best interest of the United States to promote democracy overseas based on the theory that democracies (if properly run by pro-US elites) are the least likely forms of government to degenerate into totalitarianism and aggression. Therefore, if the United States has to be aggressive (and manipulative of its own people) to achieve that end, it is worth it. Paleocons, like Buchanan, disagree. They see democracy promotion, particularly among non-European peoples, as a fools errand for two reasons: first because it won’t work, some people simply aren’t up to the task of democracy and trying to impose democracy will only legitimize jihadism and other radical anti-American ideologies; secondly, because if it does work, there is a strong chance these democracies will produce anti-American governments. Both approaches are aggressively nationalistic, but express their nationalism differently.

Ironically, both neocons and paleocons look for inspiration from liberal Cold War foreign policy, they just draw different lessons. Palecons yearn for the day when supporting overseas dictatorships was considered acceptable, so long as the bastards were “our bastards.” Neocons are more sympathetic to Free Trade (IMF, World Bank) policies because they see it as a way to foster capitalist development overseas and also as a way to subsidize the lifestyle of working class Americans, muting potential class conflict. Paleocons oppose free trade because they see it as subsidizing the growth of potential enemies like China. Also, protectionism allows for a semi-autarchic economic structure which they see as the key to national power (I think it’s called “capitalism in one country”). Both are hostile to the UN, but for different reasons. Paleocons see it as a nascent World Government threatening to undermine American liberty, neocons see it as too weak to sufficiently aid the US in its foreign policy goals.

Domestically, there are also some significant differences. Paleocons are aficionados of the small government, anti-New Deal, rhetoric of the 1950s and 1960s. This is a popular theme among many conservatives because it serves many purposes. Racists see “Big government” as the originator of “forced integration,” intrusive civil rights laws, and similar evils which might produce miscegenation. Right Wing Libertarians see the “government as regulator” as the opening wedge of an anti-capitalist totalitarianism. Some paleocons rewrite the history of the Revolutionary Era, with the anti-Federalists winning, and proceed to argue that the Founders intended a states rights government (the constitution as King argument, even if it is the wrong constitution). Although neocons are were critical of the New Deal and Great Society policies for their social and cultural affects, they don’t have anything against “big government” per se. Kristol viewed the welfare state as a given—the task is not to abolish it, but to remold it in a conservative manner. Therefore, neocons have allies among paleocons in their calls to “defund the left,” but less so in their attempt to “fund the right” (although theocons take to it like Judas takes to pieces of silver).

Some of the more subtle differences are more tactical nature, but may reveal deeper differences of philosophy. Irving Kristol and other neoconservatives were self consciously trying to make conservatism an ideology capable of ruling—to “modernize” it. Kristol’s critique of Goldwater and other 1950s/60s conservatives was that their rhetoric was entirely negative—against the New Deal, against the Great Society, against integration, against communism. According to Kristol, what conservatives needed was an affirmative philosophy, one which was prepared for the responsibilities of power. The first step was accepting the things you cannot change--the existence of “big government.” David Stockman in The Triumph of Politics discussed how many free market ideologues learned the hard way that opposing “big government” was just a slogan for most conservatives and it’s a lot easier to be against government handouts to someone else’s district than your own. The second step was articulating a moral vision of capitalism. George Gilder helped to popularize Reaganomics by drawing connections between “free market” economics and moral behavior in his book Wealth and Poverty, forging a powerful political alliance between neocons and theocons.

Neocons view issue driven social conservatism as part of a larger strategy to maintain conservative hegemony, leaving them open to criticism from paleocons and other conservatives that don’t take issues like abortion, affirmative action, or immigration seriously. In many respects, it has to do with tactical priorities. Is overturning Roe v. Wade worth it if it undermines the prospect of a long term conservative majority? Is gutting a popular “big government” program like Social Security a politically sound idea if it causes a federal budget crisis? The neocon answer to these questions is “no” based on the theory that such fights would be bloodier than Fallujah and the risk is greater than the gain, whereas many other conservatives would say “that is why we elected you.”

Another interesting distinction between conservatives is made by John Dean. Dean divides conservatism into two camps—authoritarian conservatives (which includes neocons, paleocons, and theocons) and “true conservatives.” Dean defines true conservatives as those who look to the wisdom of the past for guidance and move forward with great caution and prudence. True conservatives are much more interested in encouraging individual freedom while retaining social order than using social and cultural mores to control people’s behavior. Dean sees this as the true legacy of Barry Goldwater. The conservative movement, however, was hijacked, not just by neocons, but also by the “mean spirited,” Gingrich social conservatives of the 1990s. The latter group (which also includes “mediacons” like Coulter and Limbaugh) has little respect for the institutions of government and were willing to lie, cheat, and engage in character assassination for political gain. (Note: Dean has a very interesting chapter on the relationship between authoritarian personalities and conservatism, essentially arguing that conservatives are much more likely to have authoritarian traits than leftists).

Whither Conservatism?

Trotskyists have had a hard road to hoe. Expelled from the only country they deemed a legitimate workers state, always criticized because they never led a successful revolution (what that is supposed to mean coming from a Stalinist, I never understood), and destined to exist in a self-imposed sectarian exile at the margins of the working class movement. In the US, “inverted” (Straussian) Trotskyism has risen from the ashes in the form of neoconservatism. In a strange way, neoconservatives use Marx to defeat Marxism—Marx called religion the opiate of the people because it diverted them from the immediate tasks of class struggle; therefore, neocons sell opium, not only in the form of religion, but high sounding rhetoric about democracy promotion and the moral virtues of capitalism. Now, internationalism means a worldwide American Empire, and the permanent revolution is a permanent conservative majority. In America, the internationalists won and the nationalistic paleocons suffer in internal exile—supporting the Reagan revolution, but not its fruits.

Irving Kristol once described neocons as liberals “mugged by reality.” We may be witnessing a similar mugging. The Republicans’ efforts to create a permanent conservative majority in a country which, historically, has a limited conservative tradition has required creating a conservative tradition where there is none; cobbling together of various political segments of society under the banner of “conservatism.” That this coalition has proven to be more unwieldy than anticipated should not be shocking given the nature of American politics, rife with ethnic, regional, and class conflicts. Many self-described conservatives are now faced with a significant level of “buyers remorse”—they bought into the anti-liberal rhetoric of Wallace, Reagan, Buchanan, Kristol, and many others, only to discover that they all they had in common was a label. Big government is still here, now it subsidizes big business, holds our schools hostage, starts ill-advised overseas wars, and seems hell bent to regulate more aspects of our life, including our moral decision making.

Winning over paleocons into a left-liberal coalition will probably be an exercise in futility. I don’t see Pat Buchanan or many of his cohorts jumping ship anytime soon. “True” conservatives of the Dean variety, are more hopeful, and I actually have some optimism on the theocon front, but is it sufficient? My hope lies less in intellectuals and pundits and more with average folks who bought into the Reagan revolution, remain Republican by default, but after watching their sons and jobs being shipped overseas and only getting higher gas prices in return, are in desperate need of an alternative.

According to most opinion polls, more American self-identify as conservative than liberal, testimony to the power of propaganda and the ability of the New Right to create a “conservative tradition” where such a tradition has been historically weak. However, if you look at issues, Americans are much more liberal than ideological labels reveal, which suggests that today’s conservatism has yet to develop deep roots—in fact, most Americans have been “liberals all along.” The challenge for a liberal-left coalition is to embrace the strong liberal tradition that exists in this country; marry it to issues of social justice, and to reach out to the disenchanted “man on the street conservatives” who have been mugged by reality.

Bibliography

Buchanan, P. (2004). Where the Right Went Wrong. New York: Thomas Dunne Books.

Dean, J. (2006). Conservatives Without Conscience. New York: Penguin Group.

Drury, S. (1997). Leo Strauss and the American Right. New York: St. Martin's.

Gilder, G. (1993). Wealth and Poverty. Oakland, CA: ICS Press.

Hartz, L. (1955). The Liberal Tradition in America. New York: Harcourt, Brace.

Kennedy Jr., R. F. (2007). Afterword. In B. Goldwater, The Conscience of a Conservative. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Kristol, I. (1995). Neonconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea. New York: Free Press.

"Neoconservatism." (n.d.). Retrieved May 9, 2008, from Wikipedia.com

"Paleoconservative." (n.d.). Retrieved May 9, 2008, from Conservapedia.com

"Pat Buchanan." (n.d.). Retrieved May 9, 2008, from Wikipedia.com

Smith, R. (1997). Civic Ideals. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Stelzer, I. (2004). The Neocon Reader. New York: Grove Press.

Stockman, D. (1987). The Triumph of Politics. New York: Avon Books.

Blogging on Blogging

2008-04-29T13:28:00.011-04:00

UPDATE: Deadspin vs. Bissinger on Costas

DeadSpin

After blogging now for about 10 months, I have started to reflect on it more as a new medium. I primarily do it to help sort through my own ideas and trot them out for folks to read if they choose. Nevertheless, the more I read others blogs, it makes me wonder where this medium is going. How significant is the blogosphere? Do bloggers matter? How are they changing journalism? Recently, I have come across a couple of interesting articles discussing the blogging phenomenon in different contexts. One was in the NYTimes, one on the sports blog, CincyJungle, and one on the political blog, Art of the Possible. The consensus is that there is definitely a rising tension between the mainstream media and bloggers, and it cuts across many interests and aspects of life. The rise of blogging has opened a number of questions. Are bloggers journalists? Are they poseurs and wannabees? What about paid journalists who also blog? Who owns the video and audio produced by a particular news source? Should bloggers have access to press conferences just like reporters? Is the line blurring between professional and non-professional media? Is this permanent, or will a new hierarchy develop? What about journalistic integrity and objectivity?

These are many thorny issues raised by the information age and the proliferation of computers, hand held video and audio recording devices, and the expansion of internet access. As I have argued before, there is a tendency for bloggers to overestimate their own significance. Largely because bloggers spend a lot of time reading each others blogs, getting in blogging wars, and competing for the blogger readership. In other words, blogging is extremely important to other bloggers and their circle of readers and regular posters, but it isn’t clear how important it is to the rest of the world. Of course, there also tends to be a significant class divide between bloggers and the general public. Becoming a blogger assumes a certain income, lifestyle, and education which does not necessarily make it the democratizing force it is often considered. It may challenge the existing media structure in some ways, but in many ways it leaves it quite in tact.

It is clear, however, that among the "educated" class, blogging has become more important as a means of disseminating information and opinion. I first noticed this in 2004 during the Presidential election when Air America radio began to regularly interview bloggers and cite blogs during many of their shows. At the time, I wasn’t even sure what a blog was—but obviously bloggers opinions seemed to matter to someone. In past years, I have seen a similar phenomenon in music and sports. Multiple times I have been solicited to write music reviews on my blog to help publicize a particular band (I have yet to do this, I am not opposed to doing it, I just thought it was an odd thing). Also, sports blogging has exploded as an alternative way to get information and opinion about sports and offering many alternative perceptions of sporting activity.

The blogs that seem to be the most successful are collective endeavors. They are either part of a larger blog network (SB Nation is a good example, but there are many others) or they are collectively run, with multiple writers helping to keep the blog up to date, and relevant. The best case scenario is to be both. Although these blogs aren’t run by “professionals,” most are quite professionally run, meaning they look nice, have high quality posts, and try to avoid ad hominem attacks (at least at other posters)which are so prevalent in many discussion forums.

The biggest tension between bloggers, the mainstream media, and major commercial organizations is over “who owns the news?” The media’s case is that they have invested millions in equipment, technicians, and staff to produce video and interviews and that therefore, they own the information they produce. Large commercial enterprises like Major League Baseball make similar arguments. We pay the players and produce the games, therefore we own the images (and even electronic representations) of those games and have the right to limit use. Networks make similar claims about political debates and programming. The counter argument is that once the information is out in “public space,” it becomes public and you can’t really stop someone from discussing, debating, or presenting this information. And if organizations like Major League Baseball expressly limit the use of images and audio, are bloggers and the main stream media bound by the same rules?

Another issue often raised is that of objectivity. Supposedly journalists are supposed to be objective. It is true that most professional journalists are trained to write—well-- like journalists—which means they are trained to write poorly. I once did a stint as a sports reporter for the Indiana Daily Student and I learned the hard way—write like each sentence could stand alone or be the last in the article to ease editing, sloppy constructions like passive voice are fine and often preferable, let the facts tell the story, etc. This creates the illusion of objectivity because the writer seems more detached and, and half the time, the reader can’t tell what is going on or who is doing what to whom. Although this may contribute to some level of objectivity, it is pretty well established that the media is hardly bias free, with the biggest biases coming from the nature of the medium itself (big, profit making corporations).

Supposedly, on the other end of the spectrum are the bloggers. Although many bloggers claim objectivity, it is almost impossible to state with a straight face that they are objective. Many are worse writers than their professional counterparts. And, thankfully, many bloggers don’t even make the pretense. The notion of objectivity is even more ridiculous when it comes to sports. Few sports reporters are remotely objective—in fact their jobs hinge on not being objective (gotta support the team!). Therefore the loss of “objectivity” (or at least the pretense) is really a small one indeed.

The main stream media has largely reacted to theses challenges by trying to roll with them as best they can. They seem to know that, like it or not, the internet is here to stay so you might as well get used to it. Therefore many reporters have also created blogs and larger newspapers also allow discussion of articles. By the same token, their websites have become increasingly advertisement laden and include many “premium sections” where one has to pay to get access. Entertainment organizations like Major League Baseball have tried to stem the tide as much as possible—using legal measures to control access to information as much as possible under threat of lawsuits and copyright infringement. The music industry as done a little of both. Many smaller, lesser known groups, find the freedom of the internet to be a great way to circumvent the big label monopoly and directly market to their fan base. Big labels have tried to clamp down on the internet as much as possible through legal machinations. Who will win the struggle isn’t clear, however, the distinct possibility exists that major media and entertainment industries may end up self-marginalizing their activities—particularly if they become too draconian--giving more space to alternative forms of media to develop.

Exactly how all of this is going to play out is anyone's guess. One thing that is clear is that the way people get information is being restructured, with man new voices entering the din. This has some libratory potential as the medium of the internet allows for more multi-directional discussion and allows folks to circumvent the conventional “opinion shaping” media. It also raises serious long-term questions about ownership of news and entertainment. It seems like the tendency is towards making news and entertainment more decentralized and even more subservient to public demand than in the past. With some notable exceptions, however, I have found the blogosphere to be less than impressive. Call me old school, but I still believe that the internet format is problematic and that books are still the best way to learn—but that is just me.

Bengals draft

2008-04-29T13:05:00.012-04:00

Well the NFL draft has come and gone. Reflecting on my earlier predictions and frustrations, I actually did pretty good in deciphering the Bengals’ emphasis and general trends. The only thing I really missed out on was I predicted the Bengals would take a running back early--instead they took a WR. Here are some post draft thoughts--

1. Keith Rivers (OLB)—One can complain that the Bengals didn’t trade up for Ellis, but one can’t complain about Rivers. He’s a solid linebacker that can play every position and has a reasonable chance to be a Day 1 starter. Good pick.

2. Jerome Simpson (WR)—A possession receiver that could start off as a #3 and may be Houshmandzadeh’s heir to the #2 spot. The Bengals need a new crop of receivers, however, I can’t help but think they reached for this one. They must have seen something they liked—hope it pays off.

3. Pat Sims (DT)—The Bengals needed a DT really bad and Sims is a good choice. We were lucky he was still available, and this is a value pick. He could make it into the rotation his rookie year given the weakness of the D-line.

4. Andre Caldwell (WR)--A great value pick. I suspect the Bengals weren’t planning on taking another receiver this quickly, but Caldwell was too good to pass up this late. Could develop into our next deep threat and possibly a return man.

5. Anthony Collins (OT)—Another great value pick. Fits well with the Bengals penchant for drafting massive offensive linemen and then developing them into effective pass protectors. The Bengals have some question marks on their line in the future and Collins could develop into a nice replacement for Levi Jones or Willie Anderson.

6. Jason Shirley (DT)—This was a questionable pick. The Bengals needed another DT, but I think they reached for a guy with a lot of off field troubles. Shirley is a massive physical specimen with great athletic ability. I am all for second chances, but just thought they went to early.

7. Corey Lynch (S)—A solid pick. At worst, Lynch should make a nice special teams player, and could possibly develop into a strong safety. Seems to have good intangibles with playmaker ability. The Bengals secondary keeps looking better.

8. Matt Sherry (TE)—I don’t like this pick. Although Sherry’s stock was rising due to his workouts, I can’t help but think that this guy would have lasted until round 7. Secondly, I am not that certain we needed to draft a TE. Could develop into a nice H-back, but probably not an every down TE.

9. Angelo Craig (DE/OLB)—A ‘tweener who could serve as a situational DE or OLB. If he makes the team, he should add depth and make a nice special teams player.

10. Michael Urrutia (WR)—I wasn’t surprised by this pick because I read that the Bengals were giving this guy a private workout and all indicators suggested the Bengals coveted a tall WR (he’s 6’ 5’’—230lbs). If he makes the team, he could develop into our #3 option of the future.

Summary—
The theme of this draft was “Carson Palmer needs targets and protection.” The Bengals picked up 3 receivers and one pass catching TE plus an offensive lineman for the future. In the "meat market" that is the draft, the Bengals are clearly restocking their stables—a smart move with C. Johnson balking at training camp and Housh in the last year of his contract. We did not get a running back—which suggests that the Bengals are confident with the current situation—I hope they are right, but I expect to see a one or two FA RBs invited to camp. If Perry and Rudi aren’t looking good by June 1-- Shaun Alexander? The Bengals D-line still needs attention. Although Sims has the tools to develop into a nice starter, I am still concerned about our front four. We didn’t pick up a true DE, which leaves us a little thin. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a couple college FAs signed at DE. With the addition of Rivers, the reinstatement of Thurman, and our free agent signings, our LB corps is looking a little more solid and our secondary is going to be pretty good. We still need to find our nickel back of the future and I still would like to have a little more quality depth at LB, but things are improving.

In general, the draft was a good one, but as with most drafts its impact won’t be known for a couple of years. Rivers is the only player which I see as an immediate starter. Either Simpson or Caldwell could play key roles, particularly if Chad sits. Sims, hopefully, will see increasing play time over the course of the season.

Baracking the Vote

2008-04-22T11:47:00.007-04:00

I cast my ballot for Barack Obama today. Hopefully, the first of two. It was relatively uneventful. I showed up at the polls around 8:30 am. The polls were moderately busy, although my district was less so. They guy right in front of me was a Republican, which threw the poll worker into a bit of a tizzy. There aren’t many Republicans in my area and there was really no reason for a Republican to vote because their local nominees are rarely contested and everyone knows they are losing in November anyway. And of course, McCain already has the presidential nomination. Suprisingly, there were a lot of Ron Paul signs out, and I saw someone trying to get people to vote for Paul anyway--a development which I found somewhat heartening—wouldn’t it be something if Paul won Pennsylvania?

My area (first borough outside Pittsburgh) seems pretty split between Clinton and Obama with perhaps a slight edge to Obama. This is largely judging by the yard signs and the conversations I have had. The local Obama HQ is about a half a mile from my house, which might contribute to the appearance that Obama is doing well. Where I work (in the city proper), it is more pro-Obama and the further you go in the city, the stronger the Obama support is-—the further out, it gets more mixed. It seems like urban folks, regardless of race or gender really like Obama. Clinton does well in the suburbs.

I have to admit it has been exciting to see so many people taking an active interest in a primary. Conventional wisdom has suggested that this is a bad thing (divisive) for the Democrats. I tend to disagree. The level of mobilization and interest is high and I suspect that this will carry through to November. Although the campaign’s have exchanged barbs, neither has been particularly dirty and, from what I have gathered, registration is up and participation is high—which bodes well. It makes me think that the Democrats should think about restructuring their primaries to a more condensed (two month) period, and have them later (March-April) in staggered elections, making each primary all the more important, keeping the grassroots mobilized.

What I won’t miss is the phone calls. We have had no fewer than five phone calls a day for about a week now. Campaign volunteers from Obama and Clinton and plus local politicians have called incessantly. What is funny is the nature of the phone calls themselves. They aren’t very persistent—a Clinton supporter called me and asked if I would support Hillary, I said I was voting for Obama and she said “Ok,” and hung up. What? No sales job? Michelle Obama called several times as well—recorded of course—but I appreciated the effort. The phone call I was looking forward to, but which never came, was Rev. Jeremiah Wright damning Hillary Clinton—now that would have been something. I also got called by Quinnipac for the first time in my life. I have never been polled before (it wasn’t as painful as it sounds). Then, I got called again by Quinnipac to survey me on the quality of the survey they gave me—I said “thumbs up.”

The reasons for my support of Obama are quite simple. I am a strong opponent of the DLC wing of the Democratic Party. Hillary Clinton long ago hitched her star to the pro-corporate Democrats, and they have done more damage than good to the party. Obama isn’t perfect by any stretch, but it is more likely that organized labor, African Americans, and the poor will have a voice through him than through Clinton. Hillary decided a long time ago which side she is on—Obama is still up for grabs. This isn’t to say I have any illusions about him. I would have much preferred Dennis Kucinich or even John Edwards. Obama is an unknown quantity—but at a certain level I find that more “hopeful” than Clinton.

April 4, 1967--Where are the hottest places in Hell?

2008-04-04T10:47:00.005-04:00

On April 4, 1967, Martin Luther King gave the following speech at Riverside Church in New York. It is still worth a listen and just as relevant. One year later, he was assassinated. Text of the speech below. The link is to RealNews. Thank you Brother Martin.

MLK: Beyond Vietnam -- A Time to Break Silence
A Year to the day before his assassination, King gave this speech at the Riverside Church in New York

Friday April 4th, 2008

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I need not pause to say how very delighted I am to be here tonight, and how very delighted I am to see you expressing your concern about the issues that will be discussed tonight by turning out in such large numbers. I also want to say that I consider it a great honor to share this program with Dr. Bennett, Dr. Commager, and Rabbi Heschel, some of the distinguished leaders and personalities of our nation. And of course it’s always good to come back to Riverside Church. Over the last eight years, I have had the privilege of preaching here almost every year in that period, and it is always a rich and rewarding experience to come to this great church and this great pulpit. I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other choice. I join you in this meeting because I am in deepest agreement with the aims and work of the organization which has brought us together: Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam. The recent statements of your executive committee are the sentiments of my own heart, and I found myself in full accord when I read its opening lines: "A time comes when silence is betrayal." And that time has come for us in relation to Vietnam.

The truth of these words is beyond doubt, but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexed as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict, we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty; but we must move on.

And some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak. And we must rejoice as well, for surely this is the first time in our nation's history that a significant number of its religious leaders have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm dissent based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history. Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movements and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us.

Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam, many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns this query has often loomed large and loud: "Why are you speaking about the war, Dr. King?" "Why are you joining the voices of dissent?" "Peace and civil rights don't mix," they say. "Aren't you hurting the cause of your people," they ask? And when I hear them, though I often understand the source of their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have not really known me, my commitment or my calling. Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live.

In the light of such tragic misunderstanding, I deem it of signal importance to try to state clearly, and I trust concisely, why I believe that the path from Dexter Avenue Baptist Church -- the church in Montgomery, Alabama, where I began my pastorate -- leads clearly to this sanctuary tonight.

I come to this platform tonight to make a passionate plea to my beloved nation. This speech is not addressed to Hanoi or to the National Liberation Front. It is not addressed to China or to Russia. Nor is it an attempt to overlook the ambiguity of the total situation and the need for a collective solution to the tragedy of Vietnam. Neither is it an attempt to make North Vietnam or the National Liberation Front paragons of virtue, nor to overlook the role they must play in the successful resolution of the problem. While they both may have justifiable reasons to be suspicious of the good faith of the United States, life and history give eloquent testimony to the fact that conflicts are never resolved without trustful give and take on both sides.

Tonight, however, I wish not to speak with Hanoi and the National Liberation Front, but rather to my fellowed [sic] Americans, *who, with me, bear the greatest responsibility in ending a conflict that has exacted a heavy price on both continents.

Since I am a preacher by trade, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision.* There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I, and others, have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor -- both black and white -- through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I watched this program broken and eviscerated, as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So, I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.

Perhaps the more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem. And so we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. And so we watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would hardly live on the same block in Chicago. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.

My third reason 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.

For those who ask the question, "Aren't you a civil rights leader?" and thereby mean to exclude me from the movement for peace, I have this further answer. In 1957 when a group of us formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, we chose as our motto: "To save the soul of America." We were convinced that we could not limit our vision to certain rights for black people, but instead affirmed the conviction that America would never be free or saved from itself until the descendants of its slaves were loosed completely from the shackles they still wear. In a way we were agreeing with Langston Hughes, that black bard of Harlem, who had written earlier:

O, yes,
I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath --
America will be!

Now, it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read: Vietnam. It can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over. So it is that those of us who are yet determined that America will be are led down the path of protest and dissent, working for the health of our land.

As if the weight of such a commitment to the life and health of America were not enough, another burden of responsibility was placed upon me in 1954** [sic]; and I cannot forget that the Nobel Prize for Peace was also a commission -- a commission to work harder than I had ever worked before for "the brotherhood of man." This is a calling that takes me beyond national allegiances, but even if it were not present I would yet have to live with the meaning of my commitment to the ministry of Jesus Christ. To me the relationship of this ministry to the making of peace is so obvious that I sometimes marvel at those who ask me why I'm speaking against the war. Could it be that they do not know that the good news was meant for all men -- for Communist and capitalist, for their children and ours, for black and for white, for revolutionary and conservative? Have they forgotten that my ministry is in obedience to the One who loved his enemies so fully that he died for them? What then can I say to the Vietcong or to Castro or to Mao as a faithful minister of this One? Can I threaten them with death or must I not share with them my life?

And finally, as I try to explain for you and for myself the road that leads from Montgomery to this place I would have offered all that was most valid if I simply said that I must be true to my conviction that I share with all men the calling to be a son of the living God. Beyond the calling of race or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and brotherhood, and because I believe that the Father is deeply concerned especially for his suffering and helpless and outcast children, I come tonight to speak for them.

This I believe to be the privilege and the burden of all of us who deem ourselves bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism and which go beyond our nation's self-defined goals and positions. We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for the victims of our nation and for those it calls "enemy," for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers.

And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself for ways to understand and respond in compassion, my mind goes constantly to the people of that peninsula. I speak now not of the soldiers of each side, not of the ideologies of the Liberation Front, not of the junta in Saigon, but simply of the people who have been living under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think of them, too, because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution there until some attempt is made to know them and hear their broken cries.

They must see Americans as strange liberators. The Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence *in 1954* -- in 1945 *rather* -- after a combined French and Japanese occupation and before the communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France in its reconquest of her former colony. Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were not ready for independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long. With that tragic decision we rejected a revolutionary government seeking self-determination and a government that had been established not by China -- for whom the Vietnamese have no great love -- but by clearly indigenous forces that included some communists. For the peasants this new government meant real land reform, one of the most important needs in their lives.

For nine years following 1945 we denied the people of Vietnam the right of independence. For nine years we vigorously supported the French in their abortive effort to recolonize Vietnam. Before the end of the war we were meeting eighty percent of the French war costs. Even before the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu, they began to despair of their reckless action, but we did not. We encouraged them with our huge financial and military supplies to continue the war even after they had lost the will. Soon we would be paying almost the full costs of this tragic attempt at recolonization.

After the French were defeated, it looked as if independence and land reform would come again through the Geneva Agreement. But instead there came the United States, determined that Ho should not unify the temporarily divided nation, and the peasants watched again as we supported one of the most vicious modern dictators, our chosen man, Premier Diem. The peasants watched and cringed as Diem ruthlessly rooted out all opposition, supported their extortionist landlords, and refused even to discuss reunification with the North. The peasants watched as all this was presided over by United States' influence and then by increasing numbers of United States troops who came to help quell the insurgency that Diem's methods had aroused. When Diem was overthrown they may have been happy, but the long line of military dictators seemed to offer no real change, especially in terms of their need for land and peace.

The only change came from America, as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept, and without popular support. All the while the people read our leaflets and received the regular promises of peace and democracy and land reform. Now they languish under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow Vietnamese, the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps where minimal social needs are rarely met. They know they must move on or be destroyed by our bombs.

So they go, primarily women and children and the aged. They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the hospitals with at least twenty casualties from American firepower for one Vietcong-inflicted injury. So far we may have killed a million of them, mostly children. They wander into the towns and see thousands of the children, homeless, without clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children degraded by our soldiers as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for their mothers.

What do the peasants think as we ally ourselves with the landlords and as we refuse to put any action into our many words concerning land reform? What do they think as we test out our latest weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe? Where are the roots of the independent Vietnam we claim to be building? Is it among these voiceless ones?

We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village. We have destroyed their land and their crops. We have cooperated in the crushing of the nation's only noncommunist revolutionary political force, the unified Buddhist Church. We have supported the enemies of the peasants of Saigon. We have corrupted their women and children and killed their men.

Now there is little left to build on, save bitterness. *Soon the only solid physical foundations remaining will be found at our military bases and in the concrete of the concentration camps we call "fortified hamlets." The peasants may well wonder if we plan to build our new Vietnam on such grounds as these. Could we blame them for such thoughts? We must speak for them and raise the questions they cannot raise. These, too, are our brothers.

Perhaps a more difficult but no less necessary task is to speak for those who have been designated as our enemies.* What of the National Liberation Front, that strangely anonymous group we call "VC" or "communists"? What must they think of the United States of America when they realize that we permitted the repression and cruelty of Diem, which helped to bring them into being as a resistance group in the South? What do they think of our condoning the violence which led to their own taking up of arms? How can they believe in our integrity when now we speak of "aggression from the North" as if there were nothing more essential to the war? How can they trust us when now we charge them with violence after the murderous reign of Diem and charge them with violence while we pour every new weapon of death into their land? Surely we must understand their feelings, even if we do not condone their actions. Surely we must see that the men we supported pressed them to their violence. Surely we must see that our own computerized plans of destruction simply dwarf their greatest acts.

How do they judge us when our officials know that their membership is less than twenty-five percent communist, and yet insist on giving them the blanket name? What must they be thinking when they know that we are aware of their control of major sections of Vietnam, and yet we appear ready to allow national elections in which this highly organized political parallel government will not have a part? They ask how we can speak of free elections when the Saigon press is censored and controlled by the military junta. And they are surely right to wonder what kind of new government we plan to help form without them, the only party in real touch with the peasants. They question our political goals and they deny the reality of a peace settlement from which they will be excluded. Their questions are frighteningly relevant. Is our nation planning to build on political myth again, and then shore it up upon the power of new violence?

Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence, when it helps us to see the enemy's point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition.

So, too, with Hanoi. In the North, where our bombs now pummel the land, and our mines endanger the waterways, we are met by a deep but understandable mistrust. To speak for them is to explain this lack of confidence in Western words, and especially their distrust of American intentions now. In Hanoi are the men who led the nation to independence against the Japanese and the French, the men who sought membership in the French Commonwealth and were betrayed by the weakness of Paris and the willfulness of the colonial armies. It was they who led a second struggle against French domination at tremendous costs, and then were persuaded to give up the land they controlled between the thirteenth and seventeenth parallel as a temporary measure at Geneva. After 1954 they watched us conspire with Diem to prevent elections which could have surely brought Ho Chi Minh to power over a united Vietnam, and they realized they had been betrayed again. When we ask why they do not leap to negotiate, these things must be remembered.

Also, it must be clear that the leaders of Hanoi considered the presence of American troops in support of the Diem regime to have been the initial military breach of the Geneva Agreement concerning foreign troops. They remind us that they did not begin to send troops in large numbers and even supplies into the South until American forces had moved into the tens of thousands.

Hanoi remembers how our leaders refused to tell us the truth about the earlier North Vietnamese overtures for peace, how the president claimed that none existed when they had clearly been made. Ho Chi Minh has watched as America has spoken of peace and built up its forces, and now he has surely heard the increasing international rumors of American plans for an invasion of the North. He knows the bombing and shelling and mining we are doing are part of traditional pre-invasion strategy. Perhaps only his sense of humor and of irony can save him when he hears the most powerful nation of the world speaking of aggression as it drops thousands of bombs on a poor, weak nation more than *eight hundred, or rather,* eight thousand miles away from its shores.

At this point I should make it clear that while I have tried in these last few minutes to give a voice to the voiceless in Vietnam and to understand the arguments of those who are called "enemy," I am as deeply concerned about our own troops there as anything else. For it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each other and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy, and the secure, while we create a hell for the poor.

Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home, and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative to stop it must be ours.

This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of Vietnam. Recently one of them wrote these words, and I quote:

Each day the war goes on the hatred increases in the heart of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom, and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism (unquote).

If we continue, there will be no doubt in my mind and in the mind of the world that we have no honorable intentions in Vietnam. If we do not stop our war against the people of Vietnam immediately, the world will be left with no other alternative than to see this as some horrible, clumsy, and deadly game we have decided to play. The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit that we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam, that we have been detrimental to the life of the Vietnamese people. The situation is one in which we must be ready to turn sharply from our present ways. In order to atone for our sins and errors in Vietnam, we should take the initiative in bringing a halt to this tragic war.

*I would like to suggest five concrete things that our government should do immediately to begin the long and difficult process of extricating ourselves from this nightmarish conflict:

Number one: End all bombing in North and South Vietnam.

Number two: Declare a unilateral cease-fire in the hope that such action will create the atmosphere for negotiation.

Three: Take immediate steps to prevent other battlegrounds in Southeast Asia by curtailing our military buildup in Thailand and our interference in Laos.

Four: Realistically accept the fact that the National Liberation Front has substantial support in South Vietnam and must thereby play a role in any meaningful negotiations and any future Vietnam government.

Five: *Set a date that we will remove all foreign troops from Vietnam in accordance with the 1954 Geneva Agreement.

Part of our ongoing...part of our ongoing commitment might well express itself in an offer to grant asylum to any Vietnamese who fears for his life under a new regime which included the Liberation Front. Then we must make what reparations we can for the damage we have done. We must provide the medical aid that is badly needed, making it available in this country, if necessary. Meanwhile... meanwhile, we in the churches and synagogues have a continuing task while we urge our government to disengage itself from a disgraceful commitment. We must continue to raise our voices and our lives if our nation persists in its perverse ways in Vietnam. We must be prepared to match actions with words by seeking out every creative method of protest possible.

*As we counsel young men concerning military service, we must clarify for them our nation's role in Vietnam and challenge them with the alternative of conscientious objection. I am pleased to say that this is a path now chosen by more than seventy students at my own alma mater, Morehouse College, and I recommend it to all who find the American course in Vietnam a dishonorable and unjust one. Moreover, I would encourage all ministers of draft age to give up their ministerial exemptions and seek status as conscientious objectors.* These are the times for real choices and not false ones. We are at the moment when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation is to survive its own folly. Every man of humane convictions must decide on the protest that best suits his convictions, but we must all protest.

Now there is something seductively tempting about stopping there and sending us all off on what in some circles has become a popular crusade against the war in Vietnam. I say we must enter that struggle, but I wish to go on now to say something even more disturbing.

The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality...and if we ignore this sobering reality, we will find ourselves organizing "clergy and laymen concerned" committees for the next generation. They will be concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end, unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy.

And so, such thoughts take us beyond Vietnam, but not beyond our calling as sons of the living God.

In 1957, a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution. During the past ten years, we have seen emerge a pattern of suppression which has now justified the presence of U.S. military advisors in Venezuela. This need to maintain social stability for our investments accounts for the counterrevolutionary action of American forces in Guatemala. It tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Cambodia and why American napalm and Green Beret forces have already been active against rebels in Peru.

It is with such activity in mind that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments. I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin...we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand, we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life's roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.

A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing except a tragic death wish to prevent us from reordering our priorities so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood.

*This kind of positive revolution of values is our best defense against communism. War is not the answer. Communism will never be defeated by the use of atomic bombs or nuclear weapons. Let us not join those who shout war and, through their misguided passions, urge the United States to relinquish its participation in the United Nations.* These are days which demand wise restraint and calm reasonableness. *We must not engage in a negative anticommunism, but rather in a positive thrust for democracy, realizing that our greatest defense against communism is to take offensive action in behalf of justice. We must with positive action seek to remove those conditions of poverty, insecurity, and injustice, which are the fertile soil in which the seed of communism grows and develops.*

These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression, and out of the wounds of a frail world, new systems of justice and equality are being born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light. We in the West must support these revolutions.

It is a sad fact that because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, and our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch antirevolutionaries. This has driven many to feel that only Marxism has a revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgment against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated. Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism. With this powerful commitment we shall boldly challenge the status quo and unjust mores, and thereby speed the day when "every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain."

A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies.

This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one's tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all mankind. This oft misunderstood, this oft misinterpreted concept, so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man. When I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I am not speaking of that force which is just emotional bosh. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of Saint John: "Let us love one another, for love is God. And every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love." "If we love one another, God dwelleth in us and his love is perfected in us." Let us hope that this spirit will become the order of the day.

We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate. And history is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate. As Arnold Toynbee says: "Love is the ultimate force that makes for the saving choice of life and good against the damning choice of death and evil. Therefore the first hope in our inventory must be the hope that love is going to have the last word" (unquote).

We are now faced with the fact, my friends, that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked, and dejected with a lost opportunity. The tide in the affairs of men does not remain at flood -- it ebbs. We may cry out desperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is adamant to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residues of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words, "Too late." There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our vigilance or our neglect. Omar Khayyam is right: "The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on."

We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent coannihilation. We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing world, a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark, and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.

Now let us begin. Now let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter, but beautiful, struggle for a new world. This is the calling of the sons of God, and our brothers wait eagerly for our response. Shall we say the odds are too great? Shall we tell them the struggle is too hard? Will our message be that the forces of American life militate against their arrival as full men, and we send our deepest regrets? Or will there be another message -- of longing, of hope, of solidarity with their yearnings, of commitment to their cause, whatever the cost? The choice is ours, and though we might prefer it otherwise, we must choose in this crucial moment of human history.

As that noble bard of yesterday, James Russell Lowell, eloquently stated:

Once to every man and nation comes a moment to decide,

In the strife of Truth and Falsehood, for the good or evil side;

Some great cause, God's new Messiah offering each the bloom or blight,

And the choice goes by forever 'twixt that darkness and that light.

Though the cause of evil prosper, yet 'tis truth alone is strong

Though her portions be the scaffold, and upon the throne be wrong

Yet that scaffold sways the future, and behind the dim unknown

Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.

And if we will only make the right choice, we will be able to transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of peace.

If we will make the right choice, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our world into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood.

Crean of the Crop

2008-04-02T11:38:00.007-04:00

The Indiana Hoosiers comfirmed today that they hired Tom Crean, formerly of Marquette, to coach the Indiana Hoosiers basketball team. The hire comes as something of a suprise, but a pleaseant one. After missing out on Washington State's Tony Bennett (my preferred choice), Indiana quickly inked Crean to an 8 year contract. What does this mean for the future of Hoosier Basketball?

The good news is that Crean appears to be a good fit for Indiana. He is the classic "hard working white guy" that the Hoosier nation so loves. He runs an aggressive half-court defense designed to force turnovers, something which Knight aficianados will appreciate. He also has a lot of expereince coaching the Big Ten (as an assistant at MSU) and in tournement play with Marquette. He seems to be a strong recruiter and should benefit from Indiana's reputation as being a top notch program.

Crean has his work cut out for him however. After years of stability under Knight, the program is bordering on disarray. The Alumni's veto of Mike Davis damaged recruiting and the program--resulting in his ouster and the hiring of Kelvin Sampson. Although the Sampson is a good coach and liked by his players, in retrospect, the hire looks atrocious. Obviously, many of the current players are angry at the situation. Two starters have been kicked off the team for rules violations, one will probably go pro, and two others are graduating--leaving Crean with little. Regardless of Crean's ability, Hoosier fans need to be prepared from lean years under Crean.

The whole situation is a shame, particularly for the players who are currently on the team. Personally, I think Athletic Director Greenspan needs to go to, as this debacle occured unders his watch--but that is me.

That being said, I do think it is a good hire and I just hope that Crean knows what he is getting in to.

Pastor Wright, the "race card," and Obama

2008-03-19T09:46:00.016-04:00

The recent flap about Pastor Jeremiah Wright is a prime example of how America’s mainstream media and political culture serve as thought police, making it almost impossible to have a debate over race and many other extremely important topics. Let us start by interrogating what the “hateful” Pastor Wright said--

The United States is responsible for innocent deaths through the “criminal justice system,” facilitating the spread of drugs, and its foreign policy—and therefore “God Damn America”

• I don’t know about the theological issues as far as “damning America,” but he pretty much nails that one out of the park.

The US gov’t helped to create the AIDS virus as a means to destroy black people

• Conspiratorial, yes, but no more conspiratorial than half the things I hear from “white” Christian Broadcasting, local Sinclair affiliates, and Fox News. And not totally off the mark—is it true or not true that the Reagan Administration did absolutely nothing during the AIDS epidemic--only acknowledging it in 1987—because according to his advisers, AIDS victims were “getting what they deserved”—is it a conspiracy if the government is consciously letting people die? And the government did deliberately infect black men with syphillis. So, close Pastor Wright.

On Louis Farrakhan—“When Minister Farrakhan speaks, Black America listens. Everybody may not agree with him, but they listen...Minister Farrakhan will be remembered as one of the 20th and 21st century giants of the African American religious experience.”

• I don’t see anything controversial in this statement other than it mentions Louis Farrakhan—which apparently isn’t allowed.

Today’s Israeli state is racist against Palestinian Arabs

• I can’t say that I disagree with him on this one. It is a complicated issue for sure, but he is not making this stuff up.

US foreign policy helped to cause 9/11

• Anyone with any knowledge of US policy in Afghanistan in the 1980s knows this is true. Can you say Pakistani ISI?

I could continue…The problem with Pastor Wright isn’t that he is “hateful” or an “extremist”—it is that he is truthful (although perhaps misinformed on the AIDS thing).

Ironically, this whole “public debate” about Pastor Wright and what Obama has to do as far as damage control simply confirms that America is not “post-race”—that nothing scares the mainstream (I won’t even say white because, God forbid I should point out a white person’s skin tone—that makes you “racist”) more than a militant black person who criticizes America for slavery, genocide, and ongoing racism in both domestic and foreign policy. The selective outrage is ridiculous--particularly over statements that are either factually accurate, or at least argumentatively within the realm of reason.

Racism manifests itself in many ways, however, one of the biggest problems of race in America is how differently white folks and black view the concept of race and the significance of racism. White Americans are very eager to embrace a "color-blind" view of the American past as if this will create a "color-blind" future. To point out racial disparity is "playing the race card" and therefore "divisive." This isn't color-blindness, it is simply blindness. African Americans and other people of color simply don't have that luxury, but whenever a prominent African American leader makes a speech like Wright's, it sends the media into a frenzy and political strategists into a damage control mode--and for many it is "proof" that black folks are the true racists.

This is ultimately the problem for Barack Obama—there is tremendous political pressure on prominent black politicians to trade in their "blackness" for some other identity--you can't be Jesse Jackson and win elections. For Obama it is easier because he is also of immigrant descent, and therefore can play the “immigrant card” as he did in his speech. The immigrant narrative, of course, is a very popular one because it is a narrative with which white folks are comfortable (huddling masses of immigrants pulling themselves up by their jockstraps, never benefiting from any government policy, program, or racial preferences). It is an updated version of the rugged individualist myth with an implicit critique of those who "fail"--and we know who they are.

If Obama can successfully negotiate this--more power to him—but we have a long way to go in this country to get past race.

Support the Troops--oppose the war

2008-03-14T10:16:00.006-04:00

There is a very important event going on this weekend for those interested in brining an end to the Iraq War or to anyone concerned about the fate and well-being of American soldiers or Iraqis generally. It is called the Winter Soldier investigation and it is being carried out by Iraq Veterans Against the War with the support of other veterans organizations. It requires a quicktime player. The broadcast schedule is here and the main website is here.

The Winter Soldier investigation is named after an investigation of the same sort that occurred during the Vietnam War. It is an attempt to chronicle the experiences of American soldiers with an emphasis on the shortcomings of United States policy and its impact upon the soldiers and Iraqis. If you oppose the war and wonder how you can support the troops, support IVAW.

Review: Michael Pollan, In Defense of Food

2008-03-10T12:33:00.012-04:00

“Eat your vegetables and don’t snack before dinner.” Remember that from childhood? Well it turns out that Mom has one up on the food industry, nutritional scientists, the FDA, and the media. Who would have guessed? Despite the flood of “healthy foods” into the marketplace, Americans are fatter, more diabetic, and more prone to cardiovascular problems than ever. Why is this so? Michael Pollan explores this paradox in his latest book, In Defense of Food: An Eaters Manifesto.

Being someone who considers themselves health conscious and who enjoys cooking because of it, there were not too many things in Pollan’s book that I did not already know or at least suspect. The food processing industry is evil; fast food may the former, but it certainly is not the latter; and most Americans eat way more food than they need because the quality of the food they eat is so poor they are never satiated. Therefore, the more direct control you have over what you eat, the easier it is to make healthy choices and to not suffer from an array of diet related maladies. Although this seems like common sense, why do Americans have so much trouble?

Pollan does an admirable job of looking at the historical development of eating, “nutritionism,” and food production. As Pollan argued in his previous work The Omnivores Dilemma, humans can eat a wide variety of things. This is both a blessing and curse. It contributed to the ability of humans to survive in varying climates and eco-systems, but it also means that we eat lots of things that are not good for us, with negative effects only emerging later. Since humans have the ability to transform their environment and make conscious decisions about what they want to eat, a “good diet” is culturally and materially conditioned. This accounts for the multitude and diversity of ethnic cuisines throughout the world—all of which are basically healthy.

Whereas most traditional diets are derived from cultural wisdom, Americans have had an unusual, and counterproductive, obsession with food and its nutritional value going back to the 19th century. Pollan attributes this to the WASPy emphasis on pragmatism—food needs to be understood for what it does to the body and mind as opposed to being an expression of culture. “Nutritionism” has led to an arguably unconstructive attempt to dissect food to find out why certain ones produce certain effects. It is not sufficient that broccoli is good for you—nutritionists need to know what chemical in broccoli makes it good for you, so presumably this chemical can be isolated, separated from the broccoli, and reinfused into our diet in another way—saving us from the burden of eating our broccoli. Pollan argues convincingly that this mind set has blinded us to a more holistic understanding of food and has cut us off from the wisdom of grandma’s kitchen.

The food processing industry has only made things worse. The triumph of agricultural trusts, as decried in Sinclair’s The Jungle, has made the American diet much more homogenous (despite the apparent dizzying array of choices) and dependent upon mass produced food. Despite the abundance of food in the United States, the deleterious health effects of industrial food emerged in the post-WWII period. In the 1970s, a government study concluded that Americans should eat less meat and dairy. What? Americans consume less? Why that is downright un-American! The food processing industry immediately sprang into action, successfully pressuring the government to alter the overall message of the report—rather than eating less, Americans should eat more nutritious food--codifying nutritionist logic into national policy. This, along with increased subsidies to farmers to produce more food (particularly corn and soy) and changes in FDA regulations that no longer require food producers to label foods as “imitation” if they are chemically altered, has led to a radical alteration in what we eat (food is “enhanced,” “fortified,” and “enriched” not to mention heavily laced with corn fructose and soy derivatives). Subsequently, the diet industry, along with aggressive marketing campaigns to make just about anything seem “healthy,” has produced a tremendous amount of confusion about what is good for us.

Pollan’s well written and accessible work offers a simple solution in the first line of his book--“Eat food, not too much, mostly plants.” Regarding the definition of food, if your grandma would not recognize it as food, do not eat it. And also, do not eat anything that will never go bad. Sounds simple enough, and it really is. The difficulty is following it in world where making good food choices can often be difficult. America’s hyper-individualistic, fast-paced, over consumptive culture, where everyone expects to “have it their way” and “now,” is a marketer’s paradise and reflects the level of cultural dominance that corporations have over the American people. More folks, including myself, are choosing CSAs and farmers markets over supermarkets as a means to get control over their food consumption. Of course, cooking as many meals as you can is important. From what I see, however, American consumer culture has bred a generation of adults with the food tastes of 8 year olds, which is disastrous for our health—but does wonders for the pharmaceutical industry.

Murray Bookchin--Anarchist

2008-03-06T18:14:00.003-05:00

As my minions of readers are aware, I have been reading a number of works on Anarchism, both past and present. This piece is a review of Murray Bookchin’s Post-Scarcity Anarchism (1970) and Lifestyle Anarchism and Social Anarchism: An Unbridgeable Chasm (1995). Murray Bookchin was one of the most dedicated anarchist thinkers in the 20th century. Bookchin spent his life committed to the struggle for human freedom and his thoughts were constantly in the process of evolution, defying the ideological border patrol which lumps people into easily defined categories. As a young man, he became involved in the socialist workers movement, joining the Communist Party. After becoming frustrated with the ideological conformity of Stalinism, he gravitated to Trotskyism, and then ultimately rejected Marxism altogether. In the 1960s, he became one of the leading activists for a New Left version of anarcho-syndicalism. Retaining his anarchist vision in the 1990s, he became critical of what he called “lifestyle anarchism”—a version of anarchism that rejects the more redeemable cause of anarchism—namely social equality.

Accepting the nuances of his thought, these two works are frustrating at a number of levels. One of the major difficulties is that both books were written, in part, to engage in internecine struggles of the left. Post Scarcity is a collection of articles, some of which are polemics against Marxist groups, while Lifestyle Anarchism is a critique of New Age Anarchism. Both seem to be specifically written to engage certain individuals and groups—and therefore some of the deeper issues are either dated or opaque.

Lifestyle written in the 1990s was written largely in response to the emergence of several anarchist zines and cultural movements and the decline of the political Left. Bookchin champions “The Left that was” (not to be confused with the bureaucratic “Old Left”) for its universalist and socialist values. He is largely critical of the modern academic Leftism (post modernism, political correctness, and the romantic left) because of its parochialism and retreat from universalist principles. Notably, he doesn’t discuss right wing libertarianism (the anarcho-capitalism of Rothbard)—I suspect because he doesn’t view this line of thought as being akin to anarchism as he understands it.

I found many of the Bookchin’s criticisms of lifestyle and individualist anarchist to be sound, although most of the discussion focused on the former, not the latter. He only briefly mentions Benjamin Tucker and cavalierly dismisses him. A more substantive engagement would have been welcome. He then picks up individualist anarchism in the 1980s, focusing on “New Age” anarchism. This variant focuses heavily on individual acts of cultural rebellion. Not that I am totally unsympathetic to New Age sensibilities, I agree that this form of anarchism arguably reinforces many of the worst aspects of modern society—hyper individualism, selfish-gratification, and cultural elitism. He is most critical of lifestyle anarchism’s abandonment of social equality and collective action in favor “personal spiritual liberation.”

His criticism seems at odds with an almost romantic reverence, in Post Scarcity Anarchism, for the new social movements of the 1960s—feminism, environmentalism, hippie culture, black liberation and Third World peasant revolts. Bookchin sees these movements as confirmation that the traditional worker movement (the “Left that Was”) only prepared workers to be good “bourgeois” (and reactionary) workers and that the real revolutionary movement would come from declasses, the lumpen, and in the case of the third world, the peasantry. I too have had a romantic fascination with the social movements of the 1960s at times, growing up in the 1980s and becoming politically active in the 1990s, but I also see the relatively direct connection between these movements and the balkanization of the left that Bookchin criticizes. Perhaps hindsight is 20/20, but how terribly shocking is it that the hippie, Age of Aquarius, drug culture evolved, in part, into apolitical New Age mysticism and an anarchism based on personal self-gratification? And this from a Deadhead!

There is a similar trend with regards to his relationship to Marx. One of Bookchin’s more polemical pieces is called “Listen Marxist!” It is more a criticism of sectarian Marxism than Marx, but also raises serious questions about the role of class struggle in social transformation. Interestingly, Bookchin ends up defending Marx in Lifestyle Anarchism for his commitment to international revolution. I am not trying to make Bookchin out to be some sort of hypocrite—it is more a reflection on his almost rigid lack of rigidity, if that makes sense.

Bookchin does make a number of key theoretical points that are often elided or misunderstood by the most devout Marxist. His criticism of the way in which class struggle has been conceptualized is important. Not only does he press us to not define class struggle in purely economic terms, but if the struggle in capitalism is a dialectical one—between workers and owners—it must necessarily lead to the destruction of both. To put it another way, the central role of working class struggle is not simply to overthrow the capitalist state, but to eliminate itself as a class. Conversely, capitalism constantly seeks not only to exploit the working class, but to recreate it. Necessarily, much of the class struggle is internal to the working class as it attempts to transform itself into the “non-class class.” The cultural tensions that exist among workers are reflections of growing pains as the working class is reshaped, reformed, and struggles with its own “workerness.” In this respect, the dialectic is not just between capitalists and workers, but between the nightmare of the past (paraphrasing Marx) and a future, pregnant with possibilities.

The most interesting chapters of Post-Scarcity deal with the role of ecology and technology. Although technological development and ecological balance are often counter-posed as being incompatible, Bookchin sees them as complementary. Only through the development of clean technology, new energy sources, and more sophisticated machinery can the balance between man and nature be restored. He is very critical of the romantic primitivism of many anarchists, instead imagining a world where technology complements human creativity, and where the social and technical division of labor, which reduces people to cogs, is supplanted by a blending of land and community.

Bookchin’s thoughts on ecology and technology speak to the limitations of 19th century Marxist and utopian socialist thought. As he correctly points out, most 19th century socialist thinking assumed that the initial task of socialism would be to ration scarcity, while improving the productive capacity of society. What Bookchin argues is that this is no longer necessary. Of course, he argued this in the 1960s, before the more recent burst of globalization. Moreover, it is difficult to quantitatively prove that we are “post-scarcity.” Nevertheless, global industrialization has continued as has the expansion of “unproductive labor,” namely the bureaucratic administration of capitalism. These trends, combined with the voracious over consumption in the United States at least suggests that if we aren’t already post scarcity—we are pretty darn close.

Even with the inconsistencies in Bookchin’s thought, these two books are important contributions to the struggle for human freedom and imagining a world where both desire and need can be satisfied for all.

Prospects for the Reds

2008-03-06T17:37:00.007-05:00

Baseball season is upon us and Reds fans are anxious. The Reds have failed to produce a winning season in seven years and for a city that used to the occasional pennant run and even a World Series. That anxiety is particularly acute this year. The Reds have a number of aging veterans (Griffey and Dunn) who won’t be around forever and a bevy of young talent (Bailey, Cueto, Volquez, Votto, and Bruce) who are still developing. The future’s so bright, I gotta wear shades. The problem is how best to use the talent as it stands now. Do the Reds play for the future or is the future now?

The Reds recently acquired Corey Patterson to the consternation of Redland. Patterson was yesterday’s top prospect who never quite materialized. Most likely, he will end up platooning in CF with Hopper. Both are speedsters—Patterson is better defensively, Hopper has better OBP. The move means that Jay Bruce may very well begin the season in the minors, which upsets many Reds fans. They are upset for two reasons—one is the overly optimistic belief that Bruce, who has never seen a major league pitch, will immediately become a star. The other is that new manager Dusty Baker prefers veterans over younger players and is too nepotistic. Without getting into a debate about the relative merits of Dusty Baker (he does produce winners), I don’t think that sitting on Bruce is that bad of an idea. Bruce is only 20, most pro ball players peak around 27-28 and the free agency clock lasts 6 years. Bruce has one more minor league year and therefore it makes financial sense to hold Bruce back—at least until June when he can be brought up and still retain his rookie status. We are much more likely to see Homer Bailey and Edinson Volquez in the rotation early. Both have some major league experience and are ready for the biggies.

The question is whether the Reds are ready to make a run this season. We still have Griffey and Dunn and with Brandon Phillips and Edwin Encarnacion—the Reds have ample power at the plate. Harang and Arroyo give the Reds staff a one/two punch, I like the addition of Josh Fogg, and if even one of the prospects emerges, our pitching staff will be the best the Reds have had in a while. The acquisition of Francisco Cordero helps to solidify a suspect bullpen, with David Weathers to be the primary set up man. The Reds weaknesses remain numerous. We don’t have a strong lefty either in the rotation or the bullpen. Jeremy Affeldt may work his way into the rotation, but our lefty relievers are either over the hill or unproven. Our defense is atrocious. Griffey’s mobility is dubious (his contract is an albatross), Dunn is definitely a liability, and Encarnacion isn’t that great. The Reds give up a lot of free runs. For these reasons, I suspect that the Reds may fall short of a division title this year. I remain cautiously optimistic—if some of the younger guys emerge as the real deal, we could be in the running late in a division without a clear frontrunner.

The good news is that next year, the Reds are looking at a significant transformation. We will most likely see a major youth movement—Votto 1B, Bruce OF, Keppinger SS, and a rotation featuring Bailey, Cueto, and Volquez. Shedding Griffey and Dunn (and their contracts), keeping a few veterans in their prime like Phillips, Encarnacion, Harang, Fogg and Cordero—with the possibility of Patterson and Arroyo sticking around--and the Reds are looking pretty good for the next several years.

The Bengals Off Season

2008-03-06T16:55:00.010-05:00

With Free Agency underway and the draft looming, it is time to take a look at the Bengals off season needs. The Bengals have been a disappointment since their 11-5 2005 season, but I still think they aren’t far off from playoff contention. Not surprisingly, the Bengals, have focused on retaining certain key players and adopting the strategy of addition by subtraction. They have been content to watch veterans Madieu Williams and Justin Smth depart. Neither move his terribly shocking since both commanded salaries which would have wreaked havoc with the salary cap and Williams has become expendable due to the emergence of Ndukwe and White. They are still negotiating with Landon Johnson—a player I believe they really need to keep if they are to retain any continuity on defense.

Their major free agents retentions have been Dhani Jones, Jonathan Fanene and Kyle Larsen. Jones emerged last season as a starter due to a linebacker corps decimated by injuries. Larsen has proven to be a reliable punter and I am glad to see him back. The have also added Antwan Odom, a defensive end from Tennessee. Odom will replace Smith and probably rotate with Fanene at defensive end. It is a good signing for much less money than what we were paying Smith. Odom is also younger and has more upside as a pass rusher. The Bengals also picked up safety Kyries Herbert from the CFL. I suspect he will mostly be used in special teams. Whether the Bengals will make too many more major singings is dubious. At best we might bring in TE Ben Utrecht from Indianapolis. It appears as if signing a major defensive tackle is becoming more remote as the Bengals have not been able to reach an agreement with Dewayne Robertson despite the willingness of the Jets to trade him. The only way this deal works is if the Jets cut him and he is forced into a situation of negotiating an entirely new contract. The remaining free agent DTs aren’t that much better than what we have. Given that the Bengals will probably have 9 or 10 draft picks this year, it seems unlikely that they are going to break the bank on free agents.

The Bengals draft needs are relatively simple. They need a lot of help in their front defensive seven, primarily defensive tackle. I look for the Bengals to use their first pick on the best available DT—probably Ellis or Dorsey. If neither is available and Gholston (DE/OLB) is available, I think we will take Gholston. At least one of the three should be available. If not, I suspect we will trade down. If we take Gholston, I would look for us to pick up a DT with one of our third round picks (we should have two)—I like Frank Okam or Red Bryant as a possibility and one of them should be available--both would help if we are planning on mixing in some 3-4.

Our second round pick will most likely go to the offense and it will either be a running back or a guard. I am partial to the latter, although there will probably be a number of good running backs available. The Bengals running game has suffered since the loss of Eric Steinbach. The primary reason is that our line now is totally comprised of converted tackles. Although it makes for good pass protection, it makes the running game one dimensional. It doesn’t do any good to have speed backs when no one is fast enough to be out in front of him.

Mid-draft, the Bengals should also pick up another LB and/or DE and perhaps an additional DT to groom. Our linebacking corps has been decimated by injuries and off field problems. If we are lucky, we are looking at a lineup of Brooks and Johnson with Henderson/Thurman/Jones competing for the final spot—but we can’t depend on that situation turning out well, so we need some depth. Offensively, we will look for either a guard or running back (whatever we didn’t pick in round 2), and a tight end (unless we sign Utrecht). Late rounds, I look for the Bengals to add depth in the defensive backfield and at wide receiver, possibly another defensive tackle or linebacker.

If we get the 10 picks folks say we will, I look for a breakdown something like this (in order of priority, not necessarily what order we will make the picks)—

2 DT/NT
1 G
2 LB
1 DE
1 RB
1 TE
1 DB (preferably a coverage guy who can play both Safety and CB)
1 WR (preferably a possession, Housh-like receiver)

I could also see college free agents signings at Center (since the pool seems poor) and for possible return guys. Obviously, major free agent signings could alter this but I think our overall needs won’t change dramatically.

On Kelvin Sampson

2008-02-25T11:32:00.010-05:00

A sad day for Hoosier fans has come and gone. Kelvin Sampson recently was suspended as the Hoosier's head coach and remains under investigation for recruiting violations. For the first time, the Indiana basketball program has been tainted.

It is sad at a number of levels. I became a Hoosier fan during the 1970s and 1980s, during the heyday of Bobby Knight's reign. As problematic as Bobby Knight was at a variety of levels, he was a great coach, won basketball games, most of his players loved him, and he ran a clean program. These are four things which are difficult to achieve in college basketball. He was followed by Mike Davis. Admittedly, Davis was probably not prepared for the pressure of being a head coach at a program like Indiana, but I felt that many Indiana fans treated him shamefully. Alumni refused to support him and help with recruiting, fans turned their back on the program, and the program (after a surprise appearance in the NCAA finals) sank.

Enter Kelvin Sampson. A good coach but one with a tarnished reputation. It is just ridiculous that he did follow the recruiting rules, particularly when he was fresh from a previous violation. I hate to say "I told you so" to the Davis haters, but...

It seems like the players are dealing with the situation maturely--I just hope that most of them stick around, as IU should have a good team for several years with these players. As far as the next coach? It is too early to speculate, but Dakich would not be a bad choice. I just hope that they focus on integrity.

Review: Kevin Carson, Studies in Mutualist Political Economy

2008-02-15T12:49:00.010-05:00

Kevin Carson’s Studies in Mutualist Economy is an ambitious work. His agenda is twofold, to resurrect the individualist anarchist tradition, but in a leftward (socialistic) form, and to move forward the individual anarchist critique of capitalism into the 21st century. The intellectual legacy with which Carson is most concerned is Benjamin Tucker’s. Tucker was a late 19th century anarchist who offered a labor theory of value based critique of capitalism and argued that the “four monopolies” of finance, land, tariff, and patents, undermined a truly free society based upon free markets.

Carson’s first, and daunting, task is to argue for the validity of the labor theory of value. The labor theory of value states that the value of any object is determined by the labor that is embodied within it. This has been articulated in different ways by classical economists such as Adam Smith, J. S. Mill, and David Ricardo. It is also one of the theoretical bases of Marxism, which makes it controversial and so important to disprove (at least for modern day defenders of capitalism). The theory has therefore sustained a withering assault from neo-classical economists from the later 19th century forward, to the point where few economists (outside Marxist circles) accept it as valid.

I am not an economist by any stretch; therefore, my ability to evaluate the subtleties of the various critiques and defenses of the LTV is limited. The LTV is difficult to scientifically prove, as it presumes a theoretical formula that neatly translates labor power (whether it is calculated by time, skill, or other attributes) into a quantifiable value. In Capital, Marx’s “proof” was framed negatively. Since value can’t be attributed to any other aspect of a commodity and the only thing that commodities share is labor, “abstract labor,” embodied in a particular object, is what is being exchanged. The obvious problem is that price for any object can fluctuate dramatically over time and place, which raises questions whether it is truly the labor, the utility, or subjective appeal of the object that determines value. Carson’s solution is to marry aspects of marginal utility theory to the LTV. What is it that determines the social utility of an object? Ultimately, it is rational individuals who seek to maximize utility, minimize disutility, and thus seek a “just price” for goods and therefore the true vale of labor.

Although I am sure this sends chills down most economists’ spines, I have typically viewed the LTV in moral terms. It is a theory that does not scientifically have to be true, but from the point of the worker, it needs to be true. The same could be said of marginilist theory from the point of view of the bourgeois economists. Carson argues as such, emphasizing capitalist economists’ political need to come up with a theory of price and value which is divorced from labor. Simplistic assertions that the LTV can’t be true that focus exclusively on sale price have never been terribly convincing, largely because such facile arguments are missing the grander point. The LTV is not about how things work, it is about why things work. It is similar to the difference between the law of gravity, which explains how fast a rock falls, and the Theory of Gravity, which explains why the rock falls (now I have demonstrated my ignorance in two fields of science!). Carson’s analysis suggests that the Enlightenment, with all its cultural issues, was preemptively anti-capitalist; and ultimately, the LTV is not simply a critique of capitalism, but the rational basis of a new society.

The second key point of Carson’s argument hinges on his assertion that capitalism has always rested upon coercion (unequal exchange in economic terms) and that the existence of waged labor presumes state driven and/or violent expropriation. Therefore, Marx’s project of explaining the source of profit becomes unnecessary—the answer is in the historical origins of the waged working class. Carson also discredits the widely held belief (held by many on the right and the left) that capitalism arrived riding the “free market,” flourished due to the efficiency and scrupulousness of the bourgeoisie, and that, only recently, has state intervention mucked up the works.

On these points, I am in full agreement with Carson, although I arrived at them from a different perspective. One of my largest intellectual influences is the British Marxist historians, and I was pleased that Carson made good use of Christopher Hill, Eric Hobsbawm, and E. P. Thompson’s analyses of nascent capitalism. I would only add to the list their intellectual heirs Marcus Rediker and Peter Linebaugh. The latter have sufficiently demonstrated that the early history of capitalism is littered with the bodies of commoners, slaves, and workers—as well as their ideas positing alternatives to the emergent capitalist order— “common-ism,” if you will.

Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of American history knows that the 19th Century, the heyday of “laissez-faire” capitalism, was characterized by slavery, genocide, segregation, lynching, and private and public violence against labor organizing. Without slave cotton, access to western mining and timber, and a terrorized working class—could capitalism even exist? Can one have Andrew Carnegie and John Rockefeller without government land grants, laws protecting corporate property, and tariff protectionism? Carson’s answer is “no” and he’s right.

The biggest weakness of Carson’s argument is his lack of a class analysis with regards to popular reform and state transformation. That may seem odd, given that Carson’s explicitly points out the importance of class and chastises “vulgar” libertarians for their mechanistic understanding of the state, but he doesn’t sufficiently follow his own advice. Although it is true that the emergence of state managed capitalism in the 20th century is characterized by the emergence of a planning class, a power elite, it is problematic to see this process as a purely a top down initiative, orchestrated by capitalists and bureaucrats.

My intellectual baggage comes with a Marxist departure point, so I am arriving at these debates from a perspective more sympathetic to conventional political action—which is the crux of our difference. The most obvious example is his exploration of the New Deal. Carson correctly criticizes the simplistic analysis of the New Deal, where liberals and conservatives squared off, with the liberals winning. Liberals and conservatives mirror image mythology of the New Deal posits “good guys vs. bad guys.” Carson supplants this dualistic mythology with another one pushed, in a mirror image way, by many paleo-Marxists and Libertarians --the New Deal was the product entirely of “bad guys”—“New Class” apparatchiks, elevating themselves through their ability to save capitalism.

So who is missing from this tale? The working class. Carson’s limited analysis focuses on the service that the “New (managerial) class” provided for capitalism, and effectively silences the self-activity of workers. There are a number of monographs on the social origins of the New Deal that offer a “bottom up” analysis of the period. Additionally, rational choice Marxists and state transformation theorists have made important theoretical contributions to understanding the political and social origins of the New Deal and Great Society social programs.

The historical reality is that the New Deal was much more complicated than the liberal vs. conservative or New Class narratives would have one believe. Nor is it as mechanical as schematic versions of Marxism or the vulgar libertarians argue. In many respects, it demonstrates that notion that hegemony is never fully achieved, it is always in the process of negotiation—Gramsci’s “war of position”—and on occasion, the “barbarians” can penetrate the gates. Carson's top down analysis misses the crucial agency of working people.

The result was that the New Deal, which was initially very pro-business and recovery oriented, was pulled leftward and granted major concessions to long held working class demands. Working class organizations rushed to seize opportunities when they came: organizing millions; fundamentally altering the balance of political power in many cities; and establishing a new social contract significantly more favorable to working people. The lesson is that rulers still rule, not always in the way they would like.

These were significant and hard fought gains which should not be cavalierly dismissed. Moreover, if Carson’s narrative is true, the New Deal becomes one of the greatest examples of false consciousness in world history, capitalists opposing programs designed to help them, workers rushing to the ballot box and union halls in support of policies and organizations designed to hurt them.

I agree that New Deal was certainly flawed and limited in many respects. It was hardly universal in its application (women and African Americans were left out of many reforms, deliberately so) and it was structured in a way to limit the impact of many of the reforms (if the reforms were so great for the elite, why limit them?). This is less a product of omniscient New Class technocrats than a reflection of the balance of power between workers, capitalists, and managers. It is also true that organized labor became increasingly complacent, over estimating their own power and elites’ acceptance of the new social contract. But even with this, the New Deal was an imposition on the power elite, which is why they spent so much time trying to contain it, subvert it, chip away at it, and co-opt it. It isn’t a coincidence that social democratic urban administrations were punished with capital strikes in the 1970s and 1980s while “right to work” states were rewarded with investment. It isn’t a coincidence that employers went after the best paid unions sectors first (construction) and lopped off entire unionized industries when possible. If such reforms were so effective in controlling workers, the reaction would have been the opposite—make unions stronger. The reality is an arrogant and well organized working class is a problem and old fashioned class struggle still exists, even in the highly planned sections of the economy.

Capitalist elites accepted and tried to shape many New Deal and subsequent reforms, but this was because they had little choice. If you can’t buy steel from bombed out factories, you can’t buy clothes from Chinese communists, and domestic strike activity is high--you “overpay” American workers until you come up with an alternative. Ultimately, the answer was to circumvent and undercut the reforms through racism, US imperialism, and globalization. Even with its warts, the New Deal Order did carve a space for political activity in the post-war period which would lead directly to the civil rights movement and the New Left—which is really the problem.

So, in the final analysis, what does Carson advocate? Carson builds off the legacy of Proudhon, Tucker, and other anarchist currents. The basis of a new society will be stateless and comprised of voluntary, free associations of individuals, which interact with each other in a truly free market system—a system where individuals and organizations are free to negotiate and trade, and equally free to walk away from said agreements. In such a society, production costs are will be internalized, preventing usury, unequal exchange, exploitation and preserving the labor theory of value.

In terms of getting there, in contrast to many libertarians and anarchists, Carson does not totally eschew political activity, nor does he see the state as a homogeneous entity. He argues that in dismantling the state, it is important to do it in the right order. To make an analogy, if you are defusing a bomb, clipping just any wire isn’t the best strategy—you have to be careful.

Although we have some disagreements regarding the nature and utility of solidarity based reforms, I can’t disagree with his overall point—if we eliminate the coercive and capitalist subsidizing components of the state first—by the time we get to Social Security, it won’t be necessary. In the mean time, those interested in creating a better world need to start creating those organizations and arrangements that will make such a world possible.

Although I disagree with some of his analysis, overall, I liked his propositions. He seems to agree with Marx’s belief that the groundwork for a new society must develop within the old. Conventional Marxism has put this in largely economic terms—emphasizing “productive capacity.” One can also interpret this in more of an organizational sense. Utopians going back to the 19th century have attempted to create alternative, voluntary forms of association for production and consumption. Such efforts have often been dismissed as “petit bourgeois” or as simply unrealistic. I have increasingly come to believe that unless we begin to reflect upon and experiment with new forms of social organization, the future will never come. Kevin Carson’s Studies in Mutualist Political Economy is an important step in this direction.

The Digital Divide

2008-01-30T17:05:00.004-05:00

Check out this article by Johann Hari on the digital divide--

The times, they are a changin’. The internet is changing how we get our news, buy our stuff, and relate to one another. Johann Hari raises many questions about the impact of these changes. Just as the printing press helped facilitate the Enlightenment, the scientific revolution, the Protestant reformation, and language based nationalism, so does the internet contain the potential to transform our world. The question is how and whether it is for the better.

Although the internet facilitates getting information quickly, it doesn't makes us more intelligent in any real sense. There is a definite sacrifice in quality in favor of quantity and speed. I had a student once say to me, quite seriously, “Why would I read a book, when I have the internet.” My heart totally sank. Although the internet may be good for looking up a few facts and getting a random opinion, I haven’t been terribly impressed with the substantive content of the internet. If you have access to an academic institution, you can usually get more in depth articles and sometimes you can pay for online subscriptions, but the “free” information is often suspect. Unless you really know what you are looking for the internet isn’t great. On the other hand, you can always find what you are looking for on the internet, no matter how ridiculous. And since many internet sites are reluctant to cite sources—it turns much of the internet into a pretty effective urban myth and rumor machine. In this culture, “reality based” arguments are often problematic. Once I was attacked in a discussion room (by a right wing conservative whose constant mantra was that liberals have opinions, conservatives have facts) because I couldn’t provide a link that corroborated my statements. When I said I read them in a book (and provided the citation), I was told that this didn’t count because he couldn’t verify it and therefore my argument was fallacious. When I said, “Go to a library”—I was told that this level of argument was inappropriate for the internet because we can’t expect people to do that. And this is a representative of “educated opinion.”

One thing I have noticed since I have been perusing the internet with regularity, is the general lack of well reasoned and well supported arguments in the blogosphere or on discssuion boards. Much of it seems to be the nature of the medium. Most discussion boards have space requirements and even if they don’t, most posters prefer quick insults, dismissive comments, or sarcastic witticism. Personal, racist, and sexist attacks are quite common. Because most posting is basically anonymous, you don’t have to PC on the PC. At a certain level that gives a certain raw realism to the internet, but I also think it encourages ridiculous ideological posturing which someone would never do in “real life” where they might have to take responsibility for their opinion.

I know I am personally guilty in some respects. I have a much easier time reading printed material than on screen material-there is something about a book in my hands which makes reading more fun. Scrolling through an internet site—not so fun. Therefore, when I post in a discussion room, I play by the rules--quick, opinion charged, shots. As Hari indicates, it may be true that basic reading can be improved through the internet over TV, but if the internet comes to supplant books (if not the physical book, but the complex content within)—we have a problem. I see a lot of this in the class room. Many students have real trouble writing understandable sentences and organizing thoughts, but can spout “facts” that come from various internet sites. The relative ease of clicking and pasting has made plagiarism a real problem. Not only do students not need to read, they don't need write or think through things logically. Internet chatting and “texting” may very well become the “Newspeak” of the 21st century.

Corporate control of the internet is a spectre. In the past few years, the internet has become much more heavily marketed, as corporations have struggled to compensate for the loss of revenue on the bood tube and radio. I am not up on the specifics regarding attempts to regulate the internet, but it seems like it is well on its way to “market regulation.” Internet marketing has become a new million dollar industry—using search engines and links to steer surfers in particular directions is the key to capitalism on the internet. Ultimately, it is all about advertising.

Believe it or not, I have a Luddite tendency in me a mile wide. That may seem silly as I type away on MS Word 2007, preparing to post my ramblings on the information superhighway, but it is true. Although I usually come around to specific technologies, I am quite slow compared to most people I know. I resisted ATM cards like the plague (but use one now), I just got my first cell phone well after most of my friends, and just started a blog about 6 mos ago. Other aspects of technology I generally reject—not big on “texting,” my cell phone is nothing special, I have an old school television, no gaming system, and I have no desire to “keep up with the Joneses” on most technological developments.

As backwards as I think I am, I realize that I am way ahead of most people. I know much more about computers than the average Joe (primarily because I use one for my job), and am probably more internet savvy then most regular surfers. And that just includes people who have access to computers on a daily basis. What about people who don’t? The true digitial divide isn’t between bloggers and corporations, it is between those who regularly use computers for their job or leisure and those who rarely touch a keyboard. In a country like the US, that may seem like not that much of a big deal, but it is bigger than most people think. According to Edutopia, approximately 54% of Americans use the internet--which means 46% don't. Those with internet access tend to be concentrated in upper income groups and white folks are over represented. From a global perspective the divide gets larger. As an example, I was an online video game at my brother in law’s and it showed where all the players were in the world—it was quite revealing. Most of the globe (except North America and a few pockets in Europe and Asia) was dark. He said, “You see where the money is”--quite right.

On the one hand, I have been impressed with the diversity of opinion on the internet. It is comforting to know that there are people out there with crazier ideas than I have. It is also personally comforting (but also disturbing)that I fare well among the educated classes. On the flip side, the internet is hardly representative of the hopes, dreams, and wishes of the general population. In that respect, it is just like the newspapers in 1850 when literacy rates were less than 50%. It is simply a reminder of how far we have to go.

Stimulate This!

2008-01-28T13:29:00.000-05:00

It isn't often in a predominantly political blog that one can use the words "Bush," "Stimulus," and "Package" all in an article. So what is this Bush stimulus package all about and who is it going to help? The first thing I thought when I heard about the stimulus package was the $300, "thank you for electing me," checks we all got in Bush's first term. I think I signed mine over the Democratic National Committee. This stimulus package is no less political, as the checks will probably arrive sometime in August or September, during convention season. That the economy is becoming an albatross for the Republicans makes the timing something more than a coincidence.

The nature of the package has been pretty well debated--it will go to "taxpayers only"--taxpayers in Republican-speak doesn't include old people, young people, and the working poor. I'll remember that next time someone tries to charge me a sales or excise tax on gasoline, beer, or groceries--"Hey, the Republicans say I am not a taxpayer!" What is interesting is the perverted logic of the highly selective tax rebate. It is supposed to stimulate the economy by putting money in people's pockets. That is a novel idea--I think it was John Maynard Keynes that came up with it--remember the guy whose economic principles were the basis of New Deal liberalism? It always fascinates me when conservatives use liberal economic logic to explain their actions. It makes me realize that many people have no idea the basis of conservative supply-side economic theory and also suggests that Keynesian liberalism seems to remain "common sense" even in in the age of Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan.

Of course, the economic stimulus package isn't designed to put money in people's pockets--it looks like it is, but it is not. If it were, it would specifically target the working poor and those at the economic margins--it would bring them in to the consuming economy. The target is those who are in the consuming economy so far that they are over their heads. Over their heads in credit card debt, unable to get new credit, and mortgaged to the hilt. Presumably what people will do with the money is pay for last year's big screen TV, Wiii, and RockBand, get caught up on the gas card, pay down that second mortgage, and avoid collections on that root canal. In other words, send the money right back to the institutions which are largely responsible for the mess to begin with--primary lenders, credit companies, and insurance companies. The "bail out" is for the financial hegemons who are starting to get nervous because America is collectively running a large tab and getting later and later on its payments.

Review: Todd Gitlin, The Bulldozer and the Big Tent

2008-01-27T19:44:00.001-05:00

Why do the Republicans keep winning elections? How have the Republicans, despite their hypocrisy and failure to deliver to many of their constituents, been able to consistently turn out those same constituents? Conversely, why do the Democrats appear to be so inept at running national campaigns? Why have the Democrats not been able to politically capitalize on Republican failures? Todd Gitlin explores these questions in his new book The Bulldozer and the Big Tent.

Honestly, I have always had trouble with Todd Gitlin. At a certain level, I should like him—after all, he was a sixties radical and SDS organizer. He is also a political pragmatist. Although I was too young to be a “sixties radical,” I was an “eighties and nineties radical,” when radicalism was much less cool. Today, I consider myself a utopian realist—perhaps best represented by Casey Kasem’s advice to “keep both feet on the ground and keep reaching for the stars.” I believe that we need to constantly be thinking about the best case scenarios for humanity and the world, while at the same time understanding realistically where we are and what obstacles lay before us. This is one of the reasons why two years ago I registered as a Democrat, after years of being proudly independent.

Nevertheless, more often than not, I find myself in opposition to Gitlin. I have found many of writings to be dismissive of street politics, and his unequivocal support for the Democratic Party to be troublesome. Those themes are present in The Bulldozer, and are the worst part of the book. On the other had, the book does offer some interesting, if not totally original, insights into the problems of the Democratic Party.

The majority of the book deals with what the Republicans are doing right, rather than what the Democrats are doing wrong. The Republican Party, despite its claims of being “states rights” party, has successfully nationalized campaign strategy, creating a top down organization coordinating local electoral strategy. The have successfully exploited the flaws of the winner take all district system and the over representation of sparsely populated areas to create strategic regional “majorities.” They have mastered marketing techniques, appropriated from their corporate allies, including direct mailing and market (voter) analysis, to know exactly who to target and how to target them to get them to show up at the polls. They have capitalized on the deregulation of the communications industry to create a “noise machine” which creates talking points in a lock step manner, successfully framing issues in terms favorable to conservatives. In short, they have created a relatively monolithic party organization, a “bulldozer,” capable of not only of burying its enemies, but shaping the political landscape in a way that makes conservative “faith” a reality, or at least close enough for its adherents.

Conversely, the Democrats are still mired in a post-1960s malaise. Unlike the relatively homogeneous (white, protestant, heavily male) Republicans, the heterogeneous Democrats are comprised of a multitude of interest groups with differing priorities—feminists, civil libertarians, African Americans, Hispanics, labor, “helping” professionals, homosexuals, and environmentalists. Although many of these groups are well organized internally, they don’t always cooperate well beyond their particular interests, and when they do, they are not very efficient—their “Big Tent” easily flapped by the slightest wind (sometimes internal "hot air") and certainly no match for the Republican bulldozer.

So what is Gitlin’s prescription for the Democrats? Well, not surprisingly, the Democrats need to take a page out of the Republican playbook. The Democrats should become more of a “party”—using more centralized organizing, setting aside differences for the common good, and sharing information with one another. Many of these things seem to be already happening. Since Howard Dean has taken over election strategy, the Democrats have improved their party activism, compiled mailing lists, and worked with internet savvy groups like MoveOn. Additionally, the Bush Administration has done a pretty darn good job of getting otherwise complacent liberals mobilized, and politicizing the otherwise unpoliticized. It has yet to turn into a major realignment, but one can sense the tide turning.

The “liberal” media has not done the Democrats any favors either. Although many major news outlets appear superficially liberal, largely due to their size and the need to advertise to a diverse consumer market, opinion typically features both liberal and conservative voices. The biggest fear of the “liberal media” is appearing liberal, which has tamed the aggressive advocacy reporting that characterized the 1960s and 1970s. There is no liberal equivalent of the Murdoch Group, Sinclair Broadcasting, or Christian Broadcasting. There are some efforts to counter this—Air America and parody shows like the Colbert Report and the Daily Show—however, they are too few and far between.

Although many of the things that Gitlin says are true, I disagree with some of the implications of his analysis. Although it may be true that the Democrats are more heterogeneous and appear to be more of a debating club rather than political party, I have considered the unwieldy multitude that is the Democrats to be one of its more redeeming qualities. I have no desire to see them impose a false universalism upon a party which I believe is strengthened by its diversity. I also disagree with the notion that “sixties radicals” and ongoing political activism bear the blame for the demise of the Democrats. Although it may be true that sixties idealism lent itself to the revolutionary adventurism and ideological purism that has beleaguered the left, the greater culprit has been the “pragmatic liberals” who abandoned their most loyal and best organized voters (organized labor) in favor of supply-side economics, “free trade” deals, and welfare reform. It has been pragmatic liberals which have taken the votes of the Democratic multitude for granted and given them little in return. “Radicals” like Ralph Nader are not the problem; it is the failure of the Democrats to offer clear alternatives to the rightward shift. Even Gitlin’s support for “the uniquely gifted” Clinton is tepid—the best things he says about him is that he obstructed the pro-corporate DLC from totally cannibalizing the liberal wing of the party (Thanks Bill!) and that he won twice despite a right wing propaganda onslaught. Gitlin does not give sufficient credit to Clinton for his real crime, his support for NAFTA—a potential capture point for a substantial portion of the electorate, including the white working class, but which pragmatic liberals passed.

The real lesson of the Republican success is not that, in order to win, one must rush to center; one needs to create “positive polarization.” The Republicans have been masters at this. Rather then avoiding fights with the Democrats by blurring the party lines, the Republicans have continued to move right and mobilize the most reactionary voters on specific issues against the “evil” that is liberalism. In one of the final chapters, Gitlin explores public opinion and to what extent the Democrats should “move right” to win. Based on his statistics, such a move is unnecessary and “positive polarization” is not impossible. Although roughly 22% of voters consider themselves to be liberal compared to 36% conservative, this is largely a fiction of labels and the product of effective propaganda. Studies of issue based opinions indicate that, regardless of how people define themselves, 52% of the population is “operationally liberal”--meaning that they hold predominantly liberal opinions. The biggest stumbling block seems to be “cultural issues”—which is a reflection of the Republicans success at defining the terms of the debate. This at least suggests that a Democratic breakthrough is possible within the existing framework of public opinion. It also suggests that economic issues, if properly packaged and aggressively pursued, could trump abortion, prayer in schools, and creationism. In short, the Democrats need their Barry Goldwater—a visionary who may seem extreme, but who provides a language and strategy for the party.

Gitlin’s analysis is short on the issue of demographics and class which often undergirds political realignments. The Democratic success of the 1930s and 1940s rested upon a base of second and third generation immigrants, many of whom felt outside the mainstream of American society economically and culturally due to Gilded Age excesses and xenophobic cultural puritanism. The Democratic New Deal ushered in a "Golden Age" for the American middle class and for many workers and created opportunities (even if reluctantly) for an emergent civil rights movement. As Kevin Phillips and others have argued, the US is passing through a second Gilded Age, and if history provides any lessons, a populist correction is in the offing, if the Democrats are prepared to reach out to new voters, particularly Latinos, but also frustrated white workers and young people. Which is ultimately part of the problem, the Democratic Party leadership has been scared of its constituency for decades; I think it is about time they embraced them.

A New American Fascism

2008-01-21T16:17:00.000-05:00

In The End of America, Naomi Wolf argues that the US is moving towards fascism. Similarly, Ron Paul has recently said that the US is developing a “soft fascism.” Interestingly enough, paleo-conservative libertarians like Paul and progressives liberals like Wolf seem to be equally disturbed about trends in the US. It is a legitimate question and one which bears serious investigation. If any society, which is relatively free, seems prepared to give up that freedom for security, true “patriots” must begin asking questions and demanding answers.

Part of the difficulty is that, as I have argued before, “fascism” is an all purpose charge with a historical resonance—it means “I don’t agree with your politics so therefore I will equate it with the worst political system I can imagine as a way of discrediting you.” Previously, I outlined characteristics of fascism largely drawn from Nazi Germany and Italy with some additions from other fascist-style movements. So is the US sliding to fascism based on these criteria?

There is no doubt that their have been certain tendencies in this direction in recent years. Most nations are nationalistic in some form, the US is no different, however, because US nationalism is connected to a high powered military apparatus and transnational capitalism, US “nationalism” often takes the form of imperialism—something that few Americans grasp. Yes, according to international law, countries have the right to self-defense, however, does self-defense mean I can attack whomever I want whenever I perceive a threat, no matter how minute or irrational? Of course the answer is no, but it seems as if American political culture simply cannot process this. I do sense a growing “nationalism” in the US which mimics imperial justification. We have to fight them over there so we don’t fight them here—right?

Similarly, the naturalization of the corporate structure and planned capitalism in the US does create a certain reverence for martial like institutions and social hierarchy. We question particular leaders, but rarely the concept of leadership. That all presidential candidates run on their “leadership qualities” (which implicitly mean my ability and willingness to make the “tough decisions”—a code word for killing people) is a problem. That elections are more about manipulating public opinion than listening to it has naturalized propaganda as a form of public discourse. Which set of lies do you choose to believe? Additionally, there has been a growing siege mentality in the US—we are under siege from outside from Muslim terrorists, internally from Mexican immigrants. Although rarely is any connection posited between the two (except the occasional point that Muslims might get in through Mexico), the internal/external enemy issue is present.

In summary, I would say the US contains many of the traits of a fascist state. Thankfully, we don’t have a movement which can be designated as fascist. The closest we have are a few disparate groups which could provide the basis of a movement. Namely, anti-immigrant groups like the Minutemen, some religious right organizations, and hyper-nationalist individuals and groups which seek to maintain American cultural purity. These groups are in part motivated by “Golden Age” perfection myths—if we only went back to the “old days” of the Revolutionary generation we would have the Christian, slaveholding, genocidal nation that our founding fathers wanted, right? If these groups coalesced around a particular leader, or more likely, against a particular leader or party, it is possible to imagine an American fascism. Ironically, it seems like political right in the US is so hostile to populism of any sort (even right wing populism) that it is reluctant to attach itself too closely to any populist leader. The recent experience of Mike Huckabee is case and point. After his win in Iowa, neo-cons very quickly “vetoed” him, exposing the rift between the neo-cons and the theo-cons. It wasn’t obvious before, it certainly is now--neo-conservatives want theo-con votes, but not their input. From a neo-conservative perspective, his saving grace is that he supports the Iraq war, but I think Huckabee’s only chance is that he tones down is populist rhetoric and takes a backseat to a more trustworthy economic conservative.

In other words, Ron Paul is right in that the slide towards fascism has been “soft”—meaning that it is not associated with any particular party, nor with any definable political program. It has occurred “from above,” gently and gradually with multiple explanations for the drift—terrorists, drugs, illegal immigrants, crime, economic necessity, etc. Klein also wonders if it would be possible to have fascism and still retain elements of democracy—meaning that many Americans would be effectively insulated from the effects of fascism. I think this is quite possible. My biggest fear for America is that we will trade in our civil liberties, because we lose faith in the notion of individual liberty and popular rule, for the promise of cheaper gas, plastic shit from China, and the knowledge that a brown person is cleaning our toilets out of fear of being deported. It may not be fascism, but it certainly would be horrible—and very American.

Review: David Zirin, Welcome to the Terrordome

2008-01-11T16:19:00.001-05:00

I grew up in a very sports oriented family. I played sports, my sister played sports, my father talked about sports, and we attended many sporting events. Sports were important, sports defined you. I was fortunate to grow up in Cincinnati in the 1970s and 1980s as I was able to see some of the greatest baseball players to ever play and, on occasion, some decent football. As my family is largely from Indiana, I also grew up watching some pretty good Hoosier basketball. As I grew older, and more politically aware, I also became to see how athletics was one way that people debate morality, ethics, and justice. It is also an industry that, in some ways, is a microcosm of the nation--for good and bad.

The first time I became aware of this was while attending a University of Michigan basketball game. I don't recall who they were playing, but I happened to notice that all the players on the court were black. I then panned around Crisler Arena and noticed that I couldn't find a single black face (not that their weren't any blacks there, I am sure there were, I just couldn't pick any out.) I thought--"I wonder if this is how the Romans felt." By then, I was already aware of racism in athletics. My first specific remembrance was while watching an Indiana basketball game and the announcers stated that the particular lineup on the court was the Hoosiers' "most athletic"--I looked at the players and couldn't understand the basis for that comment, until I realized that every black player on the team was on the court--and then I understood--he meant "most black." It was a sudden realization--an epiphany--I quickly began going through my catalog of adjectives typically associated with professional athletes--smart, a leader, hard-worker, a hustler vs. gifted, talented, athletic, instinctual---you don't need to be Al Sharpton to understand where I am going. In Welcome to the Terrordome, David Zirin explores the politics of race and culture that are part of the spectacle of athletics. Ranging from the Barry Bonds witch hunt to Hurricane Katrina, Zirin examines how sports reflects and shapes our society.

Although it is often difficult to think of professional athletes as "workers," Zirin reminds us that professional sports teams are class stratified organizations and are embedded in a class society. This is most obvious in the minor-league system in baseball. In a very insightful chapter, Zirin explores how Caribbean and Latin American poverty serves to feed baseball many of its aspiring stars, at bargain prices, until they reach the "big time." Also, how black Americans, many of whom who live in cities beleaguered by poverty and a lack of public resources drained by expansive stadium projects, are turning away from baseball due to its expense and lack of places to play. The incredible pay discrepancies and short career expectancies combine to create a win at all cost attitude in athletics, which has been a perfect breeding ground for performance enhancing drugs ranging from simple painkillers to steroids.

This isn't the only way that people with power exploit sports. The Pat Tillman incident is case and point--how an "all-American boy" and athlete came to be a poster boy for war. Of course, it is no mystery to any sports fan that team owners try to use fan loyalty as a political tool to gouge tax rebates out of the public to construct public stadiums for private purposes--classic welfare for the rich in the name of "supporting the team."

Zirin also reminds us that athletics, on occasion, can be a site of cultural progress and popular triumph. Jackie Robinson integrated baseball in 1947, seven years before Brown v. Board and seventeen years before the Civil Rights Act. Athletes like Roberto Clemente, Muhammad Ali, Tommie Smith, John Carlos and others have used their status as stars to make political statements and raise public awareness about important issues. At times, fans have used sporting events to raise awareness of social justice. In fact, one of the first major protests that I helped to organize took place at a sporting event--it was an anti-sweatshop action at a Michigan football game.

Zirin reflects on why more athletes don't take stands. His interesting answer is a combination of apathy and fear. As with many people, even if you have a commitment to a particular cause or issue, it can be easier to keep it to yourself rather than deal with the ramifications of expressing your opinion. Although it may seem easier for wealthy professional athletes, since the industry is premised on image and marketing, becoming politically controversial can be risky--it certainly won't help your endorsements.

David Zirin is easily the most politically astute sports writer I have come across. Few writers are able to situate sports in the larger context of society as Zirin is, and for that, his work Welcome to the Terrordome is worth the read.

Fascist tendencies in the White Republic

2008-01-08T11:08:00.000-05:00

The United States has always had a divided soul. America was founded by idealists, lovers of liberty, and those fleeing tyranny. The American Revolution sought to "begin the world anew," quoting international revolutionary Thomas Paine, by offering a constitutional republic sans a hereditary aristocracy or established religion. The 19th century countryside swelled with experimental communities and "rugged individualists" mixing their labor with the land. European travellers marvelled at the American democratic experiment as it seemingly proved that a nation of farmers and mechanics could survive and thrive. This Enlightenment inspired, democratic, and egalitarian ethos is firmly steeped in American culture. However, the United States is a settler society--it exists thanks to a century long genocidal conflict to claim the continent from the natives. It was also a slave/apartheid society--coerced labor and segregation created empires of wealth and subsidized American living standards into the twentieth century. The legacy of this is the ideology of white supremacy--America's imperial religion--also deeply steeped in American culture.

Examining the contradictions of American political culture, Louis Hartz called Americans "irrational Lockeans." We are Lockean because America's material conditions were well suited to Lockean republicanism, irrational because the conditions were so naturalized that there was no need to reflect on what Locke opposed, no ancien regime to overthrow---just land to be settled. On the latter issue, Hitler admired America's brutal efficiency--its "Manifest Destiny"--and speculated that what he saw when he looked east must be what Americans saw when they looked west--living space.

The two souls have a religious character as well. On the one hand, the US has been the repository of anti-nomianism, radical egalitarian religious traditions, and rationalist Christian sects that have sought to create a "Heaven on Earth." On the other hand, the US has also been the home of fatalistic Calvinism. A doctrine where success and failure are due to God's will. This is true for the individual and true for the nation and contributes to the almost messianic mission that the US sees for itself--we are the richest and most powerful because of divine providence.

The divided soul has made many Americans susceptible to irrational populist and quasi-fascist appeals. The establishment of racial segregation in post-Civil War America prefigured fascist organizations. Klansmen, White Knights, Red Shirts, and other paramilitary organizations used terror and violence to prevent the establishment of black political power--keeping America's "White Republic" intact. The rhetoric of "states rights," originally being a warning against centralized and unaccountable government, has become a rallying cry of oppression--the Federal government can't force us to stop terrorizing black people--that would be unconstitutional! The Populist Party of the 1880s and 1890s, originally an integrated farmer and worker movement against big capital, ran aground on the shoals of racism, Plessy v. Ferguson, and political expediency, making peace with agricultural capital and subverting the cooperative commonwealth. In its wake, the KKK reemerged, now as a national organization and one with significant political influence in both the southern Democratic and northern Republican Parties. Following WWII, racism and genocide seemed "less American"--however, the White Republic has lived on, but is more subtle.

America's soul remains divided. The United States in one of the freest countries on the face of the planet. We enjoy a great degree of personal freedom and the state is relatively constrained. Americans are free to debate and criticize their government, organize protests, and hold their representatives accountable. But our twin is still with us, and has matured and become more sophisticated. Today's "Manifest Destiny" is overseas--in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Latin America. Although white supremacy isn't nearly as fashionable as it once was, our culture still oozes with it--false colorblindness in the face of persistent racism, using the constitution to subvert the notion of equality before the law, and our self-appointed mission to defend "western civilization." Coerced and segregated labor, the former overseas, the latter in the form of undocumented workers, continue to subsidize the Empire. It is these latter tendencies which lay the groundwork for an American Fascism.

Fascism in Fiction

2008-01-05T17:14:00.004-05:00

Although truth may be stranger than fiction, often fiction is one of the best ways to find truth. In 1935, Sinclair Lewis penned It Can’t Happen Here, a fictional tale of a fascist takeover in America. By Lewis’s own admission, it wasn’t his best work. It rambles, has too many characters and subplots, and could be cut by a third and be a much better book. That being said, it has moments of brilliance. Part dystopia, part satire, Lewis explores the political and social spectrum of America and speculates how fascism could come develop in the land of the free. Part of the brilliance of the book is that he quite correctly makes American fascism very American. It invokes the founding fathers, waves the flag, reads the Bible, and enjoys barbeque and beer—it is truly a homegrown movement, as fascism must be.

Of course, Lewis isn’t the only author to speculate on what a fascist American would look like. One of the first attempts was Jack London’s The Iron Heel (1908), a brilliant dystopia where early twentieth century America comes under the sway of “The Oligarchy.” The Oligarchy emerged as a new elite class created to suppress a worker uprising. London successfully predicts the success of fascism following failed revolutionary movements in Germany and Italy (so much so it makes me wonder if Mussolini read the book for ideas). It also points to a potential base for fascism in the United States in the “labor aristocracy”—well paid middle class workers who enjoy a significant amount of material abundance (he even predicts suburbia) in exchange for their role as guardians of the system.

More recently, Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale (1985), written in the wake of the Iranian Islamic Revolution and the emergence of a right wing political Christianity, speculates how a religious based movement might establish a theocratic fascism in the United States. The Republic of Gilead, an inheritor state to the United States, was created out of a civil war fought to turn back the social movements of the 1960s and 70s, particularly feminism. Gilead is a society based on a rigid gender and racial hierarchy, enforced largely by women upon other women. Atwood’s book is interesting in that it highlights the complexity of gender and politics and how the debate over “family values” and the proper role of women could lead to a fascist America.

Of the three, Lewis’s is best at exploring the movement on its own terms and how it came to power. It is also the least ideologically driven and historically grounded book, and therefore seems more plausible. In It Can’t Happen Here, fascism comes to America through the alliance of social forces that existed in the 1930s—ultra-conservative Christians, disgruntled war veterans, a popular militia (known as the Minute Men), and an anxious business community. The movement coalesces under the leadership of Buzz Windrip, a folksy, plain talking, “Professional Common Man,” who only reads the Bible. Windrip, thanks to his handler and publicist Lee Sarason, successfully outmaneuvers FDR in the 1936 primaries, forging a new political coalition from conservative southern Democrats and northern Republicans heavily financed by the industrial elite (sounding familiar?). Lewis draws his inspiration from the political milieu of the 1930s—Father Coughlin, Huey Long, the KKK, the DAR, Randolph Hearst, and many others historical actors are either referenced are parodied in the book. Although many on the Left criticize FDR for not going further with his reforms, Lewis reminds us that if FDR had not been elected, the country would have moved much further right, not left.

To answer the New Deal, Windrip offers the “real” New Deal—promising populist economic reform, a guaranteed national income, and an end to unemployment (none of which come to pass), while at the same time establishing rigid racial segregation, establishing the US as a “Christian Nation,” removing women from the workplace, establishing rule by executive decree, and outlawing Communism, Socialism, or Anarchism. Dissenters are dealt with by the Minute Men, a “marching club” that eventually becomes the political police. Revenue that is supposed to go to human services and education ends up financing the emergent police state. The movement uses American songs and American symbolism to make all these changes appear to be signs of patriotism in hard times. It capitalizes upon modern propaganda techniques, utilizing its financial support to buy the air time (and public opinion).

Lewis also satirizes the Left—suggesting that much of what gives fascism a potential base, is the inability of the Left to make itself relevant to the public. The main character is the meek Jessup Doremuse (Dormouse)—a well read and unrepentant Liberal, who understands what is happening, but struggles to know how to combat it until it is too late. Other victims of the regime include Communists and Socialists, who spend more time arguing with each other and Liberals rather than constructing realistic political alternatives or combating the common enemy.

In many respects, Lewis’s book is the most prescient of the three. His acute analysis of the political forces in the United States and how they could interact to create a fascist dictatorship is remarkable. At the very least, he predicted the potential for the Right wing resurgence under which we are currently living. That Buzz Windrip and Lee Sarason resemble George Bush and Karl Rove is even more bizarre. Lewis clearly identified the power that the “professional common man,” amplified by corporate airwaves, could have.

What is Fascism?

2008-01-04T18:31:00.000-05:00

This is the first in a series of essays attempting to explore the possibility of a fascist America. It is in part a response to a number of recent books which have argued that the US is sliding towards fascism (Joe Conason, Naomi Wolf, John Dean) and less directly to challenge the politicized, ahistorical, and often inaccurate use of the word “fascism” to describe any belief system that one opposes.

In 1944, George Orwell posed the question “What is fascism?” His true, but incomplete answer is that “fascism” is the ideology that I despise, “fascist” is the nation I hate, “fascism” is a behavior of which I disapprove—in other words “fascism” is simply a meaningless epithet. This is as true today as when Orwell wrote it when Trotskyists, Communists, Socialists, Conservatives, Pacifists, and Catholics were labeled “fascists.” Today we have Islamo-fascism, Bush is a fascist, and Hillary is a fascist.

So what is fascism? Of course, historically, fascism is derived from the Latin word fasces, meaning "bundle" implying "strength through unity" and is often associated with militarism. It was used by Mussolini to describe his political movement in the 1920s and subsequently has become associated with similar movements including Nazism. Although the term today is an all purpose epithet, it is often used to describe any form of dictatorship or authoritarian regime. The problem with this line of reasoning is that it confuses characteristics of a particular state or the mechanisms of dictatorship, which are often determined by the socio-historical moment, rather than by the social forces and political aims which have brought that state into existence. For example, although there were similarities between slavery and indentured servitude (physical abuse, long work hours) the two systems were qualitatively different. Similarly, the means of England’s Puritan Dictatorship were not dramatically different from the means of any other feudal government of the period, however, the popular base, political goals, and social and religious practices were substantively different.

Although Fascism is dictatorial, it is not just a form of dictatorship; it is a social movement of a specific type with particular characteristics. So, what are those characteristics? Using Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and other similar movements, we have the following:

Nationalism—Fascism requires fanatical allegiance to a nation-state. This exact form can vary and typically overlaps with ethnicity or race—but it is typically something inherited and collective in some manner (I realize that these are often social constructs and in some ways manners of choice, but fascism builds upon the conventional understanding that these categories are natural).
Hierarchy—Although fascism is collectivist, it makes no pretense of creating social equality. It seeks to create and naturalize a social hierarchy—but in a new manner. The basis of the hierarchy is the power bloc (nation)—which must be elevated to its naturally just position above other similarly defined groups (Aryan over Jewish or Slavic, White over Black, Italian over Ethiopian, etc). Within the power bloc, leaders emerge, who are justly revered above the mass, because of their ability to serve the cause. They are the “best of their race/nation/people.” That the hierarchy is “new” is often one of the most attractive components of fascism because is gives people who are at the bottom of society, but who are part of the in-group hope for upward mobility.
Leadership -- Although fascism is based on collectivism, there is room from individual initiative, so long as that initiative is for the group. This is the “leadership principle”—individuals within the power bloc who have “special” qualities and represent the best traits of the group will emerge as “leaders” whose authority is unquestioned because of their natural abilities, their power of will, etc. This creates a hierarchy within the favored group, but a hierarchy not based on social class or heredity (as all within in the group share a hereditary privilege). Leaders are often privileged with “decadence” not generally approved or available.
Victimhood--Popular support for fascism is based on some perceived wrong or the status of “victim” for the group. The wrong is often dubious or irrational, although in some ways based on reality. This is often the result of some recent social or systemic crises that the society has gone through (losing a war, economic depression, internal strife) and the movement’s raison d’être is to right the wrong.
Recreating a past Golden Age--Connected to the issue of victimhood is the desire to recreate some mythical past glory or Golden Age which has been destroyed. This often has a mystical/redemptive aspect. Although fascism seeks to recreate some past Golden Age, it isn’t anachronistic, in that it seeks to recreate the “glory” of the age, not the material conditions of the age itself—it is modern, not primitivist.
Mobilization against an internal or external Enemy--Fascism is aggressive, either internally, externally, or both. It is animated by some enemy “other”—which is usually the culprit for destroying the Golden Age, responsible for the past crisis, etc. The enemy is sufficiently nefarious as to require full social mobilization.
Militarization--Fascism seeks to militarize society and measures all social and economic activities by their utility to the defense of the group. Popular organizations are “coordinated” along military lines. It typically has its own para-military organization distinct from the conventional army--"brown/black/red/white shirts."
Strict sexual division of labor--This extends to the family where gender roles are primarily defined by their function in defending the group. Women produce children, who will be soldiers, workers, and mothers. Fathers provide for and defend their family and the nation.Homosexuality, Feminism, and other beliefs and practices that challenge these roles are forbidden because they serve no obvious familial function.
Opposition to universalist ideologies—Fascism is characterized by a profound opposition to any universalist ideology or political practice that suggests human equality in any manner whether it is liberalism, democracy, communism, or socialism. This also extends to any form of religion which emphasizes the “equality of souls,” international solidarity, or, because of its beliefs, rejects the authority of the state.
State managed capitalism—Fascism utilizes highly planned capitalism--"war capitalism" if you will. Fascist social movements often employ anti-capitalist rhetoric, but rather than seeking to overturn the system, it seeks to drive out the “bad capitalists” (due to their out-group status) and regulate the “good capitalists,” compelling them to serve the “national interest.” Capitalists continue to own, but lose much of their control over their own operations to the state in exchange for retaining their class privileges.

These ten traits obviously overlap and, in different historical contexts, there are different degrees of emphasis. Fascist dictatorships incorporate the above as ways of securing a critical mass of support (even dictatorships need some popular support) and offering a rationale for their existence. Of course, fascist dictatorships share many characteristics of other dictatorships. Typically, there is some form of party, which serves as a recruiting and disciplining mechanism for society and those who aspire to power; the government exercises a high degree of centralized authority and arbitrary power; and a personality cult surrounding the leader of the party. It is these latter traits which often lead to a conflation between fascism and state socialism or even war-time capitalism. As I have argued, these are more reflections of the historical moment than they are of the aims of the respective systems.

Fascism is a synthetic ideology that prides itself on “efficiency” and will happily mimic or borrow from other ideologies or other systems. For example, economic planning can be quite effective and therefore fascism adopts “socialistic” means to achieve anti-socialist ends. Although Fascism is right-wing in the classical sense, but it isn’t “elitist” in the classical conservative sense. Whereas classical conservative belief seek to preserve the privileges of the existing elites, whether it be aristocrats or plutocrats, fascism seeks to create a new and broader ruling class based on a new form of merit. This does not mean that it liquidates the previous ruling class, only that it intends to hold them to a new standard and to create opportunity for newcomers to emerge. Fascism’s relationship to religion is equally complex. Although fascism movements often utilize religious beliefs, it either emphasizes their national character (Lutheranism in Germany, Roman Catholicism in Italy) or seeks to transform them into a new, uniquely national religion. The latter tendency often creates tensions between fascism and religion. It is fascism's synthetic quality that generates so much of its appeal—it can be different things to different people.

On the turntable--Levon Helm, Dirt Farmer

2007-12-30T14:45:00.002-05:00

I love old timey music--and any genuine attempt to recreate the raw and unfettered, anguish, joy, heartache, and glee that old timey music brings. Levon Helm's Dirt Farmer fits into that category nicely. Helm, former drummer and singer for The Band (Dylan's original electric back up band), has recently come out of retirement following a bout with throat cancer to put together a wonderful piece of Americana. A compilation of traditionals and covers of recent artists like Steve Earle, Paul Kennerly, and Buddy and Julie Miller, Dirt Farmer successfully captures a jug band feel in an age of overproduced and over hyped pop music.

Telling tales of farmers, miners, love lost and love found, Helm's album reflects his musical upbringing. Helm's father, an Arkansas cotton farmer, bought him his first guitar when he was nine, and fashioned his sister a bass out of a washtub. And thus began Levon's musical career. Dirt Farmer is also a family affair, featuring Helm's daughter Amy, on vocals, drums, and mandolin. The familial intimacy is felt throughout the album, particularly on the sweet harmonies between Helm and his daughter.

Helm's voice is remarkably good given his struggle with throat cancer and, based on his NPR interview, that he has trouble talking. Overall, the album is not over produced--thankfully--sounding like it could have been recorded in Helm's living room (I'm sure he has a living room with good acoustics). Helm's cover of Steve Earle's "The Mountain," a sorrowful tale of resignation to a life in the mines and the love of the land, stands out as particularly representative of the work. Also, Paul Kennerly's tongue and cheek look at love, "Got Me a Woman," is excellent.

The Mitchell Report

2007-12-13T18:07:00.000-05:00

Former Senate MajorityLeader George Mitchell just released his report regarding steriod use in baseball. The results aren't terribly surprising at a number of levels. Largely based on hearsay and testimony from suppliers, it appears as if steroid use was an institutional problem in baseball going back to the early 90s, accelerating after the 1994 strike. The report presented evidence (mostly circumstantial or based on secondary testimony) that major names such as Roger Clemens, Eric Gagne, Paul Lo Duca, Miguel Tejada, Andy Pettitte, Gary Sheffield among many others used steriods, BALCO, or human growth hormones over the past 15 years. Additionally, according to statements made by former players and coaches somewhere between 20% and 50% of players were using performance enhancing drugs in the early 1990s. It looks like the moral outrage so focused on Barry Bonds has a lot of other targets--I am just curious how many will get hit with the same public ire as Bonds.

The other component of the report that isn't terribly surprising is that it lets the owners off the hook--at least in comparison to the Players' Association. Although the report indicates that baseball (owners and players) were "slow to develop" a response, by implication it suggests that the owners were interesting in doing something about steroids in the MLB but their efforts were obstructed by the Players' Association. According to the report, the Players' Association blocked testing for 20 years--which assumes that it was something the owners wanted. Following the 1994 strike, owners were very eager to get fans back in the seats, and what better way than increasing offense? Juiced players and juiced balls made the late 90s and early 2000s the most offense oriented era in baseball history. This was noticed by Joe Morgan who suspected steroids but states that he was discouraged from mentioning it on-air by ESPN because it might hurt viewership.

The fallout from the report is yet to be known. I hope it doesn't turn into a witch hunt, but I fear that it might with baseball weeding out the "bad apples" as a form of damage control. In reality the problems of baseball run much deeper. Steroids has been an institutional problem for two decades and I sincerely hope for the health of the players and of young people who aspire to be professional athletes that the owners and players can come to an agreement to effectively end steroid use while preserving the dignity of the players. Also, baseball has a salary and ownership problem. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer--and fans are frustrated. Is there any reason to think that the Pittsburgh Pirates have a chance for next year? And the season hasn't even started. And of course, baseball has an image problem. Steroids and an uncompetitive salary structure have turned America's past time into a farce.

Review: Rudolf Rocker, Nationalism and Culture

2007-12-11T21:41:00.000-05:00

I suppose it is odd to review a book that is seventy-years old, but I do tend to procrastinate. I have been doing some research on the intellectual foundations of libertarianism and decided to read some neglected classics and reread some works that I had not read in a long time. On that list was Rudolf Rocker’s Nationalism and Culture (1937), his classic work exploring the intellectual and cultural foundations of modern nationalism.

Written in the wake of the Nazi takeover of Germany, Rocker, a German expatriate and anarchist, traces the history of nationalism and the “will to power” that is associated with the state. The epic tome is impressive in its scope and intellectual breadth. Freely interweaving examples from Roman, Greek, German, American, English, and Italian history, Rocker’s work is honestly amazing. It is much more than a discussion of the origins of fascism, but how nationalist ideology has permeated and debased so much of human society and been so destructive to the human spirit.

Rocker’s intellectual project is two-fold—he wants to expose the corrupting influence of nationalism on the struggle for human freedom and to demonstrate that libertarian socialism is the best alternative for humanity. For Rocker, classical liberalism, defined as the principled defense of individual liberty, and socialism, defined as the opposition to capitalist economic inequality, can only truly be realized in conjunction with one another. Although I am familiar with many of his arguments through other scholars, part of what I found amazing about the book is how he has prefigured later scholarly arguments which have challenged the nation-state paradigm.

Rocker views nationalism as a secular religion—a belief system that reflects man’s anxiety regarding his own weaknesses and his willingness to place his trust in some sort of higher power that will protect him. Modern nationalism evolved during the breakdown of the authority of the Catholic Church due to the Protestant Reformation and from the anti-clerical intellectual movements of the Renaissance. The discovery of America and the ascendancy of the mercantile class produced an increase in economic power of the privileged minority of commercial capital and enhanced state power to protect said interests. What these movements shared was not simply a desire to overturn older forms of authority, but to supplant new forms of authority in their place and the nation-state was their mechanism for achieving that end. According to Rocker, the “nation is not the cause but the result of the state. It is the state which creates the nation, not the nation the state.” The state creates “fictitious unity” between pre-national communal groups, separating humanity into hostile camps under leadership elements. It is fundamentally reactionary in nature, looking to mythical and romantic pasts to create a “tradition” which can be utilized for current political aims. It capitalizes on man’s instinctual and benign attachment to home and cultural achievements (what Orwell called “patriotism”) and transforms them to state worship. It seeks to homogenize language and culture, suppressing the true to creative spirit of the people, subordinating the popular will to the “will to power.” Speaking out against the nation is the new heresy, akin to the Albigensian, Cathari, Brethren, and Bogomil movements following the consolidation of the Catholic Church.

In opposition to the development of the nation-state stood classical liberalism, a distinctively individualistic philosophy that believed, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, the “government that governs best, governs least” and hopefully, according to Thoreau, “governs not at all.” Rocker sees liberalism as a philosophy least susceptible to nationalistic appeals, drawing from international revolutionary Thomas Paine’s statement that he is a “citizen of the world.” Conversely, ideologies like democracy and socialism are susceptible to nationalism because, in practice, they have been connected to rights and parliamentary efforts attached to particular nation-states. Historically, this has left popular democratic and socialistic movements disarmed in the face of nationalistic appeals, their failure to stop WWI or the rise of fascism being case and point.

Although Rocker champions the liberal tradition as being integral to any philosophy of liberation, liberalism’s association with the rights of property and capitalism are problematic. The abuse of liberal ideas, which have elevated the rights of property in the form of collective capital above the individual and the universalizing appeal of natural rights have combined with American nationalism to naturalize the US imperial project. Just as Trotsky imagined that the Soviet Union could export communism through “permanent revolution” so has the inverted Trotskyism of American neo-conservatism sought to export Americanism through the revolutionary ideology of liberal capitalism.

Rocker is clearly aware of the corrupting influence of capitalism to the liberal tradition; however, living in the current epoch, I would say that Rocker underestimates the ability of moneyed elites to pervert liberalism. Capitalism has grown hand-in-hand with the nation-state. Despite the laments of modern “free market capitalists,” the expansion and centralization of capitalist economic operations have developed in an almost mirror image to that of the “Great State”—each capitalist crisis requiring greater involvement of bureaucracies, both public and private, to manage dissent, and in the most extreme cases, save capitalism from itself. This not to say that all government expansion has been at the behest of capitalist elites, some of it come s from parliamentary reforms, careerist politicians, and military officials, but the state has been and remains a central component of capitalist development. This trend is pronounced in the United States going back to the origins of the Republic. More recently, it has become increasingly obvious as the New Deal welfare state (America’s version of social democracy) has given way to the warfare/nanny state—where hard won reforms like Social Security and Medicare are “in crisis” and “going bankrupt” but in reality are gutted to subsidize the Pentagon and provide tax abatements to corporations meanwhile the government tries to utilize the remaining welfare and education expenditures to shape public morality.

Rocker also predicts the globalizing trends of our period. He sees capitalism outstripping the nation-state, moving towards large regional blocs (America, Europe and Asia) and ultimately towards an integrated and Taylorized world-system. The growth of international trade arrangements and the attempts to use the UN to facilitate the needs of international capital are examples of the "state" moving beyond the reach of populations as a means of limiting popular input into decision making. It is the tension between “national interest” and the imperatives of global capital have created so much consternation as of late in the United States. The neo-conservative imperialists seek to reconcile the two by connecting American living standards to the health of transnational capital through wars of aggression and “free trade” agreements. A powerful counter trend is the development of “state capitalism”—the concentration of both economic and political power in the hands of the state. Modern examples of this would be China, which despite its “communist” label, functions relatively harmoniously within the capitalist system under the direction of “the Party.”

To counter such trends, those interested in social justice and equality must draw from the best of the intellectual traditions which have critiqued capitalism, respected individual rights, but also be sensitive to corrupting influence of nationalism. Rocker favors the libertarian tradition because it fuses the classical liberal notion of natural rights with socialism. Although he is favorably disposed to Marx’s contributions to political economy and his critique of capitalism, Marxism is not sufficient, because it offers little in the way of an alternative method of social organization. It is a revolutionary ideology whose goal is to seize the nation-state, but without a clear goal for the “day after,” which has led to its corruption by nationalism. Conversely, libertarianism has been more open to “utopian” experimentation (even if such experiments are failures, there are still lessons) and is more sympathetic to Martin Luther King’s notion that the "means and ends must cohere because the end is preexistent in the means."

Although anti-statist sentiment in the United States is quite powerful, it seems to be slowly eroding, largely due to the “War on Terror,” the increased militarization of the economy, and the emergence of political Christianity. The increased concentration of capital and the central role the United States plays in orchestrating international capitalism have further prepared the American public for the centralization of authority, whether it be political or economic. Unfortunately, “libertarianism” is almost totally divorced from socialism and often is used as an ideological bludgeon against popular reforms imposed upon the state and corporations by workers in favor of the “free market,” which is little more than the right of collective capital it impose its will upon workers. Of course, the relatively weak labor movement in the US compounds the problem, in part a victim of its own economic nationalism, thus leaving the political field open to right-wing statism. This creates an even greater imperative among the political left in the United States to redefine itself as the libertarian choice, to build upon existing forms of popular dissent, to resurrect the labor movement, to forge bonds with international liberation movements, and to recapture the popular mind. Although I believe it is necessary to defend existing, solidarity based reforms, like Social Security and public education, and to exploit openings in the current power structure to curtail corporate power (free health care!), leftists and progressives should resist the urge to run headlong to the state to solve every problem that capitalism creates. We must find ways to create alternative institutions, which aren’t connected to the state, which can provide the basis of a more just and egalitarian society.

Some thoughts on Chavez

2007-12-08T09:29:00.000-05:00

(from RealNews)

Last week Hugo Chavez lost his referendum which would have made substantial changes to the Venezuelan constitution, forwarding what he considers to be "21st century socialism." The barely restrained glee from the Bush Administration and most of the US news media was obvious. Analysts were very quick to argue that Chavez had been wounded in international affairs and the Bush Administration has begun to pressure Columbia to move forward with a Free Tree Agreement to further stifle Venezuelan influence.

Of course, the gross misreporting of the situation was enough to make Goebbels cringe. According to the US media, the referendum was the latest effort by a dictator and strongman to become even more dictatorial. Focusing almost exclusively on the constitutional changes that would eliminate term limits and expand presidential emergency powers, the US media presented Chavez as trying to use the referendum to make himself "president for life." The level of disinformation was even greater in Venezuela as the opposition, possibly aided by the Orwellian named, and US funded, National Endowment for Democracy, spread unsubstantiated rumors that the referendum abolished private property and would allow Chavez take people's children. At face value, much of this doesn't make sense--since when do dictators have to resort to public referendums to expand their power? And if they do, why would they allow public dissemination of information against the referendum, particularly false information? Such subtleties seem to be lost among the mainstream American press.

The reality is much more complex. The more substantive changes in the constitutional granted more rights to indigenous peoples, protected women and homosexuals from discrimination, shortened the work week, provided for an expanded social safety net, and protected communal property. It is these latter changes which make the proposal so threatening to the US, not the whole "dictator thing." Chavez is offering an alternative model for economic development that is at odds with the US dominated neo-liberal order--and the Bush Administration simply can't have that. The real problem with the referendum for Venezuelans was that it was too broad, to
complicated, and too much to grasp all at one time--in effect mobilizing anyone who opposed any one thing against the entire proposal. On a more practical level, Chavez's support for expanded presidential power is potentially dangerous, although I am less concerned about him than if he were to lose a future election to the opposition--the mechanisms of dictatorship would be dangerously close to reality (for a historical corollary look up the Bruning Administration). Of course, Venezuela was and remains a constitutional democracy, Chavez is not a dictator, and hopefully he has learned a lesson. And even more so, I hope the more redeeming aspects of the the Bolivarian revolution can continue, without unjustified and dangerous expansions of executive power.

Review: Joe Bageant, Deer Hunting with Jesus

2007-12-02T21:47:00.000-05:00

In Deer Hunting with Jesus: Dispatches from America’s Class War, Joe Bageant offers an enlightening, humorous, sad, and often scary look at the rural white working class. Ghettoized and economically oppressed in a manner that often defies widely held beliefs regarding race and class, “redneck” workers--ignorant, angry, and propagandized--have become the populist backbone of the conservative political resurgence, repeatedly voting against their own economic interests, and recreating the very causes of their anger driven, irrational political behavior.

Bageant, a journalist, former editor of Military History, and progressive populist, grew up in the working class community of Winchester, Virginia, a town of 25000 tucked between the Blue Ridge and Appalachian Mountains. He escaped what Marx referred to as the “idiocy of rural life,” thanks to the Great Society social programs, and subsequently joined the ranks of the New Left. Recently, however, Bageant returned home--to the people that "smell like an ashtray" and "praise Jesus for a truck with no spare tire." Thus, Bageant speaks with an interesting voice—he is redneck by birth, godless commie by choice. Although thematically similar to Thomas Frank’s What’s the Matter with Kansas?, it is more stylistically similar to Jim Goad's Redneck Manifesto--non-academic and more targeted to a general audience. It is largely comprised of illustrative anecdotes interwoven with witty, ironic, and sardonic commentary: exchanges between himself and his old high school buddy; run ins with locals at the Royal Lunch; and discussions with his brother, a Baptist preacher.

The picture he paints is quite bleak—that of workers who have never heard the words “class war” and therefore are desperately losing it. Economically and politically dominated by local business owners, mired in debt by unscrupulous mortgage agents, and suffering from a lack of education and health care, most of the working class residents of Winchester are beat down, frustrated, alienated. Their primary means of understanding their oppression comes from right wing talk radio, internet urban myths, and the local prayer revival---all which place the blame for their problems squarely on the shoulders of the “liberal elite.” Local business people, often Republican Party operatives, reinforce this world view—repeating Limbaugh-esque sound bites drawn from NewsMax, FrontPage, and other right wing news sources; and in a world where few people question direct authority, it may as well be from God’s mouth.

The world of Winchester is characterized by a naïve belief in the way the world should be, with an irrational hatred of anyone that might want to actually bring that world about. Bageant comes across an old school mate who is convinced that revenue from “Support the Troops” magnets (probably made in China) actually goes to the troops—because why else would they make them? Bageant’s best buddy from high school has totally internalized the sound-bite defense of the American Empire, an Empire that offered him up as canon fodder in Vietnam and constantly threatens to outsource his job at Rubbermaid because American labor is too expensive. A lot of it simply comes down to symbolism—or what Bageant refers to as the American hologram—the blue collar denizens of Winchester would rather vote for a candidate that implores the public to “support the troops” and pretends to cut brush in his free time than a candidate that actually went to Vietnam and pretends to wind surf.

What is to be done? Bageant offers few specific prescriptions, his case is largely implied. The key difference between Bageant and “his people” is that he left and got an education. As Bageant argues, widespread access to quality education has a liberalizing effect upon society, and the post-integration withdrawal of many whites from the public school system has been to the detriment of both. The erosion of support for public schools and the rising expense of higher education have produced a new generation of under educated individuals, happily unable to sort fact from fiction—anti-intellectual in thought and practice. Moreover, the development of Christian academies and homeschooling has produced a new generation of highly indoctrinated individuals—convinced that the world was created in seven days and the rapture is nigh with the political goal of recreating a Christian Republic that never was. And of course, the Republicans have eagerly played into this—seeking to hasten the breakdown of the public education system and thus reproducing cohorts of ignorant and pliable workers for generations to come. The Left must work to reverse these trends through the aggressive defense of our public education system and resist attempts to privatize schooling through vouchers or other machinations of the tax code. Additionally, making college education more affordable to the working class is imperative.

The Left also needs to get “right” with the Second Amendment. As Bageant correctly points out, during the heyday of New Deal liberalism, being a Democrat and a gun owner were perfectly consistent, today, not so much. Few issues have been more cleverly manipulated by the Republicans than gun ownership. The beauty is that the solution is very simple—support the right to bear arms—the Black Panthers did, if that helps. Additionally, the Left needs to pressure the Democrats to be more aggressive in supporting class based legislation—protecting Social Security and establishing a real National Health Care Plan.

Alone, none of this will make much of a difference, because through the American hologram, all of these things will become distorted beyond repair. The only way to counteract this eventuality is if the Left and the Democrats step out of their comfort zone and talk to these people. Few people in Winchester know a real live liberal, much less a “red,” therefore mischaracterizations and stereotypes are easily held and reinforced. Rather than talking down to Evangelical Christians and redneck labor, it is time to learn to change our own oil and maybe change a few minds.

Make no bones about it, at times, this book can be tough to read. As someone who shares Bageant’s political sensibilities and certain aspects of his background (I can’t honestly state that I grew up a redneck, but my extended family is from rural Indiana, and the world of Winchester is not outside my experience), I am sensitive to terms like “white trash,” “hick,” and “redneck” as class based put-downs. I have as little use for middle class whites who mock lower class whites as I do for racism, and more than a few times Bageant’s mockery of “his people” rubbed me raw. But as I read, the more I realized there is a method to his madness. Bageant challenges us to rethink an implied assumption of many on the Left—that the white working class should be written off. Although it may very well be true that the remaking of the American working class is causing the rural white working class to be less significant numerically, the reality is that the white working class will remain a substantive part of American society for the foreseeable future and, in the worst case scenario, could serve as the shock troops of a fascist America—a looming possibility as oil prices threaten to undermine American living standards and the US becomes more dependent on the military to prop up its ailing domestic economy and to enforce its will overseas.

On Libertarianism and Ron Paul

2007-11-19T23:46:00.001-05:00

One of the interesting developments of this election season is the candidacy of Ron Paul. The Texas congressman has run a successful, internet based, campaign that has kept him in the Republican race, despite being a "maverick" within the party. What I have found interesting is how many young people seem to gravitate towards Paul. His "libertarian" message, which emphasizes personal freedom and responsibility, a strict interpretation of the constitution, his opposition to the Patriot Act, and his anti-Iraq War voting record seem to connect with politically minded young people.

We live in strange times--and times which are obviously political disorienting. Although I am not one squelch youthful exuberance when it comes to politics, I find Paul's "libertarianism" to be hardly liberating. It seems that the biggest attraction to Paul is the spirit which exudes from his positions--he believes that there is something special in the United States political system, something that has been corrupted by current politics, and he has taken relatively principled stands against an unpopular war and controversial legislation (primarily the Patriot Act). These are positions in which I am in basic agreement. That he is taking such stands as a Republican, makes him even more intriguing.

I find many problems with his positions as well. Clearly, Paul is closely entangled with the religious right--which is curious for a constitutional libertarian. He supports the notion of prayer in schools believing that the federal government doesn't have the right to speak on the issue--something which I find puzzling as the prevention of government sanctioned school prayer in public schools is a significant curtailment of government power. He is also pro-life believing that that the federal government doesn't have the right to find abortion laws illegal--which is also curious--since Roe v. Wade is premised on the right to personal privacy--something I would think a libertarian would support.

It seems to me that Paul's libertarianism, even accepting his limited definition of the term at face value, is highly selective. Most of his positions are not about shrinking government, but seem to be about moving authority out of the hands of the federal government to the states (shrinking one form of government and enlarging another) or into the hands of the private and unaccountable bureaucracies we call corporations. He is a libertarian when it comes to cutting welfare and education, a proponent of big government (even if it is the state government) when it comes to preventing women's right to choose and promoting religion and a proponent of the private tyranny of the corporation.

What is very clear is that the word "libertarian" in the American political context does not mean the same thing it means in most other parts of the world. Historically and worldwide, libertarianism has been almost synonymous with various strains of anarchism--an anti-capitalist ideology which believes that all sources of social authority must be challenged--including the notion that the government has the right to use the legal code to create and protect private property. The libertarian left has a strong tradition in the United States--including the multitude of 19th century utopian communities that dotted the American countryside, the IWW, Emma Goldman, Rudolf Rocker, various New Left organizations and utopian experiments in the 1960s, Noam Chomsky, Anti-Racist Action, Food Not Bombs, housing collectives and worker collectives, various anarcho-punk and experimental squatter communities, and, most recently, Michael Albert's "Parecon." But even with all this, somehow, "libertarian" has come to mean supporting corporate capitalism and entangling the government with religion--only in America!

By the same token, Ron Paul is right--there is something special about the United States--but it isn't the thing that he sees--it is the long tradition of libertarian and anarcho-socialist thought and action that has always tried to enhance personal freedom, equality, and challenge both the private and public tyrannies of big government capitalism.

So all you big government capitalists, beware of anarchists who vote!

Frustrations of a Bengals Fan

2007-11-19T14:25:00.002-05:00

My patience is running thin. I grew up in a black and orange household and have bled black and orange all my life. My Dad has been a Bengal season ticket-holder since 1970 (I was 2 at the time). Some of my earliest memories are of the strong Bengals teams in the mid-70s, I went to SuperBowl XVI and have suffered through the great nightmare that was the ‘90s and now to our recent period. I’ll never “give up” on the Bengals so long as they stay in Cincy, but it is getting frustrating. Adding insult to injury, I currently live in Pittsburgh, and having to regularly answer “What’s wrong with your Bungles?” while the Steelers put up competitive teams routinely is incredibly annoying.

Clearly, the 11-5 2005 season fooled Bengaldom into believing that the Lewis/Palmer era was on the cusp of bringing us a string of playoff appearances and possibly a Super Bowl. In reality, they have brought us “back” to mediocrity—which is better than being atrocious, but not much. A few observations ---

I don’t know if it is a fair comparison, but I find it amazing that the Steelers can continuously put up good teams while the Bengals cannot. How is Dick Lebeau a genius in Pittsburgh, but a loser in Cincinnati? Other than “tradition,” Pittsburgh has no natural advantage over Cincy---Pittsburgh is a comparable “medium market” city, the Rooney’s are tightwads and unsentimental, which makes them difficult to play for (just ask Joey Porter and Alan Faneca), and, like the Bengals, they build almost exclusively through the draft.

Part of it can be blamed on Lewis—Lewis may very well be overrated as a coach. But I don’t blame him that much—simply because he had almost nothing to work with defensively when he arrived—go back and look at our 2003 roster—it is disturbing at a couple of levels—primarily because, with the exception of Justin Smith and Brian Simmons, there aren’t too many guys that are still in the NFL much less Bengals—meaning he had less than nothing to work with, and this after several years of drafting under the “defensive genius” of Dick Lebeau. Thankfully, the defense in four years has totally turned over, however, it is obviously going to be several more years before we see any results. There is hope in Joseph, Hall, Brooks, Johnson, Geathers, Ndukwe and a few others—but we are still disturbingly thin.

The biggest difference is in talent scouting, recruitment, and retention—which I blame primarily on Mike Brown. Part of it is culture—the Steelers have a winning culture and attitude, which is easy when you win, but it feeds on itself—the Bengals have just the opposite. The more tangible difference is the Steelers’ ability to draft intelligently, keep those players on the team, and build around them. If you look at the past 8-9 years draft picks for the Bengals and Steelers, the difference becomes quite stark—with the exception of the 2001 and 2003 draft, the Bengals have really struggled to have impact drafts (meaning drafting players that quickly establish themselves as top grade starters) and to keep the players that make the impact. Arguably, our best impact defensive draft in recent memory was 9 years ago (Spikes, Simmons, Hawkins), for a team that “builds around the draft,” that is inexcusable.

Some of it I am willing to write off as bad luck—who can predict season ending injuries? Obviously not the Bengals--but “bad luck” isn’t really a good excuse either—although you can’t totally predict injuries, you can avoid picking players that are injury prone or don’t have the physiques or work out regimen to take NFL pounding—at least it seems like other teams are able to with some certainty. The point being that the Bengals are simply terrible at evaluating talent and constructing a long term draft plan. I have thought about whether the Bengals should offer up one of their big name offensive guys for draft picks, however, I am not convinced it would do much good.

A prescription for 2008--

The Draft--
Believe it or not, the Bengals should prioritize offense next year in the draft. I would like to see us use two of our first three picks on offense. Our first picks should comprise an offensive tackle, a skilled offensive player (TE, WR, RB), and a defensive lineman. As long as Palmer is vertical and has weapons, we have a shot. In later round picks, look to pick up some linebackers, pass rushing specialists, and perhaps a couple more skilled offensive players depending on what is available. As bad as the Bengals defense is, it will get better with our crop of young defensive backs--we need a front seven that can stop the run and put pressure on the QB.

The Coaching--
It is time for a new Defensive Coordinator. We have to change something at the top and I think that is a logical place to start. I would like to see us go outside the organization and recruit a young and hungry coach that will shake things up.

The Team--
Both offensively and defensively, the Bengals needs to learn to control a football game. The offense is the most capable of this and therefore, I am putting more pressure on them to do so. I'd like to see the Bengals move to RBBC arrangement and more of a spread offense consisting of ball control passing. In order to do this, we will need some pass catching RBs (hopefully Irons will be back) and a second possession receiver akin to Houshmandzadah (hence the draft priority). We also need to establish a running game (hence the linemen in the draft).

The Bengals have a decent core--but it is still going to be a couple years before this ship gets turned around. I just hope that we can hold onto Palmer, Housh, and Ocho Cinco long enough to give them a team worth being on.

David Bromberg at the Rex

2007-11-19T08:47:00.001-05:00

If you have to suffer to play the blues, then David Bromberg must have been hog-tied and beaten for the better part of his life. On Friday at the Rex Theater, he turned in one of the best live shows I have seen in a long time. Playing a mixture of blues, folk, and bluegrass, the mercurial Bromberg demonstrated why his reputation as a "musician's musician" is well founded while at the same time reminding me of why I love live music. Bromberg, perhaps better known for who he has played with (Jerry Garcia, Bob Dylan, George Harrison, Vassar Clements, Willie Nelson, The Eagles, Phoebe Snow, John Prine to name a few) than for his own material, has just released his first studio album in 17 years and is currently touring, mixing in some new blues and some old classics.

Bromberg emerged in the 1970s as a heralded studio musician--a fantastic guitar player, he is also proficient on the fiddle, dobro, and mandolin. After releasing several albums, either solo or with his Quartet, Bromberg "hung it up" in the 1980s (didn't we all?), touring rarely throughout the late '80s and '90s. In the past few years, however, Bromberg has reemerged, touring with his quartet and with his wife's vocal trio, the Angel Band--and I am glad he did.

The Angel Band (Jen Schonwald, Nancy Josephson, and Kathleen Weber) opened and I was immediately blown away--"When I Sing this Song" was a bouncy bluegrass number that set the tone for the evening. I was particularly impressed by Weber. The youngest of the trio, Weber's soulful voice was more reminiscent of Etta James than that "high lonesome sound" of bluegrass, and she brought down the house on "Fountain of Good," a bluesy number that showcased her vocal range and power.

Bromberg followed with this band featuring Jeff Wisor (fiddle, mandolin), Bobby Tangrea (guitar, mandolin, fiddle) and Butch Amiot (bass). Possibly the best "song" was the three-way fiddle showdown between Bromberg, Wisor, and Tangrea. Beyond that, he mixed in some of his older classics with a few new blues numbers off his is recent album. "Big Road Blues" was particularly good. Bromberg brought back the Angel Band for a few songs at the end of the set, most notably "Sharon," which simply rocked. Bromberg's unique voice and witty lyrics are truly best appreciated live, as he has an incredible ability to make his songs "come alive" through his storytelling, expressions, and his amazing guitar work.

I am glad that Bromberg is back and I suspect you may see a few more reviews of Bromberg shows because if it gets anywhere near Pittsburgh, I'll be part of that "the same rowdy crowd that was here last night" and "is back again."

On the turntable--Robert Plant/Alison Kraus, Raising Sand

2007-11-10T10:44:00.001-05:00

I heard about this little gem from a fellow Led Zeppelin aficionado
and since I am also an Alison Kraus fan, I had to run out and get it. Raising Sand is an interesting "duet album" between one of the greatest rock voices and one of the sweetest folk voices in the business. The songs are a collection of lesser known covers from well known song writers of the blues, rockabilly, and country genres including Mel Tillis, Dorothy Labostrie, Tom Waits, Allen Toussaint, Sam Phillips and Doc Watson.

The arrangements (produced by T-Bone Burnett) have a "wall of sound" feel--with syrupy slide guitar backed by a deeply reverbed, yet austere, rhythm section. Most songs have a pleasant folky--almost jug band--sound, not as bluegrassy as I anticipated, but you can almost picture them sitting on the front porch strumming the six string, plucking the banjo, playing the fiddle, and beating away on old paint cans. The works that stand out our those where the harmonies between Plant and Kraus are the centerpiece of the song. In particular, Roland Salley's (of Chris Isaak's band) "Killing the Blues," Phil and Don Everly's "Gone, Gone, Gone," and the haunting "Polly Come Home Again, " by Gene Clark of the Byrds. The CD also has an interesting remake of Page/Plant's "Please Read the Letter," from their Clarksdale collaboration. I like this version better. Kraus also shines on a rockin' version of "Little Milton" Campbell's "Let Your Loss Be Your Lesson."

The album doesn't feature a lot of heavy guitar work, although Marc Ribot does a very good job when called upon, particularly on the Kashmir-esque arrangement of Townes Van Zandt's "Nothin." The musical appeal of the album is more in the subtleties of the arrangements and the production value. If I didn't already have it, it would certainly be on my Christmas list, so I highly recommend it as a stocking stuffer for your favorite Plant or Kraus fan.

Paolo Nutini at Mr. Smalls

2007-10-12T15:21:00.000-04:00

I had the good fortune of catching Paolo Nutini at Mr. Smalls on Monday. It was the first time I had been to Mr. Smalls and it was worth the trek out the North Hills. It is a nice little venue with cheap drinks, good size stage, and decent acoustics. This concert attracted about 500 people which I'd say is about right for the place.

Nutini is relatively new Scottish singer songwriter that I just happened to catch on WYEP several months ago. He is only twenty years old, but writes surprisingly lyrically sophisticated songs with catchy melodies. His music has a pop-folk sound with some rock-n-roll influence. His songs "New Shoes" and "Last Request" have gotten some airplay and have been featured as background music on television shows and in movies. Along with Nutini, Indiana native Jon Mclaughlin, and Canadian Serena Ryder were featured on the bill.

Ryder opened the show, playing only acoustic guitar with no backup. Her soulful and powerful voice was more than adequate to fill the room and she proved herself to be a more than competent songwriter. "Brand New Day" featured her lyrical ability and was my favorite song. Jon Mclaughlin was a more in the vein of a young Elton John--featuring driving keyboards mixed with a melodic rock sound. Mclaughlin's "Beautiful Disaster," which I had heard before, but just not sure where, was his highlight song.

Nutini played for a little over an hour with a three piece backup band, featuring songs from his latest full length release, "These Streets." The first thing I noticed is that his voice is very different in person than it is on the LP. It is much more soulful and "dirty"--but also with a hint of a Scottish accent--things that did not come through on the studio mix. After I got used to the different voice, I actually liked it better and wondered why the producer altered it so much. In addition to his entire album, Nutini also worked in interesting covers of Moby's "Natural Blues," Bo Diddley's "Can't Judge a Book," and Nilsson's "Everybody's Talkin'," which reflected the many influences upon his music. Overall it is a solid show at every level.

Why I like John Mellencamp

2007-10-08T15:13:00.000-04:00

I almost never see music videos anymore. Honestly, I am not even sure where to look for videos . I don’t believe they show them much on MTV, I am sure they show them someplace, but I guess I am not really that interested. Recently, I happened upon John Mellencamp’s “Our Country” video on YouTube and viewed it and thought it was a very nice video. It also reminded me of how much I like John Mellencamp.

I had the good fortune to attend Indiana University during the late 1980s and early 1990s, during Mellencamp’s heyday as a popular rock and roll singer. Living in Bloomington was always quite exciting because of Mellencamp, he gave many free concerts, would occasionally jam at local pubs with his good friend Lou Reed, and could be seen from time to time around town. I had the luck to meet his drummer and guitar player, Kenny Aronoff and Mike Wanchic, a couple of times, which was exciting for a young aspiring musician. And my greatest moment was during a gig (I was in an acoustic duo) Larry Crane, JCM’s lead guitarist, got up on stage and sat-in with us—we played “Midnight Rider” and “Independence Day” (one of Crane’s solo songs)—it was great.

Being someone with a developing social conscience and lefty political views, I found Mellencamp to be quite pleasing to my political sensibilities in addition to simply liking his music. Although rural Indiana has a reputation for being a bastion of reactionary politics, JCM has consciously tried to change that image. As my family is from rural Indiana, I am well versed in the good and the bad of Hoosier social views, and I always felt that Mellencamp’s songs always stayed true to his rural roots, while at the same time representing the best of rural populism. Classics like “Scarecrow” could have been very easily written about my family, “Little Pink Houses” is a brilliant, yet subtle critique of the American Dream, and “Jackie Brown” is a beautifully tragic comment on rural poverty. His work with progressive populist Willie Nelson on the Farm Aid concerts cemented his place as one of the great politically minded musicians of our era.

When Mellencamp released “Our Country,” I was slightly dismayed because it was immediately sold to Chevrolet for use on their commercial. Although it was clear that the song was a patriotic protest song in the vein of “This Land is our Land,” that JCM had apparently “sold out” was frustrating. I saw him interviewed on the subject and his explanation was understandable—that in today’s music industry, where radio/cable/digital music is all so programmed, it can be difficult for even established artists to get their music out to new audiences, hence the sale of the song to a commercial enterprise. Sadly, JCM’s analysis is correct. As a self-aware music consumer, I often have trouble finding music that I like and am still stumbling upon artists that have been around for years but somehow have been off my radar because there are so few avenues for them to tap new audiences. The fortunate position of Mellencamp is that he can use the commercial nature of our society to promote a song which reflects values that are at odds with that very same commercialism. I suppose it is the luxury of being famous. Having recently watched the video for the first time, it only reaffirmed my appreciation for the song, in spite of its “commercialism.”

More recently, Mellencamp has released “Jena,” a lament about racism in American society. The song reminds us that racism is still very much a part of American society, but only because we let it be. As with many of Mellencamp’s political songs, the subject is sad, but moral is one of hope. Not surprisingly, the Mayor of Jena has criticized the song as being “inflammatory”—as if trumped up charges and racial double standards aren’t inflammatory. I was glad to see Mellencamp still willing to mix-it-up and keep it relevant—and it might make him some money in the process.

Two Minutes of Hate

2007-09-25T12:57:00.000-04:00

As the debate about the war in Iraq limps along and as the mission seems even less accomplisheder than it did three years ago, all eyes of have turned to Columbia University, where fanatic, jew-hater, and terrorist extraordinaire, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave a speech at the request of the University as part of their "World Leaders" forum. In his opening remarks, University President Lee Bollinger, ultimately responsible for inviting Ahmadinejad, took the tough-minded position of opposing cruel dictators (Ahmadinejad was elected, but that is beside the point) and made it clear that he didn't care for Ahmadinejad--not one bit (you are off the hook, Lee!).

So what is Ahmadinejad's crime? Well he's from Iran which is an Arab country (oops no it isn't, they are Persian)--well, he was good friends with Saddam Hussein (oops, Iran was one of Hussein's victims and its most bitter enemy), well at least all the hijackers of Sept. 11 were Shia Muslims (oops, they were Sunnis and hate Shias almost as much as the American infidels). But hey, he has nuclear weapons, right? (not according to IAEA inspectors, but what do they know about weapons of mass destruction anyway?) Well at least it's true that the US has officially hated Iran since the 1979 hostage crisis (except for the whole Iran-Contra thing, but we'll just pretend like that didn't happen.)

This is not to say that there aren't many legitimate reasons to dislike Ahmadinejad--there are. He definitely panders to the right wing extremists of his own country and the Arab world, his theocratic government is repressive to women and homosexuals, and Iran is hardly a bastion of free thought. Of course the US may have had something to do with this (remember the cruel dictator known as the Shah? Where were all the University Presidents then?), but again that is water under the bridge. Making things worse, he is prone to making bombastic statements on controversial subjects, which make him regular cannon fodder for the American news media. Everyone already knows that they are supposed to hate him, so it is a lot easier to hate him on cue. So why is it necessary to hate him for reasons that don't make sense when their are so many reasons that do?

It gets to the complexities of American political culture and the need to populate the world with "mad men" who "must be stopped." The American intellegentia's united crescendo of moral outrage and denunciations of Ahmadinejad could not have been scripted better by a Russian Comissar during Stalin's heydey. Lee Bollinger, NY State assemblymen, NYC city council members, all taking "courageous" moral stands against Ahmadinejad because he said that he wanted to "wipe Israel off the map" (he didn't) and because his visit is an affront to the victims of 9/11 (huh?) makes one wonder about America's intellectual culture. It is the exact same mentality that got us into war in Iraq--the 9/11 hijackers are from the Middle East, Iraq is a country in the Middle East.....enough said.

Which, of course, is the point--the US has been grasping for reasons to attack Iran for over a year now. And as the situation in Iraq continues to raise questions among the American public, as US depends more on more on mercenery and unaccountable contractors, as the Taliban continues to regenerate in Afghanistan, and Pakistan becomes further destabilized by the war next door, there has to be a solution--find a new enemy, a new "Hitler," a new country to bomb, and just in time for the elections.

Spy vs. Spy in the NFL

2007-09-17T11:04:00.001-04:00

The most recent controversy in athletics is the accusation of cheating against the New England Patriots. According to the NFL, the New England Patriots used spies to video tape the New York Jets’ signals during their September 9th football game. The Pats used the tape to steal the Jets’ play-calls and thus provide an unfair advantage to themselves. Apparently, after years of complaints against the Pats, the NFL’s crack team of investigators pretty much caught the Patriots red-handed, took their tapes and confirmed that the illegal act occurred. Additionally, former foes have suggested that the Patriots may also have used non-NFL radio frequencies during the game, interfered with opponents’ radio transmissions, sent spies into opposing teams’ locker rooms to acquire information, and used other forms of technological espionage. And yes, I am still talking about football, not the overthrow of a small third world government.

So when did the NFL become a game of spy vs. spy? It may be true that, as George Orwell once said, athletics is simply warfare without the bullets and such activity is a logical extension of this axiom. This may be particularly true for football. As my other favorite George (Carlin) humorously reminds us, the lexicon of football is pretty warlike-- QBs are field generals who avoid the blitz by using a shotgun to pepper defenses and throw bombs, the whole game revolves around ground acquisition and is ultimately won in the trenches, occasionally ending in “sudden death”-- as opposed to “pastimes” like baseball where the object is simply to be “safe at home." Maybe I’m just getting old, but seems to have gotten worse in recent years. Part of it is the advance of technology, with computer printouts, immediate ability to crunch data, digital photography and film, plus the ability transmit this information quickly and accurately. It seems like more and more of the game strategy occurs away from the field than on it. The other reason is the “win at all costs” attitude which so prevalent in our society, which professional sports has come to epitomize. This perspective is so prevalent that the prospect of a “forfeit” for cheating was never seriously discussed, as presumably, to enforce a loss on a team for cheating in a game is too severe to be even considered. In other words, to punish a winner by making them a loser apparently sends the wrong message. The worst thing that the NFL considered was a suspension of Coach Belichik. In actuality, the NFL fined Belichick and the Patriots and deprived them of a yet to be determined number of draft picks. Only the latter of the sanctions will have any impact on the team, and that impact will be impossible to measure and won’t be felt, if at all, for years to come.

I have never considered myself a Luddite or put much stock in past “Golden Ages” but I have to admit that this controversy has waxing nostalgic for the halcyon days of old. Isn’t the best way to analyze the opponent’s defense by sending a 230lb fullback up the middle and see who has fortitude to stop him? What is wrong with communicating with players and other coaches the old fashioned way, by yelling at them? What happened to sending in plays with messenger guards or through ridiculous looking hand signals on the sideline? I don’t have a problem with pre-game preparation, studying the opposition for tendencies and formations, but once the game starts all that should go out the window and the game should be decided on the field. If it was good enough for Vince Lombardi, it should be good enough for “geniuses” like Bill Belichik.

Therefore I propose these 10 changes in the NFL rules—

1. All coaches must be on the designated sideline for their team for the duration of the game (no coaches “in the booth”)
2. The NFL (and only the NFL) will film all games and those films will be provided to teams upon request (and of course with the express written consent of the NFL) when preparing for a future game, but the film will digitally edited, removing sideline communications
3. No transmitters/radio receivers of any kind on the sideline or in a helmet
4. There will be special officials designated to police the above rules. If teams are caught cheating, they lose the game and all statistics from the cheating team for that game are zeroed

—and while I’m at it--

5. No games on Astroturf or in a dome
6. No more challenging bad calls—bad calls are a part of the game, get used to it
7. Superbowls rotate so every city gets a chance to host (yes, even if it snows and is thirty below)
8. Put everyone in leather helmets and leather pads (should actually reduce injuries as players won’t be able to use their head as a weapon)
9. Bring back the drop kick
10. Each team has to have a player named “Bronco,” “Night Train,” or “Crazy Legs”—this player must play both offense and defense

Are you ready for some football?

The Vietnam Syndrome and the Re-"Righting" of History

2007-09-07T15:21:00.000-04:00

On Wednesday Aug. 22, in a speech before the Veterans of Foreign Wars, President Bush specifically drew parallels between Vietnam and Iraq, arguing that this was a good thing and America should firm its resolve in Iraq. This was a fascinating and flabbergasting statement. After years of deflecting Iraq and Vietnam comparisons because of the negative connotation, the Bush administration has embraced the comparison. This essay will offer some thoughts on why the Bush administration would do this and conclude my series of articles on the comparison between the wars.

At the heart of the issue is this thing called the "Vietnam Syndrome." In the wake of America's smashing victory over Iraq in 1991, George "Papa" Bush stated that the US had finally "kicked the Vietnam Syndrome once and for all." So what is this "Vietnam Syndrome" that was so important to kick? To put it succinctly, it is the reluctance of the American public to accept facile and dubious justifications for invading another country, particularly when the goals of the war are unclear and open ended. This perfectly logical reluctance, which has a long history in the US that predates Vietnam, has been reduced to a "syndrome"--an irrational psychological condition caused by America's inability to subdue Vietnam. The US government has gone to great extents to break the American public of this syndrome. Namely, by eagerly searching for "madmen" who are militarily vulnerable and that the US can easily overthrow and thus reassure the American public that every time we invade another country, it won't turn into a quagmire, and that there are an endless amount of dictators which deserve the business end of a stinger missile. In practice what this has meant is the US has taken to picking on virtually defenseless countries, hoping to compile a series of "quick and easy wins" so Vietnam seems like a distant memory. The invasion of Grenada and Panama are case in point.

Bush Sr.'s Iraq gambit was the first major military operation that entailed some risk since Vietnam. Hussein did have a sizable conventional army, nothing that the international coalition created to stop him should not have easily handled, but it looked good on paper. Did the first Gulf War then prove that the Vietnam Syndrome was dead? Hardly. Although support for the war was high for the brief period of combat, anti-war protests emerged pre-invasion--something almost unheard of in the annals of anti-war protests. Moreover, the limited nature of the war and that Bush could not capitalize politically upon the conflict suggest that support for a prolonged war was thin, and the Bush administration knew it.

Fast forward to 2003. In the wake of Sept. 11, the predictable rage militaire allowed the Bush Administration redux to "finish the job" that public and international opinion prevented Papa Bush from completing. Similarly, protests emerged pre-invasion, not just in the US but around the globe. The thin public support for the war has definitely affected war strategy and the rhetoric surrounding the war. The Bush Administration has tried to keep troop levels low, resisted any talk of a draft, and has tried to create the impression that this war is a genuine international effort (any examination of troop levels and casualty levels should dissuade anyone of this notion). Additionally, the Bush Administration has been in the uncomfortable position of reminding us that we are making progress ("mission accomplished" and "the surge is working") while also making sure that the public knows that the mission isn't really accomplished or that the surge isn't working sufficiently to withdraw. Again, the Vietnam Syndrome is with us.

Thus, Bush's attempt to reframe the Vietnam War and to rewrite history to serve current political ends. Although much has been written on Bush's historical myopia, there are points that are worth highlighting. Central to Bush's argument is that the US withdraw from Vietnam produced a humanitarian disaster in South East Asia (the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge and Vietnamese boat people); and the subsequent decline of US credibility allowing for later humiliations including the Iran hostage crisis. It is a classic example of the "correlation/causation fallacy," common among people who either don't know history, or among propagandists trying to use history to their own ends. The correlation/causation fallacy is basically that if the rooster crows at 5:30 and the sun comes up at 5:40, the rooster caused the sun to come up. Bush's fallacy goes much deeper, however, as the humanitarian disaster in SE Asia predates the US withdraw and was directly a result of US intervention. US carpet bombing of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos produced directly and indirectly millions of deaths, facilitated the rise of the Khmer Rouge, and prevented a non-military solution to the conflict in Vietnam. That the killing didn't stop after the US withdraw somehow proves that the US should not have withdrawn, belies basic logic, much less an understanding of cause and effect. In Vietnam, there was no "communist blood bath" that had been predicted (this is not to say that the Vietnamese communists did not engage in human rights violations, but there was no mass slaughter)--the blood bath that did occur was in Cambodia, a blood bath that the Vietnamese tried to stop by invading Cambodia to overthrow the Khmer Rouge, while America's new friend, China, invaded Vietnam and the US offered clandestine and indirect support to China's new ally, the Khmer Rouge, as a way to put Vietnam "in its place." Genocide sure makes strange bedfellows--but such facts are reserved to the memory hole.

Thus we return again to America's credibility in the world. That the respect the US earned following the liberation of Europe from Nazism and SE Asia from Japanese militarism has run out in a series of foreign policy blunders and imperial power grabs, this is the fault of the "Vietnam Syndrome?" Of left-wingers and peacenicks? Hardly. All I can say is I hope the American public remains insane enough to question every war and every leader that would drag us into one.

Iraq, Vietnam, and the New World Order

2007-08-28T11:41:00.000-04:00

This is the second in my series comparing the Vietnam War and the Iraqi War. The first explored the situation on the ground in both countries, this essay will deal with the situation in the United States and the reasons for the respective invasions.

Although the situation "on the ground" in Iraq and in Vietnam were significantly different, the reasons and events surrounding the respective invasions share some similarities, but are also dramatically divergent. The US invasion of Vietnam was largely the product of a Cold War ideology that required the United States to fight communism wherever it threatened to spread. The "domino theory," which argued that if Vietnam fell, communism would spread through Asia, the Middle East, and eventually Fidel Castro would be dating your sister, required the United States to stop the first domino. In the case of Iraq, the invasion is symptomatic of a lack of ideological coherence to US foreign policy in the post-Cold War period. At the root of the problem is the US government's desire to assert itself as the only country that can legitimately use force in the world, while at the same time securing resources crucial to the geopolitical/geo-economic landscape--but to do so in terms acceptable to the US public.

Vietnam was the product of the commitment to stop the spread of communism, a commitment so unquestioned that any independent nationalist movement, communist or not, was perceived as a Soviet plot. The operational question was always "How best do we fight communism?" The US adopted a number of strategies--go through the UN (Korea), use the CIA and proxy forces (Guatemala, Iran, Chile), or use the nuclear threat (Cuba). It was the failure of all three of these strategies that eventually led to the US invasion of Vietnam. Vietnam had no resources of particular importance to the United States, it isn't located in a particularly strategic part of the world, but the US commitment came to stand for the greater US commitment to stop the spread of communism. The tunnel vision that US policy planners adopted prevented peaceful solutions to the conflict in 1946, 1954, and 1963. At every juncture, the United States chose to "turn up the heat" on the people of Vietnam while continuing to support undemocratic forces within the country rather than allowing free and internationally monitored elections (which would assuredly produced a victory for the immensely popular Ho Chi Minh.) By 1968, the United States found itself "waist deep in the big muddy"---in a bloody and brutal war it could not win against a weaker enemy that would not give up.

If Vietnam was a product of the tunnel vision of the Cold War, Iraq is a product of the US attempt to reformulate US foreign policy in a different manner, but along similar lines, and with predictable outcomes. As the Cold War came to a close, the US policy makers tried to find a new ideological security blanket to wrap themselves in. It was Ronald Reagan who first announced the "War on Terror" and used it as a justification for the state directed international terrorism against Nicaragua (a crime for which the US stands as the only country in the world convicted for international terrorism by the ICJ). George Bush subsequently announced the "War on Drugs" which became his justification for the invasion of Panama to arrest Manuel Noriega (a former CIA operative who help fund the Pentagon's Latin American terror operations through the sale of drugs, some of this while Bush was head of the CIA). On the heals of Panama, Saddam Hussein invaded its much weaker neighbor to the south, Kuwait, and all of a sudden the United States declared that it believes that powerful nations shouldn't bully weaker ones (a major revelation)--and thus Gulf War I and the United States' 16 year struggle to subdue Iraq.

Of course, Iraq does have resources which are important to the United States and the world economy, therefore, US (rather US and European based multinational corporations) access to this oil is a major factor in the war. The other root cause is less obvious, but possibly more important. The "failing" of the first Gulf War was largely a derivative of the international (UN led) coalition's interests in turning back Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. The northern imperial powers (Russia, France, England and to a lesser extent the US) could not tolerate independent and aggressive nationalists like Hussein, but they also wanted to keep Hussein in power (just weakened) so oil could continue to flow and a relative stability would exist in the region under the auspices of no-fly zones and an international military force. The neo-conservative vision, however, has no tolerance for internationally brokered agreements of this sort. There is only one country that can and should use force in the world, and that is the United States--and the United States does not subordinate itself to the "international community" or the UN. This is the real significance of the US invasion of Iraq--to remind the UN (and our "allies") who is boss. Although Rumsfeld argued that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a "humanitarian war" (Stalin just cringed) in reality it was a lesson in realpolitik--in the New World Order, the New World gives the orders.

Since September 11th, 2001, America's attempt to assert itself militarily and to secure Iraq as a dependable source of oil has been justified as a necessary battle in the new "War on Terror." Much of the logic is similar to the "domino theory." If we don't fight them in Iraq, we will fight them here, and the WMD facade is very similar to the Gulf of Tonkin deception, which provided the initial justification for invasion. The logic is equally dubious now as it was then, but the Bush Administration has gotten enough traction that a significant portion of the electorate accepts the war (Iraq is unusual in that there were protests before the 2003 invasion but obviously popular outcry was not sufficient to stop it) thus he has not been politically compelled to alter the course of the war dramatically. However, just as Vietnam did serious damage to the Cold War ideology, I suspect the Iraq War is undermining the neo-con's long term ideological project--but only the future will tell.

Certainly, it is this new "tunnel vision" which has placed the United States in the current mess it is in. Again, the US has had numerous opportunities to bring about peaceful resolutions to the conflict, to scale down its troop presence and to support indigenous democratic movements in Iraq--we have foregone those and instead have slowly bled Iraq through an invasion, sanctions, bombings, more sanctions, a second invasion, and an occupation. Most recently, the US has even taken to arming former Ba'athist militias (if only they had strong man who could take the reigns!). And just as in Vietnam, it is the people of Iraq who are paying the true price. Now, we being told that the "credibility" of the United States is at stake. Our credibility to do what? To invade a country and slowly bleed its population for over a decade for the sake of oil and our position vis-a-vis other lesser powers?

There is no doubt that Vietnam and Iraq have hurt US credibility in the world, but not in the way our political leadership would have us believe.

How similar are Iraq and Vietnam?

2007-08-24T19:05:00.000-04:00

In a very interesting rhetorical move, President Bush recently invoked Vietnam and its legacy as a reason for the United States to stay in Iraq. Of course, comparing Iraq and

Vietnam

isn’t all that original; critics of the war have been using the “V” word to attack Bush’s open ended military commitment to an apparent quagmire from the very beginning. The following is the first installment of a series of blog entries comparing the two conflicts and how the comparison affects the popular debate about the war in the United States.

The national crisis in Iraq and Vietnam were both the product western/imperial attempts to do what was “best” (best for the maintenance of imperial influence) for the respective people of those nations. On the ground, however, these arrangements manifested themselves in very different ways, differences which are crucial to understanding the nature of the conflicts. Although both situations are the products of their imperial legacy, the differences on the ground far outweigh the similarities.

In Vietnam, the country was artificially partitioned, first by the French, and then again after WWII by the United Nations with the support of the United States and the Soviet Union. Predictably, the struggle to unify what had been artificially divided manifested itself in the form of Vietnamese nationalism through Ho Chi Minh’s Viet Minh, and its inheritor organizations, the North Vietnamese Army and the National Liberation Front. Although there were ethnic and political differences within these organizations, the Vietnamese largely viewed the struggle as an expression of their nationalistic desire to expel the French and the Americans by overthrowing their puppet, the South Vietnamese government.

In the case of Iraq, the situation is almost exactly opposite. The country was artificially unified under one government with the support of the winners of WWI. Iraq’s government historically has been either subordinate to or heavily dependent on a foreign imperial power, whether it was the Ottomans or the English. Internally, the country has been subject to ethnic and religious tensions between Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis and has often been a pawn in geopolitical chess matches between England, France, Persia (Iran), Turkey, the Soviet Union, and the United States. The result is that the Iraq has never been a “nation” in the true sense of the word and Iraqi governments have either been grafted onto the landscape by foreign powers or have been the product of coups (often with foreign support) and ruled in spite of the population not because of it. Therefore, Iraqi nationalism barely exists and is not a significant factor in the conflict.

The absence of Iraqi nationalism makes the respective wars very different. In Vietnam, the lines between those who supported the South Vietnamese government and those who didn’t were very clear—there were two sides to the conflict, either you supported a unified Vietnam, or you didn’t. The situation in Iraq is infinitely more complicated. There is no equivalent to the NLF in Iraq. Instead there are dozens of localized militias and political groupings with conflicting agendas, many with foreign patrons, who spend as much time fighting each other as they do fighting the American occupiers. Although some of these groups support a unified Iraq, they have different visions of what “Iraq” should look like ethnically, religiously, and politically—a secular plural society, a Sunni dominated caliphate, a Shia dominated Islamic Republic, or some permutation in between. And of course, many do not support a unified Iraq, preferring ethno-religious based partitions.

In both Iraq and Vietnam, the United States has put itself in the very awkward and unenviable situation of defending a government which lacks popular support, and in both situations the United States has continued to commit troops until this government is stabilized, which could mean indefinitely. The nature of the insurgency, however, is so dramatically different that to argue Iraq is “another Vietnam” is deceptive and detrimental to understanding the situation.

On the turntable--Iron Horse, Whole Lotta Bluegrass

2007-08-16T15:41:00.000-04:00

I just picked up this interesting little piece the other day--Iron Horse's 2004 release Whole Lotta Bluegrass: A Bluegrass Tribute to Led Zeppelin. Iron Horse, a veteran bluegrass outfit based out of Muscle Shoals, Alabama, is known for its cross-genre recording and has also produced Fade to Bluegrass: A Bluegrass Tribute to Metallica, among other similar releases.

I was pleasantly pleased with the the ten song effort. I am appreciative of bluegrass, but hardly an expert on the music, and I love Led Zeppelin, so it seemed like a could fit, particularly considering Jimmy Page's assertion that rock and roll is little more than folk music with distortion and amplifiers.

All I can say is that until you've heard "gonna give you love, every inch of my love" in four-part harmony, you've never really heard it. Ironically, the best song on the CD is "Rock 'n' Roll" which makes me want to start clogging to the fiery banjo and mandolin work. Less surprising is the smooth sounding "Bron-Y-Aur Stomp," already a folksy song, which could just as easily been written in the Tennessee hills as a Welsh farmhouse. Additionally, "Ramble On" translates remarkably as a bluegrass ballad.

Other songs like "Kashmir," "Dazed and Confused," and the "Immigrant Song" don't quite come off as well and I question their presence on the album compared to some more logical acoustic Zep classics. Basically, they come off sounding pretentious--of course, they were pretentious to begin with, so I can't fault them too much.

Nevertheless, if you dig bluegrass, dig Zeppelin, or want to hear songs about characters from the Lord of the Rings in four part-harmony, this CD is for you.

On the turntable--Assembly of Dust, Recollection

2007-08-10T14:50:00.001-04:00

Assembly of Dust's third release, Recollection, weaves together clever songwriting, haunting melodies, poppy hooks, and smooth musicianship into a cohesive and infinitely listenable alt-country masterpiece. It secures Reid Genauer's reputation as a fantastic story-telling lyricist that is also able to capture the ear with sweet melodies.

Stand-out songs on the album are the gently rocking "Telling Sue" which fuses a rockabilly sound with a bluegrassy four part harmony hook; the softer, and slightly funky "Whistle Clock," Genauer's lyrical zenith on the album; and the "Bootlegger's Advice" which sound like it could have come straight off any release by Little Feat or The Band. Collectively, each song flows into one another so naturally, I have found myself listening to the album three times in a row without even realizing it.

Although the album doesn't contain much of their trademark jamming, the more polished sound does them more than justice.

For anyone who likes the alt. country or classic country rock influenced by the Grateful Dead, the Eagles, The Band, Little Feat, or CSN&Y, you should do yourself a favor and check these guys out.

Hypocrisy and Homers--Barry Bonds

2007-08-09T14:55:00.001-04:00

Barry Bonds has finally broken Hank Aaron's home run record. Without a doubt it is one of the more impressive records in baseball. But, it goes without saying that a long shadow has been cast over Barry Bonds record. As Bonds moved towards the record, he was constantly hounded by death threats, accusations of being a "cheater," and assurances that his record should not be taken seriously. All of this due to his alleged steroid use as documented by Sports Illustrated and a couple of scathing biographies (Love Me, Hate Me by Jeff Perlman and Game of Shadows by Williams and Fainaru-Wada).

Although I can't consider myself a Barry Bonds fan, I found myself repulsed by the public's and Major League Baseball's reaction to his record chase. It is one thing to heckle opponents, and it is certainly part of the game. Even to scream "Bonds you, suck," when he is arguably the best player to suit up in the past 10 years, I can tolerate. But to single out Bonds for such vituperative ire and to assert that Bonds' record shouldn't count because he used steroids is silly and hypocritical. The same fans that are booing Bonds didn't seem to have a problem rooting for Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, and any number of lesser players who, with as much certainty, (meaning that none of them, including Bonds, ever failed a drug test) used steroids. These fans didn't have any problem watching balls zing out of the park throughout the 1990s and cheering accordingly. And to argue that Barry's record isn't "fair"--what about all the records that were made before the game was racially integrated? Are they fair? What about all the World Series that were won with players on steroids? Do we take them away as well?

The reality is that steroids was an institutional problem in baseball throughout the 1990s and early 2000s and everyone who was paying attention knew it. But no one did anything. Now, all of a sudden, baseball is claiming purity and offering Barry Bonds as a sacrificial lamb to the public. It is Barry's fault, not ours. But again, such is hypocrisy.

Bonds has never been a media darling, but he has done a remarkable job of handling this bad situation with some class. So enjoy it while you can Barry.

Review: MIA: Mythmaking in America by H. Bruce Franklin

2007-08-06T14:45:00.001-04:00

I stumbled across this book while doing some research on Vietnam and found it to be fascinating. Franklin argues that the POW/MIA myth is a concoction of politicians, right-wing political activists, and hucksters who have kept the POW issue alive as an open wound and thus reframed the Vietnam War with Americans as the true victims. This myth has been kept alive by Hollywood films such as Missing in Action and Rambo and has done a disservice to Americans' attempt to understand the Vietnam War.

Having grown up in the post-Vietnam era, I was also fascinated by tales of POWs and the possibility that some may still be alive. As I got older, however, I came to suspect that this was largely a myth designed to deceive the American public once again about Vietnam. This book has confirmed by suspicion.

Franklin examines the "numbers game" of POW/MIAs and explodes the possibility that any are still alive or that the Vietnamese government has not fully accounted for POWs or had any reason to keep some secretly, while releasing others. Franklin also debunks many of the alleged "live sightings" and the conspiracy theories associated with alleged POWs.

The reframing of the Vietnam War with the United States as the true victim has had major implications for the development of US Foreign policy in the post-Vietnam era. Tragically, it has blinded many Americans to the true cost of US intervention overseas--for the people living in those countries, for US soldiers, and America's credibility in world affairs.

Well worth the read.

On the turntable--Robert Randolph, Colorblind

2007-07-27T17:04:00.000-04:00

Colorblind is a slightly more commercialized follow-up to Robert Randolph and the Family Band's previous efforts that is well worth the listen. I was recently "turned on" to Robert Randolph with their Wetlands album and was immediately hooked. I eagerly bought this album and was not dissappointed. As some of the critics have pointed out, it is a little more commercial, has some "big names" added, and has an unnecessary cover of the Doobies "Jesus is Just Alright" (it isn't bad, but I would prefer another original.) Seems like the band is trying to breakthrough to a broader audience (can you really blame them?). The stand out songs are "Thrill of it," "Ain't nothing wrong with it," and "Deliver Me,"--all are rockers with a great driving beat and guitar work.

The sound is still solid, and I can imagine several of these songs becoming concert staples and jammable hits. Some of the southern rock sound which was so much of Wetlands is lost and is replaced with more of a funk/r & b sound, but it works.

After listening to it a few times, you will definitely find yourself turing it up to "eleven."

Review: David Zeiger, Sir, No, Sir (video)

2007-07-27T16:59:00.000-04:00

This documentary is a necessary corrective to the widely held perception that the Vietnam anti-war movement was anti-soldier. In fact, a key component of the anti-war movement was the soldiers. As early as 1965, highly decorated "lifers", who joined the armed services convinced they were doing their duty to their country, began speaking out against the war, refusing orders, and faced court-martials to stop the war in Vietnam. As one former Green Beret said, "I was doing my job right, but I wasn't doing right." By 1969 war resistance among GIs, which had started as individual acts of defiance spread among draftees "in country" and among vets returning home, and emerged as a crucial component of the anti-war movement. So much so that even the US military had to concede that the majority of US troops were anti-war.

Sir, No, Sir is a very well done documentary that weaves together interviews, news footage, and commentary about the "forgotten" anti-war movement--the GI coffee house movement, the underground GI press, and the "alternative" USO-style shows that featured an anti-war message that was tailored to the soldiers' expereince. It closes with some parting shots on how the GI anti-war movement was "erased" from popular memory through films like Hamburger Hill and Rambo--which situate the anti-war movement as being anti-soldier.

The extras on the DVD are also quite interesting. Of particular interest is the interview with the infamous "Dave Rabbitt." Years ago, I received a copy of a recording of a "pirate" radio station in Vietnam and had often wondered about its authenticity. This film confirmed that briefly an unofficial radio station (Radio First Termer-FM69), which was "for the troops" but against the war, operated in the Phan Rang area of Vietnam. It broadcast "hard acid-rock music" for the "first-termers and non-reenlistees" in Vietnam. An interesting story in and of itself, and just one part

Review: Sandy Tolan, The Lemon Tree

2007-07-27T16:56:00.000-04:00

Any book on such a controversial and emotional subject as the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is bound to draw fire from all sides and Tolan's The Lemon Tree is no different. What is attractive about this book is that we get to know quite personally two people (Bashir and Dahlia) who are both caught up in the conflict, but who are also active agents in trying to further their respective causes. The story is even more compelling in that the two protagonists literally shared the same house. We aren't talking about abstract principles or faceless groups, we are talking about two individuals who claim the same piece of land as their home. The only difference is that one currently owns it and the other wants to return to it, but has no ability to do so. Also, that both come from left-wing political cultures (Dalia's family contained Bulgarian communists and Bashir is a Marxist/nationalist) makes the reader reflect on the struggle for freedom and the limits of nationalism (whether it be Israeli/Jewish or Palestinian/Muslim) as a vehicle for achieving it.

Tolan does a good job of intertwining the relevant history with the story. Although it is history, it is written more like a novel, with flashback and emphasis on the story while the occasional footnote and references are buried in the back. It is a gripping story and I didn't put it down until I was finished.

Regarding comments of pro-Palestinian bias, I don't believe the book misrepresents the Israeli position or misrepresents the history surrounding the founding of Israel, the 1948 War, the 1967 war, or the intifidas. He lets Dalia make the Israeli case in her own words for the most part, and she is about as reasonable as one can get. If Tolan went to the right wing of Israeli society, the case gets worse and more unreasonable, not better. I just think that Americans are so used to seeing the conflict through Israeli eyes, that a more balanced approach is bound to seem "biased." Tolan doesn't lionize the Palestinians either, but it is difficult to escape the reality that even the most reasonable Palestinian is in a bad position and often in a situation where there are no good choices.

I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in learning more about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Review: Jonathan Cook, Blood and Religion

2007-07-27T16:55:00.001-04:00

Jonathan Cook's Blood and Religion offers a different perspective on a problem if continuing import. Rather than focusing on the Israel/Palestinian problem as a dispute between two "states," Cook focuses on the internal problems in Israel regarding the disposition of Israeli Arabs and non-Jewish citizens and their contradictory role in Israeli society. Although officially "Israeli citizens," they are demographic "enemy's within," due to the legal mandate of Israel as a "Jewish State." As Israel is not a nation of its citizens, but a Jewish State, what if non-Jews became majority? What if they had political parties which could represent them effectively? What if they could change the nature of Israel from within using democratic means? According to Cook, this is the real threat that Israel faces with the issues of the "right to return," the extremist settler movement, and the decision to build a wall and limit the movement of Palestinians. Israel can't remain both Jewish and retain the cloak of democracy without tightly controlling the non-Jewish population in the area.

In some respects the situation is similar to the American South during the heyday of Jim Crow. The only way to keep a "white man's democracy" was through the systematic denial of rights to African Americans. Of course, there was no "black state" created in the US south (akin to Bantustans in South Africa), however, voter intimidation, violence, residential segregation and gerrymandering generated a similar result.

Overall, the book is interesting and well written and offers a different perspective on the problem. It is a little repetitive and some of the chapters could have been pared down, but overall it is a good read.

Review: Jerry Lembcke, The Spitting Image

2007-07-27T16:53:00.001-04:00

As Jerry Lembcke concedes, it is more difficult to prove something "didn't happen" than it did. Dispelling widely believed popular myths is even more difficult, particularly when they pertain to controversial issues surrounding a group whose word is supposed to be sacrosanct. Nevertheless, Lembcke offers a compelling argument that it was not common, nor is there any documentary record that anti-war protesters spat upon returning vets. Moreover, he argues that the myth of the spat upon vet is a product of a concerted effort by the Nixon Administration to distinguish between "good vets" (silent majority, did their job, got spat on) and "bad vets" (committed war crimes, grew long hair, joined the anti-war movement) as a means to isolate the anti-war movement and capture the "middle," which wanted "Peace with Honor."

To prove his point, Lembcke examined the historical record from 1965-1973 and found not a single documented instance of an anti-war protester spitting on a soldier. No arrests, no news reports, no photographs, no reference in any FBI file (protests groups were often infiltrated). Nothing. So if it was happening, virtually no one was reporting it or talking about it.

Moreover, the earliest examples of "spitting" being referenced during the war pertain to pro-war folks threatening to spit on anti-war protesters. The point that Lembcke is trying to make here is that it would not be difficult to imagine people interpreting the phrase "Vietnam Vets spat on at Anti-War Rally" to mean that anti-war protestors were doing the spitting when in actuality it was pro-war protesters spitting on anti-war vets.

According Lembcke, first hand accounts of being spat on began to emerge about 15 years after the war and share many of the characteristics of "urban myths"--peculiar similarities that don't add up--why always an airport? why is the spitter typically a female? Why did airport security allow protesters to "lineup" at a gate to spit? Why does the soldier always slink away rather than fight?

The shortcomings of the book are primarily that it is repetitive. It reads like it was originally a set of discreet articles which were later merged into a book, and therefore many chapters make the same point with the same facts. Also, the chapter on the nature of spitting and its psycho-cultural significance sounds like psycho-babble.

Beyond this it is an interesting and well researched account of a controversial subject.

An Inconvienent Al Gore

2007-07-27T11:02:00.000-04:00

I have begun to grow weary of the global warming debate. Although I sincerely enjoyed Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth and accept the fact that we are doing serious and possibly irreversible damage to the environment and that if we don't change our ways soon, it may be too late, I have problems with how the whole global warming debate has shaped up.

Initially, the global warming debate seemed to be a proxy for the debate about whether the US should ratify the Kyoto Protocols. The Protocols strike me as a relatively common sense measure designed to reduce highly polluting gases which may contribute to the Greenhouse effect. The Protocols don't seem to be particularly onerous with the main problem being that developing countries which large populations like India and China don't have the same restrictions as already developed countries. So if anything the problem with the agreement is that it is too lax, not too strict. Therefore, I didn't really have a problem with the environmentalists and politicos like Al Gore playing the "global warming card"--the science is solid enough and the Kyoto Protocols are worthy political goal.

The right's predictable response has been to attack the science and the film in a very typically "Fox News Logic" fashion. First you imply that environmentalists and Al Gore are wackos and crazed anti-American liberals. Then you proceed to come up with counter-evidence which "proves" that their science is faulty and thus confirms your premise. The debate has become less about the environment or pollution than about Al Gore and the science presented in an Inconvenient Truth--which creates the first problem of the global warming debate. Global warming has gone beyond whether or not the US should ratify the Kyoto Protocols, it unfortunately has become a substitute for debating about the environment and humanity's impact on it. If conservative think tanks can come up some scientists that think that global warming is based on faulty evidence then the whole environmentalist movement must also be sham.

Although I don't think that this was Al Gore's intention, I began to wonder about Al Gore's agenda and to think about what, if anything, might be at work here. One thing that made me pause is the recent media blitz by BP and other energy companies emphasizing their pro-environmental inclination (BP apparently now means "Beyond Petroleum" in case you didn't know.) Then about two months ago I read a piece by Alexander Cockburn called "Is Global Warming a Sin?" (Counterpunch, April 28) and an ensuing debate between him and George Manbiot (published online at Zmag and Counterpunch).

Anyone who has read Cockburn knows he is no friend of liberalism and is one of its harshest critics, but from the left. Cockburn's argument, which makes a lot of sense, is basically as follows--Al Gore has been a corporate shill for his entire political career, so for him to support enviro-friendly and anti-corporate policies is out of character. What is in character is to embrace the same fear mongering that brought us the Cold War and the War and Terror, but now with the enemy of carbon emissions. Who will benefit from this? Energy companies that are prepared to gorge at the trough of government sponsored energy research and development which won't actually clean up the environment but will underwrite the profits margins of large corporations as they transition to nuclear or some other non-carbon based energy source. In other words, developing policies to stop global warming is a political maneuver to get the American public to subsidize corporate energy needs while thinking they are protecting the environment.

So what to make of all this. Is Al Gore just making up global warming to line the pockets of corporations? Are all the scientists that support the global warming theory corporate shills? Well, I don't think so. George Manbiot's responses do a pretty good job of establishing that well respected environmental scientists do believe that global warming is real and a product of human activity to a significant extent. Those who disagree are definitely out there, but at the margins. But, does that mean that we should accept uncritically whatever policy comes down the pike to solve the problem? Does that mean that we should let the global warming debate monopolize the debate about the environment. Of course not. My greatest fear about the global warming debate is that Cockburn is essentially correct--that whatever solution emerges, it will be a false one that simply compels the public, once again, to subsidize the profit margins of companies, not for high tech weapons to beat the Soviets or for defense measures against terrorism, but to "save the environment."

I guess the moral is always beware of politicians bearing inconvenient truths with convenient and pro-corporate solutions.