The US has a fucked up way of dealing with it's problems and is doesn't work. To illustrate this consider a bizarre analogy between the stories of Mac Dre and Anwar Al-Awlaki, two enemies of the state.
Mac Dre, a bay area rap star, was the vocal face to his Crest neighborhood gang. He rapped about pimping and drugs, and was imprisoned for his connections to bank robberies and other crimes. He was constantly targeted for incarceration (and possibly assassination) by local and federal police agencies. In fact there is little evidence that Mac Dre was interested in much more that making money off his music, which proliferated a gangster mentality. The policy of targeting such celebrities to deal with problems of gangs and criminal activity has obviously not worked well at decreasing these activities.
This is the same strategy that the US uses to deal with terrorism. Anwar Al-Awlaki is an American citizen targeted for assassination by the CIA and US military for his vocal support of radical Islam and terrorist measures against the US. This is a big deal as the US generally does not publicly endorse assassination of it's citizens. There is no public evidence of his connection with terrorist activities, it is said to be protected as state secrets. For radical Islam, Al-Awlaki is a cleric star, but there is little reason to believe that he is a terrorist mastermind despite what he might say. Even Osama fits pretty well into this category. The question is how far will the assassination of such celebrities take America in it's fight against terrorism?
Targeting Mac Dre only increased his popularity and probably only drove more people towards his message of drugs and crime. Is it that far of a stretch to suggest targeting a vocal radical Muslim will have any different effect?
There is a proper way to deal with such problems and one of the elements that is missing is respect. Despite the difficult moral dilemma, it is important to have respect even for those who promote violence against us. This respect can be shown by obeying US and international law. Even more the respect can be shown by addressing the underlying issues rather then the the superficial words of vocal leaders.
For urban gangs the underlying issues are clearly poverty and poor education. Policing without correcting these issues only increases the violence. For terrorism the issues are similar but also involve the meddling of the US in affairs that are not ours. Some of these affairs, like Israel, cannot just be neglected, but should at least be handled with respect for the other perspectives.
As I listen to Mac Dre I feel no need to commit the crimes that he advocates. It is those that live in ghettos without real freedom that feel that need and may carry it out. I cannot really say how Muslims around the world feel but I can guess that it is similar. Anyone who lives well in a stable community will not feel the need to do violence for confused ideological reasons. The more we target the ideologies the more we prevent the development of such stable communities. RIP Mac Dre.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Friday, August 20, 2010
What we got
In USA, the economic and political situation is very bad. And the government is hard at work spreading it. Listen to Raed Jarrar and Yanar Mohammed on Democracy Now! today about Iraq at the end of the US military campaign.
What we got is everyone after money. The government dishonest and at best in battle with corporations as well as immigrants and transients. The problem is not, as some theorists will argue, with the particular political or economic organization. No matter the attempt at organization, when society is run without proper respect there will not be good progress. A lack of respect exists between businesses and consumers, governments and populaces, and between governments, businesses and all the other combinations as well.
A sign of how rich we are is how cheap it is to live. Instead it is believed we are rich because the enormous potential of consumption available to a minority of the people of the world, while the majority struggle to afford to live. This will continue so long as money and self-advancement remain a priority over mutual respect and community. Can others feel this the way I do? How superficial the economic problems are when what keeps basic needs expensive is our beliefs and our reliance on markets to run a fair society? A simple, global reorganization of priorities is all that is required for the people of Earth to live harmoniously. There are clearly enough resources and the knowledge to efficiently use those resources for everyone on Earth to live well.
There are simple sacrifices and service activities everyone can do to facilitate this change. In the US the only people to blame for excessive consumption are ourselves. I believe it starts with reducing driving, meat consumption, and waste and beginning volunteering time teaching or helping those in need in ones community and many other possibilities, many of which are specific to personal circumstance. While individually small in scope these things are far more important than supporting political campaigns, which really have a very limited relevance in the overall scope of society.
What we got is everyone after money. The government dishonest and at best in battle with corporations as well as immigrants and transients. The problem is not, as some theorists will argue, with the particular political or economic organization. No matter the attempt at organization, when society is run without proper respect there will not be good progress. A lack of respect exists between businesses and consumers, governments and populaces, and between governments, businesses and all the other combinations as well.
A sign of how rich we are is how cheap it is to live. Instead it is believed we are rich because the enormous potential of consumption available to a minority of the people of the world, while the majority struggle to afford to live. This will continue so long as money and self-advancement remain a priority over mutual respect and community. Can others feel this the way I do? How superficial the economic problems are when what keeps basic needs expensive is our beliefs and our reliance on markets to run a fair society? A simple, global reorganization of priorities is all that is required for the people of Earth to live harmoniously. There are clearly enough resources and the knowledge to efficiently use those resources for everyone on Earth to live well.
There are simple sacrifices and service activities everyone can do to facilitate this change. In the US the only people to blame for excessive consumption are ourselves. I believe it starts with reducing driving, meat consumption, and waste and beginning volunteering time teaching or helping those in need in ones community and many other possibilities, many of which are specific to personal circumstance. While individually small in scope these things are far more important than supporting political campaigns, which really have a very limited relevance in the overall scope of society.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Why Anarchy?
The are many things that need to be discussed about anarchy. Such as what strategies can promote anarchy in a constructive manner. Or more directly what strategies can erode the powers that be. Or pragmatically what role does anarchic communities and leadership organization play in lessening poverty, suffering, and war. But first I have got to address that most people have negative views of anarchy and that there are simple and powerful reasons why they should reconsider those views.
I am not so interested in addressing the question 'What is anarchy?', which is easily over analyzed. Anarchy represents the power that is in the absence of authority. A reflection in human society of entropy that can cause either destructive chaos or creative revolution. It is a mistake to think that entropy cannot be harnessed (in this metaphor understanding physical entropy has led to many imprortant technological advances), it is a bigger mistake to ignore it. And ignoring it is the prevalent mindset of political and economic thought.
In the US, the political economy is dominated by the forces of the government and market. It is often the case that a balance is required such that neither of these become too powerful and corrupt. This balance began to be understood in the time after the second world war, but by the 1970's it was clear that the issue was not entirely settled. The welfare state had become entrenched, draining money and stalling the economy. So began a violent swing towards neo-liberalism where the powers of the market were unleashed again causing many communities to once again be "ravaged by the satanic mill," in the words of Karl Polanyi (hopefully I remember to talk about him more and his great book, The Great Transformation.) I think that history and also the recent economic landscape shows whatever balance that was thought to have been established is not stable. And back to my point this cannot be fixed unless a little bit of anarchy is brought back to the discussion.
Another perspective is provided by Vandana Shiva in her book Earth Democracy. (I especially recommend her book Water Wars, which is a very mind opening discussion on an absolutely crucial subject.) In Earth Democracy she lays some fundamental framework for a sustainable democracy. I can't find the book right now or remember her exact wordings so let me paraphrase. She builds a pyramid where the nurture economy is on the bottom, with a social economy (can't remember her words but think public works and commons) in the middle, and on top a market economy. The nurture economy, being the most important one, is comprised of the work that goes on in the household and that supports the community. The very backbone of life and raising a family. Who wants to claim that money is more important then family? Yet what serious discussion does the economy of family and community have in our political culture?
Maybe you think I still have not made any point about anarchy, but the point is simple. The fundamental aspects of life are controlled by neither the market or politics. The more that these forces attempt to determine our everyday lives and control our communities, the less room there is to find a comfortable balance, and the more entropy will resist the unnatural confines and create violence. Problems of poverty and environmental degradation don't have a solution that can just be implemented by the government or by market manipulations so I turn to anarchy as a symbol of everything that is left after these artificial power structures.
I am not so interested in addressing the question 'What is anarchy?', which is easily over analyzed. Anarchy represents the power that is in the absence of authority. A reflection in human society of entropy that can cause either destructive chaos or creative revolution. It is a mistake to think that entropy cannot be harnessed (in this metaphor understanding physical entropy has led to many imprortant technological advances), it is a bigger mistake to ignore it. And ignoring it is the prevalent mindset of political and economic thought.
In the US, the political economy is dominated by the forces of the government and market. It is often the case that a balance is required such that neither of these become too powerful and corrupt. This balance began to be understood in the time after the second world war, but by the 1970's it was clear that the issue was not entirely settled. The welfare state had become entrenched, draining money and stalling the economy. So began a violent swing towards neo-liberalism where the powers of the market were unleashed again causing many communities to once again be "ravaged by the satanic mill," in the words of Karl Polanyi (hopefully I remember to talk about him more and his great book, The Great Transformation.) I think that history and also the recent economic landscape shows whatever balance that was thought to have been established is not stable. And back to my point this cannot be fixed unless a little bit of anarchy is brought back to the discussion.
Another perspective is provided by Vandana Shiva in her book Earth Democracy. (I especially recommend her book Water Wars, which is a very mind opening discussion on an absolutely crucial subject.) In Earth Democracy she lays some fundamental framework for a sustainable democracy. I can't find the book right now or remember her exact wordings so let me paraphrase. She builds a pyramid where the nurture economy is on the bottom, with a social economy (can't remember her words but think public works and commons) in the middle, and on top a market economy. The nurture economy, being the most important one, is comprised of the work that goes on in the household and that supports the community. The very backbone of life and raising a family. Who wants to claim that money is more important then family? Yet what serious discussion does the economy of family and community have in our political culture?
Maybe you think I still have not made any point about anarchy, but the point is simple. The fundamental aspects of life are controlled by neither the market or politics. The more that these forces attempt to determine our everyday lives and control our communities, the less room there is to find a comfortable balance, and the more entropy will resist the unnatural confines and create violence. Problems of poverty and environmental degradation don't have a solution that can just be implemented by the government or by market manipulations so I turn to anarchy as a symbol of everything that is left after these artificial power structures.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Internet Anarchy
The internet makes anarchy feasible in ways that have never before been possible. Fundamentally the internet follows anarchic principles of decentralization and freedom. Encryption methods and other secure and anonymous web protocol make enforcement of authoritative laws and censorship impractical. What I am interested in is what this means for anarchy.
The first implication of the internet is the information that is or can be made available to everyone. This means it will get increasingly difficult for governments and corporations to withhold and hide information as we are already seeing with Wikileaks. Also technical and academic resources are becoming more available for everyone.
The next implication is the increased capacity for direct individual involvement in the democratic process. Before now, a representative republic has been arguably the most liberal practical form of government. However, the internet will allow for the possibility of bypassing the representatives and engaging the population directly in the democratic process. How to do this is something we should be thinking and talking about. There are certainly security concerns for using the internet for voting, but it definitely seems possible. There are also good reasons to keep some aspects of a representative system, I like the idea of proxy voting on issues. So that someone without enough time or knowledge can lend their vote to a person they trust, without giving anybody more objective power.
The modern path to anarchy does not require sudden revolution. Instead it requires the construction of alternative infrastructure and the building of dynamic free communities to reduce our dependence on governments and large corporations. This path will erode authoritative powers and the internet plays a very important role in making it all possible.
The first implication of the internet is the information that is or can be made available to everyone. This means it will get increasingly difficult for governments and corporations to withhold and hide information as we are already seeing with Wikileaks. Also technical and academic resources are becoming more available for everyone.
The next implication is the increased capacity for direct individual involvement in the democratic process. Before now, a representative republic has been arguably the most liberal practical form of government. However, the internet will allow for the possibility of bypassing the representatives and engaging the population directly in the democratic process. How to do this is something we should be thinking and talking about. There are certainly security concerns for using the internet for voting, but it definitely seems possible. There are also good reasons to keep some aspects of a representative system, I like the idea of proxy voting on issues. So that someone without enough time or knowledge can lend their vote to a person they trust, without giving anybody more objective power.
The modern path to anarchy does not require sudden revolution. Instead it requires the construction of alternative infrastructure and the building of dynamic free communities to reduce our dependence on governments and large corporations. This path will erode authoritative powers and the internet plays a very important role in making it all possible.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Immigration Reform
To start out blogging I want to get some heavy subjects off my mind so I am going to write out my ideas on Immigration reform.
A fundamental belief of mine is that to improve the condition of poor peoples lives around the world we have got to destroy the over consuming lifestyle of the average American. There may be a productive way of going about this using immigration reform. I would suggest changing the policy to let in all displaced refugees from around the world. Let us welcome refugees from Sudan, Iraq, Palestine, Haiti, wherever there are refugees to come to the USA.
From a conventional economic perspective this would be a disaster, but I see a different potential. The best characteristics of America come from the diversity of population from the variety of immigrants (as well as immigrants brought forcefully by slavery.) An influx of new immigrants could really stir things up, create new ideas and new culture the would spur further growth.
Also it's not like we have a problem of not having enough in this country. An immediate circumstance before the recent crisis was too many houses and too much money on wall street. Bringing in immigrants we could rise up to the challenge to feed, house, and educate everyone and in doing so could develop new revolutionary manners of economic organization.
Who is with me to forget the xenophobic idiots on TV and in the government that cannot stand immigrants from Mexico, and instead invite immigrants and refugees into this country to increase diversity and generate new ideas.
A fundamental belief of mine is that to improve the condition of poor peoples lives around the world we have got to destroy the over consuming lifestyle of the average American. There may be a productive way of going about this using immigration reform. I would suggest changing the policy to let in all displaced refugees from around the world. Let us welcome refugees from Sudan, Iraq, Palestine, Haiti, wherever there are refugees to come to the USA.
From a conventional economic perspective this would be a disaster, but I see a different potential. The best characteristics of America come from the diversity of population from the variety of immigrants (as well as immigrants brought forcefully by slavery.) An influx of new immigrants could really stir things up, create new ideas and new culture the would spur further growth.
Also it's not like we have a problem of not having enough in this country. An immediate circumstance before the recent crisis was too many houses and too much money on wall street. Bringing in immigrants we could rise up to the challenge to feed, house, and educate everyone and in doing so could develop new revolutionary manners of economic organization.
Who is with me to forget the xenophobic idiots on TV and in the government that cannot stand immigrants from Mexico, and instead invite immigrants and refugees into this country to increase diversity and generate new ideas.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Who believes in Global Warming?
For a long time I have not believed the basic story of global warming and have been very skeptical of the agenda of the people pushing the concept. Here is why and I would love to hear what anyone thinks about it.
There is not way to predict what will happen with the climate, so anyone who claims to know what will happen I have to assume is lying and trying to manipulate me. Carbon dioxide effects climate change over the course of thousands of years if we are changing the climate more quickly it is most likely do to other causes. The cause that makes the most sense to me is agriculture. H20 is a much more immediate greenhouse gas and the current state of agriculture brings tons of water from aquifers to the surface where it evaporates into the atmosphere. There are many other possible causes for why the Earth is so warm right now.
More important then why is what to do about it. Of course everyone should pollute less, but no one can believe that will solve any of the problems of global warming. I think it is obvious that mostly poor people will be hurt by global warming. Rich people can have houses that can withstand storms and shit, and can generally choose where they live. The main thing that must be done to protect against global warming is address the critical issue of poverty and prepare those who are in poverty now to be in a position soon where they can adapt to changes in climate. So talk all you want about carbon credit bullshit what really needs to be discussed is poverty.
To combat poverty we need people not money. When people are focused on getting societies out of poverty, especially in ways that do not consume resources, it can happen. When money is focused on ending poverty it usually just creates corruption, consumes resources, and eventually continues the cycles of poverty. Not saying money is not a part of the issue, and I also think micro-lending has an important role as well as developing more significan investments.
So that is what I think about global warming and what to do about it. I could also go off forever about how terrible an idea cap and trade is but I do not think that is necessary.
There is not way to predict what will happen with the climate, so anyone who claims to know what will happen I have to assume is lying and trying to manipulate me. Carbon dioxide effects climate change over the course of thousands of years if we are changing the climate more quickly it is most likely do to other causes. The cause that makes the most sense to me is agriculture. H20 is a much more immediate greenhouse gas and the current state of agriculture brings tons of water from aquifers to the surface where it evaporates into the atmosphere. There are many other possible causes for why the Earth is so warm right now.
More important then why is what to do about it. Of course everyone should pollute less, but no one can believe that will solve any of the problems of global warming. I think it is obvious that mostly poor people will be hurt by global warming. Rich people can have houses that can withstand storms and shit, and can generally choose where they live. The main thing that must be done to protect against global warming is address the critical issue of poverty and prepare those who are in poverty now to be in a position soon where they can adapt to changes in climate. So talk all you want about carbon credit bullshit what really needs to be discussed is poverty.
To combat poverty we need people not money. When people are focused on getting societies out of poverty, especially in ways that do not consume resources, it can happen. When money is focused on ending poverty it usually just creates corruption, consumes resources, and eventually continues the cycles of poverty. Not saying money is not a part of the issue, and I also think micro-lending has an important role as well as developing more significan investments.
So that is what I think about global warming and what to do about it. I could also go off forever about how terrible an idea cap and trade is but I do not think that is necessary.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)