Quarketypes

Proposed 28th Amendment (by John Cline)

noreply@blogger.com (John S. Cline) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:10:00 +0000

I. A person shall be defined as an individual living self-aware being or one whom, barring mental or physical disability, would otherwise be considered such; and, only a person can be guaranteed the rights and responsibilities embodied in this Constitution of the United States.

II. Only a person may financially participate in the political process within the United States, including providing political contributions, advertising for or against candidates or causes, or providing either sitting office-holders or candidates for office financial incentives for any political action or inaction. Gifts in any amount or kind, be it financial or physical, to any sitting office-holder or candidate for office which are determined to have been used to exact political action or inaction are strictly prohibited and may result in legal action, up to and including imprisonment.

III. Political campaigns at all levels shall be publicly funded by taxpayer contributions to a general election fund which shall reside in and be managed by the United States Treasury in coordination with the Federal Elections Commission. Persons may voluntarily contribute up to a maximum of twenty-five hundred dollars per candidate of their choice, inflation-adjusted for 2012 dollars. For national office, the maximum general election fund amount per candidate shall be limited by Congress as deemed appropriate to the nature of the campaign, and for each type of office an equal share shall be allocated to each candidate regardless of party affiliation. Each State legislature shall determine state-wide general fund needs and solicit the Treasury for the necessary amounts, to be distributed by the State as needed for state-wide and local elections. Any general election funds left unused must be returned to the Treasury within sixty days after the end of the election; all funds collected by candidates from private donations shall be used only for future campaign needs and shall not be used for personal expenses or investments.

IV. The President of the United States shall be elected by a majority vote. Further, all Congressional Districts shall be drawn by non-partisan public committees within six months of the enactment of this Amendment and within six months of the return of United States Census results each decade.

V. Banks shall be separated according to their types of business, commercial or investment, and no coordination between the two shall occur. Commercial institutions shall have their customer deposits protected by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or a similar entity. Investment institutions shall be liable for their own losses and the United States government and the taxpayers shall not be responsible for such losses.

VI. Given that the health of the nation is bound to the health of the people, and that inadequate healthcare can seriously endanger the security of the nation, Congress shall enact a universal single-payer taxpayer-funded healthcare system for all. Such a system shall fully cover the costs of any procedure deemed involuntary in nature; voluntary procedures such as cosmetic surgery will not be covered unless it is required to repair damage or improve physical function. Prescription drugs shall be purchased from the safest and least expensive source whether domestic or international.

Mitch McConnell, The Tax Fairy

noreply@blogger.com (John S. Cline) — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 02:37:00 +0000

Inspired by the 11/30/2011 Rachel Maddow Show and a request from @susanlbrannigan, I created this:

John's Kick-Butt Lasagna

noreply@blogger.com (John S. Cline) — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 00:47:00 +0000

(Basic recipe borrowed from Barilla lasagna noodle package, the rest is all me)

1 jar Classico Florentine Spinach Spaghetti Sauce
1 jar Ragu or Classico alfredo sauce
1 can S&W Ready-Cut Italian Recipe Garlic, Oregano & Basil tomatoes, do not drain
2 tablespoons California Sun-Dry sun-dried tomato pesto
2 tablespoons Classico traditional basil pesto
1/4 cup Bella Sun Luci Julienne-Cut sun-dried tomatoes & herbs
2 tablespoons The Sauce Factory Mediterranean tomato topping
1/4 teaspoon Italian seasoning
1/4 cup chopped or sauteed fresh garlic
1 lb ground buffalo (substitute turkey or hamburger)
1 lb ground sweet Italian sausage
16 oz cottage or ricotta cheese
1 tablespoon dried or fresh chopped chives
1 tablespoon chopped parsley
2 large eggs
6 cups assorted shredded cheeses (recommend Italian blend, mild cheddar, swiss and monterey jack)
2 cups mozarella or Italian blend shredded cheese
1 package lasagna noodles
13x9 glass casserole dish

Boil noodles according to instructions on package in large pot, ensuring they remain firm and not too soft. While noodles are cooking, place meats, garlic and Italian seasoning in frying pan and mix together thoroughly, chopping finely as meat cooks to ensure a smooth filling. Meat and noodles should finish at roughly the same time; drain noodles and allow to cool in collander. Using same large pot, empty in spaghetti sauce, alfredo sauce, tomatoes, pestos, sun-dried tomatoes and tomato topping along with finished meat mixture. Mix thoroughly and set to medium-low heat, stirring often to avoid burning at the bottom. As noodles will still be quite warm, handle carefully; spread noodles out on waxed paper or large cutting board to avoid sticking together.

Preheat oven to 375 degrees.

In separate bowl, mix 6 cups of shredded assorted cheeses, chives, parsely, eggs, and cottage or ricotta cheese thoroughly until well-blended. Spray glass casserole dish liberally with your favorite cooking oil. After sauce comes to a light boil, remove from heat and spread approximately 1 cup sauce evenly over bottom of casserole dish. Lay 3-4 cooked noodles over bottom, ensuring complete coverage. Apply 1/2 cheese mixture evenly over noodles (some gaps are fine; when the cheese melts it will fill the gaps). Apply enough sauce to cover cheese mixture thoroughly without drowning, then top with another layer of noodles and repeat for another layer. On top of last layer of noodles, spread thin but even layer of sauce and then cover edge-to-edge with shredded mozarella, thick enough so that sauce is no longer visible.
Cover dish loosely with tinfoil, ensuring the top of the tinfoil does not physically touch the cheese topping. Place dish on a large cookie sheet (large enough to capture any boil-overs, or lay tinfoil down on oven rack) and put in pre-heated oven for 30 minutes. After 30 minutes, remove tinfoil from dish and return to oven for another 10-15 minutes to brown cheese. Remove from oven and allow to cool for 10-15 minutes. Makes 12 individual servings.

Why customer service is so horrible... and likely to get worse

noreply@blogger.com (John S. Cline) — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 04:49:00 +0000

Under the Theory of Competitive Advantage, it is advantageous for companies to encourage the idea that all "customer service" is slow, unresponsive, aggravating, and generally BAD. Why?

Because customer service after the sale is a net loss to the company's profits. The whole profit aspect of producing a widget is in how much you can cut costs to get the raw materials and intermediate goods to make your thingy as cheaply as possible, then selling it at a price that brings in the biggest profit possible.

Customer service drains money away from these profits. Ideally, a company would like to make a product, sell it, and never hear from you again unless you're either buying another product from them or recommending that someone else does. Paying for customer service staff (even the offshore kind making a buck a day) is a complete and total loss, and is generally seen as a "cost of doing business" which would rather be eliminated any way it can to boost those ever-important dividends.

Used to be, companies thought they could get a competitive advantage by offering GREAT customer service. Thus, you had repairmen show up at your home (at no additional cost), gas-station attendants who filled you up, wiped your windshield and checked your tires, and could actually talk to a human being on the phone when you called with a problem. Then some nameless, faceless person with a "bright idea" (as seen from the corporate boardroom) realized that if you made customer service a universally unpleasant experience for people, the very term "customer service" would develop a negative connotation and most people would avoid it... and thus you could cut costs in that very money-sucking area.

So in the last 30 years or so we've seen company after company giving "lousy" customer service. Coincidence? Maybe. But If You Think Like A Corporate Executive it makes perfect sense: if everyone has lousy customer service, customers won't bother using it and we won't have to spend any of our dividend checks paying for it. If it becomes the national (or global) paradigm that customer service is worthless, then corporations get to cut even further back on the quality of that service until they are left with the most limited legal limits of it (essentially, to offer a refund or replacement if the product is not functional upon delivery... everything else is pretty much a "too bad" scenario).

Sure, people will still demand their problems be fixed if something is badly wrong... but this new mindset being imposed on consumers is one of "oh heck, why bother, just go buy another one, it's easier than going through the hassle of customer service". And, of course, unless people buy a different brand (which is often owned by the same company anyway), they end up giving the corporations a double-purchase... a double-win for the company.

And with many retail stores now restricting purchase returns to 30 days... sometimes even 14 or as little as 7... this means that if you buy it and it messes up within a couple weeks, you're screwed. The retail store is no longer the convenient "No problem, we'll take it back if it breaks" solution for consumers. In fact, corporate manufacturers are making this harder on retailers, so it's not even the stores' fault... many stores are changing their returns policy precisely because manufacturers and distributors and tightening them up.

Think this isn't something that goes through the minds of corporate executives daily? Call customer service about your newest electronic gadget and get a wake-up call. Then ask grandma what it was like when the TV technician showed up at her house... for free, always polite and helpful... to fix her console. THEN you will understand how much has changed in the last few decades. And how much we need to develop a sense of "customer SERVICE" back into the corporate world... in other words, if they have crappy service, DON'T BUY THEIR STUFF.

Most important quote of the day and the implications for America

noreply@blogger.com (John S. Cline) — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 04:05:00 +0000

I read this today, and the profundity of it made me realize it needed to be said over and over:

"The standards and quality of live that have been achieved in the United States in general, and in other Western states, didn't come about because because of some mythical invisible hand or because of industry insights into human dignity or the needs of labor. The safety and wage standards that exist today came about because workers in communities across America struggled to change conditions that often pitted a specific industry -- which often had interlocking interests with other industries -- against American labor." "Like the peasants of medieval Europe, [labor] needed work and were forced into conditions which which overlords could dominate virtually all aspects of their lives. Rebellion and the introduction of enlightened leaders paved the way for improvements in [labor's] standard of living ... [j]ust as the progressive ideas of democracy and capitalism were fought by conservative aristocrats in Europe, issues related to social and economic justice in America have always been fought by forces who warn of impending doom if changes are made." -"The Myth of the Free Market: The Role of the State in a Capitalist Economy" by Mark A. Martinez, Kumarian Press, 2009.

Understand this: conservatives, no matter what they SAY in public, abhore the middle class and labor. It goes against everything they believe, which is that there are those who are destined to be priviledged and those who are not. While a few still hew to the belief that "rugged entrepreneurs" have a place at the table, that is an idea that only comes from the middle 16th Century... those who harken back to a more "civilized" day (i.e. when blood-lines meant everything and peasants knew their place) have it engraved in their souls that nobody is entitled to anything unless you belong to the modern-day nobility. Anyone else is an upstart and pretender, and should be treated as such.

Conservatives, in other words, consider YOU inferior, worthless except for the labor you provide, and essentially meaningless in the world at large. Not exactly what you hear them say at election time, eh? But down deep, that's exactly what they are thinking and how they will treat YOU if you are stupid enough to once again elect them into positions of political power. Did I say "stupid"? Sure, because that's exactly how they view YOU if you either vote for them (and don't belong to the top 1% of the wealthy in this country) or stay home and encourage others to stay home to avoid voting for Democrats who have "disappointed" YOU in the past to "send a message". Do you want to know the message you're sending?

"Yes, I want more plutocracy, more corporate control over my life, less freedom and liberty, a militarized police-state, someone to tell me what I can and can't do with my own body, and more income and social inequality, because those lousy Democrats never deliver when I elect THEM into office".

If you're happy with the status quo, then by all means vote any way you want. If you think letting everything we've worked for during the past 100+ years is worth fighting for, then vote Democratic in 2012 and henceforth. Because even if the Dems have been infiltrated by the same corporate interests that busted unions in the 1930s and struggle every day to dismantle the New Deal and Great Society, they're still a damned sight better than the other side that makes no bones whatsoever about destroying every social and political gain the middle class has made in the last century for one and only one purpose: to once again gain the titles and powers of nobility they so desperately miss.

And don't think for a SECOND that they're not drooling at the prospect.

Luscious Crab Cakes

noreply@blogger.com (John S. Cline) — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 01:26:00 +0000

I've been making crab cakes this way for years; it's my own recipe (as far as I know... I kind of made it up as I went along) but you're welcome to share with friends if you like it. There are a lot of variations to this; change the veggie combination, add fresh garlic instead of powdered, use an egg or just substitute the equivalent amount of water, etc. You just can't mess it up too much by switching things around, just don't overcook them because they get tough as a brick if you do.

LUSCIOUS CRAB CAKES

1 pound fresh crab meat, carefully shelled (or 3 6-oz cans of crab)
1 large egg (or approximately 1/4 cup water or milk)
1 tablespoon butter or margarine
1/2 cup yellow cornmeal (substitute 3/4 cup of bread crumbs or for extra richness use 3/4 cup of crumbled Club^® Crackers; if you do substitute, you will need both the egg AND the 1/4 cup water or milk)
1/8 teaspoon cayenne powder (substitute chili powder or your favorite spicy stuff)
1 tablespoon Worstershire sauce
1/4 cup each diced sweet yellow onions, celery, parsley
1/2 cup diced cooked shrimp (salad shrimp work best and don't need chopping)
1/2 teaspoon garlic powder (substitute 2 tablespoons chopped fresh garlic or to taste)
Salt, pepper to taste
Lemon juice
Olive oil (about 3 to 5 tablespoons total, use as needed during frying)

Pre-heat olive oil in large frying pan over medium-high heat. Combine cornmeal (or substitutes) with crab, shrimp, diced veggies, egg (or substitutes), butter or margarine, cayenne, Worstershire, garlic powder, salt and pepper in large bowl. Mix thoroughly until all ingredients are fully moist and mixture gets lumpy. Form into fist-sized balls, then flatten to form patties approximately 3/4 inch thick, making sure the edges are smooth (moisten some more if they seem crumbly). Carefully place crabcakes into frying pan to avoid splashing hot oil. Cover and cook approximately 3 to 4 minutes per side. Add oil to pan if necessary and repeat until all crabcakes are complete. Drizzle lightly with lemon juice and serve plain or with your favorite sauce (tartar, teriyaki, oyster and even ketchup all work nicely). Number of crabcakes depends on how big you make the patties, but usually makes between 6 and 10 total.

Palin's Comic Book View of History: Paul Revere's Ride

noreply@blogger.com (John S. Cline) — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 19:16:00 +0000

Apologists for Palin immediately struck against the "lame-stream media" laughing at their darling for getting the history wrong (again) about one of our iconic First Patriots.

There is a tiny bit of merit in their arguments, particularly the chuckles that Revere warned the British. In a sense, he actually did at one point, though it was never his intention to tell the British anything. He was captured (along with his two fellow riders, William Dawes and Dr. Samuel Prescott, who are often forgotten in retellings of the famous Midnight Ride story) by a British patrol and informed them that he had been raising the alarm and they would be met by "five hundred Americans" ready to fight.

So that part of the account Palin gave had a grain of truth to it. But her word pudding, as incoherent as it was, didn't exactly give us any indication that she was talking about that incident at all (or was even aware of it). To hear her tell it, Revere might as well have been standing on a rooftop waving his fist at the British defiantly, a patriotic glow emanating from his body, as he warned the cowering British army that they were already defeated and might as well slink back to their ships and sail away.

Beyond the comic-book glorification Palin (and so many others who adore her) have of American history, the other details of her brief blizzard of nonsense lack historical basis as well.

She seems to think Revere shot his gun and rang bells. He was both unarmed and had no bells, at least as far as the historical account goes (although some pictorial depictions of him do show him ringing what looks like a teacher's school-bell, so it's hard to tell for sure). But by all written accounts, it was the people he warned from house to house that shot the guns and range the bells, not himself.

While Revere did in fact "warn" the British (while being detained and under threat of having his brains blown out) that's a little different than Palin's embellishing it with him telling the British that "we're going to be free" and "they weren't going to be taking away our arms".

Although he was either a member of or sympathetic to the Sons of Liberty, a group of Americans who (sometimes violently) fought depredations of the British against Americans, few of them wanted independence from Britain; most of them simply wanted fairness and self-determination under British rule. So while I'm no expert on Revere, there's a good chance Revere no more wanted independence from the Crown than most of the rest of the colonists did in 1775. Up until this time, in fact, they were sending delegation after delegation to Britain petitioning to allow the colonies representation in Parliament, hardly the actions of people who hated the Crown so much they wanted complete freedom.

It wasn't until AFTER the battle at Lexington and Concord that most colonists realized that the Brits were going to ruthlessly put their foot on the Americans and thus the first serious discussion of real independence rather than self-determination took shape, leading to the Declaration of Independence a year later.

The best resource for Revere comes of course from his own accounts as well as those of his companions. The website for the Paul Revere House is here: http://www.paulreverehouse.org/index.html

It might do for Sarah Palin, as she visits all of these historic sites, to brush up a little better before spouting more word coleslaw in front of the cameras. While entertaining, we must remember that a good number of Americans consider her a leading light of Patriotic All-Americanness, and the more we encourage her by putting her ridiculous clown-show on the air and Internet the more her fans believe she's the model for their children and their children's-children. Do we really want to embolden future generations of historical know-nothings?

(Hat tip to Douglas Redecopp for pointing me to the apologist's article)

They aren't going to stop unless we stop them

noreply@blogger.com (John S. Cline) — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 01:42:00 +0000

I encourage everyone to read the excellent op-ed by William Rivers Pitt in TruthOut on March 10, 2011, "Then They Came for the Trade Unionists"

Here's my favorite take-away from it:

Mr. Niemoller wrote his poem decades ago. It might read like this today:

First they declared corporations were "people," and I didn't complain because I'm already a person.

Then they made unlimited money "speech," and I didn't complain because the American Dream says I'll be rich someday, too.

Then they commandeered the means of production by shipping our greatest strength - manufacturing - overseas, because they don't have bothersome unions over there, and I didn't complain because WalMart has cheap stuff.

Then they bought Congress so they could write the laws, and I didn't complain because I can’t be bothered to vote.

Then they bought the Supreme Court so they could cement their rule, and I didn't complain because I don't have time to pay attention.

Then they bought the news so they could convince everyone it's always been this way, and I didn't complain because it's always been this way.

Then they manhandled an election and I didn't complain because I'm not from Florida.

Then they lied us into wars and I didn't complain because I'm not a soldier, or an Iraqi, or an Afghani.

Then millions died for profit and I didn't complain because the graphics on the news were totally awesome.

Then they started locking people up because they said they could and I didn't complain because nobody locked me up.

Then they started spying on everyone because they said they could and I didn't complain because I'm a real American.

Then they came for the worker, but thanks to supply-side trickle-down economics, I don't have a job.

Updated: Nuclear Power: Burnt-Out Light Bulb of the Millennium

noreply@blogger.com (John S. Cline) — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 04:45:00 +0000

Update: I posted this just a few hours before the horrific 8.9 earthquake in Japan, and I am now hearing reports of a potential nuclear reactor disaster in the making. At the very least, Japanese officials are planning to release radioactive gases to relieve pressure on the damaged reactor in hopes of preventing a complete blow-out. For more on the Japanese disaster, the Huffington Post has live updates.

Original Post:

On the subject of nuclear power as an "alternative energy source":

If we even have to CONSIDER the possibility that any form of "fuel" is so dangerous that we have to take into account the threat that some terrorist organizatin with use it in some kind of "weapon of mass destruction", then why in the HELL are we even using this shit?

Not to mention the huge costs of building the plants in the first place (which gets passed down to consumers), the huge costs of storing the nuclear "fuel", the huge costs of storing the nuclear "waste", and the huge costs of even the miniscule chance of a single Chernobyl-like event... just ONE, no matter how "safe" they say it is nowadays, is one too many (especially as densely populated as America is, not to mention how the wind currents carry particulates pretty evenly across the U.S.; if you don't believe that, then why do you see red sunsets in Minnesota, New York and Alabama when California is having a wildfire?).

While I'm all for real renewables, the idea of adding nuclear power to that mix is ludicrous. In my view, it's little more than a sop to the nuke industry and the corporate giants who back it. Let that dog die in peace; it's currently 20% of our generation capacity, but it needs to be replaced as soon as possible with actual renewables that can't be used to some day dirty-bomb our cities... or accidentally irradiate an area the size of Texas for decades to come.

Why some cry joy, and others weep, about the revolution in Egypt

noreply@blogger.com (John S. Cline) — Sat, 12 Feb 2011 05:54:00 +0000

So while most of the world's common people rise up and applaud the success of the revolt in Egypt, why are so many American conservatives appearing on Fox News and other friendly media outlets decrying this as anything but a reason to celebrate? Why are they warning that "the Middle East has no history of democracy" and thus this will lead to chaos and terrible, terrible things (as if the burgeoning democracies within what was formerly the Iron Curtain had any history of democracy)? Why is Glenn Beck warning of "chaos" and "community organizers" and a return of the Caliphate? Why are these conservatives... who will take any opportunity to wrap themselves in the flag, call themselves Patriots, and claim to represent the "true values" of America, especially "freedom"... so appalled by the revolts in Tunisia, Egypt, and soon presumably to a dictatorship near you?

I could get into the various psychologies of conservatives, or point to political or ideological shifts that have occurred over the years, or perhaps even try to pull the race card and say that European democracies arising from tyranny are OK but those in the Middle East are not simply due to the fact that one has predominantly White populations and the other has mostly "brown people". But none of those are satisfactory, and ultimately lead to unresolvable arguments and (as in the case of the race card) may be largely untrue. But one thing stands out to me here. While claiming to be "freedom-loving Patriots", conservatives are at their philosophical roots anything but.

A little nutshell history lesson which we have as a nation conveniently forgotten: When our own country was but a colony in thrall to the whims of Mother England, a few brave souls put their lives and livelihoods on the line to stand up against tyranny. Some had been calling for change for years, and were ready to rise up; others, unsure, were tentative at first but eventually joined the cause. Still others did not join until British soldiers ravaged their homes and farms. Those who fought for fair treatment by the mother country did so at first as loyal citizens of England... until finally, they realized there was no path open to them but full independence. These revolutionaries then began calling themselves Patriots.

There were a number of colonists, however, who wanted nothing to do with the fighting, and wished only to remain loyal to England. There were various reasons for this: sentimentality, vested business interests with England, a natural pacifism, and many others. But in some cases, rather than simply remaining loyal to the Crown, they actively fought against the Patriots with the written word, public speech, and often with musket and sword. These people who sided with England against their fellow colonists were branded Tories; not traitors, per se, but still enemies to those who sought freedom and liberty.

Many Tories escaped to Canada and other British colonies once fighting broke out, and throughout the long Revolutionary War. Many others emigrated once the Patriots had won their battle and were finally independent of English rule. But many had stayed, and during the long healing process following the British defeat these fellow colonists... family, friends, and neighbors of those who had either remained neutral or joined the Patriots in the fight... rejoined society and began actively working to integrate themselves into the new political system that was taking shape.

Today's conservatives are the intellectual and philosophical offspring of the original Tories, whether they had actual ancestral ties to anyone in our war of independence. To understand this, one has only to look at the motivations of most of the Tories (as expressed in their own writings and speeches of the day): sanctity of hearth and home; limits to freedom and expression; loyalty to the authority of the Crown and its appointed governors; and a fear of "chaos" and "mob rule". These are exactly the tropes modern conservatives use, in modified form: family values and culture issues; using government to limit free speech and privacy if it offends their notion of what is and isn't allowable (re: censorship, '20's Prohibition); undying loyalty to icons of conservatism (Reagan, Bush, Norquist... not so much Buckley anymore) and any sitting President that happens to belong to their own party; and of course, an absolute dread of democracy erupting in the Middle East or any other place that is deemed "scary".

So while you marvel at the audacity of conservatives who claim the mantle of patriotism and freedom as their own, who denounce liberals or anyone else as "anti-American" because they aren't sufficiently conservative, remember that these flag-waving so-called "real Americans" are espousing the exact same principles that their intellectual and philosophical ancestors did 230 years ago: as Tories. The true Patriots in America are those who stand on the side of rule by, for and of the PEOPLE, always and without reservation. Democracy is messy, and revolutions don't always come out the way the revolutionaries wish, but never forget that if you are a Real American, a Patriot, you will remember who the enemies of freedom and self-rule were in our past, and recognize them in our present.

"We need to fight back against corporatism!" OK, sure. How?

noreply@blogger.com (John S. Cline) — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 22:53:00 +0000

I was recently asked about my anti-corporatism stance (actually, it's more of an "anti-corporate-personhood" stance, as I have no problem whatsoever with corporations per se, just with them being granted the rights of human beings when they have none of the limitations). In response to a statement I had made, "...the corporate monstrosities we've allowed to be created must be dismantled", I received the following response:

"How?"

Good question.

(Book cover from Sheldon S. Wolin's "Democracy Inc." (2008, Princeton University Press; original image and new 2010 edition of the book are available at www.press.princeton.edu/titles/9175.html)

I never claimed it would be easy. The problem began in 1886 when corporations were anointed by the Supreme Court of the United States as "people" and they've had nearly 125 years to get to this point. And I will admit, it may be too late to put the genie back in the bottle. Globalization has created a worldwide economic dependency on cheap trade; our country and others have shredded old tariffs and regulations that served quite well for decades; transnational non-state corporate actors are beholden to no particular government (much less possess a sense of "national pride"); and as Sheldon S. Wolin puts it in his book "Democracy Inc.", a sort of "inverted totalitarianism" has been instituted in the United States and other countries that doesn't use force to get it's way as in the bad old 20th Century, but instead relies on the apathy and perceived helplessness of the populace to do what it wants. And the "it" in that sentence doesn't even have a face, as old-fashioned totalitarianism did; it is an amorphous blob of largely anonymous corporations, their paid-for political public faces, and constant media disinformation and entertaining distractions.

Before any effective effort can be made to eliminate the forces of "inverted totalitarianism", however, the first target must be to raise awareness and break the hold on the minds of the populace, who have been lulled into a frustrating but paralyzing sense of apathy, a "that's just the way it is, you can't do anything about it" mentality. We all know that this mentality has been broken before many times in our history, and it can be broken again, but we're up against a foe that is by comparison almost supernatural in power. Corporatism pervades every aspect of our lives, is largely unseen and unfelt, and yet is all around us, all the time. We have become so dependent upon the fruits of corporatism, that we can only perceive it now when those fruits are taken away. It seems insurmountable for mere individuals to wrest control of their lives back from these seemingly invincible "super-persons".

There are ways to fight back, though. And these ways use the one advantage we have over the corporation: we are individuals, capable of both individual and group action at the local level.

One suggestion (buy local and avoid the big corporations) often sounds pie-in-the-sky, but it actually works, as long as we get enough people to buy from businesses and farms in our own communities. Even then, we're helping the big corporations, because the local businesses have to get their products, bank loans or fertilizers from somewhere (usually eventually tracking back to China and Indonesia), but it's a start.

Other ways we can fight corporatism is to work to get anti-corporate leaders into local elected seats. Try for higher offices too, but don't worry too much about those until we have city councils, county boards, local judges, etc. who will fight corporatism and stand up for their local businesses again. When you have tens of thousands of small communities push back against the big corporations across the country, we'll see some changes at the national level, and to some extent worldwide.

And as city and county anti-corporatism takes hold, it will be easier for it to spread to state legislatures and executives and eventually to the national level. As more state and local judges are selected who fend off corporate attacks and set local precedents, those may also filter up into the federal courts, first in the districts, then appellate, then perhaps the SCOTUS. No matter at what level, though, precedents in law will be set that will serve as the sand around which the pearl will be formed, until one day, perhaps in another 125 years, we will finally overturn the last of the "corporations as people" rulings and we'll be free of corporatism once and for all.

But that's just here in the U.S. We created this mess, and it's spread like a cancer worldwide. So as we're doing this locally, we have to work to change trade agreements (we can do this at a local level as well, at first, and work up), we have to rebuild regulations, we have to work to re-establish worker-based unions (many of the big unions today have become as bad as the big corporations... the elites run them just as they run the corporations, the government, and the courts).

Corporatism, just like globalization, isn't "all bad". There are good aspects to them as well. Globalization does help "flatten" the economies of the world (much as I hate to agree with Thomas Friedman), and does serve to raise living standards in developing countries. Corporatism in and of itself isn't bad; it provides economies of scale that allow us to accomplish things unheard of a century ago. But both of these, allowed to operate with no regulation or controls, is destroying local communities, local businesses, and local jobs. It is a madness that simply must stop before the last tree is cut down and the last frog goes extinct, and before the planet is completely uninhabitable.

Progressives: Making Progress or Points? Something-Or-Nothing vs. All-Or-Nothing

noreply@blogger.com (John S. Cline) — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 19:43:00 +0000

FIRST, A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM

In the United States (as opposed to most other democratic nations on earth) we tend to have a pretty one-dimensional political spectrum. There is a bit of two-dimensionality about it, and nobody fits entirely into one category (and in fact some fit two or more, depending on the issue), but basically it looks like this:

There are extreme right-wing radicals.
There are libertarians.
There are conservatives.
There are right-leaning moderates.
There are centrists.
There are left-leaning moderates.
There are liberals.
There are progressives.
There are extreme left-wing radicals.

(By the way, these are not my terms; these are definitions provided by most political science texts).

The terminology of "extreme" and "radical" seems easy to nit-pick... it's all a matter of opinion, right? Not really. The key characteristic that most social scientists use when applying the "extreme" and "radical" labels to the political spectrum is based on two measures:

1) "Extreme" is based on the size of the population per capita that hold such beliefs, and;
2) "Radical" is based on the rigidity of the beliefs (ie. ideological purism)

What this means is that those who fit either end of the spectrum and earn the labels of "extreme" and "radical" are people who represent a tiny minority that is uncompromisingly hidebound to their beliefs. They see any deviation from ideological purity as (at best) selling out or (at worst) treason. They refuse to believe, or even deeply investigate, explanations that do not fit within their worldview. They eject anyone from their "inner circle" who openly disagrees with the circle's views (or who accepts the views of those outside of the circle). They are easily convinced that there are "those in power" who seek to "squash" their "movement" or ideas, and the most radical tend to encompass the realms holding the highest concentrations of conspiracy theorists.

Trust me, this little political science lecture really does have a point; before I get there, though, let me indulge in pointing out where I think things have gone horribly wrong.

WHERE'S THE FOCUS: THE PEOPLE OR "STICKING IT TO THE MAN"?

I have listened carefully to the arguments presented by well-respected leaders within the Progressive Movement who argued strenuously against passing the new health insurance reform bill. I have read the links, the articles, the interviews, and pros and cons. Many of the arguments are very impressive and quite detailed, some tend towards the passionate and away from the factual. But none of it is convincing me that some of the folks on the Left who opposed passing this bill give more than lip-service empathy about what's going to actually happen to PEOPLE.

Here's why:

Every argument I've heard from the Left's "kill the bill" folks is that this is a huge giveaway to insurance and Big Pharma. That Congress-Critters will be filling their pockets and glad-handing themselves over how they got away with another big handout to the corporations. That anything that does anything good for people is only going to empower the corporations more.

Strangely, I hear very little, and nearly nothing specific, about the good things that will happen for real people when the bill's provisions take effect. If anything, even many of the good things are twisted around to actually seem bad... a "sop for the masses", "doesn't go far enough", or even that they will backfire and actually turn into a monstrous hundred-headed hydra upon the American people.

In fact, I hardly hear a peep about the affect the bill will have on your average, normal citizen. Some breast-beating about premium costs going up (which is not necessarily accurate, more of a wait-and-see issue) and that individuals won't get the benefits of ending pre-existing conditions and recissions for many years (largely true, except for certain groups like children). Overall, I have heard lots and lots about corporate giveaways and the power of corporations: little about people.

So I've studied this issue over the last few weeks as the final versions of the bill got hammered out and we got closer to passage, and I have seen this recurring theme:

"It lines the pockets of the powerful and political, therefore it is bad. That's all you need to know; what else is important?"

In some extremes, I've even had it more plainly spelled out: "We've got to HURT these soulless, heartless corporations. They're evil incarnate. We must damage them utterly. Down with the corporate overlords!"

It has seemed to me, from all of the rhetoric on the Left's "kill the bill" side, that they are far more concerned with making an example of corporations than actually helping people. It comes across as a 21st Century version of the hippie era's "sticking it to the man"... making a political point for ideological reasons is more important than anything else (including making any kind of actual progress).

And that's just as heartless, just as soulless, just as evil as the corporations supposedly are being. It is holding an entire nation of people in dire need hostage to a political ideology... for no other reason than to prove a point.

WHEN PROGRESSIVES BECOME RADICAL LEFTISTS

I was in conversation concerning the recent health insurance reform bill with a friend who eagerly and angrily denounced people like Dennis Kucinich, Anthony Weiner, Alan Grayson, Michael Moore, Dr. Howard Dean, and others as "corporatists" "sell-outs" and "back-stabbing charlatans". These leaders, who had been on the front lines for single-payer healthcare, who had reluctantly agreed that a public option compromise would be better than nothing, and finally in the end supported the final bills because they at least provided a stepping stone towards future changes that probably wouldn't come again for a generation, were, in my friend's opinion, "no better than Republicans" and had "caved".

When someone tells you that everyone who formerly fought for their cause but now has decided to accept compromises that move us forward is a sell-out or traitor, you are hearing the words of an "extreme radical". On the Left, it is most certainly NOT the mark of a liberal/progressive. Why? Because both liberals and progressives know when to keep fighting even against all odds, and when to make peace and accept the ground they've won. That is, by definition, what "progressive" means. "Extreme radicals", on the other hand, will continue the battle to the last person standing, set fire to any form of truce or peace treaty, and send any fellow warrior who even suggests accepting a reduced form of the prize to the firing squad.

It should also be noted that those who slip from either the far-left or the far-right into the "extreme radical" category join a very small and very exclusionary club, which only serves to drive away anyone else who is more readily accepting of compromise and mutual agreement between rivals.

Which makes it really odd to hear these folks who are either headed in that direction or already there call themselves "Progressives". They're not. They are the left-wing version of the Tea Party. Progressives, as the term would suggest, seek progress, and are willing to achieve it over time, not demand it all now, all at once, exactly as prescribed, or no deal.

I am a progressive. I believe in making progress, not making political "points" that achieve nothing. I believe it takes time, effort, and perseverance to do so. I believe it takes convincing people, not shouting them down, and that to do so requires a willingness to accept that even if they hold opposing views, it doesn't necessarily make them wrong, it means I need to educate them. I believe it requires patience, and an real understanding of history and the political process (both of which are a lot messier and more complicated than most of us understand).

If you believe that it is unthinkable to accept compromise and be willing to accept that we may have to take this step-by-step over many years; if you believe that passing no HCR bill was preferable to passing a flawed bill even though it helps 32 million people and ends some of the worst practices of our current health-scare system; if you believe that anyone who disagrees with you is a sell-out or at best a mindless automaton of the corporate state; if you believe these things, then you are NOT a Progressive, you are an extreme left-wing radical.

If you believe these things, then you are in the margins of society, you have given up your right to be taken seriously along with your willingness to compromise, and you will never see those things happen in this country that you and we so strongly desire. We will never achieve these things, because by continuing to identify yourselves as "Progressives" when in truth you are not willing to accept "progress" but only "All Or Nothing", you are Fifth Columnists within the Progressive Movement; you are using your small numbers and remaining influence to disrupt, damage, or kill the efforts of those less rigid than yourselves, hurting us all as a nation and a people by trying to blend your more radical message along with ours.

You have forgotten that political change is about helping REAL PEOPLE, not a CAUSE.

So please either stop the radicalization, or stop pretending you're Progressives. We'd prefer the former, so that we can work together on meeting the enormous challenges we all face today; but if not, then get out of our way and quit sabotaging our efforts to improve the lives of millions of people in America.

Globalization (And Our Children's Future) Demands That We Restructure the Military

noreply@blogger.com (John S. Cline) — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 23:11:00 +0000

The United States military budget, just taking into account figures going back to 2002 (before the Iraq War), made up 45% of the entire WORLD'S military expenditures. Represented in cartographic form (mapped according to the proportion of military spending per nation) our world looks something like this:

© Copyright 2009 SASI Group (University of Sheffield)

In other words, our taxes (which conservatives are always so keen on lowering) largely go towards supporting nearly one-half of all the money spent worldwide on military expenditures (and with the Iraq War figures not being accounted for in this, perhaps much more). A good deal of this is spent on stuff that simply gets destroyed (and a good deal of that is NOT destroyed in acts of war, but in training exercises).

A huge portion of that money goes to supporting around 4700 military bases and installations both domestically and on foreign soil (see page 11 of the PDF in the link... and that was just 2004, prior to huge budget increases, and does not include secret sites).

Combine that last with the fact that the reasoning for keeping most of these military bases, as well as the hardware and personnel required to keep them operational, are based on projecting power for a now non-existent Cold War; some are even running on inertia left over from WWII.

So three questions based on the following postulate: if America makes up 4.5% of the world's population, occupies 2% of the world's landmass, is running neck and neck with China and the EU as one of the world's premier economic powers, and is still the undisputed superpower in military technology and delivery capabilities, then:

1. WHY DO WE NEED EVEN 10% OF THE BASES OUT THERE? Can't America "project its power" with 80 foreign bases, if we represent such a military superiority while at the same time having such a small population and proportion of land? We have already demonstrated that we can move personnel and hardware around the world in a matter of hours using only a handful of major bases; what is the purpose for the rest of them?

2. WHY DO AMERICANS FEEL THE NEED TO BE THE "WORLD'S POLICEMAN"? This did not exist until Pearl Harbor, except in our own "back yard" with Central and South America vis–à–vis the Monroe Doctrine. Could it be that we are so anxious and afraid of being attacked again (as in Pearl, and as in 9/11) that we feel the need to be the biggest, toughest “bully on the playground”, or is there something less archetypal and more rational about it? Could it instead be something as simple as a desire to protect our markets by planting military bases right on top of strategic resources?

3. IF CHINA AND THE EU ARE RAPIDLY EQUALING OR EXCEEDING OUR ECONOMIC POWER, SHOULDN'T WE LET THEM SHOULDER MORE OF THE BURDEN OF PROVIDING MILITARY SUPPORT IN TROUBLED REGIONS OF THE WORLD? If we accept the obvious (though morally dubious) fact that a semi-capitalistic country such as ours uses its military to protect its markets, but we are now a global marketplace as the "Friedman Flat-Earthers" like to promote, then would it not make sense for every nation with a stake in globalization also do their part to provide security for trouble spots around the globe?

The next time you have a conversation with a conservative who thinks globalization is a wonderful thing and advocates a strong military, and who blanches at the thought of cutting military spending (while touting our need to cut social programs as "unsustainable"), perhaps you could ask them to answer these three questions. While I am sure there are some rational arguments they could present to support our present military budget, I have a feeling that most other arguments will simply devolve into circular logic.

In my view, since we have dramatically reduced the chances of worldwide nuclear annihilation with the end of the Cold War over 20 years ago, and the chances of an old-style "invasion" of our country are virtually nil, then our military is no longer primarily protecting American SOIL: they are protecting the American ECONOMY. While this fundamental shift in our military's purpose is important in many ways, it came without a fundamental shift in overall mentality from the top to the bottom. We have a military that is still structured as though we are going to, any day now, fight yesterday's war. And that leaves it enormously bloated.

Now think about the logic of this huge military budget that is now primarily tasked with protecting our economic well-being around the world: we are spending trillions of dollars over many decades to protect our ability to generate trillions of dollars in a global economy that we ourselves created.

Isn't that kind of like hiring a full security team costing $50,000 per month to protect your corner store that produces $100,000 per month, when you could do just as well with an electronic security system (cameras, alarms, etc.) that has a one-time cost of $10,000 and perhaps one security guard costing $3,000 per month? Imagine what your store could do with that extra money. Why, you might think of investing it in growing your business!

Imagine what we could do in our own country and around the world if we restructured our military to meet the needs of the present and future instead of the past. What would you do differently in America with, say, an extra $300-$500 billion per year? Universal healthcare? Fully-funded education through college? Pay off the national debt and re-invest that interest money into domestic needs? Invest in infrastructure improvements and sustainable transportation? Pour money into researching ways to wean ourselves off of foreign oil and gas? Colonize the Moon and Mars and leave the cradle of Earth before an asteroid comes and wipes us all out?

Imagine a future where the greatest desires of both liberals and conservatives are met: a future in which our grandchildren are not paying off a huge debt burden left behind by previous generations, are able to drink safe and clean water and food, where taxes are lower but are still able to fund great social programs to meet the needs of the people, and peace in the world is possible because America is no longer seen as the "bully on the playground" but is instead a co-partner with the rest of the world. It won't be Utopia, and there will still be vast areas of improvement necessary in areas like income inequality and poverty, cleaning up the mess left from advancing climate change, and much more. But at least for America, NONE of this will be possible unless we cut back on spending.

And we have a choice: do we cut back on already-inadequate social safety nets upon which millions depend, or do we cut back on a bloated, inefficient, and antiquated military superstructure and redesign it for our modern age? And why do I even have to ask this question?

The Influences of Western Musical Culture in Iran, Post-1979

noreply@blogger.com (John S. Cline) — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 23:19:00 +0000

Iran has a long, rich cultural history of musical innovation stretching back to the earliest days of the Persian Empire. Iranian Classical music pins its beginnings to pre-Islamic days, and operatic forms were in vogue long before they became popular in Europe. More recently, the 20^th Century C.E. saw the development of a thriving pop-music culture blending elements of both Western and Persian artistic styles to form a uniquely Iranian sound. In the 1960’s and 1970’s, Beethoven and Bach were as often heard as Minbashian and Mahjoubi on Iranian radio stations and at concerts. Rock music using Western instruments (especially the electric guitar) also grew in popularity among Iran’s younger generations.

The Islamic Revolution and Repression of Western Influence

The musical scene in Iran took a sharp turn after 1979 following the Islamic Revolution. Seeking a fundamentalist Islamic society, the new regime outlawed all things Western, including Western influences in music. Rock music was banned, as was the use of Western instruments and musical styles. Only music which fit with the limited acceptability of Islam, as determined by the leaders of the Revolution, was allowed: traditional folk music, Revolutionary songs praising the regime and Islam, and religious music were allowed; all else was banned. The forms of this ban were haphazard and often confusing: sheets of music deemed unacceptable were confiscated and destroyed, while pianos (a Western musical instrument) were largely left alone; violins were prohibited, while trombones were not. These restrictions and their enforcement varied and shifted over the years, and for those who felt the sting of being unable to play the kind of music they cherished, helped to lead to a vast and thriving underground music culture in Tehran and other cities throughout the country.

The leaders of the Islamic Revolution sought to remove all aspects of Western culture and influence and create an ideal Islamic state. While they succeeded in many areas, when it came to the more esoteric arena of the arts, success has been fleeting at best; in fact, many of their efforts have been counter-productive, in no area more so than in music. With each new wave of repression, musicians simply took their music and their compositional efforts underground; in addition, the flow of Western musical influence continued unabated through such avenues as black-market recordings, Voice of America and other internationally-broadcast music sources, and of course the constant communication with expatriated friends and family around the world.

From Repression to Reform

In diplomatic circles, it is often said that music is the ultimate cultural exchange program. Even when political and cultural tensions are high, musical influences still seep through any barriers. Despite the tense relations between the West, especially the United States, and Iran following the 1979 ousting of the Shah, Western music has continued to influence artists within the Islamic Republic in remarkable ways. During the leadership of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, whose strict control forced many Western-influenced musicians to flee the country, harsh punishments were often handed out to violators of “Islamic sanctity”. This continued through a series of leaders, especially during the Iran-Iraq War when Western (especially American) backing of Iraq and Saddam Hussein resulted in further backlashes against Westernization, until the 1997 election of President Mohammad Khatami, who brought a reform-minded agenda and an easing of restrictions on Western influences. Khatami’s presidency was marked by a number of reforms, including those for women’s rights, democratic principles, the rule of law, and perhaps most importantly a greater freedom for the arts, including those with Western influences.

In the period of Khatami’s leadership from 1997 until 2005, despite ups and downs caused by restrictions on legislative and social actions by the conservative clerics making up the ruling Council of Guardians, Iranian music once again began to flourish with the addition of Western influences and new trends in the art. New instruments, including synthesizers and computerized composition, began to come into use in a uniquely Western-Persian mix, and entirely new genres of music gained popularity, including electronica, rock, heavy metal, rap, and hip-hop. Iranian rock bands gained ground, and performed both in Iran and Europe. It seemed for a time that Westernization, at least in music, was due for a comeback.

A New Crackdown, But a Different Iran

With the election of the ultra-conservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005, however, the comeback was pushed back to the days of Khomeni. All Western-style music was banned from state-run radio and television, even as “background” music without lyrics. The playing of Western music, especially American, was once again outlawed and carried stiff penalties for those who violated the new bans. A return to Revolutionary styles and religious music was favored and pushed by the ruling elite. A number of things had changed, however, since the Islamic Revolution that made these new restrictions sit less well with Iran’s musicians and listeners.

The eight-year long Iran-Iraq War had devastated the country in many ways, not least of which was the decimation of a huge section of the population of fighting age. The war had left a large divide in generations between the old and the very young. As this younger generation grew up, they had far less connection to the original Islamic Revolution and its memes; in addition, they felt far less threat from, and in fact a greater attraction to, Western culture, including music. As these young people gained adulthood, their exposure to the freedoms of Khatami’s administration fed a musical culture that was both vibrant and innovative, adopting some of the newest trends from the West while fusing them with traditional musical styles and “officially acceptable” lyrics. This younger generation grew up being exposed to artistic styles that were exciting and provocative; thus, the failure of the reform movement with Ahmadinejad’s election and the subsequent restrictions and bans chafed these younger people greatly. A rebellious underground musical movement soon began, under threat of persecution by the state, and far more than in the past has grown extensively despite numerous crackdowns and arrests.

Some elements of this underground movement have used creative means to get their music out: one rock group, immensely popular in Iran, called “O-hum”, used the ruse of recording their music while outside the country and having it distributed hand-to-hand throughout the country. Others have used their respect and fame to leverage more flexibility for their music, such as Hafez Nazeri who has worked to combine Western and Persian symphonic styles into a unique fusion of “East meets West”. Despite harsh restrictions on lyrics (even including ancient poetry; some is considered too “worldly” despite being from famous and respected Persian poets), the rise of even hip-hop and rap groups in the underground music scene has been met with wide acclaim by Iranian youth.

An Iron Fist Spawns a Musical Flood

The current situation for music in Iran is especially exciting, and potentially explosive. The 2009 elections were widely panned both internationally and within Iran as fraudulent. The final ruling power in Iran, the Council of Guardians, decreed that Ahmadinejad had soundly beaten reform candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, despite claims of obvious election fraud and strong-arm tactics. This set off what many have called the “second Revolution”, usually called the Green Revolution after the color of Mr. Mousavi’s campaign flags (which by chance were the same light-green color symbolizing Islam and the Prophet). Hundreds of thousands of Mousavi supporters have taken to the streets since the elections to protest, but they have not stopped with mass demonstrations.

In the YouTube and Facebook world, audio and video spread messages that cannot easily be controlled by the ruling elite in Iran. A fantastic array of musicians, both inside and outside of Iran, have contributed protest songs and stirring “Green Music” in support of Mousavi and his supporters. Unlike previous songs, however, many of these do not take care to avoid criticism of the regime; on the contrary, they are resoundingly critical of Ahmadinejad, the Guardian Council, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and even the secret police. Many are angry, harsh rock or heavy metal in style, while others are simply singers lamenting what they see as the downfall of the Revolution. Many have compared Ahmadinejad to the deposed Shah Pahlavi or even to Hitler or Mussolini, while some have condemned the Supreme Leader of being anti-Islamic. The combination of anger at what is assumed to be a stolen election with modern telecommunications and social networking has had an enormous influence on Iranian music in a very short time, even including the addition of “death metal” and “rage” genres which had previously enjoyed little attention in Iran to that point.

Can't Stop The Music

The influence of Western culture in Iran since the Islamic Revolution has been greatly enhanced by the virtually non-stop reciprocal flow of music into and out of the country. Despite the best efforts of the ruling conservative elite to enforce “Islamic sanctity”, Western musical culture has continued to have a major influence on the Islamic Republic. With the advent of the Green Revolution and the dramatic inflow of new, Western-based music as well as a harder-edged, combative (and illegal, by current standards) lyrical style, it appears that the younger generation will, over time, win the fight with the old guard to ensure that they have a permanent voice in Iran’s culture and growth, including and perhaps especially in the area of music.

For more on Iran's music scene and the politics of music:

"Iran: More than 20 musicians banned from radio". (2009, November 30). FreeMuse. http://www.freemuse.org/sw35914.asp

"Iran president bans Western music". (2005, December 19). BBC News Online. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4543720.stm

"Iran's underground music challenge". (2006, May 8). BBC News Online. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4973690.stm

Levine, Mark. (2009, June 18). "Blog Posts From Iran's Metal and Hip Hop Artists: Is Music the Weapon of the Future in Iran?". Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-levine/blog-posts-from-irans-met_b_217517.html

Levine, Mark. "Heavy Metal Islam". Three Rivers Press: New York, NY. 2008. http://heavymetalislam.net/

Pellegrinelli, Lara. (2009, November 14). "Hafez Nazeri: From Iran, Music Beyond Politics". NPR: Music Interviews. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120397164

Sadighi, Ramin. (2009, February 19). "Iranian Music: An Unexplored Territory". PBS: Frontline. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2009/02/iranian-music-an-unexplored-territory.html

Newsflash: Progressives Outraged Again, Uncertain Why; Eating Own In Response

noreply@blogger.com (John S. Cline) — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 05:01:00 +0000

I'm not joining in the circular firing squad just yet. I was very, very disappointed at Rachel Maddow's handling of Jared Bernstein on Monday's show, and her Tuesday show was no better. As I said in a previous post, Bernstein, who kept trying to explain the economic proposal to be highlighted in the State of the Union address, was repeatedly cut off by Rachel. And no matter what he said, she kept going back to her original "OMG it's Hooverism!". We lost a good opportunity to hear about what's actually going to be proposed, rather than what we all imagine it will be, and that's sorely disappointing.

Just for the record, I love Rachel dearly, but that interview was way, way over the top (just saying so I don't get slammed with "Rachel is perfect, and you're a lying scurvy dog conservative-in-progressive clothing for saying otherwise" comments as I did with my previous posting). If you disagree and think Rachel was in top form, then you really need to get out more. That was the most horrific display of one-sided interviewing I've seen outside of Hannity or O'Reilly, and Rachel is far better than that. I hope to see some kind of "talking down" on her part, if not for the substance, then at least for her demeanor and complete lack of objectivity (Remember that? It's SUPPOSED to be a trait in which liberals take great pride).

And this goes for just about every liberal blog and news-site in the last 48 hours. The hysteria has been palpable, while the echo-chamber effect has been so evident that nobody really knows anything about anything... it's all just speculation dumped onto opinion based on rumor. My usual daily rounds through HuffPo, Daily Kos, FireDogLake, and others revealed that virtually everything posted there was, with few exceptions, inordinately and overwhelmingly opposed to this "proposal" that isn't, yet. Everyone is fixated on the "spending freeze" part of it (which doesn't take effect for nearly two years... and freezes spending at 2010 levels which are expected to be much higher than 2009 levels, I might add), while getting the vapors about ANY kind of "spending cuts" that might be in the package. It's a roundtable of no-nothingness expounding upon the dire consequences of imagined and unspecific vagaries. People are pissed off, and they don't even know why, much less if they actually have a reason to be.

And I know I'm stepping on exalted toes here, especially since I'm just an economics minor and don't have Ph.D.'s and Nobel Prizes, but frankly this time I'm in full-on disagreement with Reich, Krugman, Stiglitz, DeLong, and others who have weighed in on this as "appalling" or worse. I have no problem with spending cuts during a recession... IF THEY ARE TARGETED AT THINGS THAT DON'T PRODUCE JOBS OR OTHERWISE DON'T IMPACT OVERALL GDP. I think our beloved progressive intelligensia have jumped the shark here, because nobody knows exactly what's going to be proposed yet. How can they possibly opine about the dangers of the proposal, when nobody outside the White House knows what's going to be proposed? They're all harping on an overly-simplistic "look what happened in 1937, OMG!!!" without knowing what the heck they're even talking about.

Entry-level macroeconomics (at least the Keynesian-influenced versions) says don't cut spending during a downturn. Fine. Then you take higher-level macro courses and they say "well, most of the time". If folks only have an entry-level understanding of macro, they'll be screaming about this. If you have a more nuanced understanding of macro, you're not so quick to start screaming. Which is why I'm so baffled by liberal economists getting all bent out of shape over this... if I can understand that, surely they can too!

Not all government spending is stimulative during a downturn, but from listening to both economists and progressive bloggers, it's as though ALL government spending is the same in their eyes, and making cuts in ANY area is absolutely horrific. This is simply ludicrous: even the least politically aware people out there know that huge sums of money go to what amounts to little more than paper-shuffling activities. They don't produce anything more than a few paper-shuffler jobs, so their loss won't even make a tic in the unemployment numbers. However, they cost the taxpayers a huge amount in administrative expenses. Cutting spending in these kinds of things, and then re-routing the savings into job-creating areas, is smart both economically and politically. If, and I stress, IF these are the kinds of things Obama & Co. have planned for their spending cuts, then I'm all for it.

And that's what I think Bernstein was trying to say, from what little I could hear over Rachel's constant interruptions and dismissals: that money from the cuts would be re-routed into job-creating programs and stimulative efforts. He was saying that even though there will be a spending freeze... which won't take effect until 2011... that money saved through these immediate cuts will be used to EXPAND THE STIMULUS. Get that, folks?

I'll say this again:

We all know the stimulus package was too small;

It's too late to ask for more money; the political energy behind more stimulus money is gone;

The only way to get more money to stimulate the economy is through cuts in programs that are ineffective, bloated, and that don't produce meaningful job growth;

WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT OBAMA CAMPAIGNED ON IN 2008 (Remember his comment in the debates that across-the-board spending freezes are a hatchet, whereas we need a scalpel?);

From what I heard Bernstein trying to say, THIS IS THE SCALPEL, FOLKS.

And yet we're crucifying him for using it, because in 2 years time part of what may be in the proposal is that there's a spending freeze (again, frozen at a higher level, and it won't be taking effect until, hopefully, the economy is actually strong again).

I'm sorry, but is there anyone out there on the progressive/liberal side of things who bothers to take the time to understand the nuances of things before they go off half-cocked and instantly attack something that may actually be beneficial and supportive of progressive goals (like increasing stimulus spending?). I'm including all of the high-falutin' economic wizards in this list too... because unless I missed something, pretty much all of them came out swinging against this as-yet unproposed proposal, and I got little impression they knew any more about what was actually being proposed or what it might entail than anyone else in the blogosphere. And that's a sad, sad day, because these are the folks who are supposed to have a handle on what's going on in the economy from an liberal perspective. In my opinion, they collectively dropped the ball on this in favor of knee-jerk attacks.

And another thing.

Jared Bernstein is one of the most liberal economists out there... he's a Democratic Socialist with a Ph.D. in Social Welfare, for g-d's sake! He's written books and papers on allieviating poverty, helping the working class, and reducing inequality in our society. Why would everyone automatically assume that he'd be out shilling for something so entirely alien to everything he believes in? In a HuffPo piece following the Maddow interview, he did a credible job trying to explain how all this is supposed to work; we'll learn more as the details come out in the next few days.

So unless these folks believe in Pod People and that Bernstein's been converted, it's assinine to toss him under the bus without at least listening to what he's trying to say. If he supports these things, then by g-d we should at least respect the man and his history enough to listen to his reasoning. The blogosphere and yes, Rachel's handling of the interview, have left this man being ripped up one side and down the other as a shill, a toady, a technocrat, and far worse. The same guy that progressives hailed and cheered just a few months ago as he was named Chief Economic Advisor to Vice President Joe Biden. Talk about liberals eating their own; there is no better example than this. Case in point for how unhinged the progressive movement has become, and why we are rapidly throwing away any semblance of the unity we showed in 2008.

So in the upcoming SotU speech, I'll be listening closely to what's said, and I'll be reading the economic proposals carefully. But until I see something that says outright, in black-and-white, that Obama and his team have completely gone off the rails of reality, then I'm willing to listen, discuss, and even argue about specifics. And who knows, if it makes even a modicum of sense from a liberal-progressive perspective, perhaps I'll even support the ideas proposed.

And maybe, just maybe, some of my fellow progressives and liberals will quit sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming "HOOVER-HOOVER-HOOVER!!!" long enough to join me in a rational discussion of what is actually proposed, once it IS proposed, instead of making bloody hash of it using their worst nightmare fantasy scenarios.

Maddow on Spending Freezes: 1937 Redux? Um, not so fast...

noreply@blogger.com (John S. Cline) — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 07:07:00 +0000

I had to record the Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC, and so I'm late commenting on her Monday show. And I'm sad to say my comments aren't as glowing as they normally would have been. I love her just tons and tons, but I have to say she jumped the shark on the interview with Jared Bernstein at the top of the hour regarding President Obama's announcement of spending freezes (the details of which we still don't know, I might add).

She was too upset to listen to her guest, who kept trying to explain how the spending would (a) not take effect until 2011, (b) was targeted to non-productive and wasteful areas of the budget that had languished for years without pruning, (c) that areas of the budget that PRODUCED jobs would be, if anything, bolstered (including especially green jobs and energy initiatives), and that (d) they were well aware of the Hoover mistakes and were taking pains not to repeat them.

If she'd not been so focused on her own anger and upset, she might have heard these things, but instead just kept arguing her original position. In doing so, not only did she continually interrupt her guest (which sadly made her sound a lot like a certain other host in a nearby timeslot on MSNBC), but also did a disservice to her viewers, who were unable to get a good explanation from Mr. Bernstein and were instead fed a continual course of "this is bad, horrible, terrifying, disgusting, baffling, what are you people thinking!?!?" from Rachel.

As I love Rachel and her intellectual approach to these kinds of things, it was actually kind of painful to watch. I was a bit embarrassed to see her so... un-Rachelly.

I'm not saying she's not right to closely question this announcement, nor to approach it with great skepticism (as we all did when we first heard of it... trust me, my first reaction was to echo Rachel with "what are they thinking!?!?"). Especially troubling to me was the ban on cutting defense spending, which every breathing soul knows is chock-full of waste and contractor abuse. But her apparent black/white understanding of what happened in 1937 shows either that she doesn't really have a good grasp what happened back then, or that she has completely bought in to the overly simplistic idea that "any spending cuts or freezes during a downturn are a bad idea" (which is, in fact, what she said).

So I'll offer a bit of history; I apologize for over-simplifying in advance, but it's really just a simple point that Rachel should have known: The 1937 debacle that returned a recovering country back to the Great Depression was caused by ACROSS THE BOARD spending cuts and freezes, and worst, among these were the job-creating programs that had helped put so many millions of people to work.

The public sector employed millions of folks, and though it seemed that the private sector was recovering, they were not yet ready to hire back all those millions of people; when programs like WPA and CCC were trimmed, folks were tossed out of jobs that had no recourse but to return to the breadlines.

So that's the lesson of 1937. What it tells us is that if you cut spending across the board, including in areas that are proven job-producers, you are shooting yourself and your fellow citizens in the collective foot.

But targeted, surgical cuts to programs that do nothing to bolster jobs... that basically eat up money but don't produce anything other than paperwork (and perhaps the jobs of a few Miltons and their red staplers)... and then turning some of that money over to reducing the deficit (which makes conservatives happy) while turning the rest of it on investments in current and future jobs (which makes liberals happy) is actually quite helpful to the economy.

It's trimming the deadwood while planting new trees. It works in forestry, and it works in economics. The only thing you have to be careful about is how many trees you plant and how fast they grow. The very real danger here, to further extend my woodland metaphor, is that if you don't plant the new trees quickly and in great abundance, the soil will erode and the whole thing will turn into a mudslide that'll swallow the entire landscape.

Rachel is right to be concerned, and it's not that her questions to Mr. Bernstein weren't called for; it is that she entered into the interview with a one-sided, limited point of view and then proceeded to cut him off during his explanations, and worst, completely ignored what he was saying simply to reiterate her own point. And her repeated comment that "responsible economists" say that the stimulus wasn't enough and that spending freezes or cuts during a downturn are generally a bad idea came across (perhaps only to me) as a not-so-subtle personal insult to her guest, who is himself an economist.

Of course, this is all just my opinion and others may have a much different reaction to that segment than I did, but if Rachel, after she's had time to further study this and get "talked down" about it, agrees then I sincerely hope she issues some kind of retraction, apology to her guest, or both. Or at least maintains her skepticism, but returns to her usual "I'm willing to listen" approach to things. Because in my view, tonight she wasn't willing to listen to anything but her own preconceptions. And frankly, she's a hell of a lot better than that.

It's time to change the rules

noreply@blogger.com (John S. Cline) — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:43:00 +0000

(Via MoveToAmend.org):

"We the corporations"

On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule.

We Move to Amend.

We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to:

•Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.

•Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our votes and participation count.

•Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments."

Sign the Motion:

It's time to change the rules

Letting them know, "Help is on the way!" in Haiti

noreply@blogger.com (John S. Cline) — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 05:30:00 +0000

I keep hearing reports of people in Port-au-Prince and elsewhere getting frustrated because they see no signs of aid coming (mostly because help can't get through to them yet); it seems like a good idea for teams of helicopters with loudspeakers to flyover the city constantly broadcasting messages that help is on the way, and where to go for help. Some reports have indicated that people have died just blocks away from groups of aid workers simply because they didn't know they were there.

Otherwise, reports of gangs and violence are only going to go up as people begin to think, with no other information available, that they've been abandoned. No electricity, no water, no food, no shelter; no working radios or TVs, much less Internet. I understand that some cell phone carriers are functioning again, and they should perhaps be sending out text messages to disseminate information. The folks in Haiti need to know that a massive effort to help them is underway, and that they have NOT been abandoned.

Anyone have any contacts with folks on the ground down there to pass this idea along, or perhaps know if this is already something being done? I haven't seen any reports that indicate anything like this is going on.

A Progressive Purity Test is No 'Revolution'

noreply@blogger.com (John S. Cline) — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 01:05:00 +0000

A Progressive Revolution. I admit it's an enticing thought; we NEED some kind of non-violent, progressive revolution in this country to return power to the electorate instead of the monied interests and career politicians. However, as JFK said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable", and we are increasingly finding it difficult to effect revolutionary change through peaceful means with corporations and their paid puppets running just about every level of national government, including voting. The system is rigged, those who rigged the system are in charge, and many people on the left are feeling as though we had better get our groove on fast or we'll lose the whole thing. I tend to agree with this position, but it seems that many want to take it further: they consider the system too broken to fix, and want to bypass efforts to work with what is left of it and just start a real-live revolution... "Damn the torpedos!" style.

Not to bore anyone, but I think a little bit of history is in order. We all know the story of the American Revolution: the oppressive British monarchy finally goaded Colonials too far, and the 1775 "Shot Heard 'Round The World" set off a battle that finally resulted in freedom from British rule. What most folks tend to gloss over, if they even know it at all, is that in the decades leading up to the revolt, the Colonial government repeatedly tried to "work the system from within". Representatives made the long ocean voyage back and forth many times trying to get the King and Parliament to see things their way. Sometimes they succeeded, but more often not. And more importantly, EVEN AFTER THE FIGHTING BEGAN, there were still attempts to work within the system, to bring about a peaceful settlement. It was only after such attempts were rebuffed and more and more violent acts by the British and their hired mercenaries occurred that such attempts slowed to a crawl; independence became the goal, rather than remaining under colonial rule. Even so, diplomatic efforts continued and even increased once France and others joined the American cause. Eventually, as we all know, the war ended and our country was born.

One lesson I take from this is that while many actively desired a clean break from British rule, many others were not quite so quick to want such dramatic change. For some it was loyalty; for others it was economics and business; and for others, it was simply that though things weren't all that great, they weren't all that bad, either. In other words, it wasn't a revolution made up of revolutionaries, it was a revolution made up of enough people who agreed with certain goals or ideas that they were willing to work together, even if they disagreed with, or were ambivalent to, some of the other goals or ideas held by their fellows.

We're fast approaching something similar in our time. The frustration among many progressives over what seems to be blatant corruption and systemic failure of our democracy at every turn has led to a number of calls for a Progressive Revolution, which may not sound like anything new, but there is increased pressure given today's severe problems to do SOMETHING. This frustration often turns against itself, however; many progressives, growing impatient for change, call for progressives to "throw out the bums": mainstream liberals, moderates, or even "pragmatic" progressives who seek change through incremental or "within the system" means.

The only problem with exclusionary rhetoric is that progressives NEED liberals, moderates, and "pragmatic" progressives in the same boat, not cast overboard. Just like in the American Revolution, there just aren't enough progressives in the entire United States, even if they were gathered in one place, to effect any real change based solely on "pure" progressive idealism. We spend a lot of time in our progressive echo chambers patting each other on the back and thinking we're part of a huge movement, listening to Thom Hartmann or watching KO and Rachel and getting all fired up, but if we were really that numerous we'd have no problem enacting changes like real universal single-payer healthcare, stopping the wars, repealing DOMA and DADT, implementing same-sex marriage, ending corporatism, enacting real climate change reforms, etc. Compared to the overall United States adult population, though, we're just a handful. We NEED others who at least agree in part with our goals and ideas to get anything accomplished.

And in today's gilded age of Internet Activism, getting enough people out from in front of their computer screens and marching in person in the streets, and especially in the National Mall in D.C. is a real challenge. When hundreds of thousands showed up to protest Vietnam, not for one big event but on a regular basis; when the Million Man March filled up the Mall; when President Obama was inaugurated and there wasn't a patch of grass more than a foot across without someone standing on it... that's the kind of real activism that gets national attention. If you gathered all the progressives in the nation in one big march, you would have the largest such march in history; but logistically, that simply isn't going to happen. And unless we as progressives work to reach out to, rather than exclude, mainstream liberals, moderates, and those among us who are more "pragmatic", then we never will have such a march... or anything even approximating it.

Which is why I choose to work with, even if grudgingly, the "incrementalists" and "work the system from within" folks. Because they outnumber us ten to one, for one thing... and because by doing so, we can pull more and more of them into the progressive camp rather than excluding them and making them see us as too radical, too "noisy", to work with. For moderates and most liberals, progressives have, until recently, been seen as the "looney fringe". But we're achieving some inroads into becoming "mainstream".

And that goal is being met without anything we're doing as progressives, per se; outside forces are doing much of the work for us. The economy continuing to trudge along precariously, more and more jobs still being lost, globalization and free trade agreements sapping what jobs are left, corporate money blatantly corrupting politics, a healthcare crisis that doesn't seem to have any end, a housing crisis that shows no sign of recovery, and on and on. All of these are helping people see that our progressive message, that "IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THIS WAY", makes more and more sense, and they are able to break out of their status-quo thinking. Once they do, even if they don't become overnight progressives, they find themselves willing to support progressive causes.

But when some of us continue the rhetoric of "FU, we don't need you, you worthless sheeple" (as is the implied (and sometimes explicit) message being put out by many on the left), it shuts down this process and leaves potential allies seeing all progressives as, once again, the "looney fringe".

The Progressive Revolution, to succeed, will require people from all camps, and all across the spectrum, to come together and work for change. If they disagree in part, that's fine, as long as they support the overall goal. As in the American Revolution, we might have our equivalent of Jeffersonians on one side and Hamiltonians on the other, but they managed to work together, and so can progressives, "pragmatic" progressives, liberals, moderates, and perhaps even some conservatives and libertarians. Calls by some to "purify" progressivism will only lead to a complete failure of the progressive cause, just as efforts by conservatives to "purify" the GOP are leading to its irrelevance and imminent demise. The trite but true statement that "there is strength in numbers" has never been more true than today; but some progressives who call for a purity test, instant rather than incremental change, and working outside the system threaten to sap the growing strength of the progressive cause.

So it's no capitulation to progressive ideals and goals to "work the system from within"... it is in fact the only way that we will ever get enough people in this country over to our side. Without it, we will continue to be nothing but a tiny handful of folks on the left who want fundamental change in our government, but who are too intransigent to be seen as viable partners in enacting change by the vast majority of the rest of the country. Exclusionary rhetoric will ensure that our message is lost, and that our country will continue the slide into corporate fascism while a growing majority of Americans lose themselves to reality shows, mindless entertainment, and the meaningless, powerless distractions of partisan bickering.

For a revolutionary movement to succeed, it must have the people on its side. And that only comes about when we are willing to accept that some who join our cause may not agree with us on everything, or perhaps may even oppose us on many things. What is important is that our goals are clear, our methods are understandable and focused, and our message is inclusive.

The Technology-Driven Sheeple Machine

noreply@blogger.com (John S. Cline) — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 05:44:00 +0000

I for one am seeing a complete paradigm shift in American thinking, something unfolding, unknown in our history. It's not about what the politicians have done, or even the corporations. It's what we've done to ourselves. We have voluntarily and even aggressively sought to become a nation of sheeple.

I look back to the 1920's and 1930's for the beginning of this. Most people think of this as the Great Depression years, but it is also the Rise of Radio and also the Rise of Movies. Then the late 1940's and especially 1950's brought the Rise of Television. For the first time in history, this Instant Information Triad came into existence and began shaping the way people thought, felt, and even acted.

Before this, there were only books, newspapers, magazines, public town meetings, postal mail, or musical and theatrical performances to pass along information; this was slow and allowed for far more careful thought and discussion. Ideas traveled quickly, but there was a great deal of time to contemplate how they shaped society. But then, in the course of a single century, we added the instantaneous and directly audio-visual mediums of radio, movies, and television. Far faster than the written or spoken word, far more influential on our mental pictures of the world, our society became more homogeneous though the use of these instantaneous communication methods... and far less critical of what was being communicated.

Now add in the drive for consumerism which began in the 1920's and ramped up throughout the entire of the last century, mostly through the efforts of this self-same Triad. We were not only bombarded by advertisements, but also by both visual and auditory images of "the good life" expressed through everything from soap operas to comedies on radio and TV shows like Jack Benny, Family Affair, Beverly Hillbillies, The Brady Bunch, Dallas and Dynasty, 90210, The Nanny, or Prince of Bel-Air, ... all shows with rich or at least very well-to-do households... and I'm not even going to go there with shows modeled after Lives of the Rich and Famous. The American people were convinced that if only they got that good education, climbed the corporate ladder, or maybe just married well, they too could live "the good life". And if not, they could buy their way into pretending they were. After all, if Elizabeth Taylor wears that perfume it will make me smell like a rich movie star, Betty Crocker is as good as home-made, and if you drive a fancy new Lexus you're pretty hot stuff, right?

Now add in the multiplexing effect of the Internet, and we have a perfect storm of instant gratification, instant numbness, instant information (often without context), and even instant political activism. Especially regarding this last, people of this latest generation actually think that if they sign enough online petitions, and join enough online groups supporting this or that cause, they are actually accomplishing something REAL. Mostly, they find that texting their votes to choose the next American Idol is enough.

Many of these people even work from home, watch movies from home, order food to be delivered at home, and some even attend church from home. Socialization amounts to going out to a "rave" where you can't even hear yourself think, or going shopping with a few friends (assuming they're not all online too). And it's not the youngest generation of adults I'm talking about here... it cuts a wide generational path. I for one acknowledge the latent hypocrisy of bringing this to an online medium for dissemination; but what other path is open to most of us? We, in a very real sense, ARE our technology now. We're not cybernetic beings, but we're so dependent on instantaneous communication technology that we might as well be; and probably, someday, will be.

We are becoming a people who are intensely networked and connected, but who are in many ways almost completely mute. I think we're fast becoming a nation of mere IP address locations and pixels and bits... a 21st century finalization of the instant communication of the 20th century, with the resulting pacification effects that brings. In America, we have not only become used to our instantaneous lifestyle, but demand it; in fact, I am sure that for many people, life quite literally would be unthinkable without it. No TV? No Radio? No Movies? No Internet? How could we possibly survive?

And truth be told, in many ways, we couldn't. Modern society and infrastructure is built around this instant communication ability. Without it, many of us would not be able to survive; if there ever was any kind of world-disrupting communications blackout, a great many people in the "Developed World" would die off, leaving those in the "Emerging World" quite capable of taking our place. We are losing our ability to survive without the aid of our technology, and that is just not a good idea from an evolutionary standpoint, much less a rational one.

And it is making us impotent in affecting greater change in society. Completing an online petition to save rainforests is helpful. But if that's all you do, all day long, it may make you feel better about yourself but it doesn't save a single tree. In fact, if people aren't physically marching in the streets, demanding change, the people who run our government (the entrenched politicians and the corporate special interests) will continue to do what they wish in the "real" world, feeling safe to ignore the ghostly Diggs and Shares and Reddits and Tweets of the furious but ephemeral online hoards. They'll just send along some highly-shareable YouTube videos and text message us about a sale at BigOnlineMegaStore, and we'll remain nicely distracted.

Unless we constantly strive to sift out the subliminal and subconsious messages we receive, to think critically about the information (and to limit how much and from which sources it comes), to find ways to physically get up off our collective bums and take to the streets to demand action from the government that, for the moment, is still technically "ours", then this country is no longer going to remain "The United States of America". It will become something quite different, unrecognizable either to ourselves or our forebears. We must use our iPhones and Facebook accounts to rally real people together at real events, to get away from American Idol and Bachelorette, or this country will cease to exist as anything but a mega-corporate ATM full of easily-distracted sheeple, happily leading their consumer-driven lives as their financial and mental energy is sucked dry.

And rainforests will continue to be cut down, healthcare will remain in the hands of the corporate profit-makers, educational standards will continue to decline, infrastructure will decay and collapse, and the environment will destabilize and destroy all life on the planet except maybe cockroaches, crocodiles, and the few rich and powerful enough to build their own private Galtian communes to survive the apocolypse they helped, but did not force, us to create.

1984 and Brave New World combined wouldn't hold a candle to what we're headed towards unless people break their self-made chains. Marx didn't have any way to know at the time, but the "opiate of the masses" was not and never has been religion; it is information overload and consumer satiation. With those two working at the behest of the people themselves, corporatists will never have to fear a return to democratic governance, much less "socialism"; they simply send out new products and sell the latest fad, and democracy will wither on the vine with the help of every person with a credit card.

This isn't a blame-piece, nor a back-to-nature call for everyone to join communes and live in harmony with nature (although that harmony with nature part would certainly help a great deal). And this isn't a rant about the stupidity of the masses in the style of Matt Taibbi or Chris Hedges; it's more of a question, or perhaps a plea: what can we do about this? Is it inevitable, and the collapse into sheepledom well on the way to completion, or is there a magic bullet that will wake people up to their self-made fantasy of comfort and security? More than anything, I want answers as to how we can re-engage our citizenry and re-energize our country, how we can return to a democratic society where the corporate machine doesn't reduce people to mindlessness. Do we still have the power to change this, or should we all go turn on Dancing with the Stars and forget about this grand idea we used to call The United States of America?

HOLIDAY RECIPE: John's (In)Famous Creamed Onions

noreply@blogger.com (John S. Cline) — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 02:13:00 +0000

Warning: My apologies to my vegan and vegetarian friends; stop reading now and move along, nothing to see here! Also, there is absolutely no chance that the American Heart Association would endorse this recipe. Please have paramedics standing by before consumption.

I've been making this recipe for years around the holidays, and it's usually a big hit; my family considers me the "creamed onions" guy, and though I have a lot of other great holiday recipes, this one seems to be my specialty. As a number of folks have asked me "what's this creamed onions stuff you talk about", I thought I'd share my recipe with the world. Please consume at your own risk, and may whatever God or gods are out there have forgiveness on my soul.

My creamed onion recipe began as an experiment with a version of carbonara sauce, and has become virtually unrecognizable from those humble beginnings. Thick, creamy, slightly sweet, and so rich you can feel your arteries clogging with each bite, it's versatile as both a great side dish and an entree. Preparation is fairly simple and quick, and the recipe can be cut or added easily for different numbers of servings. The version here is for a basic four entree/eight side-dish servings.

John's (In)Famous Creamed Onions

1 large sweet yellow onion (Walla Walla if available), finely chopped (12 oz package of frozen chopped onions can substitute)
1/2 cup frozen early petite green peas (NOT canned!)
1/4 cup plain bread crumbs, finely crumbled
1 package Stouffer's® Creamed Chipped Beef
1/4 lb ham (smoked or honey depending on taste; chicken breast works well too), cooked and finely chopped
1/4 cup real bacon bits (medium finely chopped)
2 tbsp bacon "cracklings"
1/2 cup Swiss cheese, finely shredded (cheddar or other cheeses can substitute, but avoid "soft" cheeses like mozzarella)
1/2 cup heavy whipping cream (half-and-half can substitute)
1/4 cup sweet cream butter (regular margarine will work, but increase heavy cream to 3/4 cup; low-fat margarine will NOT work well)
1/4 tsp fresh-ground black pepper
1/4 tsp garlic powder
1 tbsp Tabasco® Smoked Chipotle Pepper Sauce
1 tbsp sugar (honey works well too)

Bacon "cracklings" should be prepared in advance; they are best prepared by crisp-frying 1 pound bacon, then removing the bacon for another meal, draining most of the grease off and retaining the leftover solids; do not allow to burn. Thaw peas to room temperature or microwave on high for 3 minutes and put aside. Cook Stouffer's® Creamed Chipped Beef according to package directions and put aside. Place chopped onion in microwave and cook on high for 6 minutes or until very soft. Place onions and butter in frying pan and sautee over medium heat for 10 minutes or until golden brown and just beginning to carmelize. Reduce heat to medium-low and add Stouffer's®, peas, ham or chicken, bacon bits, "cracklings", cream, pepper, garlic, Tabasco®, and sugar and simmer for 10 minutes, stirring often. After 10 minutes, add bread crumbs, and continue simmering and stirring for an additional 10 minutes or until mixture thickens and begins to brown. Remove from heat and stir in shredded cheese until nicely blended. Serve immediately, either as a side-dish to complement turkey or chicken, or as an entree, such as over egg noodles for dinner, or even toast or an English muffin for breakfast or lunch.

Serves 8 as a side-dish, or 4 as an entree.

Hope you enjoy this as much as we have! All the best to you and yours for the holidays, and hope that you have a wonderful new year!

Marriage By Any Other Name… Isn’t “Marriage”

noreply@blogger.com (John S. Cline) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:50:00 +0000

I had a very interesting discussion on Facebook last night that I thought perhaps I would open up to a wider audience. The topic of gay marriage is always sure to bring lively debate, and one of the issues that continually comes up is “why not just call it something else, like ‘civil union’, to avoid the religious connotations; after all, what does it matter what you call it?”

This of course has been brought up and argued back and forth numerous times in the last many years, and of course I include my own take on it, but I would really like to see some other takes on this matter. Please read the edited conversation below, and add your own comments (and please keep it civil; I’m looking for reasoned arguments, not rehashing old talking points):

John Cline: From my new FB friend Jonathan: On Wednesday, March 1, 2006, at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie Raskin, professor of law at AU, was requested to testify. At the end of his testimony, Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs said: "Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?"

Raskin replied: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible." The room erupted into applause.

Stacy: Good point. Government should not be in the business of marriage - any marriage. The government should be dealing with the legal and contractual side (civil union contracts for everyone), and leave the sanctification of the union in a religious sense to the churches since marriage is a religious institution. That would solve the problem. Couples (or groups for that matter) of any type could enter into a standard definition of a civil union as defined by state governments, or customize a contractual relationship to suit them. Everything would be nice and equal as far as the government was concerned. It would be up to the individuals and their religious organization to define marriage. If the individual doesn't agree with their religious organization's stance, they can work to change it or find another religious organization. No need for intervention by the government or the general population. It would be all inclusive since agnostics and atheists could do the civil union and just skip the whole marriage bit.

Then we could forget the whole debate and get on with our lives.

John Cline: @Stacy, unfortunately too many people seem to think that marriage is a religious thing, which is 180 degrees backwards. Marriage in the United States is and always has been a civil issue, and the religious element has always been optional (except where the government and the religion are one and the same, such as the first Pilgrim communities, and even then it was recorded as a secular act which wasn't "official" until it had been sanctified before God). Somewhere along the way, folks here got the two mixed up, and now the very idea of "marriage" is intertwined with "before God", even though if you get married by a Justice of the Peace, or out at sea by a ship captain for that matter, you're still just as married in people's eyes (as long as you're heterosexual). The right-in-your-face hypocrisy of the whole "married before God" crowd when it applies to secularly-married folks seems to elude people. I'm not sure when in history all this changed, but I think you're basically right... until we get the word "marriage" either back to meaning the secular sense as it used to, or we find a new term to describe civil unions that doesn't sound so bureacratic, then we're all going to be arguing past one another over what should be a really simple concept.

Stacy: Who cares what it is called as long as the legal status is equivalent?

Heidi: I keep asking this question of everyone. If you and your partner are joined in a Civil Union then what is the term for your relationship? Are you married are you unioned , what term is used to describe it ? I think this is the hang up , we have to have a word to describe the relationship and from than we can get the word for the contractual act. Any suggestions?

Stacy: Spouse, husband, wife to describe each other. Pick whatever you like for the union. As a society we are WAY to focused on labels and pigeon-holing everyone and every thing, most often into two opposing categories. Politics is a perfect example. Little in life is binary, most thing in life are best represented by a continuum.

Heidi: It can't be pick whatever we like. One of the whole points of having a public commitment ceremony is to allow our friends and family to celebrate our ........?????? Our what? Our unioning, our marriage , our committal ...... While it is true that language can be used to label and pigeonhole but by far its most important function is too create common meaning and understanding. So if we all have Civil Unions then what is our common language to describe the relationship?

Heidi: Stacy this question is not directed at you, I would love to have input on what we should call this. I think by default people who are in civil union relationships call themselves married, as that word is the best one in our language that conveys all the nuances of the relationship. If we create civil unions as a state function for all and leave marriage as a religious ceremony then are those who are in a Civil Union married ? I don't know so I keep asking. Anyone have an idea or opinion?

John Cline: @Heidi: This name-issue is a universal problem, stemming back hundreds if not thousands of years.

Marriage is and always has been a civil issue. But throughout world history, until the establishment of the United States, civil/secular and the religious establishment were, if not one and the same, then in close proximity. In much of Europe until the late 1800's, and in some parts even today, ALL marriages occurred in churches with a priest or pastor residing, with few exceptions. Justices of the Peace or their equivalent existed, and could perform marriages; some nations had laws that allowed captains at sea to wed couples. But these avenues were rarely used, and were exceptions intended for when a pastoral presence was not available. Even then, the "accepted" route to take would be to get a civil ceremony, then "make it real" later in a church when possible. Legally, this never had to happen, but most often it did.

The same basic idea applies to marriages performed in non-European countries, going back to ancient Egypt, Rome, China, Japan, etc. Pretty much the only places you find civil ceremonies being the norm and religious recognition of same was more or less left up to the couples were in more tribally-based communities; in Great Britain, for instance, the ancient Celts and Welsh largely just tied a rope around the couple's wrists, pronounced them married, and off they went.

The birth of America screwed with this whole program. Suddenly we have a separation of church and state, but the institution of marriage has, for most of human history and in most cultures, been an inextricable linkage between the two. Even though civil-only marriage grew enormously in the 19th century and beyond, and was more and more accepted as "just as good" as marriages conducted by a religious leader, the idea that whether or not it was done in a religious setting the couple was still married "in the eyes of God" just never quite left the definition of marriage in the common understanding of it... even two athiests marrying were, according to the rest of the community, still married "in the eyes of God", even if they themselves didn't acknowledge it.

So semantics is part of the issue, but it goes deeper than that; despite the "legal" definition of marriage as a secular, civil affair, the psycho-social definition of marriage in most of the world is still inextricably intertwined with religious connotations, even within societies that are now largely secular or even leaning towards the agnostic. Therefore, to answer your original question of what to call it if not "marriage"? There simply ISN'T any other word to call it that has the same psycho-social cultural value. We would have to make up a word and try to promote it as the "new marriage", but it would take generations before that new word would not play second-fiddle to the word "marriage".

So to answer folks like Stacy and others who just say "who cares what you call it", it matters very deeply to just about everyone. Words like "marriage" carry more weight than mere definitions; they carry the baggage of our entire cultural history along with them, and so the only real answer is to let marriage be marriage, and quit trying to make up alternatives to marriage like civil unions, domestic partnerships, and acts of commitment. Those will never be, to most of society, on par with the simple word, MARRIAGE.

Jonathan: John, thank you for taking the time and the energy to write such a wonderful, sensitive rationale for universality of "marriage." As as gay man, I could never verbalize what you said, though the comments about "call it something else" aways bothered me. Thanks for laying this out in such a reasonable, calm and respectful manner.

Heidi: John I absolutely agree. I ask that question to get people thinking and I also wonder what they call domestic partners and civil unions, If they refer to such couples as married then why not call it a marriage?

Also remember our concept of marriage is culturally constructed and has changed over the years from a property transaction wherein the bride alone (the goods handed over) was blessed to the idea of companioship and love and the blessing placed upon the relationship. When it was a property transaction two free men could not get married because one could not be master of the other, now that it is for companionship and love, now that heteros have the same idea of the relationship that same sex couples always have had, that barrier is gone.

I could go on but I will simply suggest the book Same Sex Unions in Pre Modern Europe by Yale Historian John Boswell.

That was where we left off; now it's your turn. What do you think we should do about this issue?

Sign of the Recession? Witches Forced to Accept Factory Jobs as Covens Lose Contracts

noreply@blogger.com (John S. Cline) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:52:00 +0000

The Huffington Post has a really eye-opening story regarding our beloved "always trying to top the crazy charts" Christian Broadcasting Network (Pat Robertson's money-trough and googly-eyed wonderland of nuttiness). Seems that CBN is warning that Halloween candy is possessed of demons. Anyone who has eaten Halloween candy and become violently ill, not to mention 20 pounds heavier, already knows this, so it's not particularly newsworthy. But for me, here's the real kicker:

"For example, most of the candy sold during this season has been dedicated and prayed over by witches."

One has to wonder: is the recession so bad that witches have to take jobs as spell-casters in candy factories? All the witches I know have been independent contractors working through their Coven Locals; if business is off this much to force them into taking factory lineworker jobs, we must be in some really deep doo-doo economically.

What has happened to all the spellcasting, potion and hex-removal work? Are there not enough places formerly occupied by "Bush/Cheney '04" bumper sticker owners still left to smudge? This is a crisis in the making; if enough Witches join the ranks of factory workers during Halloween, who will be left to keep the Sabbat of Samhain? Great disturbances in the Summerlands may be involved.

I'd be very interested in knowing too whether this is an issue involving just witches, or are warlocks similarly affected? If not, why not? Is there gender discrimination involved? Or is Robertson's website just being misogynistic as usual? We should demand data from CBN to support their claims, and to determine if we have a legal case in the making.

Another thing; are they just being hired as temp workers, to be let go after Halloween? Or will they be kept on through Christmas, Valentine's, and Easter? Are they being offered health insurance, or is magick considered a pre-existing condition?

I say we help our witch (and warlock?) friends out and buy as much Halloween candy as possible. Perhaps we can repackage it in red and green and give it to all of our evangelical fundamentalist demon-believing friends for Christmas... wouldn't that be a nice way to say "Merry Met, a Happy Yule and Solstice to ye, Enjoy Your Candy, and Merry Part"?

What's in your wallet? How about what's in your closet?

noreply@blogger.com (John S. Cline) — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 00:08:00 +0000

We are a society with a disease. We caught this disease willingly, even actively embracing it. It is an addiction... to "stuff". And one of the most interesting and telling indicators of this something seemingly innocuous: the size of our closets.

In homes built in the late 1800's/early 1900's, most typical homes had perhaps one closet, usually near the front door for coats. Many had no closets at all, and the attics were made up into living space, not storage. For ones with cellars or basements, those were most often used for short-term or seasonal storage and canned goods.

By the 1930's, homes were being built that had usually at least one closet, and often two or three. But these were usually under stairwells and often pretty cramped and tiny, about what you'd need for a broom and mop and bucket, or a few extra clothes. Basements were all the rage during this period, and more stuff was going into long-term storage down there.

By the late 1950's, homes were being built with larger closets and more of them, and the first "walk-in" closets (still tiny by today's standards, but you would actually stand up in them and move around). Attics began being used for long-term storage more than converted to living space, and basements were getting full of old pictures and trophies and clothes Aunt Betsy made for your mom's wedding.

By the 1980's, typical homes had a closet in every bedroom, hallway, and even bathrooms and utility rooms. Closet size increased dramatically, and walk-ins were considered the norm for the bedrooms. Basements and attics became less common, so they had to come up with alternatives for storing the accumulating stuff. Outside storage closets, carport sheds, and two-car garages (often for storage rather than cars) thus increased in number.

Today, any newly-built home you buy will most likely have nearly 1/4 to 1/3 of the total square footage set aside for some kind of storage (or potential storage, in the case of the garages; how many people do you know with homes that park their cars in the driveway, and when they open their garage it's wall-to-wall, floor-to-ceiling boxes and containers? I speak from personal experience here.). We have so much stuff in our lives that we must rent or own a home 1/3 bigger than we need (equaling 1/3 more energy to heat and cool, and 1/3 more land area taken up) just to have a place to put it all, and when you realize that the vast majority of it is stuff we will never, ever use again... it's just landfill fodder waiting for someone to haul it off. Think too of the added materials used to build it, and the added cost in rent or mortgage payments and property taxes for these mini-mansions, and it's mind-boggling.

Now imagine this... with nearly 7 billion people on the planet, nearly half of which are either actively consuming all this stuff or dearly desiring to attain the lifestyle to enable them to do so. In just the last 60 years, our incredible productivity, fueled by the active adoption by manufacturers of planned and perceived obsolescence in the 1950's, has enabled the U.S. to become perhaps the richest and most prosperous nation in the history of the planet. However, the cost has been that we have used up resources at a prodigiuos rate, polluted our air, water, and land, nearly wrecked the climate, and have created a mentality that "more is better" which robs us of the ability to simply enjoy what we have, and use what nature provides us with a conscious awareness of limitations, including building for quality and longevity rather than the profitability of six-month product lifespans.

America is addicted to "stuff", and we've infected the rest of the world with our disease. It's way past time for an intervention, and it begins with each and every one of us just buying and using less.

Chantelle Princeton - Celebrating a Life Well Lived (Video)

noreply@blogger.com (John S. Cline) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:32:00 +0000

Celebrating the life of Chantelle A. Princeton, born October 22, 1943 in Oregon City, Oregon as Delores A. Ray, we wanted to honor her memory by uploading this video on what would have been her 66th birthday.

She brought love, joy, and beauty into everything she did, including and especially her family. Through her 65 years of life, she raised two daughters, created cakes, pies, and professional-quality clothing, and had a really killer BBQ meatball recipe. Her greatest loves were sunny beaches and palm trees, and she always had a (not so) secret crush on James Garner. Even when times were tough and things seemed nearly hopeless, she maintained her integrity and great sense of humor. Sometimes she'd surprise you; one moment she'd be a dainty lady, with her frills and 'poofy-things', the next she'd be cussing like a sailor and telling bawdy jokes. She had a running competition with Imelda Marcos on who had more shoes, and she dearly loved her Lowery organ (which she hardly ever had time to play, but when she did, she'd bring the house down).

We're going to miss you, Chanty... even though you left this earth March 24, 2009, you'll never leave our hearts.

Even if you never knew Chantelle, please enjoy our tribute to someone we cherished very much. Hopefully, if you have lost a loved one, it will lift you up and bring a smile to your face. And if you have not yet lost someone you love, we hope that perhaps this tribute will return to your mind on that day when you inevitably will find yourself wrapped in both grief and joy.

(For previous posts on Chantelle's final days and the life she led, please see archives from March 2009)