Denigrating Reason

"We're building a grassroots movement to stand up to the special interests and stand up for middle class consumers," says Al Franken, in response to the FCC approval of the Comcast-NBC merger.

I wonder how that will happen. I have a local activist friend, a county legislator, who continuously tries to get people out for demonstrations, to hold signs, to protest--new Democratic Governor Cuomo's conservative economic policies, for example, when he gives the state of the State at a local college. I went to one or two demos, and was embarrassed by how few people there were. My friend even urged me to speak!

How do you mobilize people who work 10-hour days, and then go home to vege out in front of the TV, or on the computer? How do you mobilize people whose lives are isolated, who get most of their contact through TV, and who, moreover, are increasingly influenced by the corporate media?

People are discouraged from thinking in this USA. It's like Steve, my "Christian" fellow alum, whose reaction about anything is "those leftwing intellectuals…" About the economy: "intellectuals and economists" can say all they want, but "I know: debt is debt." When I expose him to a little Keynesian economics--deficits can be investments, if the money goes to enhance the economy--he dismisses all intellectuals--including me, of course. He knows; he's a self-made man (in California real estate).

His antagonism towards thinking parallels the vociferous right wing Commentariat--Palin, Beck, et al. And look how well the politics of ignorance and anger has done in the last election! People voted for Republicans not for what they stood for, apparently. Polls show high support for all the issues Republicans oppose, like health reform, and aid to the unemployed. People voted for Republicans simply because they weren't in power; they were angry. A man demanded of me, as Election Inspector, to produce a list of incumbents up for re-election (I wasn't allowed to give political information), so he could vote against them. Their party affiliation didn't matter; but his ignorance was staggering. He's the corporate elite's template for the perfect voter: ignorant and unthinking. I saw a Republican election observer take him outside; he told him who to vote for.

We have schools that "teach to the test," and universities increasingly funded by corporations to promote their interests. In public schools, thinking is discouraged in favor of rote learning and discipline. I taught in colleges, none of them prestigious. In all of them a student who could think, or who wanted to think was a precious gift. Ironically, there were more of them in my prison classes.

Inmates knew they were being screwed; everyone else just wanted a B.

Our denigration of reason parallels Rome's in the Empire's last centuries.

Bees and People

I keep bees; three hives. Elizabeth asked me if I could describe them.

The oldest hive is laid back; it's the only one that had only two filled supers, but had filled some of the hive body. I left it one super. The next hive, I had assembled from bees and a replacement queen I bought from Sam's Anarchy Apiaries. Sam eschews bee-veils and gloves. He's handled hives barefoot and sleeveless. This hive is not anarchic; it works hard, but it's very gentle. With it, I could probably get by without gloves (never without a veil). It produced three supers. I harvested the two least full. The last hive was a volunteer, a gift. It swarmed into one of my spare hive bodies and it stayed. It is the most productive; it over-filled three supers and had honey down below. I took only two supers. It's always fierce, ready to defend its hive. Its bees have stung me several times.

So, here we have three collectives, each comprising at least 100,000 members, replaced by a new generation of workers every six weeks in summer, and yet each has a collective identity I can readily recognize. Other beekeepers have confirmed this: hives have personalities.

So, do cities. So, do nations. Over time, the personality of a hive may change. The laid back one has become more productive, but it's a survivor of lean years when I had to feed it. France has been fractious since at least the French Revolution, but despite its latest round of strikes, it's calming down.

The USA was big, brash, and wasteful. It's still brash, and it's hard to change its spendthrift ways, despite straitened circumstances. Americans have had a tendency to blame late arrivals for their troubles. Now, that the US is no longer so exceptional, now that nations like China and India are growing rapidly and it is not, blaming the victims flames higher. It could become a nasty wildfire, burning out of control all over the world.

The victims are immigrants, deviants from "normal," like gay men and women, and Middle Easterners, victimized by US imperial meddling.

While Obama and "moderates" think they are trying to restore order to a chaotic world, right-wing hawks want to wade into countries like Iran, or Venezuela: our primacy is threatened; those nations' governments are unfriendly.

The impulse is not pacification, not order, but assertion: "who's boss," like Paladino, defeated for NY Governor; he was going "to Albany with a baseball bat."

Palin represents that spirit, albeit with a smile and a wink: similar resentment drove Fascism and Nazism. Can she carve the American hive into a stinging, vindictive force? The American Empire on a last rampage?

I hope not.

Man Threatens to Blow Up NY

When Paladino, endorsed by the Tea Party, and Sarah Palin, wins the Republican gubernatorial nomination in liberal New York State, this is definitely a national trend.

What's Carl Paladino for? He'd cut Medicaid by $20 billion, cut taxes by 10%, and state government spending by 20%. To deal with the looming deficits Governor Paterson has been warning against? He also calls for giving the new governor (if it's him) authoritarian powers to carry out his program.

Good luck on that. The State legislature, regardless of party control, will not give up its powers, especially since Paladino will have to run against almost all elected legislators. Not surprisingly, as a multimillionaire businessman, Paladino also calls for slashing regulations on business. Real revolutionary! Let the frackers drill, and ruin our water supply forever!

Paladino's signature slogan is "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!" The issue upon which he gained most traction up to the primary was his opposition to the so-called "Ground-zero Mosque." More strident than Lazio, his Republican opponent, he also pointed an accusing finger at Democrat Cuomo's support for the right of Muslims to build there. He'd use eminent domain to seize the site (two long blocks from "ground zero") to prevent Muslim developers from building their community center--in respect for our warriors fighting for our freedom overseas, etc.

He's been caught sending racist jokes and porn to colleagues via email, but his defenders say that it's "political correctness" that has to go. On his website he points out that the last NY governor from Buffalo (Grover Cleveland) became US President: he has "higher" ambitions.

What is it about Carl Paladino that energizes conservative voters? He's willing to say almost anything; he's been running for office for several cycles, but has been unbesmirched by the far-reaching scandals of the NY legislature: he's never held public office. He was opposed by most Republican leaders, and got only 8% of the vote in the party convention, so he's the ultimate outsider. But he brandished striking rhetoric, like promising to “take a baseball bat to Albany,” to break up entrenched politicos. Further, he does have some valid points: New Yorkers pay almost the highest taxes in the nation--especially property taxes--its legislature is dysfunctional and its government is one of the most bureaucratized.

But it's also got Wall Street: neither Paladino, nor Cuomo are willing to talk about taxing its huge profits, nor about taxing multimillionaires like him more fairly.

Paladino is the ultimate Roman Senator: he owes his appeal to his own money (he outspent Lazio 3 to 2), his "white-hot rhetoric" and perhaps to his class arrogance: he wrote of turning prisons into dormitories where welfare recipients would be taught hygiene!

If New Yorkers elect him (anything's possible), State politics will be even more strident, confrontational and disastrous.

Man Threatens to Blow Up World

Man threatens to blow up the world, but backs down because he's wangled a stint on TV--that's all he wanted, anyway: attention.

That's a bit like "Doctor" Terry Jones agreeing not to burn those qur'ans, after: General Petraeus and the President mouthed off about it; Gates, Secretary of Defense, called him; a local Imam spoke to him about interceding with the "Ground Zero Mosque" organizer and all the channels were covering him as hot news.

So, this Terry Jones is a Doctor (presumably of Divinity), from an unaccredited school where he bought his degree online, preaches in a run-down church to about 50 parishioners and sells used furniture on ebay. He apparently doesn't hear what he doesn't want to: that the Imam had arranged an appointment with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who is central to the disputed Muslim community center in lower Manhattan (it's not at Ground Zero), but had agreed to nothing, apparently not even the meeting.

This is how you gain notoriety. This nonentity is suddenly known round the world. And you know what, there will be more Terry Jones's. It's a way to become famous, almost instantaneously. We used to have famous outlaws--bank robbers, murderers--and now?

Note: outlaws would now be called criminals: notice the difference a word makes.

How do you get a book noticed? The same way: by doing or saying or writing something outrageous, or perhaps revealing state secrets--but just a little, like Anthony Shaffer. Shaffer's Afghan memoir, Operation Dark Heart, threatens security, some claim: Army reviewers didn't, but Defense Intelligence Agency reviewers did. Shaffer worked with DIA.

So how is Shaffer's book being noticed? He's in the news, because the Defense Department is going to buy up all 10,000 copies of his first edition, so that objectionable passages can be deleted. A good use for Pentagon money!

However, some review copies have--escaped!

Will Shaffer have a bestseller on his hands? The next printing will be considerably more than 10,000, I'm sure. And maybe, once the revised edition arrives, some reviewer will release the redacted passages to Wikileaks.

Some people achieve fame through luck and talent, others through stupidity, incompetence, or sheer nastiness.

Do you know the old-fashioned way to become famous? Come from a lofty family, think well of yourself, and play by the rules. A more modern variation is: get a good education, meet the right people, and work deals.

Fifth Century Rome was old-fashioned--until it collapsed. Senators' sons followed Senators; the right people knew the right people and spent a lot of money; new ideas were distrusted and literary style was most important. Meanwhile, the western Empire slipped out of their hands, and into the control of the Germanic tribes.

Some of their leaders were a bit like Sarah Palin!

US Empire, Inc.

My previous blog dealt with a video released by Wikileaks. The importance of a service like wikileaks has been underscored by the denials of Pentagon and pro-defense bloggers about the meaning of the Iraq helicopter video. Wikileaks' crucial role has also been demonstrated by the recent Appeals Court decision that the FCC doesn't have the power to enforce net neutrality.

Comcast, AT&T and Verizon all claim that net neutrality will not fairly recompense them for their services, that they need to be able to charge more for high band-width users, in order to adequately invest in continued improvements in the Internet.

Gee, 80% profits (for Comcast) aren't enough?

What really is at issue is: who controls the Internet. The FCC has been like the cop in the patrol car; nobody controls where you go, but you have to abide by the speed limits. In the case of the Internet, the FCC was attempting to insure that everyone had equal access.

The companies want control. Their spokespeople claim they wouldn't charge more except for high-bandwidth users, but if there is no cop on the beat, why wouldn't they charge more? After all, a corporation's officers are legally required to maximize profit.

So, if there is premium access, then those not paying the higher fees will end up getting lower quality (lower cost) services, or they could be blocked unless they pay more.

Providers could also block users if their content promotes ideas or policies that could threaten their bottom line. This brings us back to Wikileaks: the Iraq video would not be in the interest of any corporation which makes profits from our war efforts, since it has profoundly anti-war implications. With no cop on the beat, it could have been blocked.

The same might be said for certain candidates: anti-corporate positions could therefore become even more difficult to bring to public attention. Not only would they be handicapped by receiving no corporate money now that corporations can spend unlimited money directly on elections, but in addition, the carriers could block meaningful access to a campaign.

There are two ways out: one is for the FCC to find another way to regulate the Internet to insure net neutrality: it's exploring its options. The other is to pass net neutrality laws in Congress, but the opposition of the large cable providers meshes with anti-regulatory zeal, largely Republican, though other corporations, like Google and Yahoo might encourage pro-regulation Congress-people if they push back.

The Appeals Court decision is like the second of a one-two punch, the first being the Supreme Court ruling that corporations have free speech rights as "corporate persons."

This looks like a silent corporate coup. Forget about Democrats and Republicans: corporations are gaining control--unless we stop them. Goodbye democracy, goodbye the United States. Hello US Empire, Inc. Is Augustus waiting in the wings? Is her name Sarah Palin?