Drunken definition thoughts

Political philosophy tests are not only flawed in the sense that they assume everyone can be pigeonholed into a concrete set of views that they MUST hold because of the answers to some questions regardless of their logic behind their answers, but because they are inherently biased by what the author of it thinks of the various views they define. A few days ago out of sheer boredom I messed with one on the site Select Smart, and got results I have screen captured at this link. Click if you care.

Despite what I have just stated about the uselessness of what I did at the time, it did jog today some thoughts about political philosophy with the help of my good friend malt liquor, which I will simply present and let say whatever. so here goes:

The easiest thing to say about my views is that I am opposed to the state (that is, the philosophy that considers a declared monopoly of violence necessary to a stable society is my enemy). Also, I am against what we commonly know as capitalism. I have previously noted here the slipperiness of how the commonly thought of alternative to capitalism — that is, socialism — is defined, in attempt to further describe where I’m coming from.  Funny enough, the quiz I took puts me closer to “anarcho-capitalism” than “anarcho-communism” anyway, which says more about how the author of the quiz defines both than how I think.

As I have described before, though I oppose capitalism I am not of the mind that collective economics is good of its own sake — I don’t oppose individual efforts, or even property rights for that matter. Simultaneously, I personally think the concept of anarcho-capitalism is inherently mistaken due to the very nature of capitalism itself. When I hear the term “anarcho capitalist”, I question the understanding of the history of capitalism by whoever is deploying it. I’d even go as far as to say that “anarcho-capitalism” is like saying “vegan BBQ joint”: an absurdity contradicting the point of the latter term.

My respect for individualism doesn’t even come close to letting capitalism off the hook. In fact, brace yourselves for the following: I believe the definition of capitalism as a non-collectivist ideology by its defenders is horseshit. The practiced use of self-interest betrays such with slight thought. Consider how actions by organized labor are universally seen by proponents of capitalism, as an inherent violation to the correct order of things. Well damn, do workers not have interests of their own, or do those of only a few count? It is as if the worth of self interest itself were determined via hierarchy — which, last I checked, anarchy was supposed to oppose in essence. In other words, I reject capitalism for much the same reason many reject, say, Catholicism — an elite to be obeyed by the followers for the sake of the faith makes me barf.

Cobble the above together with how often the highest status economic actors in capitalism benefit from the intervention of the existent state, and it is a puzzle how such is expected to survive in its recognizable form with the subtraction of the guns pointed at us all.

Surely some may be asking now how I envision the economy of a post-state society operating. While I would caution against seeing such vision as a reason to impose a structure, as that would defeat the purpose of anarchy, my… suspicion (I’d rather call it that) would be that most economic activity would for reasons of logic and approachability consist of layers of syndicalist endeavors & lasseiz-faire indie business, due to the non viability of capitalism as we know it without enforced hierarchy and constant subsidy. Wage labor would rather than being a requirement for survival be such a rarity that it’d be a preference of the very few out of intentional decision to not be involved in the planning of a larger scale operation — in other words, you’d practically have to beg people to just Do rather than also Own.

I don’t pretend this is particularly clear still or profound, it is merely what I think, and a lubricated form at that. Do what you will with it… *burp*.

Share
Posted in philosophy/life | Leave a comment

Buts Everywhere (plus a foot in a mouth)

As virtually everyone knows by now, there was recently an attack at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical magazine in France, leaving several cartoonists dead. The perpetrators were reported to have made remarks suggesting the killings were some form of revenge for the magazine having published drawings of Muhammed.

There’ve been many reactions to this, from the inevitable hashtag (“#JeSuisCharlie”, translates to “I Am Charlie”), the unfortunate random retaliation attacks against French Muslims (as if they had a damn thing to do with it…), criticism of Charlie Hebdo’s content, and  a ridiculous photo op I’m not even going to bother linking to. A couple expressions on this, however, I’d like to observe:

-Among the tropes deployed by editorial cartoonists has been expressions nodding towards the old saying that the pen is mightier than the sword — in this case, generally by depicting various drawing tools pointed at a generic militant as if they were missiles. Sassy Sourstein rightfully touched on the problem with that:

As if Western Civilization’s mighty pens were the only missiles pointed at Muslims. The West is just minding its own enlightened business and these jihad crazies come and assail our absolute greatest right.

If only that were the case. Imagine how calm the world would be if bad drawings were the extent of belligerence. BTW: France does just fine assailing that right itself

A particular artist, Eli Valley, in his drawn response suggests being genuinely fearful not only of being killed if he drew Muhammed (wait, wasn’t Muhammed a character on South Park for years? Trey Parker & Matt Stone are still alive last I checked), but that people will excuse his murder. Now, some critics have been harsher than others, but I haven’t seen anything remotely approaching a pre-emptive Samuel L Jackson in A Time To Kill declaration. Just to put it out there, though I feel like it’s silly to have to, I don’t take context as a justification: killing people for drawings is nuts regardless of who is doing the drawing or the killing.

Check out how Eli portrays his fear, as noting a terrible act with “but” to downplay it. He asks why that isn’t the case for other things… but alas, it actually is, and regularly:

“…but she shouldn’t have led him on like that”
“…but the alternative is more crime”
“…but it’s necessary to keep us safe”

The justification is all around us already, so what was intended as a reducio ad absurdum is instead the status quo.

-Speaking of But Security, Will Wilkinson at The Economist caught a rather curious deployment of such by… guess who?

“You’ve got to secure your country [...] I think our border is a danger to attack, as well as our student visa programme. Several of the attackers on 9/11 were here on student visas they had overstayed. I haven’t seen any Christians or Jews dragging Muslims through the streets, but I have seen the opposite”

Guliani? Steve King? Nope, alleged “libertarian” leaning blatantly obvious 2016 presidential candidate Rand Paul. This is a humongous smear job against the global Muslim population, as if they are all to be assumed extremists unless they first prove they aren’t to The Proper Authorities — and it’s part of an appeal to the mainstream of his party! What does that say about them that a way to signal being non-fringe is to go Full Metal Xenophobe?

As for Paul’s ending remark, he proves himself as adept at erasing context as the aforementioned cartoonists: the major conflicts of the world aren’t about religion, but resources*, and when a Hellfire missile lands there’s not much left to drag.

Continue reading

Share
Posted in random shots | 1 Comment

The Finest Whine of Swine

Wow:

In the wake of the murder of two New York City police officers and a national debate about policing, the National Fraternal Order of Police is asking for the Congressional hate crimes statute to be expanded to include crimes against police officers. The union has more than 300,000 members.

Violence against police officers that’s motivated by anti-police bias should be prosecuted as a hate crime, the nation’s largest police union is arguing in a letter to President Barack Obama and Congressional leaders this week.

Cops have been through so much throughout history.  Recall the centuries of trade in cops stolen from their native Donutistan, forced by their captors to beat people in a strange land. Or how millions of police officers were sent to the gas chambers in the Copocaust. Why, it wasn’t that long ago merely being a cop was considered a psychological problem in the DSM-IV, and police officers were routinely sterilized against their will for the crime of wearing a badge and uniform & claiming the power to initiate force & seize property on behalf of the state. Even nowadays people wearing nametags while eating pastries have to be on high alert for confused, hateful people who will assault them due to mistaking them for a cop!

Actually, no. This is absurd for the same reason that asking why there isn’t a White History Month draws a side-eye.

Share
Posted in fevered barking | Leave a comment

The Banality of Blue

After the killing of two cops in New York City, which the police loudly blamed to anyone that would listen on the demonstrations threatening to turn into a nationwide movement of sorts against the tendency of cops to assault & kill unarmed civilians and get away with it, the NYPD via their police unions took up a work slowdown. Their bluster about the dangers of their job and its alleged necessity lest Chaos Reigns And The Streets Flood With Blood aside, what has been the actual result? Plummeting enforcement against such FIENDISH offenses as… Parking violations, public drinking, and drug possession by people not bothering anybody.

Note that this was reported in the NY Post, which is generally known for right-wing sensationalism. I don’t think this makes the point they expected…

The Post obtained the numbers hours after revealing that cops were turning a blind eye to some minor crimes and making arrests only “when they have to” since the execution-style shootings of Officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu.

Police sources said Monday that safety concerns were the main reason for the dropoff in police activity, but added that some cops were mounting an undeclared slowdown in protest of de Blasio’s response to the non-indictment in the police chokehold death of Eric Garner.

“When they have to”. That line strikes at the heart of the common defense of the police, that they are in place to maintain basic order. One would think based on how crime tends to be covered in the media, especially by TV news, that the majority of a police officer’s day is spent apprehending and deterring the violent, fighting murderers, rapists & muggers. Instead they show themselves to mostly be hall monitors with guns and uniforms.

About those safety concerns, it should be noted that the killings of Ramos & Liu are the first of on-duty NYPD officers in the past three years. Meanwhile, police brutality has been an issue long before then, as well as rampant racial profiling in the case of New York’s “Stop and Frisk”. Realistically, if that shooting were the result of anti-cop sentiment, wouldn’t those numbers be much higher already? I’d think if police were truly as under siege as they claimed, cops in many cities across the country would practically have to patrol in their own specialized Popemobiles.

Nope, it’s just about power, about maintaining obedience and shutting down any questioning no matter how mild. Which makes the NYPD’s slowdown an epic backfire.

Continue reading

Share
Posted in law | 1 Comment

Defending Chris. Kind of. Somewhat.

When it comes to comedy & social context, there’s basically three approaches:

-Try to write it out as irrelevant, which limits your range of content.
-Pretend it’s already irrelevant, which limits the effectiveness of your content.
-Grab it by the horns, which while risky also potentially opens up big rewards.

Many legends of comedy (for example George Carlin, Richard Pryor, Bill Hicks, Dave Chappelle) are known for having picked that 3rd approach. Chris Rock is one that has done so and also been successful, particularly in skewering racial politics at times in his standup shows. I’ve been a longtime fan of his*. Well, over at Salon, Mychal Denzel Smith points at a well known bit of his — the “black people vs niggas” segment of his 1996 HBO special “Bring the Pain” — and calls it way more than Not Funny in his opinion:

The joke here being that there is a subset of black people that are gleefully uneducated, take pride in their criminal activities, and serve as the clumsy sidekick in black America’s plan for liberation. If it weren’t for them, the n–gers, we’d all be free. [...] Of course, the substance of what Rock said wasn’t new. It hewed to the same line of respectability politics that had been a part of black political life since the days of Reconstruction. Even W.E.B. Du Bois, perhaps the most important sociologist in all of American history, posited a theory for black liberation that rested on the idea that 90 percent of black people ain’t shit and could only be saved by the “talented tenth.” He later abandoned that idea, but it got stuck in our collective imagination nonetheless.

He brings this up in the context of former NBA star Charles Barkley saying (with no jest at all) that black people have other black people to blame for lack of success, Mychal claiming that Chris Rock is getting a pass for having in his mind said the same thing.

First of all, I actually remember Chris himself saying that a part of the reaction he got for that routine, apparently from people who thought it justified their racism, made him drop it entirely. It’s not like he has the power to decide how people interpret his material, and some will read whatever they want to into anything simply to reinforce what they already believe. If people were prejudiced against blacks after hearing Chris, it’s because they were prejudiced before.

Speaking of racism, observations of structural racism have as well been mined for material over the years. Take Chris’ observation about the War on Drugs, for example: that it’s largely because of where the good drugs come from & the skin tones of those who would benefit from their open sale. He has punctuated this in another of his stand up shows with the line “could you imagine how ILLEGAL a pack of cigarettes would be if Phillip Morris had been started by a bunch of Jheri curled niggas from Mississippi?”. Does that sound like someone who thinks what Barkley said is spot on?

Exaggeration is often a tool of comedy, particularly to emphasize a point. To me, the point of the bit wasn’t the “talented tenth” from W.E.B. DuBois that is invoked in Mychal Smith’s critique, as that would’ve required Chris to have claimed effectively that most blacks are the “niggas” he spoke of. Rather, it was of a piece with how people within a cultural circle can talk to others within it in ways that outsiders can’t get away with, and a certain frustration with a few habits that do appear at times. To my understanding, much of what was lamented there via comedy and at times discussed more seriously actually stems from learned responses to systemic racism to begin with. Consider the attitude towards education he mentioned: there’s a still fresh legacy of intelligent blacks being seen as a threat, to be stomped on for the safety of the status quo. Combine that with the economic struggles that young blacks in many areas grow up seeing regardless of the efforts of those around them, borne of residential segregation, the fallout from the police state routinely singling out minorities, and the whipsaw effect of capitalism on already disadvantaged populations: some people will inevitably conclude Screw It. Incentives matter.

To be fair, Mychal does acknowledge how those responses can actually work out to benefit others at times:

The real “dirty, dark secret” is this: the n–gers helped us survive. It’s all of those welfare queens, dope-dealing cousins, liquor store-robbing uncles, cable-stealing aunties, drunk granddads, and fast-tailed grannies who have made any of our relative success possible. It was those dope-dealing cousins who were able to buy someone’s kids’ school supplies. It was a good-for-nothing-drunk-of-an-uncle who fixed cars that helped folks get to work. It was an aunt who had five kids out of wedlock who did someone’s hair and made alterations on their suit for a job interview.

To an extent he’s got a point. Nobody is perfect, it’s silly to expect perfection, and sometimes people just make what they can out of a bad hand. Hell, look at the Williams sisters! While they were practicing tennis early on in Compton, who helped keep them safe? Some dudes with blue rags hanging out of their in all likelihood sagging pants.

Observations about ones own group are commonplace in standup comedy these days: Black comedians about black people, Jewish comedians about fellow Jewish folk, Latino comedians about Latinos, etc… I even recall seeing a tour film of comedians from the Middle East that made such self culture referential jokes. The idea that there’s something inherently bad about doing so… I don’t get it.

Continue reading

Share
Posted in philosophy/life | 3 Comments

The diagnosis is capitalism

Several years into the post Capital Paradox era, laments of the “recovery” that ain’t continue. In one example, Matt O’Brien at the Washington Post notes where the Federal Reserve has put interest rates, asks “what gives?” — and comes close to a moment of clarity:

What does it mean that the economy “needs” low rates — indeed, negative once you account for inflation — to get to full employment? That shouldn’t happen in a world, like our own, where investments have positive returns. Companies should always want to invest, hiring workers in the process.

Well, the answer is one part psychology and another part supply and demand. People, you see, just might be too scared to invest in anything that doesn’t look super-safe, unless there’s a bubble that looks super-profitable.

But this isn’t just a mental problem. Real rates might also be negative, because there’s more supply of lendable funds but less demand for investment. Or, in English, there’s more money chasing fewer opportunities. (emphasis mine)

In the sense that Matt is describing, control of interest by the central bank essentially functions as a system-wide business subsidy, the point being to make investments more beneficial than they otherwise would’ve been. Without such manipulation, tons of decisions that went one way would have gone the other. The assumption built into this policy, reflected in Matt’s confusion, is that the encouragement of more opportunities leads them to self-perpetuate — investment endlessly begats more investment.

If at this point you’re asking “waitaminute, if they do lead to more investment then why does it have to be nudged to begin with?”, congratulations, you’re a fellow Crank. Reasonable reinvestment is a no brainer, all else being equal, so if reinvestment broadly stalls without steroids then a large chunk of the investments prior are basically bubble chasing & short-sighted boondogglery, a.k.a. malinvestment. The bubbles bursting & outlandish projects being mothballed en masse are what correction to the mean looks like.

Beyond just the actions of the Fed, there have all along been additional incentives provided by the state for investment as well, many of which are so common for so long they’re barely thought of or talked about anymore: various subsidies in the tax code, direct favors to politically connected industry (including resource theft), the monopoly grant that is IP law enshrining huge markups in even relatively simple consumer goods, etcetera. Taken as a whole, the rampant political favoritism to capital, while hampering most of the population in the name of false enrichment, has served as a training program of sorts as well, in that the height of big business has been bred to expect profit to be as easy as falling out of bed. The “need” of negative interest rates is because the system constructed cannot look to natural consumption patterns for survival, due to the wealth concentration that Matt is able to notice. When only a few people have the money to even bother, next to a wide swath of debt craters, of course opportunities shrink!

Reliance on behemoths built on our backs is what got us to this point. Sure, more bubbles can be created, but that is by definition short-term. The condition of the economy is less like having the flu & more along the lines of extreme hypertension with several blocked arteries — the lifeblood isn’t flowing like it needs to. Unfortunately, the ruling class would rather see the patient die than have that happen.

Share
Posted in economics | 3 Comments

Ted Rall’s Awful “truth”

Political cartoonists can be overly broad & annoying, purveyors of lame jokes shoehorned into demonstrations of Conventional Wisdom that fail both to be remotely humorous and to make a point that your south end couldn’t trump after a burrito with extra beans. Ted Rall is one of the few that on occasion accomplishes more, aiming his pencil right at many absurdities the US ruling class inflicts on us (and, most importantly, the world), party be damned.

…which is why I was disappointed to read in his interview at Salon, after making an important comment about military embedded “journalists” and their reporting ending up lopsided rah-rah propaganda claptrap for empire, the following stinker about the continuing Afghanistan occupation (all emphasis mine):

Yeah, I am worried. I think it’s important when you’re a journalist to report the uncomfortable truths that go against your own ideology. I don’t think we ever should have been in Afghanistan to begin with, but now that there have been so many improvements — there are fewer dropped calls in Kabul than there are in New York City, for examples — you really kind of hesitate to see that go.

Quality of phone service. Seriously. To use that as your example of benefit with a straight face, in light of the revelation of the communications of the entire country being Hoovered up by the NSA and used for drone strikes, seems like the kind of thing a caricature in one of his drawings would do.

A skeptic of the war to begin with, Ted Rall goes on to practically melt at Infrastructure, speaking of the glory of the almighty Roads & fearing that all will fall apart without Uncle Sam around to hold it together. Bullets and bombs make great glue, see…

[Infrastructure] really has a huge psychological impact. The idea that people in Harat can go to Kabul and back and forth… They know about each other now. They have more of a sense of nationhood, which had vanished during 26 years of war, and is now in danger. If all that stuff gets blown up again, aside from obviously all the human carnage, there’s also going to be a tremendous national trauma that is impossible to measure and that you’d just hate to see.

Think about the implication here: Rall portrays the occupation as having unified a splintered people (and reduced dropped calls!), yet fears that it’s unsustainable without US forces. If true, that would mean that his tale of cultural uplift in the ashes of imperialism is only about enduring a common enemy, thus nothing to shout about at all. A unity that requires a bigger beast in the area to worry about is illusion, mere alliance of convenience like when the total jerk in the zombie movie joins forces with an all-too-innocent survivor. Though, even if the shift is more permanent than he thinks, there’s still the question of why he thinks that the US has and should continue such role.

In the same interview, observation of how actual Afghans see the foreigners currently taking up residence by force somehow pairs with an idealism that ignores it all. Seeing the occupation force less as a military & more like a transnational paternal authority reads like an insult, and one that all the network stability in the world can’t make up for.

Share
Posted in Foreign Policy, random shots | 1 Comment

Empire as jumping fish

If the members of Islamic State, the nascent theocracy taking over chunks of Iraq & Syria, know anything, it’s how to play to the media…
Since Obama ordered air strikes in northern Iraq, in keeping with the long tradition of western powers meddling there, and talking heads have dutifully gone to work portraying IS as an existential threat to the US, IS fighters have started making snuff videos of them beheading American journalists. Steve Sotloff marks the 2nd of these so far.

With the reactions by US politicians hitting a rolling boil (Joe Biden has declared that the camo’d out cannon fodder sent over there “will follow [IS] to the gates of Hell*”, and Rand Paul is screaming “I WANT TO BE PRESIDENT!” for the US to “destroy them militarily“), you’d think these killings were just done on a whim, no setup, no hook. Well, you’d be wrong:

In the latest video, a masked fighter says, “I’m back, Obama. I’m back because of your arrogant foreign policy toward the Islamic State, because of your insistence on continuing your bombings.”

I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t assume someone willing to saw the heads off of multiple human beings likely to be kidding…

It’s the same kind of thing al-Qaeda members were saying as far as their motivation went, which isn’t a coincidence. At the same time, there’s an obvious reverse psychology at work, again in parallel to the last militant group that sat in the boogeyman chair. While they say the inflammatory gesture of the beheadings is due to the bombing campaign, they also want escalation because it would be a huge propaganda win: “look, here come the Crusaders! See, we were correct!”. That, except to a few overly famous rubes, the conflict is not about religion but oil money doesn’t exactly get through to them, but same diff’ basically. “In God We Trust” is on our slave-owner trading cards, after all…

Note the mutual dance here. IS uses the media rage machine both to disseminate warning and provoke an ever snowballing battle they think they can win, using what looks like repellant as bait. The US government and its cheerleaders act shocked! SHOCKED! that anyone (other than Saudi royals) would do such a barbaric thing as chop someones head off (as opposed to pumping Drano into their veins), and can’t wait to respond by dropping bombs & sending people off (more openly than they already are) to kill and die. Among the ruling class and big media, there aren’t voices pointing out how this state of affairs came about in the first place and consigning empire to the trash bin. There aren’t even reluctant warriors, no matter what the DNC might say about Rand Paul or right-wing bloggers say about Obama. There’s just a hive mind, eager to sacrifice you and me on the alter of hegemony, and thus play right into the hands of those they claim it is all to protect us from.

IS doesn’t even need a hook. The hegemon leaps from the water, landing in the boat with a wet slap.

Continue reading

Share
Posted in Foreign Policy | 1 Comment

Live from the Zoo

What they think of us

Another day, another young black man dead.

Saturday afternoon, Michael Brown was walking home with a friend in Ferguson, Missouri, a predominantly black suburb of St Louis. According to the friend, a cop pulled up to them in a truck and yelled at them to get back on the sidewalk, to which they replied that they were close to home anyway & weren’t holding up any traffic. Since going by the pictures of the area it’s a residential neighborhood, this makes obvious sense. However, rather that swallow his pride & head to the nearest donut shop, the cop according to multiple witnesses — the friend with Mike and others — got enraged enough to swerve his vehicle in front of them, fling open his door so quick it hit Brown & bounced back, then reach out the window & grab Brown attempting to choke him.

Now, naturally when someone is trying to strangle you, you try to get away, which he did.  The cop reacted by firing multiple times at someone running away, unarmed. Hit but still alive, Mike stopped, threw his hands up, & proclaimed that he was not armed. With ones hands up in the air, and already with a bullet wound, you would think that the idea of being a threat would be absolutely Looney Toons. Well, not to that cop: he stood over Michael Brown and fired several more times.

Michael Brown, 18, was merely walking in the street. For that, he was executed in public, then his corpse was left exposed in the road for several hours. Like roadkill. Try to imagine the psychological effect of that, the message it sends about the perceived worth of their lives.  I’ve literally seen squashed armadillos picked up faster.

A protest & vigil came up, as tends to occur whenever this happens (and it does happen a lot). The reaction of the police to this was to run their vehicles over the vigil & threaten the protesters. By the way: you may have heard from some media sources that the protesters were chanting “kill the police” — this has already been debunked by others who were there. Though honestly I wouldn’t blame them if they did.

Amidst images of cops wielding dogs at peaceful protesters with their hands up, SWAT vehicles rolling around and the deployment of pretty much military gear, somewhere along the line some rioting and looting took place. I admit, I used to be more skeptical of such things. I had partially internalized the view that concerned itself with Sending The Wrong Message, the view that playing ball with respectability politics was the thing to do. That was a long time ago though. I see how people that follow that idea are treated no different, and have concluded that to the police, to the system, to the state, dissent is in and of itself seen as a violent act regardless of the actual behavior conducted. If we are going to be brutalized regardless, why bother with the distinctions? Desperate times an’ all that…

To just be brutally honest here, only bone I have to pick with those that did the rioting aspect was their target. I recall reading about a situation in Mexico awhile back where a town long abused by a corrupt police force actually armed themselves and ran the cops out. If the ostensible point of the 2nd Amendment is indeed as tea party types describe it, as defense against tyranny at the hands of the state, then surely they’d sympathize if the people of Ferguson did such thing, maybe even support them, right?

(insert sound effect of crickets here)

In the days since, the police state has ramped up in its visibility like a giant moth emerging from a cocoon. Cops are waving around automatic weapons and in full gear for war:

occupied america

They’ve taken to threatening, then banning media from the area (so much for that 1st Amendment, huh…). Ferguson, Missouri even has its airspace restricted for the benefit of the police. You know, the terrain may be different, but this whole thing shrieks echos of the IDF invasion of Gaza, or the US invasion of Iraq. When hawkish politicians speak of places overseas as training areas for violent extremists though, I strongly doubt this is what they had in mind, despite its truth. Even torture is a line that has long been crossed, as the case of former Chicago police commissioner Jon Burge proves. The streets of America are treated like war zones, and people are beaten or slaughtered for approaching someone with a badge & uniform with anything beyond “Yes, massa”… yet police act puzzled when Stop Snitching is a thing. Well, who wants to be seen as a collaborator with the occupying forces, with the enemy?

The scene at the top, with the officer’s quote to the protesters, is illuminating. Animals. That’s what they think we are. We’re animals in a cage, & they are the zoo keepers. Well, Mr zoo keeper, here’s our response: we’re getting hungry.

Continue reading

Share
Posted in fevered barking, law | 1 Comment

On Necessity

Due to unfortunately not heeding a hint about concentration of power so clear that it shows up in Americas Finest News Source, it is still considered to be important what people like Paul Ryan think about things. Taking advantage of that position, Ryan has been holding hearings in the house of representatives, the subject of which has been poverty. In an unexpected twist, Tianna Gaines-Turner (an actual poor person) testified at the hearing held this past Thursday.

A House GOP rep from Indiana, Todd Rokita, made a remark about government spending on the poor to her, one which he thought was a Reductio Ad Absurdum. What she said in response is basically being treated as Prog Soundbite Gold — which is why the link preceding these words goes to Think Progress. After she agrees with what the rep saw as absurd, this exchange followed:

He followed up saying, “But the cycle of dependency would certainly still be there which you also don’t like… The cycle of dependency, you wouldn’t be independent.”

“I’m independent now on the program,” Gaines-Turner told him. “You’re independent on this?” Rokita asked.

“Yes, I consider myself to be very independent. I work just as hard as anybody in this room,” Gaines-Turner replied. “I’m very independent.”

I’d say in terms of hard work if anything Tianna was being way too modest. With the exception of if a janitor for the building had wandered in during the hearing, it is safe to say that she was the only one in the room that provides a useful service. Yet though I sympathize with her situation, I’m admittedly puzzled of her meaning of independence. While I don’t subscribe to the myth of everyone being nothing more than an island unto themselves, and see cooperation as a vital and necessary part of society, I would not define a condition of needing assistance as being independent, whether the aid were administered by the state or not. Needing the generosity of others to survive seems to me rather on its face synonymous with depending on them, with dependence. To be independent, in my view, is to not have such constraint due to need.

There is a fear I now have that this may be misinterpreted. I do not mean to denigrate her or anyone else for merely needing help. I know this position well, as I’m only caught up on my rent & about to get my car fixed because of the generosity of friends & followers. If I were at that hearing then it would’ve had two poor people participating instead of one. What I seek about her side of this is understanding, as her use of term honestly sounds alien to me.

Todd, on the other hand I have no such care about. He does not deserve mercy.

A brief search on Mr Rokita shows he voted in support of a bill that would effectively ram through Keystone XL and any other cross border oil & gas pipeline projects, in total ignorance & unconcern about the use of eminent domain to steal land for the oil industry. He also voted in favor of the “farm bill” that was notable for maintaining extensive subsidies to agribusiness while cutting the SNAP program*, and was a Yea vote on the National Defense Authorization Act despite $600,000,000,000 being cartoonishly shameless overkill for any sane concept of “defense” — but no doubt lucrative to arms manufacturers. It appears that the “dependence” Todd rails against is A-OK for Monsanto, oil companies, and Boeing, as is usually the case with politicians who drag out that cliche.

The problem here goes further than Todd however, he’s just a symptom of the constant misdiagnosis of who takes & who makes. The contradictions of capitalism the reality versus capitalism the myth shine with the extensive state backing of wealth, meanwhile use of revolt insurance is a mass thing and people like Tianna find that employment isn’t enough to feed her kids. I strongly doubt this is coincidence.

Continue reading

Share
Posted in economics, fevered barking | 4 Comments