In the middle of it now

And then a year went by....

2010-06-04T17:23:00.001-07:00

And yes it did.

We had Memorial Day and all I can think about about it is that there's been a war on as long as I have been a mother. My son's entire life is shorter so far than the occupation of Iraq. So when I see recruiters at the Starbucks, my first thought is not "thank you", it's "stay the f*ck away from my kid, you jackals". Getting an email from his school district saying the budget needs emergency cutting and the size of the cuts is about 200 staff positions doesn't make me want to say "Hey, thanks for the freedom!", it makes me want to say, "thieving murderous bastards," because I think of the uncountable millions being poured into bullets and bribes.

This is not a popular position in certain circles or on certain days.

Do I appreciate the troops? I appreciate that they've been traumatized by being commanded to kill women and children and men. By "appreciate" I mean understand. I do not blame them - most of them started out like you and me, wanting to do something good, or looking for a way to support their own families and build a better future for themselves and the world. Some are sociopaths, they I do not appreciate. "Moral waivers" have been issued to allow criminals to engage in this criminal set of wars. Recruiters have preyed on autistic and otherwise unfit people to gather troops for these long long wars.

I appreciate that the returning soldiers will have a hell of a go trying to re-adjust (those who started out adjusted) to society. I appreciate that of three grandfathers who were WWII veterans and a dad who is a Viet Nam War vet that they never talk/ed about combat experiences and shy away from general war-time discussion except to remark on how nice the people they met and didn't kill were, and how much they miss the great guys who did not come back home. I appreciate that a lot of people do not get the help they need to turn off the kill switch and come to grips with what they did "for freedom". I appreciate that a lot of families suffer from the absence, and then return of, their relatives.

I appreciate that the President who is now in charge of these wars and un-manned drone attacks sends his kids to an expensive Quaker school. I appreciate that Congress can approve emergency war funding, but manages - twice, mind you - to go on vacation while letting unemployment benefits lapse because it would be "too contentious to tackle".

Yeah, hey, thanks.

On building houses

2009-04-30T10:57:00.000-07:00

This is a preliminary analogy.

The land has to be cleared, the fence put up to secure the site. There are so many steps one does not think about - the blueprints in hand, one wants to just start building. I have a brick, I want to lay it down.

But is the ground even? Is there rubble, is there poison in the soil which will leech into the water system and kill the residents? These things must be seen and cleared. Protection.

Level the land - remove the garbage which has been so casually thrown into this field by passers-by and squatters, bulldoze the chunks of rotting wood and crumbling masonry - carry it away, do not just bury it - it is not needed, it is not wanted. Oh, that bit of marble looks salvageable, but for what? Does it have a place in the new house? I like this crystal doorknob, but will it open a door, or refuse to turn and therefore trap us in? Weigh it all.

The fence.
It is important. Yes, you want to live free - you want to roam, but this is not a fencing in - this is to keep monsters out. No, they are humans, but they have the hearts of monsters and would tear out yours. You need a fence. They will take a sledgehammer to your work when you're not looking and pour acid into the pipes before they can be capped off.

Materials - need to be strong but not brittle; flexible, but secure. You live in earthquake country - make sure this building has enough sway to not be knocked down, that the doorways are very strong.

You can apply paint, o, sure, but the walls need to be free of cracks, the floors need to support you, and the attic needs to not be cluttered with things you dig up in the back yard.

Ancillary Post

2009-01-13T07:01:00.000-08:00

In these boxes from Random House we received:

A set of bookmarks (approximately 25) in the smaller box.
A publicity package of brochures in an 9x12 envelope in the larger box.

Why are they having fiscal trouble? One wonders, given the excessive amount of packaging and the attendant postage and time involved, how they have survived as long as they have. This is, I must point out, a company owned by Bertlesmann, a massive global publishing powerhouse which is undergoing re-structuring even now.

Book Business

2008-12-14T11:52:00.000-08:00

While the past months have seen a sharpening of the economic hit taken by the retail sector, the recent weeks' news has been no less than startling in the publishing world. According to a November 24 report in the industry paper, Publishers’ Weekly, “Josef Blumenfeld, v-p of communications for HMH [Houghton Mifflin Harcourt], confirmed that the publisher has ‘temporarily stopped acquiring manuscripts’ across its trade and reference divisions.” He added that this is “not a permanent change,” though when new manuscripts would be considered was not stated. It is not clear as to whether manuscripts already approved and set for release would make it to bookshelves.

Blumenfeld also noted that any future manuscripts would be rigorously assessed for “market interest”. It is of note that “artistic merit” is not the primary criteria.

Houghton’s announcement comes on the heels of a leaked internal memo from the previous week wherein Random House, which is owned by the international media conglomerate Bertelsmann, proclaimed that it would freeze all pensions at their current level and would not offer pensions to people hired after January 1, 2009. There have since been reports of a major restructuring of the publishing housed under Random’s umbrella, with the number being reduced from five to three. This, despite the claims of the Bertelsmann website on November 11 that, “After nine months of the 2008 financial year, Bertelsmann reported a solid business development. The international media company achieved revenues almost at the level of the previous year in its continuing operations.”

Since these revelations, the news from the industry has grown increasingly worrisome; San Francisco-based Chronicle Books announced that it will be cutting back almost 5% of its staff due to the outlook for 2009. Macmillan has announced a pay freeze for staff earning $50,000 and over, and the establishment of a pool to provide for modest increases for those earning less. Penguin has likewise frozen pay for those earning $50,000 or more.

Over the last two decades, many publishing houses have been absorbed by non-publishing entities, and the emphasis has been on making fast profit for the shareholders, rather than on building a solid literary or cultural institution. In the last few years even the largest of houses have been taken over, merged with, or outright bought by enormous entities whose bottom line is not cultural enrichment. These new organizations show a lack of willingness to take chances on new literature, and a quick abandonment on any projects that do not garner immediate attention. As we are seeing with HMH, in tough economic times even the supposed raison d’etre of a publisher – to find and publish new material – is sacrificed to cut costs.

Concurrently, the retail aspects of the book business underwent several major changes – from the rise of the “big box” bookstores and the resulting explosion of retail shelf space at a time when readership had been declining, to the advent of the internet as a shopping venue. Both had an adverse effect on the more traditional independent and family-owned bookstores, with many going under, partly due to the publishers’ refusal of deep discounts which the larger chains were offered. A series of lawsuits by the American Booksellers’ Association in the 1990’s obtained cease and desist orders against such un-equal business practices.

The current economic situation is also felt by the large chains. Borders has been teetering on the brink of bankruptcy for months and its third quarter reports show overall sales down 10%. Should the company fail, the return of product would be more than most publishers could fiscally bear, and approximately 30,000 workers would be rendered unemployed. The ripple effect would also very likely take down distributing companies, who would be forced to reduce staff as well. What once might have been the dream of many independent booksellers would actually spell the doom of massive segments of the industry.

While certain independent stores are able to scrape by on the strength of the demand for used books, the resource is not infinite; it does take the publishing of new books to eventually supply that market. Were the publishers to fail, even the stores which exclusively sell used books would see their stock dwindle. In recent years, the number of failed independent book stores has increased, succumbing to the economic pressures of meeting increased rents and decreased sales.

The book business has not until recently been viewed as a means to get rich. Very often writers and sellers of the books have scraped by, their love for words and ideas taking precedence over profit. The same can be said of many publishers and presses, some of which have maintained that integrity and a number of which are still producing vibrant, unusual, and original works. Rather than banking on the Next Big Thing, or, as is more common now, The Next Blockbuster Sequel, they have built their reputations on presenting well-written, enduring works with an eye to artistic advancement. It is quite possible that they will triumph in the end - but it's going to be rocky for a while.

For C H by way of an answer

2008-12-13T10:39:00.000-08:00

I will tell you a story about novels. For some time I wrote short and very short stories. Which thing I liked to do - idea, story, done. Next idea. I was also in a circle of people who were involved in the comic books industry. Many of them were successful to greater and lesser degrees, and most of them wanted me to be successful as well. So advice was offered and I, having never really thought about writing in terms of "success", listened.

"You need to write a novel. No one buys short stories."

The thing is- the implications of which I know now, but which didn't strike me right then - I used to give my stories away. I'd go to readings and read, or story groups and read. Sometimes people wanted copies and I'd copy them out (by hand - I had no computer yet). What I wanted was for people to enjoy the things. It seemed to be working, with people waiting for me to read, and showing up without stories of their own but wanting to see what I had made that week. It was really wonderful, and I am glad I did actually enjoy it at the time, as well as having the memories of it.

But I started writing a novel. And this was in 1994 or so. I have re-started at the 100 page mark repeatedly. It will eventually be a good story, and there are many atmospheric and lovely bits to it. I sometimes think of just assembling the fragments or de-sembling the fragments. Sometimes I think maybe it should take the form of a collage. It started on the backs of envelopes, and is in my old laptop now. I have recently re-started it with a different point of view. But it is about slaying monsters, and so is the writing of it.

There are times when I unproductively hate all the characters involved - good and bad and in-between - times when I have spots of affection for them. Some times I want to finish it, sometimes forget it. There are times when I feel I've killed my little children since the short stories are largely gone from me.

David McCord

2008-11-22T12:24:00.000-08:00

It’s been over a decade since he died. I have a variety of angers about this.

On an artistic level, I am angry with him for killing himself- his stories were like nothing I’d read before; the ideas he had, and his raw turn of phrase showed the beginnings of promise being fulfilled. It was clear that he was suffering, and, unlike many people who attempt it, he was able to turn that into honest and good prose. It was exciting every time a little book came out- and I, who never cared for anthologies, would scrape together the pennies to buy one with one of his stories in it. I wanted to see where he was going, what his talent would bring, what would happen when he turned that corner into greatness. He was on his way.

I am angry that his mother died, and angry that she felt compelled to involve him in her death. I do not see how a mother could do such a thing, and yet, I do understand how a human being could be so ill, so much in pain, that sense abandons you and you ask to be put down. In this, my anger extends to medical practices and mores which forbid assisted suicide. How cruel a time and place, such cruel laws which put children into the position of killing their parents, and parents their children. In the name of “life”, they suck away any compassion, any future for those who have to take on the task unwillingly.

To the people who sold or gave him heroin…. There is rage there. There is too much rage. And for him, for taking it. For giving himself a deadline to stop which I sometimes wonder if he intended to meet, or if he intended to use as a period to get some things in order.

I am angry that Lisa has the memories of all this. I am angry that people still think of suicide as "romantic", that drug use it still - in some unhealthy circles - viewed as a "price we pay for genius".

For trying to bring Lisa along with him. For that, O, I am angry at him. I know he did not want to be alone. She loved him so - she did not want him to be alone- she would go where he went. It is one of the most unfair things in the world to ask someone to die for you who would willingly do it.

I am angry at me for not picking up the clues, even as they were laid right out there. “We’ll be with mother soon.” I almost laugh now- I did not know that she was in a vase on the mantle, did I? No, not until later that day. It was not too late then, but by the time I put it together, it was. Sitting on top of the hill in Oakland with him and Lisa, it just seemed an odd thing to say, but nothing so horrible, nothing so sinister, not an “Enjoy us while you can, though we are in extreme pain, because we’re going soon, because we’re in extreme pain”.

Oooh Gosh Not too bright

2008-07-11T07:48:00.000-07:00

So, I forgot my password once again and couldn't post for a while. I am working on a couple of things, and will be up and running soonly.

Also- apparently periods and exclamation points are not allowed in post labels. It should be:

Oooh. Gosh. Not too bright. (So, why they mentioned the exclamation point in their alarming note, I do not know.) Oh, wait- the post label! Ahh.... Did I mention I'm not too bright? Haven't had coffee, neither.

Standing Up To The Madness - review

2008-06-04T11:11:00.000-07:00

This review appeared in a slightly different form on the WSWS on May 27,2008

Amy Goodman and David Goodman, Hyperion, 2008 (Hardcover), $23.95

Amy Goodman is well-known as the host of Democracy Now!, the independent news program broadcast on a variety of public radio and television channels, as well as the author or co-author of a number of books on political events. Her views are firmly located on the liberal left, with an orientation toward “left’ elements in and around the Democratic Party, such as Rep. Dennis Kucinich, and the Greens.

David Goodman, Amy’s brother, has written for a number of left-liberal magazines including Mother Jones and the Nation, as well as more mainstream outlets such as the Washington Post and The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer on PBS.

Standing Up to the Madness begins with a well-known citation: “When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the American flag.” This saying, attributed to various people, has become something of a mantra in certain circles on the American left. The litany of complaints which follow—eroding civil liberties, increasingly stark economic divisions, the war in Iraq—are presented with no close examination. Each ill is viewed as having a single unifying cause, to wit: the Bush Administration.

No mention is made of the connection between the breakdown of democracy and the growth of social inequality, or between the predatory war aims of the US elite and the attacks on democratic rights at home. In a word there is no suggestion that the policies of the Bush administration reflect more than the “madness” of one individual or perhaps, at most, neo-conservative circles. The book never raises the larger question of the failure of the social and economic order, capitalism.

The question asked by the authors in the midst of it all is, “Where is the outrage?” To ask such a question is to insult the millions of people who have indeed expressed outrage, and who are suffering from the attacks described. By implicitly blaming the population for the lack of opposition to the assault on democratic rights the Goodmans shift attention away from the critical role played by the Democratic Party—the supposed opposition party—in enabling the rise to power of the Bush Administration through the hijacked 2000 election, the passage of the Patriot Act, the war on terror and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

In Stop the Madness the Goodmans seek to set out positive examples of citizens who have taken on the powers that be, “grassroots activists [who] have taken politics out of the hands of politicians,” in the words of a commentator. Such individuals may be courageous and sincere, but their efforts become part of a political argument the Goodmans are constructing: these local, “grassroots” efforts obviate the need to challenge the overall political set-up and, specifically, to make a conscious break with the Democrats.

While few of the cases detailed in the book’s chapters will be new to listeners of Democracy Now!, since many of the subjects have appeared as interviewees on the show, there is value in reviewing the stories as part of a whole, in terms of painting a broader picture of the crisis and breakdown of American bourgeois democracy.

The first subject, Malik Rahim, of New Orleans’ Lower Ninth Ward provides special insight into what the residents of that area faced before, during and since hurricanes Katrina and Rita. It was through his and his neighbors’ efforts, along with an unexpected visit from a detachment of Veterans For Peace, that the area saw any relief in the initial aftermath of the storms. Unwilling to play games with people’s lives, he and his group offered help even to the racist vigilantes who had recently threatened them with violence.

Malik’s story is an anomaly in the book, as he is the only one who seems to have any sense of the history which brought his city to that desperate point. One of the founders of Common Ground Relief, a collective dating from the first few weeks after Katrina hit, Rahim and his neighbors are determined to salvage and rebuild whatever they can while offering help to others in the Gulf area. Of all the narratives in the book, his is the most affecting, and certainly the most dramatic.

While Rahim’s organization surely is doing good works, the area affected is far beyond the scope of any small organization to fix. The treatment of the survivors of Rita and Katrina continues to be abysmal, and resources continue to be lacking on the scale needed. Coming up on three years after the catastrophe, the people still face official stonewalling, constant threats to cut off what little aid they do receive and demonization by the press (not coincidentally around the expiration deadlines for aid packages).

The work of Common Ground is heartfelt and needed. However, it is not nearly enough. Rahim’s experience serves to point out the continuing neglect by the US government of pressing social needs as it pursues the war in Iraq and makes permanent tax cuts for the wealthiest citizens with bipartisan agreement.

The case presented in Chapter 3, “Librarians Unbound,” begins with a visit by two FBI agents to the office of the Library Connection of Connecticut (a consortium of 27 libraries that share a computer network). The agents were in possession of a “National Security Letter” (NSL) seeking “any and all subscriber information, billing information and access of any person or entity” using the library systems’ computers on February 15, 2005, between 2 and 2:45 p.m.

The executive director of the Library Connection, George Christian, noted in particular one clause stating that recipients of the letter could not disclose “to any person that the FBI has sought or obtained access to information or records.”

Christian, however, did tell a few people in the library system, and the executive committee met with its lawyer (an action that may very well not be legal under the draconian National Security Letter provision of the Patriot Act).

The librarians realized that they had two choices—either comply with the NSL, or sue. They elected to sue then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and engaged the national office of the ACLU to represent them. With their case, John Doe vs. Gonzales, they sought an injunction against being forced to comply with the National Security Letter, and launched a challenge to the constitutionality of the NSLs. Over the course of the trial, the librarians were required to keep mum and their names were only released inadvertently when a judge ordered the release of certain court documents.

As they do throughout the book, the Goodmans focus exclusively on the role of Bush when discussing the assault on civil liberties. We read, for example, that the Patriot Act was “rammed through a compliant Congress three months after the 9/11 attacks.” A page later: “When President Bush rammed the PATRIOT Act through a fearful Congress shortly after 9/11.” The complicity of Congress, and particularly the Democrats, in erasing the separation of powers and its leadership’s co-operation in passing and re-passing the sinister and authoritarian Patriot Act goes unmentioned except in terms of their supposedly being “forced” to comply.

In the chapter on American scientist James E. Hansen’s fight against official censorship of his findings on global warming, we are treated to a sub-chapter entitled “Showdown,” in which Rep. Henry Waxman, Democrat of California, is presented in the mold of Mr. Smith from the Frank Capra film “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”—i.e., boldly challenging the powers that be on points of scientific freedom. Also featured are Reps. Peter Welch, Democrat of Vermont, and John Yarmuth, Democrat of Kentucky, both of whom are presented in a very positive light. The role of villain is played by Rep. Darrell Issa, Republican of California. Waxman is one of the Democratic Party’s leading frauds, a demagogue who issues subpoenas and stages hearings without serious consequences for anyone.

The Goodmans point out that both Bush and Cheney have deep connections to the oil industry. Unmentioned are the Democratic participants’ own backgrounds—for instance, Yarmuth’s previous career as both a Republican and as the heir to a family fortune derived in part from holdings in Ashland Oil Company. His current party affiliation, it seems, shields him from careful scrutiny by the Goodmans.

Hansen’s scientific career goes back decades, and the Office of Management and Budget had censored him during the previous Bush Administration. He also spoke about his disappointment with the Clinton administration in a January 2007 Frontline interview, stating that although the latter did not question the science, it did not do enough to act on the information provided, and noted that, “The United States’ portion of global emissions actually increased during the Clinton-Gore administration.”

The outcome of the more recent hearings into the Hansen case is left up in the air. While the authors note that certain low-level Bush loyalists involved lost their positions, there is no deeper analysis, with the chapter segueing into an account of the actions of author Bill McKibben relating to his April 2007 “Step It Up Day,” and a variety of other “actions,” including Ted Glick’s “No War No Warming” non-violent civil disobedience action on Capitol Hill in October 2007,” which incorporated polar bear costumes and at which 61 people were arrested.

It is a peculiar transition, and the authors’ spotlighting impotent civil disobedience actions is a transparent attempt to focus the energies of the population on pressuring the Democratic Party and Congress.

The chapter ends with a quote from Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize speech: “We have everything we need to get started, save perhaps political will, but political will is a renewable resource. So let us renew it, and say together: ‘We have a purpose. We are many. For this purpose we will rise, and we will act.’”

Meanwhile, as noted on the WSWS April 30, 2008, the proposals from the Democratic presidential candidates on global warming “are no more serious [than Bush’s suggestions to open ANWAR to drilling, and a moratorium on domestic emissions targets]. In addition to the [gasoline] tax moratorium, Clinton is proposing a suspension of oil input into the Strategic Petroleum reserve, a marginal increase in spending on alternative energy sources, and an increase in fuel economy over a period of 20 years. Obama has rejected the tax moratorium on the grounds that companies would just increase their prices to make up the difference, and supports fuel economy standard increases and alternative energy investment.”

While Standing up To the Madness provides numerous stories illustrating the current assault on civil rights, its recommendations in no way add up to a viable policy to oppose war, racism and poverty. The “Conclusion,” entitled “We are the leaders we have been waiting for,” is made up of tepid and unserious propositions. In a subsection titled “Challenge the Corporate Media,” there is first a call to support the stations that air Democracy Now!, a passage which makes for embarrassing reading in its shameless self-promotion. It is then suggested that we “Post ... stories, photos, and media at indymedia.org.”

We are urged to become active in the “national media reform movement”; web addresses are given for such entities as the identity politics-oriented Media Action Grassroots Network, as well as Free Press, which, while more even-handed, is still thoroughly reformist in its outlook and activity.

On page 288, the Goodmans write, “Democrats and Republicans alike have been served notice that lip service and deception will not satisfy the new generation of activists that is demanding real change, and real democracy.” Yet, there is neither a call for the building of a third, independent or socialist party, nor any critique of the capitalist profit system. There is, in short, no “or else” issued at all. The warning is proffered as an idle and impotent threat—one which reveals the role of the Goodmans as nothing more than a pressure group on the Democratic Party.

Literacy, bookshops, and publishing

2008-03-07T12:03:00.000-08:00

In what has become all too commonplace, the month of February saw the announcement of no less than three bookstores' intentions to shutter their doors. One has since been purchased, and will hopefully survive.

After serving the community for 25 years, Hastings, New York's Good Yarns faced closure until a last minute buyer stepped forward. Prior to that, the store's manager William Tester spoke to the NYT in a piece from Feb. 24- "Unless someone comes along in the next few months who is both passionate about books and has the wherewithal to shrug off something as trite as profit...You have to have some maniac who is not interested in making a living.”

"With so many bookstores having closed their doors on Main Streets in Westchester, the passing of Good Yarns means the western side of the county will have no independently owned comprehensive village bookstore between Bronxville and Chappaqua."

Unless a buyer is found, Vail, Colorado's only bookstore, Verbatim Booksellers will close within the year. Speaking with the Vail Daily, Verbatim's owner Robert Aikens stated, “It has to be somebody who loves books, loves music, and loves Vail, who wants to keep a bookstore in Vail.” The store relocated in 2006 with the aid of $70,000 in donations.

Dutton's Brentwood Books, perhaps Los Angeles' best-known independent book store, has announced that it will close on April 30. Soon after the recent closure of their Beverly Hills location, the property on which the Brentwood's location sits was sold. The property's new owner plans to redevelop.

Doug Dutton, the store's owner stated, "We have been asked if the store will reopen in the proposed new development, or at another site in the area. At present, any plans to reopen or relocate will have to await a real offer in a real situation, combined with a sober assessment of the realities of the book world."

The realities of the book world include declining readership and the continuing conglomeration of publishing houses.

Literacy and Readership
Recent surveys have shown that fewer than half of the American public reads books once they leave school or university. To be sure, falling literacy rates have something to do with this, and this is something which is unlikely to change under the current system. Indeed, among the many human services cuts in President Bush's proposed budget for 2009 is the elimination of $25.5 million dollars for Reading Is Fundamental's Inexpensive Book Distribution Program, which has provided books to millions of low-income, migrant, foster, homeless, and military children since 1975. The program had been funded without interruption by Congress and six Presidential Administrations since its inception.

According to a press release issued by RIF's president and CEO, Carol H. Rasco, “The U.S. Department of Education has shown that the number of books in a child’s home is a significant predictor of academic achievement.” In an average year, working through various agencies the Inexpensive Book Distribution Program gives on 15 million books to over 4 million children who very likely would otherwise have none. Eliminating funding for the program shows, once again, this administration's callous disregard for the less fortunate, as well as for the future development and safety of the population. There has as yet been little protest from the Democratic-led Congress.

For all the hue and cry of Leaving No Child Behind, cut after cut has been made to academic programs from Head Start to Pell Grants. With the elimination of the IBDP, we see yet further decay in the educational infrastructure of this country. The amount of $25.5 million, less than a month's spending on the War in Iraq, provides vital literacy outreach to the poorest segments of our society. To claim that it can not be afforded is both untrue and speaks volumes in regards to where the priorities of this administration and Congress lay. That these cuts will hit hardest where NCLB has already deprived schools of money due to falling test scores means that there will be a further impoverishment for the students and families involved.

Founded in 1966, RIF's goal has been to improve literacy rates by involving adult volunteers, and providing training and materials. Studies have repeatedly shown that access to books greatly improves academic achievement, as does the active participation of caring instructors. RIF's efforts have included writing contests for children, reading challenges, and family literacy programs – all with the aim of bringing a love of literature and participation in writing to children from every background. We now see an enormously successful organization stripped of funding for one of their most effective programs.

The Publishing World
During the 1990's, the rise of the “big block” booksellers and the gobbling up of smaller publishers by larger houses and – in many cases- non-publishing entities threatened the well-being of a great number of independent bookstores. While overall readership was in decline, retail shelf space was expanding at a rapid pace.

Given the nature of the industry, one of the few in which the producer of the product (ie, publishers) sets not only the wholesale, but also the retail price, (roughly a 40% markup), the ability of the bigger stores to offer deep discounts rapidly imperiled many long-standing independent stores.

In the 1990's, the American Booksellers' Association along with a number of their member stores launched a series of lawsuits against the major publishers contending that the chain stores were being given an unfair advantage. In every case, the federal courts found the publishers in violation of the Robinson-Patman act when they offered bigger discounts to the chain stores than were made available to the smaller, independent shops. By the time the lawsuits had been settled, and cease-and-desist orders issued, a number of small stores had closed.

The major publishers, such as Bertelsmann, which owns Random House, Alfred A. Knopf, Bantam, Doubleday, Dell, and a host of other publishing houses as well as a number of newspapers and other media outlets, control not only the books which are published, of course, but also the press coverage of said books, and the film deals (often within the same company, such as with Time Warner, which owns both publishing and film companies).

In many cases, when a smaller press is taken over by a larger one, the “midlist”- consisting of steady but not block-buster sales- is dropped, and the money is put toward finding the “next big thing”, regardless of merit. Oftentimes, if a book does not make an immediate splash, its print run is cut, and copies are pulped or sold as “bargain books”.

What This Means for the Reader
As the sources for new literature are ever shrinking, and the emphasis is put on immediate sales, rather than producing quality literature, there is less reason to enter a bookshop. When what is on offer is an attempt to be the “Next Harry Potter”, or “New Sex and the City”, and so much space is given over to formulaic writing in pursuit of a fast buck at the expense of the development of new ideas and directions in literature, culture and imagination are left by the wayside. The shelf space has to be filled; however, contrary to predictions made at the dawn of the big box age, more space is not resulting in more selection, but less. In an effort to maximize profit, only the most bombastic survive. If a big box store does not commit to buying a title from a major publisher, the title has a good chance of being scrapped entirely.

A great number of independent bookshops offer an alternative to this scenario- focusing on local or small presses, or on specific areas of interest such as art or politics- offering a wide range of selection from many points of view. Many shops will hold onto a title in which the booksellers have confidence in or a love for, no matter how well it sells right out of the gate.

The loss of such shops, many of which are deeply involved in the communities they serve, is not just the loss of a business, but often marks the loss of a place where imagination is given inspiration. The loss of access to information and ideas not otherwise available- even in this day of digital availability- is something to be mourned.

Curse of the Romanovs - boogity boogity boo

2008-02-08T09:45:00.000-08:00

For the past four or so years, I have been aware of the fascination with princesses. Disney's Belle, Cinderella, and etc have spread their sparkles over the eyes of the nation's children. It is annoying, but I try not to read too much into it most of the time (except for the afore-mentioned Belle of Beauty and the Beast, which has always struck me as a dangerously co-dependent kind of story; He's beastly, but if I love him enough he'll be a prince...) Anyhoo.

When it comes to historical princesses, however, I do try to see what is happening. Over the past few years there have been a few books on Anastasia, which personage has the dual advantage of being both royal and mysterious. Did she die, did she live? Poor kid! The hand-wringing over her fate is understandable from a human point of view, to be sure. It is not her fault that her father and family were tyrants, no. But she did benefit from the tyranny, and I wonder at the distinct dearth of hand-wringing over the fate of the children who were victims of the Tsar's pogroms.

Enter The Princess Diaries. Ostensibly the diaries of a variety of princesses, these books serve to suck the mind of the child dry of any historical perspective before it has a chance to take root. Naturally, there is one "by" Anastasia, which covers the war years and the revolutions of 1917. Without fail, revolutionaries (Menshevik or Bolshevik) are described as "rats", or "ugly". Horror is expressed at Lenin's idea that the country should be controlled by the workers.

Princes are also included now- with the publication of "The Curse of the Romanovs". Ostensibly a book about hemophilia, and time travel!, Alexi is the central character. He travels to 2010 in a time machine invented by Rasputin. There he visits- please sit down if you are not already- his cousin who is named- and I wish I were making this up, but I am not- Varda Ethel Rosenberg.

Varda. Ethel. Rosenberg.... Thereby adding insult to bad literature. The sheer insensitivity of naming a central character in such a book after a woman who was framed and killed for being a socialist would be amazing, had I not skipped ahead to the "further reading" section and seen that Pipes is recommended.

It is clear, in reading such books, that a labour of historical revisionism is hard at work. Workers, guard your children, for they are under literary attack.

Comte-Sponville part 2

2008-01-08T11:54:00.001-08:00

Well, I liked the first part, where he laid out his terms. Now it's getting a bit muddled, really, and at times it seems back-track-y and at other times very hippy-dippy (with some due respect to hippies, but none to dippies). It is going to take at least a second reading to get a good handle on. As of today I will sum up as:

At least he's not trying to justify killing people. That's a step up, in my book, though it will be interesting to see where the next step lands.

Stones & Bones by Char Matejovsky

2007-12-25T20:54:00.000-08:00

So, here's how it happened:

I was at work, manning the register when this guy comes in all white of beard and quiet of manner and he asks for his special order and I hand it over, intrigued by the cover, which, as you can see, shows a dinosaur painting a picture of a white-bearded guy.

Oh, dear, I think, this could be very bad or it could be pretty cool. - I will now admit that I have a suspicion of pictures of old men with big fluffy white beards. Usually some kind of santa or god is going to be involved. My prejudice proves wrong, I am happy to say, when the man who has ordered the book and who is receiveing it with obvious glee says, "It's evolution in verse."

The guy with the white beard is Darwin, or a reasonable and amiable facsimile. The verse itself is catchy, and does not give in to simplistic language- mitochondria, for example, appears in one stanza (and, remarkably, does not feel forced). The illustrations by Robaire Ream are well-done, at once intricate and clear.

Included with the book is a cd with the book sung by a children's choir quite charmingly.

Among my favourite bits:

Evolution's the solution
to the data that we find,
when we study bones and fossils
and we keep an open mind.

Along the way, we get a time-frame, and an acceptance that not everything is known, but that we have not given up on learning what we can and are looking for more knowledge. In all, a very exciting view of scientific discovery and interpretation.

Since this is from a small publisher (Polebridge Press), the book is a bit pricey (it was about $19.00), but it is library bound (which means durable), and highly enjoyable by both the four-year-old and the thirty-nine-year old. The next oldest generation also liked it.

www.stonesandbonesbook.com is their web address if you have trouble finding it in your local bookshop. I am also going to recommend a visit there to click on things- as there is a really neat timeline, and resources for parents and kids about evolution. I am rather thrilled about this.

General Complaint

2007-12-24T21:17:00.000-08:00

There is the saying, "So many books, so little time". Well, as any reader knows, it's true. I am trying to prioritize my reading list, which grows every day. There are books which I read of political or educational necessity, books which I read because I missed them the first time around (having not been born in time to catch the first release of most 18th century literature), and books which Look Darned Nifty.

They pile up. I have a grand plan involving shelving everything in such a way as to have what needs reading isolated from what's been read. Or something. I have one involving a calendar and an actual plan- X in January, Y in February. Yah, sure. I have also agreed to co-chair a reading group for romance novels. (I know. I know- really, I do. We'll see what happens.)

This past year I read more non-work/politics-related stuff than I had in about a decade. I also read more politics stuff than the year before. I also decided that if I do not like a book, or if I do not properly hate a book (also valuable), then I do not have to continue.

For example- I hated the Christmas Box. A lot. But I lost my place and didn't want to re-infect my brain by accidentally re-reading any of it, so I let it slide. (It was horrible in every way I expected; bad plot, poor writing, and overwrought tugs at the heartstrings. Plus it brought back memories of Salt Lake in wintertime, which is a definite strike against it as far as I am concerned.)

I also did not totally read Blackwater- though it was informative in many parts. It just was not really anything new, since I'd been paying attention to the situation beforehand. I might still pick it up, but maybe not.

In any event, I look forward to finding some good books in the new year, and to finishing the good ones or really really bad ones I already have laying around.

I am hoping to discover a new hated author in the same way I look forward to discovering a new favourite. If I could find the opposite equivalent of Max Brooks next year, I will be happy to spend time underlining the especially egregious parts. I have not had a good underlining since Stan Rice died. Well, Harris came close.

The thing is, in order to really find such things, I have to go into it cold, or expecting the best. I need to keep an open mind in order to be either pleased or dismayed. I went into The Christmas Box expecting to hate it, and I did, but not gleefully.

Anyhoo. I am working on a plan. Or two. To organize my reading. Or I might just continue at it willy-nilly.

Also....Spreading the word

2007-12-18T21:50:00.000-08:00

For those who cannot get enough of Carl Sagan, there is an interesting thing happening here:

http://kasranov.blogspot.com/

Kasranov has made a rather nice 40-minute episode of Sagan's Pale Blue Dot- using footage from here and there and scoring it very nicely indeed. He writes about the process of making the film as well. I am impressed and hoping for more. Now, more than ever, it's good to remember that rational thought can be expressed with grace, humour, and humanity. Thanks, Kasranov, for the reminder.

The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality

2007-12-18T14:00:00.000-08:00

By Andre Comte-Sponville.

I'm on page 62 of this little book so far. Written for the lay-reader (ie, non-professional philosopher), Comte-Sponville's work is a contemplative and personal examination of atheism, morals, and history as it regards the building of ethics. Unlike many now-popular works on atheism, it does not exhort a complete abandonment of Judeao-Christian traditions as far as a code of living goes, rather he posits that we are best served by building on these materials- the teachings, he avers, are valid with or without God. I am inclined to agree with many of his ideas so far, though not totally with his interpretation of political history (into which he does not go deeply, so it is almost a non-issue. At least at this point).

A run-down of the contents (and questions):

I. Can We Do Without Religion?

II. Does God Exist?

III. Can There Be an Atheist Sprituality?

Conclusion: Love and Truth.

So far he has taken both nihilism and post-modernism to task -citing the rejection by post-modernists of the ideals of the Enlightenment, to wit- the denial of knowledge and humanity by its insistence that it is impossible to know truth, or that there even is such a thing as truth. While not proclaiming that there is One Big Truth, Comte-Sponville decries the idea which follows so often in that line that since we can not find it, it is not worth looking for. Nihilism and Post-Modernism are, it seems, linked in their common denial of history and their lack of will to affect the future. (After all, if there is no way to know the past, what business do we have trying to do anything in the future?)

Interestingly, he delineates two kinds of Barbarism-

There are two types of barbarism, however, which it is important not to conflate: The first, irreligious, is merely generalized or triumphant nihilism; the second, fanaticized, attempts to impose its faith on others through use of force. Nihilism leads to the former and leaves the field open to the latter.

The dangers of these barbarisms are clear- in the case of the first, there is an unrootedness, a committment only to the whims of the holder, and a denial of ideal or ideologies, an abandonment of culture and cummunity in toto. Indeed, the very idea of culture is antithetical to nihilism.

I think of a number of people in the "atheist world" who do not appeal to reason in favour of atheism, but spend their time in the excoriation of religions, and people who have faith in any form, without regard to whom they are alienating, or why, and with the idea only of shouting down any questions or challenges (Hitchens, particularly of late, as well as many angry forum participants). There is often to be found the expression that religion and faith need to be utterly abandoned, that they have contributed nothing to human thought or history (I know, but what is history, anyway- yes, yes.).

In the case of the latter- we see it in many ways:

They know everything there is to know about Truth and Goodness. Of what use is science to them? Of what use democracy? Everything worth knowing is in the Book. One need only believe and obey. Between Darwin and Genesis, human rights and Sharia, the rights of peoples and the Torah, they have taken sides once and for all.

Examples greet us on the front pages of the papers every day.

Letter and thoughts on zombies

2007-11-27T11:31:00.000-08:00

Someone wrote a letter to the wsws in response to the review of the World War Z book. In it they asked about the zombies themselves, as I did not write much about them. To be honest, they are less written about in the book than one would expect. They are The Threat, and they are also actually scientifically explained, but they are not the focus. The actions and reactions of the people not infected are the focuses.

But the zombies. Hmm... I could draw, I suppose, some parallels between their urge- to the point of self-destruction- to eat everything around them. It could be taken as a commentary on the environmental situation, or rampant consumerism and credit debt. But I do not think that's it.

I think of it as the determination to protect the status quo at any cost- where there was once a Join Or Die attitude, there is the current now of Join And Die and then bring others into it as well.

It's still in its development stages, this line of thought.

Break

2007-11-20T11:45:00.000-08:00

I have been reading some intensive political documents which I have been finding confusing and annoying. I hate it when people's own sentences contradict each other, but there you go.

As a relief to that, I have also been reading a bunch of Babylon 5 novels. Now, I came late to the show (like, ten years), and enjoyed it immensly. The novels are another thing. I like some, I loathe some, I ambival some (yes, it's a word. Well, no, actually, it isn't. But it will be).

What I do like about the Babylon 5 world, if you will, is that there is not black and white going on, and sometimes there are no win situations in which no one wins. Unlike Star Trek, or a number of other sci-fi universes, failure is an option in Bab5. Technology and magic do not solve everything. You make a bad decision, and the consequences are there for you and everyone to try to clean up.

Anyhoo- I'm still alive.

Another book I read was The Latke Who Couldn't Stop Screaming, by Lemony Snicket. Darned good, really. It's the tale of a misunderstood and scalded potato pancake who is so frustrated he cannot stop screaming. Even as the various christmas creatures he meets try to tell him what he "really" is, he clarifies patiently but with obvious annoyance what he actually is, why, and the symbolism he represents. It's heartwarming, charming, and also has a somewhat happy ending (not fot the latke, though).

If you MUST read a holiday book, make it this one.

Finished it......

2007-10-24T21:47:00.000-07:00

It's been a while, but I was reading. And writing. So, here:

from: http://wsws.org/articles/2007/oct2007/mons-o25.shtml

World War Z: Monsters of this society’s own making
By Christie Schaefer
25 October 2007

World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War, by Max Brooks, Three Rivers Press (CA), $14.95

Zombies do not exist. Mass tragedies, natural and social, do, however. American writer Max Brooks in his best-selling science fiction work, World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War, understands this, and though he is committed to zombies as his metaphor, his message is clear: We are not prepared for disasters. Why we are not prepared is one of the many subjects of this book.

Unlike much of the work in science fiction and horror genres today, Max Brooks (son of Mel Brooks and Anne Bancroft) approaches his work with a straight face—there is not the expected and desired wink that would make it seem “all right” and less frightening. From the first pages of this book, which is written as a series of interviews with survivors of a future “zombie war” from every level of society, Brooks is in character. The book’s press material carries on the conceit; Brooks gives interviews in which he details the war that officially cost some 600 million dead. It is the seriousness with which the author takes his subject that makes his efforts effectively chilling.

Brooks’s narrator starts out by detailing his falling out with the chairperson of the United Nations Postwar Commission Report when he finds that more than half of his work has been left out of the official version of the events. The half left out was the human factor—the opinions and emotions of those who survived. He asks, “But isn’t the human factor what connects us so deeply with our past?” This work, then, is the presentation of the human factor.

Offered as vignettes presented by the participants themselves, and moving from the first recorded outbreak in rural China through the most industrialized and technologically advanced area of the world, and even into space by way of an international station, Brooks’s book leads us through a catalogue of the world’s failings. That many of these failings are exacerbated, if not flat-out caused, by governmental hubris is no small element.

Starting with the first narrative, that of Kwang Jingshu, a doctor at a hospital in a relocated village that prior to the war had upwards of 35 million people, but now has barely 50,000, we see examples of the ineptitude of society at dealing with a rising plague. The doctor excoriates the younger staff of the hospital when the initial call for help comes through: “The younger doctors, the kids who think medicine is just a way to pad their bank accounts, they certainly weren’t going to go help some ‘nongmin’ [farmer/peasant] just for the sake of helping. I guess I’m still an old Revolutionary at heart. ‘Our Duty is to hold ourselves responsible to the people.’ Those words still mean something to me...and I tried to remember that as my Deer bounced and banged over dirt roads the government promised but had never quite gotten around to paving.” With this simple passage, Brooks points up the differences between the party line of Mao’s China and the reality.

The outbreak the doctor finds upon visiting the family is covered up, and thereby allowed to spread. The second interview, with a human smuggler, lays out the means of the plague’s spread—people eager to leave China in light of the zombie threat or out of economic desperation do so. Many disappear into the poor neighborhoods of their host countries. As the smuggler states, “What better way to hide than among that part of society that no one else even wants to acknowledge. How else could so many outbreaks have started in First World ghettoes?”

As the plague takes hold, and it becomes clear that there are no really safe places (each geography offers its own advantages and deadly drawbacks), it also becomes clear that modern tactics of warfare are also inefficient at best in dealing with this type of monster. Carpet-bombing, firebombing, body shots—nothing is working. As long as the brain of the beast is intact, the head, even when cut away from its body, will keep snapping and infect any who get nipped. This lack of understanding of the enemy leads to one of the biggest military defeats early on in the war, which leads to panic. If the army cannot stop them, what hope is there?

What various segments of the population do during the panic provides Brooks an opportunity to offer insight into present-day social decay. For example, one group of super-rich, including a barely disguised Paris Hilton, holes up in a fortified mansion and broadcasts their lives for the less-rich to watch as the world is exploding.

This part of the story is told through the interview with a mercenary bodyguard. He recounts an episode during which his clients were filmed while reacting to a televised street fight between humans and zombies: “I remember I was standing next to this guy, Sergei, a miserable, sad-faced, hulking motherfucker. His stories about growing up in Russia convinced me that not all Third World cesspools had to be tropical. It was when the camera was catching the reactions of the beautiful people that he mumbled something to himself in Russian. The only word I could make out was ‘Romanovs’ and I was about to ask him what he meant when we all heard the alarm go off.” (The House of Romanov, of course, was the imperial dynasty overthrown in Russia in 1917.)

Through the use of the interviews, Brooks has managed to create a book with many highlights and “ah-hah” moments. He makes the most of these people, and writes with a straightforwardness that ends up being neither preachy nor guilty of what is known as an “info dump.” Through the views of the survivors, we see the struggle for basic survival, on the one hand, and the dispassionate planning for the annihilation of masses of people by the powers that be, on the other, through the politics of “acceptable losses.”

Moving into the years past the major outbreak and into the years of “cleanup,” we are shown the psychological effects of the war, from survivor’s guilt to the mechanics of the quislings—humans who convince themselves that they are zombies. As one interviewee puts it: “They’re always drawn to what they’re afraid of. Instead of resisting it, they want to please it, join it, try to be like it... Collaborators, sometimes even more diehard than the people they’re trying to mimic, like those French fascists who were some of Hitler’s last troops. Maybe that’s why we call them quislings, like it’s a French word or something.” Of course, Vidkun Quisling was the Nazi-installed president of Norway during World War II, as is footnoted in the book.

Brooks’s use of footnotes is interesting in that it gives the action of World War Z a bit more weight by maintaining the literary ruse that we are reading an actual account of events in the not-too-distant past.

In all, given recent world developments—Hurricane Katrina springing immediately to mind, and oft-mentioned in reviews of this work—the scenario laid out here is what is truly frightening: world governments too corrupt, uncaring or crisis-ridden to assure the basic needs of their citizenry in the face of massive disaster, and that citizenry left to its own devices.

The novel makes clear that society had not been challenged solely by the walking dead, that things were in decline long before the zombies showed up and provided an immediately tangible crisis.

That Brooks limits his Narrator in most cases to parenthetical statements and comments about the physical reactions of those he is interviewing makes the times he does step forward authorially all the more potent.

This is especially true in such interviews as the one with former White House chief of staff Grover Carlson, one of the few times when Brooks’s Narrator character takes a confrontational stance. Asked about the response of the White House to reports of the walking dead, Carlson replies, “Given how low a priority the national security adviser thought this was, I think we actually gave it some pretty healthy table time.”

He continues to brag that Phalanx, a supposed anti-zombie drug, was pushed through the Food and Drug Administration. When the Narrator points out that Phalanx didn’t work, Carlson explodes and launches into a tirade about how it didn’t matter, what mattered was that a panic had been avoided, and asks, “Can you imagine the damage it would have done to the administration’s political capital? We’re talking about an election year, and a damn hard, uphill fight....”

When the Narrator later states, “So you never really tried to solve the problem,” Carlson answers, “Oh, c’mon. Can you ever ‘solve’ poverty? Can you ever ‘solve’ crime? Can you ever ‘solve’ disease, unemployment, war, or any other societal herpes? Hell no. All you can ever hope for is to make them manageable enough to allow people to get on with their lives. That’s not cynicism, that’s maturity.”

The increasingly contentious interview continues, with the former official turning belligerent, his answers to the more and more pointed questions becoming short sarcastic quips. Carlson ultimately telling the interviewer to “grow up” as he returns to shoveling dung.

Ultimately, this book is a frightening thing. The reader may come away hoping that no major disasters will ever happen again, but one knows all too well that something is bound to arise that will challenge society on a mass scale, be it fire, flood, or not-so-natural disaster, and that the social order neither is prepared nor has the capacity to confront it adequately. Official reactions—martial law, war, hoarding, isolationist survivalism—only indicate the bankruptcy of the present order. New ways of solving massive problems are needed. Though this book does not provide a blueprint, by any means, it does provide—in a very pointed, astute and entertaining form—food for thought.
---------

And I'm off to read a little Babylon 5 novel before bed. But not the ones by Peter David, oh, good lord, no.

There's a Word For That, But I Don't Know It

2007-09-28T11:20:00.000-07:00

From "Shelf Awareness", an insider booksellers' thing:

Speaking of the Strand, the New Yorker offers many column inches in its coverage of the store's Books-by-the-Foot service, begun in 1986 to provide "ready-made libraries for private homes, stores, and movie sets."

A current client: the upcoming Indiana Jones film, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. The books, for Indy's personal collection, are to cover "paleontology, marine biology, and pre-Columbian society. They had to be in muted colors and predate 1957."

"People have gotten so character-specific nowadays," Jenny McKibben, a manager at the store, told the New Yorker. "It can't just be color anymore. With high-def, they can just freeze the film and say, 'Oh, that's so inappropriate.' "

The store offers 18 basic library styles, for purchase or rent. The random hardcover bargain books version goes for $10 per foot of shelf space. For $30, clients can customize the color. For $75, they can get a "leather-looking" library.

"Character specific", cry me a freaken river- buy your library for *you*, not to match your couch.

Wow. I didn't realise I was going on 11 years of hating the Strand bookstore for their anti-bookish behaviour. True, I was leery of them when I saw an interview with one of their buyers some 8 years ago about how they will often find valuable things stuck between the pages of books, or discover that they'd drastically underpaid someone for their used books, and not contact the seller.

In the same interview, they did cover the Books By The Foot sales, admitting that they do often break up sets of books.

There's a lot wrong with this.

One- Your library is supposed to reflect you- your tastes, your passions, your hates (I'm looking at you, first edition volume of Stan Rice "poetry"). It is something which is built over the years- at which you can look and maybe chuckle at your youthful indescretions (ahm, I'm looking at you, "A Fine Old Conflict"), or rediscover a half-forgotten gem, getting even more out of it now that you have a better Understanding Of Life than you did some twenty years ago. In other words, it is a part of what you are made of.

Two- The breaking up of sets is Taboo Number One of honest booksellers. Now, if you happen to only find a volume or two of a set (thanks in part to The Strand's having broken it?), that's one thing. But if you have a set (no matter how pretty), you keep it intact. It is a single being. It travels together. Unity.

Three- I just hate them. No, wait, let me make this into a valid point. I do not appreciate their distict lack of respect for books. That they are willing to view them as "set peices", as mere objects regardless of the ideas contained therein leads me to believe they are philistines. No ofence to actual Philistines- which I know there are, because I read it in a book which I chose with care.

Actual Philistines (according to my ex-Rabbi, that would be us, the remaining ethnic Jews) like books. We are also known as "People of The Book" (I think you get to pick *which* book of which you are nowadays. I digress.)

So a better word might be "Uncouth barbarians who would destroy civilization if it meant a quick buck".

Magazinery

2007-09-25T10:26:00.000-07:00

For some reason, I picked up a copy of The Progressive the other day. "Letters to the Editor" has long been my favourite section no matter the publication, so I started there. Lo, and let the forehead-slapping out of frustration begin... I don't even have the energy to rant, as the letters were so consistently internally inconsistant that it would take too much typing and I have other things to do.

On to Scientific American instead. Whew.

Michael Shermer, with whom I sometimes agree, writes a generally insightful column for the mag. This one proved quite interesting (September 2007 edition).An open letter to Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens, it states that, "Whenever religious beliefs conflict with scientific facts or violate principles of political liberty, we must respond with appropriate aplomb. Nevertheless, we should be cautious about irrational exuberance." In the short and worthwhile essay, he goes on to present what could be called a five-point guideline for arguing the cause of atheism. In brief:

"1- Anti-something movements by themselves will fail." He quotes Von Mises here, "People must fight for something they want to acheive, not simply reject an evil, however bad it may be." (I chuckle a bit at this, as it proves that even Von Mises saw something with clarity.) Really, any parent who is paying attention will tell you that just saying "Stop it" will not get the results- more effective is the addendum, "do this instead."

"2- Positive assertions are necessary." How many times have I heard "Religion is just bad"? Too many. I don't really want to get into the defence of religion, but have to say, unless you can answer the question "Do you have anything better?" without the circular argument that it's better because of what it's not, you're not going to get far.

"3- Rational is as rational does." No schnitt there. Harris (here we go again) suggesting that we could ethically kill someone for holding an idea is rational how, again? Ignoring the tenets of a religion and choosing to see only the extreme elements in order to paint everyone of the beleif with the same inflamatory brush is rational how? That's not even good science, let alone good thinking. Ignore the evidence you do not like? Way to get the big picture. I'll stop now. Sagan is quoted in this; "You can get into a habit of thought in which you enjoy making fun of all those other people who don't see things as clearly as you do. We have to guard carefully against it." Words to live by.

"4- The Golden Rule is Symentrical. In the words of the greatest consciousness raiser of the twentieth century, Dr Martin Luther King, Jr., in his epic 'I have a Dream' speech: 'In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline.' If atheists do not want theists to prejudge them in a negative light, then they must not do unto theists the same." I think that says it all, and well.

"5- Promote freedom of belief and disbelief." Thinking, and the freedom to think must be guarded for everyone. MLK, again: "The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realise that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realise that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom."

I Have a Dream speech entire. If you have never heard the whole thing, please do.

Coming out in paperback in October, of course

2007-09-10T21:59:00.000-07:00

I find this out after I bought the hardcover of World War Z, by Max Brooks (son of Mel). Damn, this is a good book. Written in faux-documentary style (and subtitled "An Oral History of the Zombie War"), Max has wrought a nice piece of horror and social commentary. In vignets presented as if by various survivors of the war, we see an interesting picture of just how bad things can get if we continue on the paths we currently tread in re military unpreparedness, general unpreparedness, celebrity worship, and media deception.

I did not expect this, mind you- I expected a humourous and maybe scary bit o'fluff. I am in the middle of it, and very excited about it. That's not happened with a new fiction author in some time.

Here's a link- buy it.
Powells Books

---On the subject of links. I have decided to start linking to random (or maybe not so random) independent book stores which do business over the web. I may or may not go back and link for some other books as I feel like it. I will not link to a book I do not like, which means you'll have to do some work on your own in those cases.

World Without Us By Weisman

2007-09-04T12:21:00.000-07:00

I read a review and exceprt of this in Scientific American recently, and was intrigued. Even more intriguing is the publicity this book has been getting- the author has appeared on The Daily Show, and any number of other places, and is well-spoken and calm in his presentation. So I have started reading it.

Though I am just in the first half of the book, one thing strikes me which I do not think was the author's intent. The amount of work needed to keep human society from falling into what we would call ruin (if we were still here) is astonishing. Most striking to me is the deconstruction of New York City. Were it not for the constant attention of underground crews, the subways would flood almost immediately. This would be followed by the literal undermining of the city itself, as the tunnels eroded and collapsed, and streets became rivers (some once again, in a return to their pre-Hudson conditions). I wonder if this will be brought up the next time contract negotiations come up. I hope so.

I am not saying that the author is anti-worker, just that this is not the main thrust of his work here. The main thrust is that nature can in many respects- the majority of respects, really- take back what we have been using. And that it would not take all that long.

While reading the description of what (and how) would happen to most modern houses, I was reminded of my trip through some of Detroit's harder-hit areas earlier this year. The houses I saw in a state of decay (with people still living in them) were built using older methods, which is probably what has kept them going even this long. Contrasting these houses, even in their crumbling states, to the newly-built apartment complexes in the area, it was easy to see that the newer buildings would not, even with the best of upkeep, fare as well as the former buildings.

Really, we are seldom building things to last for one human lifetime anymore, let alone something which could stand through the ages.

Anyhoo- I am in the middle of it (well, the early middle).

Random. Warning- swear word flippantly used

2007-08-27T23:34:00.003-07:00

A few years back I had thyroid cancer- which was operated on, the right thyroid taken out, and I have a small scar which is fine by me because I am alive. This is a preface for:

I want to slap Norah Ephron every time I see her "I Feel Bad About My Neck" book. "Fuck you", I want to say, "your neck sags, it's not trying to kill you."

Not actually a miracle, though it might look like one to some

2007-08-24T09:53:00.000-07:00

So, Sam Harris has a letter in Nature.

The letter:
Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Sam Harris
Sir

It was genuinely alarming to encounter Ziauddin Sardar's whitewash of Islam in the pages of your journal ('Beyond the troubled relationship' Nature 448, 131–133; 2007). Here, as elsewhere, Nature's coverage of religion has been unfailingly tactful — to the point of obscurantism.

In his Commentary, Sardar seems to accept, at face value, the claim that Islam constitutes an "intrinsically rational world view". Perhaps there are occasions where public intellectuals must proclaim the teachings of Islam to be perfectly in harmony with scientific naturalism. But let us not do so, just yet, in the world's foremost scientific journal.

Under the basic teachings of Islam, the Koran cannot be challenged or contradicted, being the perfect word of the creator of the Universe. To speak of the compatibility of science and Islam in 2007 is rather like speaking of the compatibility of science and Christianity in the year 1633, just as Galileo was being forced, under threat of death, to recant his understanding of the Earth's motion.

An Editorial announcing the publication of Francis Collins's book, The Language of God ('Building bridges' Nature 442) represents another instance of high-minded squeamishness in addressing the incompatibility of faith and reason. Nature praises Collins, a devout Christian, for engaging "with people of faith to explore how science — both in its mode of thought and its results — is consistent with their religious beliefs".

But here is Collins on how he, as a scientist, finally became convinced of the divinity of Jesus Christ: "On a beautiful fall day, as I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains... the majesty and beauty of God's creation overwhelmed my resistance. As I rounded a corner and saw a beautiful and unexpected frozen waterfall, hundreds of feet high, I knew the search was over. The next morning, I knelt in the dewy grass as the sun rose and surrendered to Jesus Christ."

What does the "mode of thought" displayed by Collins have in common with science? The Language of God should have sparked gasping outrage from the editors at Nature. Instead, they deemed Collins's efforts "moving" and "laudable", commending him for building a "bridge across the social and intellectual divide that exists between most of US academia and the so-called heartlands."

At a time when Muslim doctors and engineers stand accused of attempting atrocities in the expectation of supernatural reward, when the Catholic Church still preaches the sinfulness of condom use in villages devastated by AIDS, when the president of the United States repeatedly vetoes the most promising medical research for religious reasons, much depends on the scientific community presenting a united front against the forces of unreason.

There are bridges and there are gangplanks, and it is the business of journals such as Nature to know the difference.

The Link:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7156/full/448864a.html

Now me:

Well, this is not meant to make anyone suddenly think there is a god, but I actually agree with Harris' letter here. In a science magazine or publication of any kind, SCIENCE needs to be foremost. Science arenas need to be bastions of rational thought, of evidence-gathering, not throwing up your hands and saying "God did it", which is the very antithesis of inquiry.

The question of whether science should investigate or comment of religion is a valid one, but I think it has been framed as being "don't question people's beliefs", rather than "what *is* belief and why" in most cases. A proper scientific investigation into the mechanical aspects of belief (what happens to your brain waves under the influence of religion, what actually caused the burning bush, the ins and outs of visions, etc) would be more than fair game. Where the intersection of science and religion gets dangerous (or deadly in some cases) is where it is said "Do Not Look". Kills science right there, and people actually do die of self-imposed ignorance. I agree with Harris that there has been too much willfull blindness.

Add to this- why is it that we so seldom hear about someone coming upon a sight of extreme beauty and being overwhelmed by the love of nature? Here:

When I lived in Utah I was surrounded by some rather unpleasant people (of many religious stripes, lest you think I'm about to go off on an anti-LDS tangent). But I was surrounded by some really beautiful scenery. This is where we keep the Purple Mountains Majesty, after all.

The Wasatch would almost glow at sunset, and the sun in the high desert would cast golden rays as it went down- if its rays hit me, my own skin would take on the hue of antique 18 carat and I would feel beautiful, too. These were times which brought me into a realization of my own existence in the universe as a whole- reminded me of the entirety of the solar system and our collective fate and history going back to the very first moment in time. Such times *included* me, included everyone, as part of this all, not as some specially created creatures here to do the bidding of some Other.

The beauty of which we are a part is so much better than a beauty over which we are supposedly given dominance. The potential for knowledge is so much wider than the fetters of various religions would have us realise. The more we know, the more we discover, the more we look, the easier that is to see.

Email forward

2007-07-10T20:56:00.000-07:00

My mom, whom I love, sent me this very long email (mostly made up of the addresses to which it had been forwarded before it reached me).
______
PHOTOS TOO GRAPHIC FOR ABC, CBS, CNN AND NBC
Pictures From Iraq That Are Too Shocking & Graphic for The Mainstream Media
Photos that will never make the news....

Please pass the pictures on. Sometimes in our everyday lives we tend to forget what's going on elsewhere in the world and that the brave men and women of the service are just like you and I. They have the family and friends back home who love them very much and are praying for their safe return.

PLEASE KEEP THIS GOING EVEN IF YOU HAVE PASSED IT ON BEFORE

When you receive this, please stop for a moment and say a prayer for our troops (land, air, and sea) in Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, and around the world. There is nothing attached....... This can be very powerful...... Just send this to people in your address book. Do not stop the wheel, please....

Of all the gifts you could give the US Military, Prayer is the very best one.....

_______
The photo's, schocking photo's, are of US soldiers playing with kids, a kitten, Iraqis holding up signs saying "Thank you, Mr Bush", and such. Also a prayer huddle.

My reply:

Mom,

The best gift you could give our troops is to bring them home and give them the mental and physical care they need.

There is a lady on one of our baby boards who posted these some months ago. She is a military wife and at the time I was given the impression that one of the people is her husband. I am not so sure.

While the pictures surely do depict something different from what we see on the news, they in no way negate the carnage that people - even the ones so gently treating folks in these photo's- are bringing to that country. In fact, seeing that these men are so capable of kindness compounds the horror. What are *they* being turned into by being required to follow orders and kill?

-----------
Thousands, I am sure, of blogs have been dedicated to email forwards. How annoying and etc. I wonder if many have been dedicated to the uses of email as spreader of propaganda.

Bad Poet

2007-07-09T17:05:00.001-07:00

Stan Rice. He was the husband of Ann Rice, now he's dead. He was the head of the creative writing department at San Francisco State University, and published before she did, so it was not a matter of coat-tails-riding.

Some of his poetry is so close to really good, then he'll throw in a line like :

The Zodiac in Haemoraging.

Or he'll write something like:

In Heaven
the roach
is a jewel....

...Which is almost good. But not quite. I have bought every one of his books. Partly to make myself feel better, partly to make myself mad. Mostly to write counter-poems in the margins.

Short and snide

2007-06-16T12:22:00.000-07:00

Yahoo headline:
Bush Warns He'll Veto Runaway Government Spending

Like $100 Billion for the Iraq war?

Yah.....

Ahhh, well. ...In Memoriam of Little Dog Curly

2007-06-12T09:25:00.000-07:00

There are times when you are reading exactly the right book at exactly the right time.

The passages by Julia Sweeney from Parenting Beyond Belief have, unfortunately, come in handy recently, as we lost our little dog. I basically cribbed from her in explaining it all to the boy (3 1/2).

So, what I said to him was a re-phrase of what she said (about the death of Julia's dad)- that when we die it means we are not there any more- we can't eat, or play, or even think. We become part of the earth again if we're buried (which is what we did), or the sea or just ashes if we are cremated. Every day our body is a little bit less and a little bit less as it breaks down into its molecules and the molecules go into the ground and some become parts of other things. But that we still have our memories of Curly, and that we still do some things because of having known Curly, like we think of Scooby Snacks, or of dropping just a little food for her to find at dinner, or other things. That when he's being Waggy The Dog, it's because Curly showed him what a dog does.

So far he's at times intrigued, and at times sad, but asking a lot of questions, so we're just answering the questions, and being sad, too.

The question of "will she come back as something else" was answered with "we don't really know, but she will not be recognizable as Curly if she does, because then she'd be too involved being whatever it was, like a bunny (his suggestion). Unfortunately, we will not have our Curly any more, and we'll miss her. But we still have our love for her."

We have also been checking out other books on the subject- Judith Viorst's The Tenth Good Thing About Barney, which is about a cat dying and being buried, and which is one of the few non-heaven-based kids' books on the subject. There's even an argument between the child who has lost his cat and his neighbour friend about it in which the final word is "we don't know".

It is good to see someone say "we don't know" sometimes- especially when we just don't. So much better than the Certain Lie which is often offered.

I think it is this aspect of religion which bothers me perhaps the most- the denial of feelings (particularly sadness). "Don't be sad, s/he's with God now" is cruel even if one does believe- s/he's not with *me* now, so I have lost someone, and so I am sad. It also does not reflect well on God that It's needs or wants would always trump the human's. Greedy greedy God. This would be, I think, especially harmfull if one were trying to teach one's kids to "be like god". Yikes. As if we don't have enough trouble at bedtime.

In any event, our house is down one dog, and we are sad about it. Boy keeps asking if I am still sad even with No Tears Right Now. I say, "Yes, I probably will be for a while." He says he is, too. Inwardly, though, I also thank Ms Sweeney for the comforting, true, words.

Cindy Sheehan

2007-05-29T20:34:00.000-07:00

Well, I sometimes read the websites, and today was an interesting one. Cindy Sheehan, considered the "face of the anti-war movement", has resigned from the Democratic Party. Funny things, she seems, along with many other people, to think that the Party should act as though they had been voted into the majority because the people wanted an end to the war. I don't know why she or anyone would thing such a thing- unless it was because that was what happened after they campaigned as the Only Solution To This Mess.

Certainly, it was not based on their record. Let us review a few "high" points:

Voted to give Bush War Powers.
Repeatedly voted to fund the war despite not having an accounting of where the last enormous sums of money went.
Some sat on the secret panel overseeing the NSA wiretapping of citizens.
Ran Kerry as a hawkish presidential candidate.
Voted overwhelmingly for the Millitary Commissions Act of 2006.
Non-binding resolution.
Maleable "conditions" attached to the budget.
Dropping any timetables.

This brings us up to date. I skipped a lot here- this is all just top-of-the-head stuff.

So, Ms Sheehan got fed up. Now she is being villified as an "attention whore", among other slurs, by the very people who counted on her presence to bring attention to their cause. Only their cause was not her cause, and she finally caught on to that. Her cause is justice- though she, as many, looked to the wrong Party to gain any of that. Their cause is The Party- a capitalist party to the war. Their idea of goals? Making sure Iraqi oil fields are opened to US companies for exploitation. Her idea of goals? Stopping this war.

One mother who wanted answers- Why did my son die?

A worthy question. Deserving of an answer.

Haiku of frustration

2007-05-15T13:14:00.000-07:00

The pain in my ass.....
Why do I talk to these dense
Libertarians?

Seriously. I know it's good to get out and encounter different views- in some cases so as to refine your own views, in some cases in the interest of "know thine enemy", in some cases just for the sake of getting out for human contact. But, really, now. I have to wonder why I do this to myself, this trying to engage in reasoned argument or debate with some people is truly futile. Possibly they work for the aspirin company and are paid a hefty wage as Headache Farmers.

Brief History of Disbelief (2004)

2007-05-12T16:05:00.000-07:00

I watched the three-part series by Jonathan Miller recently. Most of it was enjoyable, all of it made me realise I still have a lot of reading to do. (Hobbes, many of the Greek philosophers, etc.)Excitement built as he neared the atheism of the Russian Revolution, only to be deflated as all of three minutes (if that) was spent in (again, as usual) perpetuating the lie that Stalinism equated with communism (which is, of course, taken as an equation with socialism). I do not suppose I should have expected much, but given the intelligence and diligence of the rest of the programme, I did. This was, though a rather large letdown, the only one.

Setting that aside, the series was quite good, including brief interviews with such people as Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Arthur Miller, and many others- philosophers, scientists, and lay people. Jonathan Miller traced atheistic thought back to the afore-mentioned ancient Greek philosophers (Epicure among them), and did a good job of parelleling the history of disbelief with that of belief, as well as the story of his own atheism. It seems that throughout the ages, philosophers of various bents have recognised religion for what it is- (wait for it) the opium of the masses.

Speaking of which, the actor (Bernard Hill) they had voicing the quotes of such luminaries as Homer, Freud, and Thomas Paine, did an excellent reading of the entire paragraph wherein "the opium of the masses" first appeared.

This is a flawed piece, but it is a good start on the subject.

How things sneek into books and some other stuff

2007-05-10T17:05:00.000-07:00

I was delighted a few years back to be reading one of the Series of Unfortunate Events books by Lemony Snicket and coming across a section wherein the pre-verbal Baudelaire child, Sunny, is heard to exclaim "Bushcheney", which is interpreted as "a person who is very bad and intentionally so" (to paraphrase, as the book is packed away). Last night I finished Peter Corris' The Coast Road, in which private investigator Cliff Hardy muses on the war in Iraq and the lies which brought it about (while being shot at, clubbed a few times, and otherwise endangered. He's a man's man, you know, but also a thinking man's man).

Evidence of thinking is very encouraging sometimes.

Speaking of thinking- I was nominated by Edie of Annotated Life for a Thinking Blog Award. Thanks, eh?!

So- here are the rules,

1. If, and only if, you get tagged, write a post with links to *****5 blogs***** that make you think,
2. Link to The Thinking Blog explanation so that people can easily find the exact origin of the meme,
3. Optional: Proudly display the 'Thinking Blogger Award' with a link to the post that you wrote.

I have to say that I don't read a lot of blogs, still being new, and all, but the ones I do are:

Lloyd of DaddyLloyd . This is his "serious" blog. His other blog, which I also like, is not as serious, and downright funny. This one, though, is very personal. He's a Canadian stay at home dad, and has been amusing me for years in other places around the web (Canadian World Domination, rest in peace!). Admirable, stand-up fellow (who also does stand-up).

I am going to have to send this one back in Edie's direction- to Annotated Life. She's the one who got me into this whole blogging thing. Why? Because I could see that intelligent thought existed, and was wonderfully articulated. Thanks for the encouragement, thanks for the shedding of the light on Socialist Subjects.

Let us call her "Itty". She makes me think. Returning to art school post-baby-bearing, and showing excellent progress. A frustrated artist reloaded. We seldom agree on anything, but darn it, the woman can draw.

So....The next is a repeat from Edie's list, really, as I am travelling in similar circles.... Which may or may not remove me from the actual awarding, but hey, it was an honour to be nominated.

Pictures, Analysis, and Art, by Scott. He knows when to caption, how much, and when not to. Not an easy line, but he's always on the best side of it. I was very happy to finally find his spot.

TEXT And here we have a blank space...I will claim my award when I actually have read enough of a fifth blog to qualify. I mean no disrespect, I just need to stay in more with the computer, right?

------
I watched the first part of A Brief History of Disbelief today. It reminds me that I have to read a lot more books. But it was also comforting. Eventualy I'll write out my own story of coming to atheism. The word, "atheism", is one about which I agree with the presenter of the show in that it is an inadequate word for the state of disbelief or godlessness. It defines in a negative, when I feel quite complete without believing in god, and felt weird while trying to believe. We need a new word here.

The most comforting parts of it were the snippetts of "man on the street" interviews with people who said (presumably in answer to the question, "Do you believe in God?") "No." I paraphrase, of course and again- the variety of reasons given were straightforward, though. I am thinking that the reason this was the most comforting part is that, no matter how many Wise Men and Women of History share your view, it's always nice to know that you are not alone in the general populace right now.

Being an atheist and non-famous is a bit more difficult than being a famous atheist- you have no fame to fall back on when people suddenly do not love you because of your Heathen Ways. You are not insulated from the effects of real life coming down on you because you lose your job or have been beaten up for your "lack" of faith. Your voice does not carry the Authority of Fame- "What do you know? What have *you* ever done?" I suppose, in more extreme times and places, your disappearance would not be as noticed as, say, John Lennon's, or Richard Dawkins'. It can be lonely and a bit frightening- should I tell *this* person? What about *them*? It's ridiculous to have to weigh such things so seriously, yet here we are.

So, anonymous atheists on the street of all ages, we are not alone. Of *that* much we have proof. More than (ahem) some people can say.

Prayer Surge Part Two

2007-05-03T20:35:00.000-07:00

I do not only blog, o, no, I also take part in a variety of forums (by variety, I mean three). I posted the article about the Prayer Surge at two of them, and the replies were largely positive. To the idea of praying, that is. Well, a lot of people pray, we all know that, but I wondered for a couple of days if I was just a weirdo for being annoyed/angered by the very idea. I held off of posting about it on one particular forum for a while, but finally could not stand it any more and so....

I am trying to decide what bothers me most about this so as to compose a coherent reply to the majority (overwhelming) saying that "It couldn't hurt" and "Well, obviously humans are doing a *great* job solving the problem". I think that the very idea is just absurd, of course, but I should be used to the absurd, so why am I so angry about it this time? I mean, really, roll-my-eyes-and-gnash-my-teeth angry.

Maybe it has to do with people dying and the obscenity of praying for the safety of the very people these Praying Soldiers are there to bomb, shoot, and make disappear. Maybe it's the over 3,000 dead US soldiers and how young the vast majority of them were (most younger than me, most young enough to have been a child of mine) and how they were trained (badly) to shoot people before themselves being blown up or shot or however they died too young and for a lie.

Maybe it's the prayer itself and the blindness of people not seeing that when they say "Confuse the wicked, O Lord, confound their speech. . . . Destructive forces are at work in the city; threats and lies never leave its streets," they could well be taliking about the wicked who lied and got us into this mess, them into this mess, that *they* are now the destructive forces at work in the city, and that further threats and lies are forthcoming every time I open the paper.

A combination? Is this just a straw too heavy on top of so many other bales?

------

So, that's what I wrote, and still there is the feeling that I am sort of alone on this one. Well, at least one person objected, let history show.

Prayer Surge- Some remarks

2007-04-28T10:43:00.000-07:00

Oregonian 4/27/07

'Prayer patrol' for Baghdad pastor enlists others in a "prayer surge" to entreat God for peace in Iraq's troubled capital
Friday, April 27, 2007
NANCY HAUGHT
Wayne Dillard believes that one surge deserves another. President Bush ordered a surge in U.S. troops sent to Iraq, and now Dillard is calling for a surge in prayers on behalf of Baghdad, once known as "the city of peace."

Dillard, an ordained minister in the Vineyard Christian Fellowship and a founder of Prayercentral.net, has launched the Baghdad Prayer Patrol at www.prayercentral.net/baghdad. As of this week, he's enlisted about 300 people who have agreed to spend at least one minute a day praying for the city where death and violence are daily occurrences.

Each day, an e-mail goes out to subscribers, focusing on a particular need of U.S. troops, Iraqi leaders and police and the residents of the city. Each e-mail includes a Scripture passage and a recommended prayer. A satellite map highlights one of seven Baghdad neighborhoods identified by the U.S. military as a "hot spot," Dillard says.

"People have different ideas about whether we should be in Iraq or not, about bringing the troops home now, whatever," Dillard said in a telephone interview from Virginia Beach, Va.

"I'm not interested in those issues. We've got a conflict in Baghdad that needs a godly solution, a peaceful solution. That's not going to be fully accomplished through just military effort, or political effort or social effort," he said. "There are spiritual forces at work that need to be addressed."

Since the project began in March, prayers have been offered for Iraqi leaders, whose lives have been threatened; fathers who struggle to protect their families; and troops, who may need the gift of compassion, Dillard said.

Recently the prayer of the day quoted Psalm 55: "Confuse the wicked, O Lord, confound their speech. . . . Destructive forces are at work in the city; threats and lies never leave its streets."

The heart of the prayer is this request: "Lord, with all my brothers and sisters praying this prayer today, I am asking you to break this stronghold of violence over the city of Baghdad and its people. Honor your word, Lord, and strip Baghdad from the hands of the violent and give it to those who love peace."

There is no cost to subscribe and no requests for donations, Dillard says. Though he asks for a six-month commitment, it's possible to unsubscribe at any time. Subscribers can post their own prayers and comments, too.

"All of Iraq needs prayer," Dillard says, "and people are praying for all of Iraq. But the military has identified Baghdad as an area that needs concerted effort right now. As the troops are surging, we need prayers to surge behind them."
-------

This was in yesterday's "Technology" section- presumably because they have a website.

There's a lot wrong with this, so pardon if I go a bit rambly in spots. Wait- better idea- allow me to parenthesize:

Wayne Dillard believes that one surge deserves another. President Bush ordered a surge in U.S. troops sent to Iraq, and now Dillard is calling for a surge in prayers on behalf of Baghdad, once known as "the city of peace." (A better idea, on behalf of Baghdad, would be to resist orders and not bring the violence to the people there. Earthly action for Earthly problems.)

Dillard, an ordained minister in the Vineyard Christian Fellowship and a founder of Prayercentral.net, has launched the Baghdad Prayer Patrol at www.prayercentral.net/baghdad. As of this week, he's enlisted about 300 people who have agreed to spend at least one minute a day praying for the city where death and violence are daily occurrences. (Or maybe that minute would be better spent writing to the Congressmen or the UN.)

Each day, an e-mail goes out to subscribers, focusing on a particular need of U.S. troops, Iraqi leaders and police and the residents of the city. Each e-mail includes a Scripture passage and a recommended prayer. A satellite map highlights one of seven Baghdad neighborhoods identified by the U.S. military as a "hot spot," Dillard says.

(Body armor is a particular need. As would be PTSD treatment, and a return home for the soldiers. The people would probably appreciate electricity and running water in what's left of their homes. A real miracle would be nice- say, the return to life of some 700,000 people. These have not made the list.)

"People have different ideas about whether we should be in Iraq or not, about bringing the troops home now, whatever," Dillard said in a telephone interview from Virginia Beach, Va. ("whatever.")

"I'm not interested in those issues. We've got a conflict in Baghdad that needs a godly solution, a peaceful solution. That's not going to be fully accomplished through just military effort, or political effort or social effort," he said. "There are spiritual forces at work that need to be addressed." (We have a man-made conflict for which we are passing off responsibility to a non-existant being sonce it has become clear that the Powers that be on Earth are going to do nothing to make it stop. In other words, we are traumatised and will hide our heads in fairy tales out of desperation.)

Since the project began in March, prayers have been offered for Iraqi leaders, whose lives have been threatened; fathers who struggle to protect their families; and troops, who may need the gift of compassion, Dillard said. (The gift of proper medical and mental health care would be better for the returning troops- come to that, a *return* would be better for the troops. Not having to worry about your family being blown to bits would be great for the fathers of Iraq.)

Recently the prayer of the day quoted Psalm 55: "Confuse the wicked, O Lord, confound their speech. . . . Destructive forces are at work in the city; threats and lies never leave its streets." (The "wicked" are already confused. It is the destructive forces of their lies which got you into this situation in the first place.)

The heart of the prayer is this request: "Lord, with all my brothers and sisters praying this prayer today, I am asking you to break this stronghold of violence over the city of Baghdad and its people. Honor your word, Lord, and strip Baghdad from the hands of the violent and give it to those who love peace." (So, God, send the troops home so they will stop killing people?)

There is no cost to subscribe and no requests for donations, Dillard says. Though he asks for a six-month commitment, it's possible to unsubscribe at any time. Subscribers can post their own prayers and comments, too. (I disagree- the cost of self-delusion is pretty high. In thinking that you are *doing something* by praying, you are subtracting energy you could have given to actually doing something. You are also mentally absolving yourself from actually working toward a solution "It's in God's hands" is the biggest, worst cop-out we have going for us.)

"All of Iraq needs prayer," Dillard says, "and people are praying for all of Iraq. But the military has identified Baghdad as an area that needs concerted effort right now. As the troops are surging, we need prayers to surge behind them."
------

What Iraq needs is to not be subjected to bombings and the proposed usurping of their natural resources as a "benchmark". They need to be safe from no-knock raids, rapes, and shootings. They need to not be walled into their neighbourhoods, to be able to go outside in safety, to have their lives secure. They need to not be occupied by military forces representing the same government which installed their "evil dictator whom they should be glad we got rid of for them".

Finally, a word from Trotsky: Those who believe in another world are not capable of concentrating on changing this one.

Blackwater- a chapter and some thoughts

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

I picked up Blackwater, by Jeremy Scahill (Nation Books, Hardcover, $26.95) yesterday at a new book store. Though I plan to read the whole thing, I skipped ahead to almost the last chapter, which deals with New Orleans and the use of mercenary military personel in that area.

The use of this, and other guns-for-hire companies, in New Orleans is certainly cause for alarm. These people are heavily armed, and not subject to the same regulations (such as knowledge of Constitutional law) as regular law enforcement. This is in itself a sign of trouble- that they are hired by private individuals as well as by the US government adds to the concern. Their guns will be pointed in whatever direction benefits the person paying them. And they do not hesitate to pull the triggers.

An aspect not touched on in this is the future of their recruiting patterns. Though made up primarily of former military veterans from many places, not just the US, they will have a growing pool of potential employees as people come back from Iraq and Afghanistan and attempt to re-enter an economy which is in decline. Given the increasing number of "moral waivers", and exeptions for psychiatric troubles now used by US military recruiters, questions of the stability of these future guards for hire need to be asked.

Associations, bad and good- more a ramble than a post

2007-04-26T10:01:00.000-07:00

Not book related.

Since becoming involved with a party, I have lost a couple of friends. One in particular is tender and sad to think about.

My Lost Friend was a very good friend (typing "was" in terms of of talking about her is painful). She's involved with a group which requires a security clearance. Our last talk included this:

She:"I don't know what talking to you is doing for my security clearance." Sorta laugh.
Me:"Well, I don't know what talking to you is doing for my Socialist Street Cred." Sorta laugh.

Nothing since. My only hope, really, is that she's alive.

I kind of thought, maybe, that this sort of dis-association only happened in the movies. Naive, perhaps.

On the subject of Critical Thinking

2007-04-20T17:22:00.000-07:00

I bought a book today for my boy- The Emperor's New Clothes, as retold by Marcus Sedgewick with illustrations by Alison Jay. It's a good story, well-known to most, but not yet to him. I remember it being a favourite when I was a child.

What I liked best then and like best now about the story are the lessons- first, Speak Up, and second, Emperors are not infallible. Now I sort of view it as a primary lesson in questioning authority and not believing everything you hear- trust your eyes and the evidence you gather. I am surprised the story is not banned more often, quite frankly.

It is my hope that this will be a sort of introduction to Critical Thinking skills.

This particular edition is charming- the tailors are weasles (not subtle, sure, but funny), the Emperor a lion, and the illustrations are lovely. The story os told in rhyme, which is generaly a dicey proposition, though this edition is lacking the forced feel that often comes from that form.

MY review of it is positive. We will find out tonight what HE thinks of it- which is the important part.

So far...

2007-04-19T14:23:00.000-07:00

Parenting Beyond Belief is made up of a wide variety of views. The common thread is parenthood, with a mostly-common thread being atheism. So far my favourite essay is by Julia Sweeney (of SNL fame) about her daughter and their discussions on faith as it relates to Big Things like death. Her honesty with her daughter, and her frank writing style are warm and engaging. It is interesting to see not only what she says to her daughter ("what happens when we die?" "Frankly, darling, we decompose.") but how she follows this up in regular life. As she notes, some people look aghast at the idea of telling a child such a truth. ("Horrible truth" is the actual phrase used).

I wonder, though, about the horror voiced by people about telling kids the truth. While I agree that the truth should be put into terms the child can understand, I also think that many times the intelligence of children is underestimated. I am not saying "my child is a genius and so all children are", or anything of the sort. I do say, though, that they understand a lot more than we think. Their capabilities are often given short shrift.

Also given short shrift is the effect of "white lies" meant to comfort. Santa Claus, Heaven, and the Easter Bunny all spring to mind. Most of us have come to terms with the non-existance of Santa Claus. Many people remember the disappointment in finding out that no, indeed, there is no such person. I don't think anyone has totally lost faith in their parents on finding this out, but some sense of betrayal might well be there. We do get over it.

But what is the point in the first place? Why do we choose Santa Claus and Heaven to put forth as truth, and not, say, Sleeping Beauty?

The thing about Sweeney's presentation of the truth is not just the words she uses, it is also the attitude with which she speaks those words and the way she lives her life which will teach. A bird dies in their back yard, and they watch it for days, every day a little bit less of it remains. They talk about the breakdown of the material, what happens to the material. It is done without fear. It is presented as fact (and it is), but not as a warning, nor as a means of keeping the child in line.

Sweeney's father, who had been very close with the child, dies. Sweeney illustrates to her daughter how he lives on in their memory- in things they do either consciously remembering him, or as a result of his influence on their lives.

It is very clear in her writing, that Julia Sweeney loves her child, has an open and honest relationship with her, and thinks deeply about her welfare. It is her clarity which convinces.

Her atheism is presented without condemnation of religion (her family is religious, Catholic) or excoriation thereof. It is what it is. Clearly, she is at peace with letting go of god. This peace is transmitted to her child.

Here's hoping...

2007-04-13T14:43:00.000-07:00

I have a new book- Parenting Beyond Belief- On Raising Ethical, Caring Kids Without Religion, edited by Dale McGowan (American Management Association, paperback, $17.95)

I ordered this book as soon as I heard it was to be released. Odd publisher, but I should not be too surprised that a smaller pub is more willing to put it out than, say, Random House. Contributors include Julia Sweeney (of SNL fame), Penn Jillette, and Richard Dawkins. Forward by Michael Shermer (hmm...that one should be interesting).

Like many parents of little to no faith, I have been a bit disappointed with the lack of non-god-based books on child-rearing vis a vis ethics. We read a lot in my house, and there are a lot of fantasy books in our collections (kid and grown-up), but anything on Why To Be Nice has seemed very Jesusy/Mosesy/Buddha-y. The books aimed at parents specifically have been quite Christian, going by the shelves at Powell's (where there is a huge section of Christian Parenting books). Supply and demand, I know, but my wee demand was left supply-less until this one. (I hope, anyway.)

This is this week's reading.

Detroit

2007-04-03T10:46:00.000-07:00

I have, unfortunately, no pictures on this one.

We toured Detroit today (April 2). The level of poverty we saw almost defies despcription. Not two blocks from Grosse Pointe Farms, accross Alter street lay block after block of damaged, burned, and collapsing buildings. Many built between 1870 and the 1940’s, closely placed and run down, they lack paint, they lack electricity, and there was evidence of at least one which lacked indoor plumbing.

People were sparse, though a group of four or five young children played in front of one of the houses. Very thin, they looked at our vehicle (a large RAV4) with half-hearted wonder as we drove past. Many blocks had swaths of overgrown and garbage-strewn lots which had been bulldozed. The only businesses in view were churches. At least one house of worship could be seen for every two blocks. Also, run down, they offer only the false hope of a nonexistant god. A billboard which almost made me scream declared that “You can be saved by Jesus”.

The answer to the poverty brought into what had once been a working class neighbourhood does not lie in this direction. The decades-long decline- closings of factories and the ripple effects of local businesses shuttering as workers leave or run out of money will not be reversed by prayer, no matter how earnest.

Very near to downtown Detroit is a neighbourhood which in 1993 saw the deaths of seven children in a housefire which has become known as the Mack Avenue Fire. With officials originaly scapegoating the parents, it became clear due to a citizens’ commission that the children (the youngest one just 7months) were victims not of parental neglect, but of poverty and systemic neglect.

Their water had been turned off- unknown to the parents, as the utility company sent no word of the shut off- for non-payement of the bill. ($225 at that point). The father, who held an accounting degree, but who had most recently been employed in the peripheral construction business, went into the basement under the impression that the pipes had frozen. This was February, so it was not irrational to think so. His attempt to heat the pipe with a small flame of course did not bring water through to his family. It did, however, set the unpainted beams of the house smoldering. The fire broke out later that afternoon, when the parents were out scavenging metal to sell for scrap- their only source of income.

The tragedy was compounded by the lack of up-to-date equipment for the fire department- including equipment to remove window bars- a common fixture of the houses in the area.

In the course of the citizens’ inquiry, it beame clear that, far from unusual, this family’s story was too too common. The closings of the factories starting in the 1970’s removed the sources of income and hope for gaining other employment for broad layers of the working families in the area. Even a four-year degree did not help this father find a place to earn a wage.

Many people owned their houses, so leaving the area for work was difficult on the family members who would be left behind, and there was scant hope of selling a working class house in a time of economic decline.

Interestingly, the wealthy areas of Grosse Pointe and Grosse Pointe Farms, built during the same era, suffered not a whit. The houses there- a great number of them mansions, including one of Henry Ford’s houses, are as well-kept as ever. There are plenty of well-stocked stores, and a distinct lack of offers to Buy Your House Any Condition written on crude posters and plastered on poles and walls in the area. The yacht club remains undisturbed by the effects of mass unemployment.

Here is an article from December of 2000 about yet another house fire in the area which has some information on the Mack Fire, as well as on the cuts for firefighting in the area. I wish the article was no longer germaine. Sadly, the conditions not only persist, but have deepened in the area.

This is the last time I'm going to talk about Harris- unless he continues to write stuff down

2007-03-22T19:56:00.000-07:00

A recent review on the wsws.org of Dawkins' new book- ( http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/mar2007/dawk-m15.shtml ) prompted a deeper look into Harris, with whom Dawkins has been hanging about. The company you keep, and all that. It's unfortunate thet Dawkins has become such a champion of Harris, and, indeed, I have for some time wondered if they are not just so fast because Harris is, it seems, seen as the Voice Of American Atheism.

Rationalizing Neo Colonialism-
The End of Faith:Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason by Sam Harris (ww norton, paperback 2004)

Sam Harris has gained much attention with the publication of his books, The End of Faith, and Letters to a Christian Nation, as well as a number of op-ed pieces in various mainstream publications. He has been hailed within many atheist and generally secular communities as something of a Rationalists’ Savior. On the surface, his arguments against the current violent trends in fundamentalist religions seem something with which most people would agree. Digging deeper, though, one cannot help but see a disturbing lack of reason in Harris’ own thinking.

It is important to remember, when reading The End Of Faith:Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason (ww norton, paperback), that the book was started on September 12, 2001. As such, the entirety is coloured by what could be described as a sort of philosophical trauma endured by the author. Despite its title, this is not so much a call for reason as a justification for the current policies of aggressive war and neo-colonialist expansionism.

Certainly, the grip which religions have maintained on the minds of so many people needs to be called into question. Indeed, there is much which religions have to answer for- from the suicide bombings perpetrated by many sects from Buddhist Kamikaze pilots, Palestinian Christians, and Islamic Jihadist to the suppression of scientific development and exploration, and unscientific anti-Darwinism. Much damage has been done, physical as well as psychological and social by religion’s call for ignoring the realities of the world in favour of attributing the unknown to the Unknowable. This perpetuation of ignorance has had a terrible effect on humankind. Too many politicians have used the Appeal to the Ultimate Authority to justify the most horrific deeds- often with the complicity of the Earthly religious institutions.

There is no denying that religion has its uses, most famously as “the opiate of the masses”, and there is no doubt that in these time we are seeing a re-administration of this most potent and deadly drug.

Certainly, we do need a call to Reason. This call, though, must itself be reasonable. This is where Harris fails.

Harris' first book is rife with cherry-picked Koran passages and blatant misrepresentations of Islam in particular. The book starts off with an imagined bus ride in which a young man blows himself and others to smithereens. Though much of what we do not know about this person is pointed out, it is only to ask, "Why is it so easy...to guess the young man's religion?"

"Given the vicissitudes of Muslim history, however, I suspect that the starting point I have chosen for this book- that of a single suicide bomber following the consequences of his religious beliefs- is bound to exasperate many readers, since it ignores the painful history of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. It ignores the collusion of the Western powers with corrupt dictatorships. It ignores the endemic poverty and lack of economic opportunity that now plague the Arab world. But I will argue that we can ignore all of these things- or treat them only to put them safely on the shelf- because the world is filled with poor, uneducated, and exploited people who do not commit acts of terrorism, indeed who would never commit acts acts of the sort which has become commonplace among Muslims; and the Muslim world has no shortage of educated and prosperous men and women, suffering little more than their infatuation with Koranic eschatology, who are eager to murder infidels for God's sake." (109)

Here we have the crux of Harris' argument; that in trying to find the root cause of the problems we now face and in determining our future course, we must ignore history and objective social forces in favour of the simple explanation that Islam is the sole source for all anti-western sentiment.

Throughout the book, he conflates Islam and "The Muslim World" with terror. While it is understandable as an immediate emotional reaction to the falling of the WTC, it has no place in a plea for rationality.

Misleading statements abound. One in particular, on page 123 Harris cites the following quote:
"Sayyid Qutb, one of the most influential thinkers in the Islamic world, and the father of modern Islamism among the Sunni, wrote, "The Koran points to another contemptible characteristic of the Jews: their craven desire to live, no matter at what price and regardless of quality, honor, and dignity." He comments, " This statement is really a miracle of concision. While it may seem nothing more than a casual fillip against the Jews, it is actually a powerful distillation of the Muslim world view."

This sounds pretty serious. But is it accurate? Even a little outside reading proves it not to be.

First, let us identify Sayyid Qutb. Born in 1906 in Egypt, he moved to Cairo as a teenager to further his education. Not particularly religious, he was known to not even observe the friday evening prayers. His two-year visit to the US in the late 1940’s exposed him to the rampant consumerism and comparatively "loose" behaviour of the post-war boom years. He returned to Egypt disgusted with what he saw and joined the Muslim Brotherhood- hardly a mainstream organization even then. He was jailed for activities with the MB when they openly opposed the government of Jamal Abdul Nasser.

His shaky knowledge of Islamic law, combined with his harsh prison experience gave birth to a radicalized splinter religion wherein traditional interpretation relying on looking at both other passages of the Koran and the Haadeeths gave way to Qutb’s proclamations.

Though his views and methods gained popularity in certain politically disillusioned circles, it is hardly representative of Wahabi or Sunni Islam, nor even of the majority of sects within. It is certainly not the predominant view of "the Muslim world." To claim otherwise is a serious distortion. One must ask why the distortion is there.

In addition to this kind of “mistake”, he adds deliberately provocative turns of phrase- for example, referring to the "twin terrors of Koranic literalism" (p. 34), an obvious reference to the World Trade Center. Another passage: "Yes, the Koran seems to say something that can be construed as a prohibition against suicide- 'Do not destroy yourselves' (4:29)- but it leaves many loopholes large enough to fly a 767 through..." (pg. 33, emphasis mine.)

There is also a 5-page (118-122) stretch of selected Koranic exhortations to do violence onto unbelievers of various sorts. While it makes for chilling reading, one could as easily cherry pick a comparable selection from the Bible (Old and New Testament) or just about any other holy book. That the Koran is over-represented in Harris' book there can be no argument. It could well be asked why the Bible is not so represented here. It is an easy game, to pick out atrocities from these holy books, but what is it meant to accomplish?

One has to question Harris's facile identification of “acts of terrorism” with the Arab masses. Those Islamic fundamentalists who pursue a reactionary policy of individual terrorism (mostly against innocents) and the justified struggle against the occupiers are not politically equal. Second, the “poor, uneducated, and exploited Muslims” did not commit “acts of terrorism” until recently. One then must wonder why the Arab/Muslims, whose countries have been occupied or dominated by one or another imperialist power for close to a century, chose this period to engage in such actions. Which then raises the question of the fragmenting of (and sometimes just plain exterminating of, as in Iraq in the 1970's) the socialist/progressive opposition within the Arab countries. Finally, “Collusion of Western powers with corrupt dictatorships” surely begs the question: where did both the Shah of Iran and Saddam originate from other than the machinations of the CIA? Whose military placed the Saud dynasty in power? For that matter, who funded bin Laden in Afghanistan?

Aside from the pervasive anti-Islamic-in-particular bent, some of what Harris writes is quite reasonable. Take for example, the following, found on page 35:

"We live in an age in which most people believe that mere words- "Jesus", "Allah", "Ram"- can mean the difference between eternal torment and bliss everlasting. Considering the stakes here, it is not surprising that many of us occasionally find it necessary to murder other human beings for using the wrong magic words, or the right ones for the wrong reasons. How can any person presume to know that this is the way the universe works? Because it says so in our holy books. How do we know that our holy books are free from error? Because the books themselves say so. Epistemological black holes of this sort are fast draining the light from our world."

At one point (page 180) we find:
"I believe that [cultural] relativism and pragmatism have already done much to muddle our thinking on a variety of subjects, many of which have more than a passing relevance to the survival of civilisation.

"In philosophical terms, pragmatism can be directly opposed to realism. For the realist, our statements about the world will be "true" or false" not merely in virtue of how they function amid the welter of our other beliefs, or with reference to any culture-bound criteria, but because reality simply is a certain way, independent of our thoughts. Realists believe that there are truths about the world that may exceed our capacity to know them; *there are facts of the matter whether or not we can bring such facts into view.*"

By "realism" Harris it can be assumed to mean philosophical materialism. But why doesn't he use the world materialism? Harris is not a dialectical materialist but a vulgar materialist. As Engels showed in his pamphlet on Fuerbach, vulgar materialism inevitably leads back to idealism because it is unable to deal with the question of social man, real man living in class society. Society is not simply an amalgam of individual egos, but an organism with its own historical laws of development determining social consciousness.

Perhaps due to the trauma of 9/11/01, there seems, a *lack of willingness* on Harris' part to bring some facts into view.

Moving through a selective history of Christianity and Judaism (particularly the Inquisition and the Holocaust), Harris paints a bleak picture of the misuses of faith to suppress and subdue the general population. Along the way, however, a major assumption takes form- that religion itself is to blame for the woes wrought by those wielding it. There is no discussion on the forces outside of religion which bear on the beliefs or the people holding them. There is a distinct lack of historical perspective- only faith - in the form of religion- is to blame. While it can generally be agreed that religion has a lot to answer for, to view it as the be all and end all of motivating factors is to view history with a rather large blind spot.

He briefly decries the "political religions" represented by Stalinism and Maoism. Though it is certain that blind faith in any entity, real or imagined, is a danger it is interesting that he does not tackle more current personages. It is also interesting that these two, figures of the supposed left, are highlighted. Why, it must be asked, are not past fascists’, nor the present Bush Administrations uses of religion brought into question? Where is the examination of the neo-cons’ mobilization of the religious right to gain and keep power? An examination of the use of religion as driver of fear in the current climate would be very useful, indeed. This is, however, not Harris’ thesis, as we see.

While it is true that religion has been a method for the oppression of and promotion of backwardness within the masses within class society, the whys are herein largely ignored in favour of a surface examination of the what. Who benefits from the ignorance and obedience of the people in question? This question is not asked. It is also not answered beyond a brief mention that some of the property seized during the Inquisition made it into the hands of the Church and that rewards for turning in "witches" were sometimes offered to an impoverished peasantry. Not mentioned are the similar rewards offered for turning in “enemy combatants” in Afghanistan. The political motivations of the Holocaust are unexamined, though they are very briefly acknowledged ("Nazism evolved out of a variety of economic and political factors, of course, but it was held together by a belief in the racial purity and superiority of the German people" pg. 101).

While, on page 140, Harris states, "We have surely done some terrible things in the past. Undoubtedly we will do terrible things in the future. Nothing I have written in this book should be construed as a denial of these facts, or as a defense of of state practices which are manifestly abhorrent.", he makes no bones about the real source of evil in the world. Ultimately, it is religious faith alone which must be held accountable. It is only the reaction of Islamic Extremists which should be called into question, not the political and economic forces which have shaped the lives of so many in the Middle East and Africa. In Harris' view, the recent uptick in violent incidents can have nothing to do with being subject for so many years to the economic interests and military incursions by the Occidental powers.

His starting point is meant to frighten the Western Mind. The Man on the Bus is both alarming and unrepresentative. While religion has been used through the ages to justify the most atrocious acts, to dismiss out of hand the forces surrounding and shaping the beliefs in question is grossly irresponsible and only serves to incite fear. For what purpose?

Ignored also is the increasingly mid and upper-class makeup of the terrorist leadership in question. Osama himself (a follower of Qutb, no less) comes from the moneyed class and essentially bought his way to the top. How ignoring the facts of history can be called "reasonable" is beyond understanding. Confusing the uses of religion with religion itself will not lead to reasonable thought and action.

Religious tolerance is also given a smack by Harris- he states, partially correctly, that those who preach tolerance and soften the harsher aspects of their religions to better function on modern society do not do anyone any favours, as they serve to perpetuate religion itself and show too much leniency for the excesses of fundamentalism. Harris' views are all or nothing- either be a fundamentalist or get rid of your faith entirely. If you're a fundamentalist (particularly Islamic), get ready to die.

The End Of Faith paints a gloomy picture of reason's future. For Harris, the methods of dealing with extremism called for are the very same for which he decries the extremists. He states (on pages 52/3 of the paperback edition), "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live."

While it is true, as he avers early on, that "there is no talking to some people", his answer to the problem is still more reactionary killing. His methods of applying reason are as faulty, selective, dogmatic, and blind as he claims faith to be. This is not entirely surprising, as twisting history to suit one’s needs is a common occurrence when dealing with the ruling classes. It is alarming, however, coming from someone claiming to be a scientist (Harris, according to his bio, is currently working on a doctorate in neuroscience “studying the neurological basis of belief, disbelief, and uncertainty.”), as it flagrantly disregards any observance of the scientific method.

A call for reason is indeed needed at this time- perhaps more than ever before- but this book is not that call. Rather, it serves to justify yet more oppression, less understanding, and further war in the name of defeating a religion which is grossly misrepresented both in practice and in population within these pages. It turns the use of religion as a means of oppression on its head in its call for the use of a Fear Of Religion as the new weapon.

In this Straussian bit of myth-making worthy of any neo-con, Harris helps to created an Enemy Worth Fighting for our age. His insistence that faith alone (ie religion) is to blame for the world's troubles is narrow and misleading. His focus on Islam as the Worst of the Worst is both facile and useful to the ruling classes in their current conflicts. While, as Engels points out, "we simply cannot get away from the fact that everything that sets men acting must find its way through their brains", Harris falls into the trap of assigning one and only one possible course of action to the Islamic faiths. He also displays willingness to believe that everything follows from religious faith without regard for forces political, social, or historical. To exclude from the analysis the economic and political elements involved begs the question of what master Mr. Harris is serving. Reason is betrayed by such obscurantism.

As socialists, we realize the long history of oppression wrought in the names of various religions. We absolutely reject the continuance of superstitious and backward thinking represented by religious faith. Just as strenuously, though, do we reject the reactionary calls to war- new crusades- supposedly in the defense of "reason" or “civilization”, which only serve to once again pit worker against worker, human against human, for the ultimate gain of the moneyed classes.
It is in the vital interest of the working class to shake off the controlling hand of religion- to be able to view the world rationally, reasonably, and clearly without appeal to “higher powers”. Such appeals serve only to keep ignorance and oppression well-fed.

It is likewise vital to recognize that the absence of religion does not always equal the presence of reason. Though those such as Harris would have you think otherwise, religion is not the only driver of actions.

Why Darwin Matters might not be the book for me

2007-03-02T13:40:00.000-08:00

I'm still working on it, but there have been a couple of disturbing developments. The biggest one is the chapter "Why Christians and Conservatives Shouls Accept Evolution". In this chapter is a sub-chapter titled "Evolution and the Conservative Theory of Free Market Economics". In this sub-chapter is a comparison between Darwin's theory of natural selection and Adam Smith's theory of the invisible hand-

"Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection is precicely parallel to Adam Smith's theory of the invisible hand. Darwin focused on showing how complex design and ecological balance were unintended consequences of individual competition among people. The natural economy mirrors the artificial economy. Conservatives embrace free market capitalism, and they are against excessive top-down governmental regulation of the economy; they understand that the most efficient economy emerges from the complex, bottom-up behaviours of individuals pursuing their own self-interest without awareness of the larger consequences of their actions."

Let's pause for a moment here.

Though conservatives may embrace this idea- is it true? Do the best systems evolve (if you will) in an arena of unencumbered self-interest? Further, the question must be asked- "Best for whom?" Society at large? Doubtful, if history is any example.

Anyhoo- still reading it....Well, more truthfully, still trying to find where the kid put it....

Salt Lake City Shootings and such

2007-02-18T15:24:00.000-08:00

There was, when I was there in the mid-1990's, a growing Bosnian and Russian population. Most of the Bosnians (and some Sebs) were fleeing violence. Salt Lake being what it is- insular, homogenous, and isolated in spite of having an international airport- these populations kept pretty much to themselves. Most were not LDS, and this put them out of the mainstream. Muslims were "not even Christian", and so even further out of the main.

This past week saw a horrific shooting by a young man who was of the Bosinan community in Salt Lake.

Since this person had been a toddler, he had been subject to huge amounts of violence- direct threats to his existance which go far beyond the school tauntings often associated with these sudden outbursts of violence. He likely never got any kind of counseling for it, and living in Salt Lake, where there is a large, likewise scarred, Bosnian population served to both isolate and re-traumatise what was already a pretty shaky foundation. Being muslim in Salt Lake is no picnic, and being Muslim in Salt Lake with massive trauma and post 9/11 suspicion of Muslims is something I don't even like to think about.

Does any of this excuse what happened? No. Absolutely not. But it did not happen in a vacuum and maybe understanding what happened and why can prevent things like this from happening again.

The long-term effects of war are something we'd better learn to deal with, given both the number of returning war veterans and war survivors this world is going to have.

Given that we send people in to commit what was done to this young man, and that no re-conditioning is de rigure for returning combat vererans- given that seeking help of the psychological kind ias something which can endanger a military career, and given the number of people who are fleeing war, and often ending up here or in otherwise alien cultures, the isolation and trauma will only serve to create more situations such as the one in Salt Lake.

Why Darwin Matters and some other stuff

2007-02-11T10:07:00.000-08:00

Why Darwin Matters, Michael Shermer, Times Books- hardback, $22.00 (eek!)
(Subtitle- The Case Against Intelligent Design)

I've just started this book, and have got through the prologue, and the first two chapters. The prologue makes a nice little dismissal of the continuing relavence of Marx, but I'm going to let that slide for now. It also goes into some interesting information about the author himself- he was at one time an evangelical, dinosaur-denying Christian. Education put a stop to that. He's now a regular columnist for Scientific American magazine as well as publisher of Skeptic magazine.

The first chapter is a darned good briefing on what evolution is- dispelling many of the myths used by the ID arguers, and giving a concise timeline and explanation of Darwin's discoveries and the implications thereof.

Chapter two- which I am going to re-read for further writing- is entitled "Why People Do Not Accept Evolution". In this chapter, Shermer brings up an interesting point when he says

"There is, however, a greater threat to the theory of evolution today: not from those who resist evolution, but from those who misunderstand it. Most people know very little about evolution, and this makes it easier for the people who do not accept evolution to encourage others to question the theory, even to the point of denial."

This is, I think, a very important point. For many, evolution is often accepted, sort of. Not understood, but taken for granted as what happened. One could argue that at least they acept it. I don't think that's enough, though. I will certainly admit that my own knowledge in this area is lacking, but, hopefully, growing.

Evolution is especiallly tricky, though, as so many other elements of scientific investigation and knowledge rest on this theory. Geology, biology, chemistry. It is also important to know what evolution is *not*. From defining the words involved (particularly "theory"), to the process of events, the lack of knowledge has given the proponents of anti-scientific modes of thought much leeway.

"If we decended from apes, why are there still apes?" "How come there are no transitional fossils?" Just two of the questions born of, and preying on, the lack of knowledge and understanding involved.

End of part one.

Charming picture pre-hairbrush:

Oh, yes, this reminds me- did you know that goosebumps are an evolutionary remnant of our "monkey days"? Indeed, just as other furry animals have the ability to puff up in anger or for size-maximizing appearance, goosebumps would, had we kept our hair, do the same for us. There, vesitges of our ancestors.

Problems revisited

2007-02-09T16:14:00.000-08:00

There's a lot in Problems Of Everyday Life (Trotsky) to consider. One of the essays involved rudeness- and the rudness of the revolutionary comes into question. About that section, I wrote:

If, after the revolution, leaders are seen as condescending, the problem of counter-revolutionary actions will grow. The workers who will fight for the revolution will as soon give it up if they see their concerns brushed aside by the future leaders of revolution in the same dismissive manner as that of the elites of today.

I would like to clarify this somewhat, in light of a recent event.

While I still think people should be polite whenever possible, I do also very firmly believe that counter-revolutionary ideas should not be nurtured, and should indeed be cut off at the first sign of appearance (once a mistake, twice a tendency). In *political* discourse, it is of the utmost importance to seperate the personal from the political. If, then, a worker advocated something which would undermine the revolution, to call that worker's dedication into question would be justified. If, after explaining why their idea was not within the interests of the revolution, they persisted, it would be wise to not associate with that person.

This is not to say that a revolutionary leader can go around making personal remarks about workers (or others) and get a free pass- but on the subject of revolution, the personal is immaterial. To take having an idea shot down (for whatever reason, really, but *with reason*) as personal is a mistake.

List

2007-01-05T20:27:00.000-08:00

I am sorta reading:

Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Dennett
Imperial Life in the Emerald City by Chandrasekaran

And Scientific American Magazine.

I seem to be taking a few months' break. Time management has been kind of a bear.

Working and Reading

2006-10-27T10:54:00.000-07:00

It's hard. Boo and hoo, of course, but it is. I actually have a chance to read something today and am going to start with the Sam Harris book.

I told my friend about this book, and she said, "Letters to a Christian Nation? There's a problem right there." It is interesting to note that he has titled what is meant to be a book in argument (or continuation of argument) for secularization so. I am hoping it will prove to be a tongue in cheek excersize on his part, though, after The End Of Faith, which purported to be a plea for rational thought, my hopes are slim. We'll see.

This brings up some thoughts, though- how open a mind should a person keep, in the face of the obvious? Carl Sagan said that keeping an open mind is good, but not so open that your brains fall out.

---more later.

Later:

New Books

2006-10-13T18:33:00.000-07:00

My new list of books I'll be reading soon-
The End- Lemony Snicket
Letter to a Christian Nation- Sam Harris

I will also be re-reading The Walter Mosley book, too.

Holy Crap- New posts coming soon.

2006-10-12T21:21:00.000-07:00

So, as is my way, I got very busy, forgot my password and did not post for a long time, BUT- I have been....reading. "What?" you may ask- and you may. A lot, I will answer. Tune in possibly tomorrow for more.....

Well, maybe not tomorrow, as the new Lemony Snicket is coming out and I have all 12 previous books in first editions and...yes, I am like that. Soooory- here's a cute cop to mollify you:

Colbert in brief

2006-05-05T11:36:00.000-07:00

Interesting article at WSWS today on the Stephen Colbert speech at the White House Press Correspondents' Dinner.

Also interesting is that Youtube, suddenly concerned about "copyright infringement" has taken the Colbert portion of the CSPAN coverage of the diner down. They have left Colbert Report clips and CSPAN clips (including the unfunny "comedy" routine of Bush himself and a Faux-Bush) up. The dinner took place on April 29. Today is May 5. That's some fast deletion. It's also "refusing to load" from other sources.

The Comedian Dissapears?

Old Fish, New Fish

2006-05-02T17:02:00.000-07:00

There is an article at WSWS about the discovery of the Tiktaalik fossils. I am saddened, though not surprised, given the current anti-scientific bent in the States, that this has not recieved more coverage.

What often baffles me is the Creationists' self-denial of the Wonder involved in scientific discovery. For me, and many like me, I am hoping, the Wonder that is based on the real is so much better than the Wonder which comes with the denial of further possible discovery. Knowing a little, and that there is so much more to be known, and which is knowable, is very exciting.

Obviously there are many differences in Scientific Knowledge and Religious Knowledge. It is often the case that religious study goes from pre-drawn conclusions and gathers in only the evidence which would support the views held, while rejecting anything which runs contrary as being the Devil's Work, or Heresy (it was not until the 1990's that the Catholic Church pardoned Galileo).

(This is from quite some time ago. While I am working on Why Darwin Matters, I thought it might be slightly relevent.)

Identity Politics. Pre-reading qualms

2006-04-27T10:22:00.000-07:00

The Book is Life Out of Context by Walter Mosley- which I have finally found (it was under another book).

The qualm-provoker is this, from the back cover:

..."proposing that African-Americans have to break their historic ties with the Democratic Party and form a party of their own."

Allow me to set all my preconcieved notions and ideas about Mosley down in print here, or many of them, anyway. I've read a number of his books, fiction and non-, and have found that there is an overwhelming amount of thought displayed within. He's not only thinking, but able to beautifully (yes, beautifully) communicate. From his mysteries (most famously the Easy Rawlins series) and science-fiction (I highly highly recommend Futureland) to the wonderful non-fiction essay of Workin' on the Chain Gang, he knows what to do with a word. He is one of my favourite living writers, let's just put that out there right this minute.

I remember first reading an Easy Rawlins mystery- the mystery itself is almost inconsequential, really, when one considers the chartacter of Easy. A World War II vet, Rawlins is black in America in the suceeding decades. Living in LA, but born and raised in New Orleans, Rawlins is unable to escape the conflict between the ideals of America- the promises of equality- and the reality of racism and poverty. What struck me most was the integrity of the man, and of the writing behind him. It's like a calm before the storm conversation. Zer gut.

My concern is that Mosley might let the colour issues blind him to the more unifying issue of economic disparity. There can be no denying that race has been used (be it colour-based designations or simply "they are from there, we are from here" ones) throughout the ages as a dividing factor by the powers that be. I do not think he is blind to the suffering of people just because they fall out of his hue zone, as it were- that this is not the case is reflected in much of his fiction writing- but that the race issue might be blinding him to a broader solution.

I am hoping that my fears will be allayed. I'll be reading this one this week.

Unchained melodies which sometimes incorporate chains melodically

2006-04-21T15:31:00.000-07:00

Einsturzende Neubauten in one form or another has been producing music of one sort or another for over 25 years now. Industrial is as close a description as I can provide- though with the caveat that it is only called this because jackhamers, air compressors and metal bits (some big, some small) are included in the arsenal of instruments.

Headed by Blixa Bargeld, this mostly-German group has produced hundreds of songs ranging from the earsplitting to the lullabic. Over the past few years, they have abandoned the usual record-contract route (having been screwed multiple times by various labels) and taken to the net. Their last three albums have been produced with money raised by selling subscriptions to their listeners. They have also financed a small, and perhaps final, US tour.

It seems, in talking to Mr Bargeld backstage after their Washington, DC show in 2004, that they are encountering increasing financial barriers to touring in the States. Large cuts are taken by the venues, and often the band will lose money even on a sold-out house, if they do not sell enough merchandise during the show. On that tour, they also had to pay a fee to clear channel in order to use the technology which enabled them to sell cds of the shows to the audience members at the show.

Though they maintain a steadfastly close-mouthed on exactly where their political allegiances lie, Blixa was heard to remark, in reference to the possibility of this being their final tour, "This is the problem with capitalism." Most of their supporters seem to have leftish leanings of various sorts, and it is argued that one song, Sabrina, alludes to a wish for anarchy (the colours of the German flag are dismissed one by one until only black remains as the colour Blixa's voice wishes "would be your colour").

I made a number of attempts to get an interview with Herr Bargeld on his recent solo rede/speke tour. I was unsuccesful, and wonder if the prospect of being interviewed for a socialist publication was the reason. Oddly, I am not inclined to hold it against him if this is the case, given the band's dedication to their music and maintaining their artistic freedom.

The method they have chosen is an unusual one, in that they both retain the right to mix and produce as they see fit (and in their own time, at that; it can take years for the records to reach the supporters) and allow the supporters to see and hear works in progress and give opinions and suggestions. The band checks in on the forum from time to time, yet is not a slave to it- there are very few times when advance warning is given as to when they will be online.

Their latest production- released to supporters only- is Grundstuek, which uses everything from television noise, feedback and the ubiquitous springs to dropped objects and voices either solo or en masse. From the openings of Good Morning, in which a teacher's voice (in English) and that of her class are heard and then give way to the bass and bass spring and Blixa (in German), to the close of Tagelange Weisse, with its eerily comforting digitalness, the whole work is one of unity not often heard. Their earlier works were heavy on the clang, and this still shows through on a number of tracks, but they have, over these twenty-odd years, mellowed a bit as well. Unlike many acts of equal or longer duration, they have not lost the excitement at creation- rather, they have learned to use many voices, loud and soft, to greater effect than the sustained and desperately juvenile screeches and subject matters of a Rolling Stones or an Arrowsmith.

To say they have re-invented themselves would be inaccurate, as they are still, despite the changes in lineup, Einsturzende Neubauten. They differ only in that they have grown and learned, they have not gotten stuck- they have retained the freedom to use sound. They are unconstrained.

Family life, women and children and men

2006-04-13T10:59:00.000-07:00

From the Old Family to the New is another essay in the Problems Of Everyday Life. This one was originaly published July 13, 1923 in Pravda. Eighty-three years on, we still wrestle with these issues.

Isolated excerpts- in order of appearance:
-Domestic life is more conservative than economic, and one of the reasons is that it is still less conscious than the latter. In politics and economics the working class acts as a whole and pushes on to the front rank its vanguard, the Communist Party, accomplishing through its medium the historic aims of the proletariat. In domestic life the working class is split into cells constituted by families. The change of political regime, the change even of the economic order of the state--the passing of the factories and mills into the hands of the workers--all this has certainly had some influence on family conditions, but only indirectly and externally, and without touching on the forms of domestic traditions inherited from the past.

A radical reform of the family and, more generally, of the whole order of domestic life requires a great conscious effort on the part of the whole mass of the working class, and presumes the existence in the class itself of a powerful molecular force of inner desire for culture and progress. A deep-going plough is needed to turn up heavy clods of soil. To institute the political equality of men and women in the Soviet state was one problem and the simplest. A much more difficult one was the next--that of instituting the industrial equality of men and women workers in the factories, the mills, and the trade unions, and of doing it in such a way that the men should not put the women to disadvantage. But to achieve the actual equality of man and woman within the family is an infinitely more arduous problem. All our domestic habits must be revolutionized before that can happen. And yet it is quite obvious that unless there is actual equality of husband and wife in the family, in a normal sense as well as in the conditions of life, we cannot speak seriously of their equality in social work or even in politics. As long as woman is chained to her housework, the care of the family, the cooking and sewing, all her chances of participation in social and political life are cut down in the extreme.--

-In regard to family relations and forms of individual life in general, there must also be an inevitable period of disintegration of things as they were, of the traditions, inherited from the past, which had not passed under the control of thought. But in this domain of domestic life the period of criticism and destruction begins later, lasts very long, and assumes morbid and painful forms, which, however, are complex and not always perceptible to superficial observation. These progressive landmarks of critical change in state conditions, in economics and life in general, ought to be very clearly defined to prevent our getting alarmed by the phenomena we observed. We must learn to judge them in their right light, to understand their proper place in the development of the working class, and consciously to direct the new conditions towards socialist forms of life.

The warning is a necessary one, as we already hear voices expressing alarm. At the conference of the Moscow party propagandists some comrades spoke with great and natural anxiety of the ease with which old family ties are broken for the sake of new ones as fleeting as the old. The victims in all cases are the mother and children. On the other hand, who in our midst has not heard in private conversations complaints, not to say lamentations, about the "collapse" of morality among Soviet youth, in particular among Young Communists? Not everything in these complaints is exaggeration--there is also truth in them. We certainly must and will fight the dark sides of this truth--this being a fight for higher culture and the ascent of human personality. But in order to begin our work, to tackle the ABC of the problem without reactionary moralizing or sentimental downheartedness, we must first make sure of the facts and begin to see clearly what is actually happening.--

It is unfortunate that we are not living in a state of communism- ie, shared working in the domestic sphere. Too often, the majority- still- of the housework and child-rearing does fall to the woman. I am not saying that this is unimportant work- but it is work which must be shouldered by all parties involved. If a household breaks up, it is the "mother and children" which are most at risk of sinking into poverty.

Too often, due to cruel economic realities, Beth Shulman's statement in "The Betrayal of Work" that the worst thing which can happen to a woman is to get pregnant is proven. She notes that this is the quickest way into poverty. I know from personal experience that this is so.

Much is at stake when we speak of the relations between men and women. (Husband and Wife aside, down to brass tacks here.) Women still find themselves subject to the whims of biology- but this need not be so; beyond the obvious bearing of children, the abilities of men and women are equal in potential. It is in the social structure of home and worklife where we encounter the makings of inequality.

To reconstruct family life- in whatever configuration you choose- it is imperative that responsibility for houseworkk and the care of children be fully shared. The division of labour is one thing- yes, shared chores make for a lighter load on the women, they also make for a better view of what is involved in domestic life. So much work goes un-noticed, let alone misunderstood. It is a matter of personal responsibility and respect- how banal to have to say "Those shirts don't fold themselves". But it is just such mundane things which make up every day life. It is the preocupation with such things which leaves little time for revolutionary activity or education. It also leads to the consideration of the housewife as just that and nothing more. The mind of the woman is discounted, as "what would someone who only keeps house or cares for kids know"?

Quite a bit about inequality, as it turns out. Especially if both parties also work outside the home.

As for children and the care thereof, we see today vast numbers of single-parent homes. These homes are much more likely to experience poverty and hunger. The children are often left in situations where inadaquite care is taken of them or they are completely unattended. They are left, at too young an age, to fend for themselves. Add to this issues of abuse and the picture becomes grim indeed. The lack of willingness on the part of the (most often) fathers to properly care for their children is appalling.

It does not lead to revolutionary thought- it does lead to anger in many cases, and often enough to individual acts of reactionary violence or association with questionable groups (Republicans, Nation of Islam), which pretend to offer what is missing.

"The easiest problem was that of assuming power." Writes Trotsky in this same essay. These are surprising words, I think, to many people. It seems to be the view of many to whom I speak that there is a sort of magical formula- get power away from the bad guys and we live happily ever after. I have heard this in many forms- from Democrats, from Anarchists, even from some Socialists.

This is only the begining, though! Changing the manner of governance will only solve some of the problems- one must change the very basic structures of everyday life on the way to true equality.

So, what to do? It is not exciting to think about- but it must be accepted that after the initial revolution, there is the daily life. How should it be lived? Obviously, equality must be integrated into the most mundane of things even down to the level of the very basic- One person washes, another person dries the dishes. The dishes get done.

Rudeness part 3- new aristocracy part one

2006-04-13T09:22:00.000-07:00

----We still have, however- and herein is the chief stumbling block- the rudeness of the old aristocracy, with the touch of feudalism about it. This kind is vile and vicious throughout. It is still with us, uneradicated, and is not easy to eradicate.--

In the States we have a new sort of aristocracy, based, much as the old aristicracy, on the assets, but less so on the ancestry.

There is almost the celebration of the rudeness of the rich- an expectation on both their part and the part of the "rude-ee" that it is a right. After all, this millionaire (more often billionaire now) must have worked hard to gain this amount of money. In respect to that hard work, we grant a pass to the cruelty- perhaps we will gain by it somehow.

When we do not gain by it, the blame is placed on us- we didn't try hard enough to please. What is left unconsidered in this deference is that there is much more likely a sweatshop, a factory or an office full of people who worked very hard to get this person rich.

The addage that genius is 1% inspiration and 99% persperation is interesting to consider in that 99% of the profits seem to rise to the top 1%. What is not so often considered is that a big idea is only so big if the manpower is not given to put it into effect. The skills of architects amount to pretty pictures if the skills of construction workers are not engaged. In the end, though, the architect is celebrated, while the construction worker is off working.

In light of this, it's also interesting to note that the rudeness of the aristocrat is expected and relished ("he *talked* to me!"), while any slip by the worker will bring warnings to "know your place", though not always in those terms. This is part of why it is so very difficult to uproot. Until we stop accepting rudeness from any quarter, we can expect it from every quarter.

Though, in the States, we are given the illusion that "all men are created equal", we have not yet internalised it, if I may use a psychological term, and demanded what that would imply- that an equal opportunity should follow to become the best that we can, and that we all possess equal dignity and to be accorded equal respect.

We are given the idea, through films and books and news stories, that anyone can rise to the ranks of the billionaire- if we do not, it is our own fault. Therefore, those who do must be deferred to. They are heroes. They are worthy of respect, when we, so poor, so lowly, what are we?

The story we are not given daily is that behind those billionaires stand those sweatshops, those factories and offices wherein people work for a pittance, are subjected to inhumane treatment and threatened with the loss of what little they have if they dare to complain. They go home to find, spread accross the pages of the newspapers, or blaring from the television, more stories about the rich and famous behaving very badly and reaping rewards for it.

Too tired to protest, they fall into bed and dream about one day winning the respect they deserve.

New Orleans- because I also read newspapers

2006-04-12T16:01:00.000-07:00

The best and the worst.

The best are the people - ones I know and many whom I do not- who go there to help dig people's houses (and sometimes people) out. They are the ones who keep me from just giving up entirely on the idea that humanity is absolutely doomed. And they are normal, and they are like you and me, except that they do these things which are amazing.

The worst are the ones who have the means but not the will- or who have the means and use their will to keep things from getting done. They make me wish there was a hell. That's not very charitable, I know, but neither are they. I am talking about people who have private helicopters and used them during Katrina not to pluck people off the roofs, but to import their own private armies to patroll their neighbourhoods. They are the people who were vacationing and claimed to have no warning and no news of the situation until three days into the hell that these people lived through- or died in.
No names, I think we all know of whom I speak.

from the article:
***"We never reached out to anyone to tell our story, because there's no ending to our story," said Wanda Jackson, 40, whose family is still waiting for word of her 6-year-old nephew, swept away by floodwaters as his mother clung to his 3-year-old brother. "Because we haven't found our deceased. Being honest with you, in my opinion, they forgot about us."

She continued, "They did not build nothing on 9/11 until they were sure that the damn dust was not human dust; so how you go on and build things in our city?"

In October and November, the special operations team of the New Orleans Fire Department searched the Lower Ninth Ward for remains until they ran out of overtime money.

Half a dozen officials of the Federal Emergency Management Agency rebuffed requests to pay the bill, said Chief Steve Glynn, the team commander. When reporters inquired, FEMA officials said the required paperwork had not been filed.****
(NYT april 11)

my hands just sit on the keyboard at this point- what can be said that has not already been said? yet it is so very important not to let the conversation die out. How can these people be forgotten? How is it that they are so callously brushed aside? I well remember 9/11- and who could forget, with the constant intonation of "everything changed on 9/11" and the flags flags flags? Two big buildings go down and we are Standing United or the Terrorists Win.

A region is deluged, a city destroyed and it is unknown how many are dead, and we are asked to turn away as the deadlines for hotel accomodations pass, as the leaders drag along and offer excuses about paperwork not being filed and funds being limited and all the while we are asked to look away.

Do not think about this- do not talk about this- do not note that those who suffered most and continue to suffer most are those who were suffering in dire poverty to begin with. They must have somehow brought it upon themselves- they should have just left- never mind that they had no means to go- no money for fares, no cars. Never mind that they've been in poverty for generations while others sit on the high ground, with their guards in place- imported at great cost.

More than conversation- it is imperative that we not let actions die out.

Probs Pt 2- More rudeness, I tell you!

2006-04-11T13:23:00.000-07:00

The second sort of rudeness is that of the Revolutionary.

In my expereince in DC I came accross many politicians and political types (no, really!). One thing which I noticed accross the spectrum was that, after a certain level of hierarchy had been reached, a certain amount of politeness fell away. The result was that the person would become unapproachable. It also worked in the ostensibly less-heirerchical groups- once someone had published or organized a certain number of artcles or actions, they became likewise unapproachable and, dare I say, a bit vain and dismissive in their attitude.

The matter of unapproachability is important in that, to create a revolution, we cannot act as exhalted individuals- there is not a monoply, as they say, on good ideas. There is also a great deal which can be learned from unexpected- and previously untapped- sources. If you shut yourself off from people- to say nothing of The People- how can you fight for and with them?

As for actual rudeness or dismissiveness toward people- to act in such a manner is to disrespect the work and value of the people. This is not way for a participant- never mind a leader!- to behave.

We are workers. No matter what we have published, what we have done, how many signs we might have carried, above all, we are workers. To discount the experiences of fellow workers, their insights into the ills of society and their willingness to participate in the revolution, is counter-revolutionary at its core. To treat any fellow worker- no matter how seemingly unenlightened- with anything other than respect begs the question of our fitness as revolutionaries.

Yes, we'd prefer that all workers were advanced. That would make our jobs easier- but this is not the case. Those who can be reached will not be persuaded by condescension- this is what they can expect at the hands of the elites- this is never what should be received from a revolutionary.

I am not saying to pretend to be nice- no. If someone attacks, you are right to defend yourself. But if someone approaches with what seems, perhaps, to be a "stupid question", to treat them as if they should already know what they now wish to have explained will never win them to the side of revolution. It will, though, reinforce the elite's claim of leftists as being elitists. Again with the irony. Again, too, with the self-defeating behaviour. If, on the other hand, you treat the question with the same weight with which it is asked, you will open the way to learning- both for you and for the person with the question.

If, after the revolution, leaders are seen as condescending, the problem of counter-revolutionary actions will grow. The workers who will fight for the revolution will as soon give it up if they see their concerns brushed aside by the future leaders of revolution in the same dismissive manner as that of the elites of today.

Halfway through Problems of Everyday Life pt 1- ignorance

2006-04-06T11:39:00.000-07:00

This is a series of editorials and speeches given by Trotsky in the years following the Revolution of October 1917. This volume (Monad press, 1973, third edition, 1979) incorporates the book *Problems of Life*. Covered within are areas ranging from habit (including spitting, family and gender roles) to hard science and the teaching thereof.

Many people ask what a post-revolutionary world or society would be like- the assumptions today are fairly dystopic, with anything from re-education camps to flat out enslavement and annialation prophesied as excuses to avert revolution. To be sure, there would be a period of comparative chaos, but this is where the true test of a revolution lies. Post revolution (as act of overthrow) there is the building of society anew. There are shards of the old society which must be thrown off still- habits die harder than governments.

In the essay which originally appeared in Pravda on April 4, 1923, Civility and Politeness as a Necessary Lubricant in Daily Relations, we find nothing to which even Miss Manners could raise an objection. Trotsky takes on the manner in which the state addresses the people, how the population is treated. He also tackles forms of rudeness-

--But our rudeness itself is not homogeneous. There is the simple rudeness of peasant origin, which is unattractive, certainly, but not degrading. It becomes unbearable and objectively reactionary only when our young novelists boast of it as of some extremely 'artistic' acquisition. The foremost elements of the workers regard such false simplicity with instinctive hostility, for they justly see in the coarseness of speech and conduct a mark of the old slavery, and aspire to acquire a cultured speech with its inner discipline. But this is beside the point...

Side by side with this simple kind, the habitual passive rudeness of the peasant, we have another, a special kind- the revolutionary- a rudeness of the leaders, due to impatience, to an over-ardent desire to better things, to the irritation caused by our indifference, to a creditable nervous tension. This rudeness, too, if taken by itself, is, of course, not attractive, and we dissociate ourselves from it; but at bottom, it is often nourished at the same revolutionary moral fount, which, on more than one occasion in these years, hs been able to move mountains. In this case what must be changed is not the substance, which is on the whole healthy, creative and progressive, but the distorted form...

We still have, however- and herein is the chief stumbling block- the rudeness of the old aristocracy, with the touch of feudalism about it. This kind is vile and vicious throughout. It is still with us, uneradicated, and is not easy to eradicate.--

I will stop there, though Trotsky did not, as he goes on to discuss red tape and the composition of and fight against it.

Let's talk about rudeness and its uses for a moment, though. As he points out, there are several kinds of rudeness, that of ignorance and the habit of being oppressed, which serves to keep the illiterate and uncultured in 'their place'; that of the revolutionist, who in their drive to accomplish things, lets civility slip- which is, as noted by T, someting which needs changing; and that of the aristocrat, which is born of a sense of entitlement and which is used as a weapon to keep others at a distance.

On the first kind- we do see this even today, of course. "Street cred" is something which is fought for (often literally), and to attempt to improve one's mind is often derided as "being all bougzhie", or "acting uppity". The getting of good grades in certain circles is seen as somehow selling out (it has been brought up most recently as a problem in African-American circles, but it is certainly not limited to this area. If I may lodge in your head a very bad song from the 1980's- Billy Joel asks "Should I try to be a straight-A student?", and answers by way of choral arrangement that, "If you are, then you think too much").

The stereotype of the "egghead" serves a role in society, whether the nerds get their revenge or not. Those who think are seen as hopelessly sexless, ill-socialized, and often badly dressed. Why? Whom does it serve to keep people from thinking- and thinking critically at that? The answer is pretty obvious- a stupid and illiterate population is easier to fool, and easier to oppress. Let us not forget that there were laws against teaching blacks to read in the United States. Their oppression was an economic imperative.

Today educationall funding is being cut accross great swaths of the country- the poor, who attend public schools, are often sent on ahead whether they have achieved literacy or not. The children of the elite are given tutoring in areas which are deemed important for future success. This, combined with a misguided and self-defeating denigrating of "thinking too much" serves only to perpetuate the cycle of oppression.

While it can certainly be argued that the public schools will teach what the government approves, it must also be noted that without the very basic tools of literacy (both verbal and numerical), there is no hope whatever of advancement either as a knowledgable participant in revolution or within the capitalist system. So it is as simple as this: The capitalist system benefits from the ignorance and subsequent "marking by uncouth manners" (if you will) that is entailed.

Other entities benefit, too, from such things. There are movements which will gladly prey on the ill-informed (religious ones spring to mind immediately, though they are by far not alone).

The pressure from within to not "act all boughzie" is particularly insidious. Wearing ignorance as a badge of valour plays directly into the hands of "the man" who is so oppressive. The defining of oneself as "not playing that game", no matter how it is put, precludes oneself from freedom. KNOWLEDGE is power, not ignorance.

The idea, closely connected with this, that having a modicum of civility and respect for your fellow human beings is also "acting boughzie" or otherwise playing into the hands of "the man" and therefore that to treat people with rudeness is necessary to maintain credibility within one's social circle is not only alienating, but also actually does play into the hands of the powers that be. If you cannot have a calm, straightforward and informed discussion with someone, you cannot foment revolution.

Do not mistake wanton violence and rioting with revolution- a conflation which is often made both by the (rightfully) extreemly angry and the quasi-leftish trust funded youth at university- revolution is a creative action. Though some windows might get broken along the way, this is not the goal- the goal is to build a better society which is designed for the good of the workers, not to leave everything in rubble. Knocking down is only half the way there. To stop amidst the shattered remains of the buildings of commerce and say "we have defeated them" is to allow the contracters to come in, rebuild with stronger materials and crack down on the freedoms of expression.

To knock down properly, one needs the plans for what is to be built either from the remains of the materials or from the new. In order to know what needs knocking down and what can be made- what should be made- in its stead, you need to have a solid revolutionary theory in place. In order to get that solidity, you need to be able to examine the options as they are- not just as you are told they are. You need not only literacy to examine the words, you need the critical thinking skills to place those words in the context of the actions taken by the speakers (do they match, the words and the actions?), and you need a knowledge of history and its driving forces.

Capitalism relies on a certain amount of ignorance- the less people know of their history, of the rights fought for and won, the less capitalism has to cover up. The less perspective people have, the more often we will hear phrases justifying current conditions with a skewed comparrisson to past ones- "You think you have it bad because your pension is being cut, well, at least you aren't a twelve year old factory worker, so you really have no complaint". That we had to fight so hard to get twelve-year olds out of the factories in the States and Europe is left out of the equation- had they their way, twelve year olds would be back in the factories in more places. Certainly they'd rather they had them there than possibly learning to read in the schools.

It would be a whole lot easier, say the elites, if people "Knew their place". Ironically, we hear much the same thing in the hurling of accusations of "acting boughzie" of the oppressed. In keeping hold of the traditions of crudeness and illiteracy, we keep tight hold of our chains and make it unnecessary for the elites to strangle us since we do such a good job of it ourselves.

Here's the thing...

2006-03-31T20:23:00.000-08:00

Again with Harris. Recently (Feb 19) the NYT Book Review issued a ridiculous review of Daniel Dennett's new book. I refer you to This review of the review.

One of the things which came up in a conversation with a friend about this was the stark contrast between the reception of Harriss' book (which won the 2005 PEN award for nonfiction) and the attempted burial of Dennett's book. Now, as a once and possibly future bookseller I can tell you that the NYT Book Review holds a great amount of sway not just with the reading public, but with book orderers as well. A bad review by them can serve to have the print run of a book cut in half, can affect the possibilities of paperback versions coming out, and can decrease dramatically the amount of copies ordered by bookstores. A controversial book with such a review will almost certainly preclude its showing up on the shelves of some major chains (both book store chains and Target/WalMart sorts).

That the NYT chose to forgo having its religion or science editor review the book and bring in instead a political writer from a neo-con publication speaks volumes about the true intentions. Rather than being weighed on its real merits, Dennett's sugestion to find out why people continue to believe things which have been repeatedly proven untrue (which could have all kinds of practical applications, from helping abuse victims to break the cycle to having religions come under stiffer scrutiny) is being dismissed by the neo con reviewer. To whose benefit? The answer is obvious: to the benefit of the ruling classes.

Do not look, they say, at the Facts. It has ever been thus. Rely instead on a better place after death. This is very handy in diffusing any attempts at improvement for this life- the one which we have proof exists.

Anyhoo. I am dangerously close to a page-by-page review of Harriss' book. So close that I have given my copy away for now (I cannot afford another one- the benefit of poverty).

In lieu of this, I am continuing for the moment with the Laura Ingalls Wilder and Trotsky's Problems of Everyday Life.

On Problems:
This is an interesting series of articles, editorials really, written by Trotsky in the early 1920's, during the initial years of building a socialist society. His eye for the details of everyday life was quite sharp. Over the next couple of days I will tackle a few of the major areas- including education, domestic living (including the role of women), and general behaviour.

West From Home- L Ingalls Wilder

2006-03-17T11:20:00.000-08:00

In 1915, Laura Ingalls Wilder took a series of trains west from Missouri to San Francisco, where her daughter, Rose, was living with her husband. This was the year of the Panama-Pacific International Exposition, about which many of Laura's letters home to her husband revolve.

It seems things were still difficult, financially speaking, and Laura's visit was also a sort of exploratory thing to see if she and Almonzo should move to the Bay Area (not then known as such). She visited San Francisco, San Jose and even Mill Valley in search of information on the cost of farming. Even then, the higher prices commanded for chickens and eggs (their main business in MO) is noted, as is also the difficulty in finding out the price of grain to feed the birds.

Before she sets out, her daughter writes to Laura: "...It will be foggy and dusty and windy and gray and you will not like San Francisco while you are here, and then when you go away you will always want to come back. Tis ever thus." Tis, indeed. I grew up in this city, and can vouch for the above statement.

It was interesting to read about places I recognized, even almost 100 years later. It was also interesting to read about the high rents- even then- in the foggy place. Also of note is the fact that, in order to persuade her to come, Rose offered to pay her mom for the time she'd be missing at the farm so there wouldn't be a burden imposed.

It was also during WW1 when Laura visited- she writes of this, of the armaments at the head of the Golden Gate, and of ships in the Bay and the possibilities of which ones will be sunk by German boats once they leave the area. She sees a number of films, including footage of the German capture of Przemys.

Truly it is an interesting time- a turning point in history. This book offers a glimpse into what the 'person on the street' saw. Laura's voice is fresh and her observations are sharp. She is one of the least judgemental writers I have seen- plain-spoken but not without point.

On her way out, she meets many people on the trains. One couple, a man who used to be a Bryan Democrat, but who is turning Socialist, and his wife who votes. (Women in Ogden had the vote by 1915. Utah may not be totaly lost, eh?) Bryan, most 'famous' for his part in the Scopes Monkey Trial, was before this, a populist candidate for President (there is, in North Miami Beach, an elementary school named for him which I attended for two years in first and fifth grades). Apparently, the man Laura met had woken up to the truth of Capitalism's failures and was switching over. It's impossible to say for certain, though, as he is afforded only the one sentence.

Utah, surprisingly enough, given its present political makeup, has a long and somewhat bloody labour history. More on this in part two....

Redirecting you to this:

2006-03-13T11:33:00.000-08:00

I am taken up with reading and editing at present. I am also taken up with being extremely angry. Here is an example of why- I give you a very usefull bit of reading:

Annotated Life

Life- past and present. Very brief

2006-03-10T11:32:00.000-08:00

The quandry arising from the common universal ignorance of what to do with this soul, once its existence had been accepted, after the death of the body, and not religious desire for consolation, led in a general way to the tedious notion of personal immortality.- Engles- Ludwig Fueuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosphy (pt 2-Materialism)

It is tedious. It's also dangerous and distracting. Not only does it take the focus off of what is happening *now*, it opens the door to promises which never need to be delivered. Why work for a betterment of here and now if the next world will be perfect without any effort- except that which is demanded by priests? Good excuse to maintain the status quo.

What I wish I'd known before- meandering thoughts about mom

2006-03-03T08:59:00.000-08:00

Growing up as I did in a lackadaisicaly Left household, I was exposed to a number of ideas which I wish had been presented in a form other than the glancing conversational. By the time I was three, I was familiar with boycotting, overthrowing and Nixon-as-liar. I knew a few names (Debbs, Teamster, Mao (oy!), Lenin and Marx.) My mother was a reformist, member of the SDS, and seller of the Little Red Book (did she ever read it? I don't know for sure) to raise funds (irony o'irony).

By the time I was 6, I knew first hand that I did not like the FBI. My uncle, you see, had been involved with a group which had done a bombing (late 60's) of a power supply plant or something. No one was injured, but the Wisconsin police were cracking down and my uncle, being still underage, was - though not actually present at the bombing, nor actually involved in the action- fingered by the group who figured that he'd get off easy and that their sentences would be reduced for naming the name. Nice.

Well, what actually happened was that they decided to prosecute him as an adult, so he went on the run. For years we didn't know where he was. The FBI followed us from state to state, followed my mother to work, and likely have a couple of good photos of me at montessori school. I vaguely remember biting an officer who came to the house.

All of this, combined with our cutting our Mexican Vacation short when Allende fell, scared my mom out of being very vocal about politics other than the boycotting (Nestle in particular, and Libby's). She will talk about who she hates in politics, but it has devolved into a weird belief that the Democrats offer any alternative, and that there is an "evil" in the White House. I don't think living in New Age Marin helped any of us, but she has taken a lot of the claptrap to heart. I still love her.

What this all adds up to is this for me: Years of intellectual wandering. I knew what "seemed right", and I knew how to spot a blatant lie. It's a start, to be sure. But what I wish I'd had was a grounding in Marx and Trotsky. I wish that boxes and boxes of books had not been left behind when we left Wisconsin. Even though I know a lot of the SDS (and their tactics in particular) is a load of hooey, historically speaking, I want those boxes back.

There are days when I think about writing a Trotsky For Tots book- even if it were never published, at least my own child would have a head start. Lenin for the Little ones. The problem I see is that these concepts deserve to not be juvenalised- indeed, they need to not be. It's a quandry. How do you communicate these things to a kid? I know there are Bible Stories for Kids, but I tend to classify them with the fairy tale genre.

There's a series of books which Boy likes- about seasons, robots, and science (I read them to him, and he likes the pictures), so I know that even a two-year-old want to know about the world around him. It's not hopeless, it's just tricky.

Prerequired reading done as a post script

2006-02-26T20:53:00.000-08:00

I'm in the middle of about five essays and reviews in relation to the End Of Faith. To start off, I am reading Engles' Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of Classical German Philosophy. I am too sickly right now to delve deeply, but my favourite phrases so far:
"...the tedious notion of personal immortality." (Isn't it, though?)
"Matter is not a product of mind, but mind itself is merely the highest product of matter."
"In the second place, we simply cannot get away from the fact that everything that sets men acting must find its way through their brains..."

It looks like Mosley will have to wait. Ah well.

It's also one of those times when I wish I'd read all this before now, as I think a lot of things would make a lot more sense.

Coxey's Armies and memories of DC

2006-02-23T10:34:00.000-08:00

I did a little research (very surface) on Coxey-in doing so, I of course stumbled accross an interesting report about Internal Interventions by the US military, which included a mention of "battling" Coxey's Armies.
http://www.culture-of-peace.info/intervention/chapter3-6.html - sorry I don't have the clean linking thing down yet.

Coxey himself was Jacob S Coxey, a sandstone quarry operator from Ohio. Here is his speach (which he intended to read on May 1, 1894, but which he was unable to deliver until May 1, 1944, due to being imprissioned for "trespassing" on the White House [People's House, right?]) lawn in 1894. It was entered into the Congressional Record by sympathetic members.

--------------------
The Constitution of the United States guarantees to all citizens the right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances, and furthermore declares that the right of free speech shall not be abridged.

We stand here to-day to test these guaranties of our Constitution. We choose this place of assemblage because it is the property of the people, and if it be true that the right of the people to peacefully assemble upon their own premises and utter their petitions has been abridged by the passage of laws in direct violation of the Constitution, we are here to draw the eyes of the entire nation to this shameful fact. Here rather than at any other spot upon the continent it is fitting that we should come to mourn over our dead liberties and by our protest arouse the imperiled nation to such action as shall rescue the Constitution and resurrect our liberties.

Upon these steps where we stand has been spread a carpet for the royal feet of a foreign princess, the cost of whose lavish entertainment was taken from the public Treasury without the consent or the approval of the people. Up these steps the lobbyists of trusts and corporations have passed unchallenged on their way to committee rooms, access to which we, the representatives of the toiling wealth-producers, have been denied. We stand here to-day in behalf of millions of toilers whose petitions have been buried in committee rooms, whose prayers have been unresponded to, and whose opportunities for honest, remunerative, productive labor have been taken from them by unjust legislation, which protects idlers, speculators, and gamblers: we come to remind the Congress here assembled of the declaration of a United States Senator, “that for a quarter of a century the rich have been growing richer, the poor poorer, and that by the close of the present century the middle class will have disappeared as the struggle for existence becomes fierce and relentless.”

We stand here to remind Congress of its promise of returning prosperity should the Sherman act be repealed. We stand here to declare by our march of over 400 miles through difficulties and distress, a march unstained by even the slightest act which would bring the blush of shame to any, that we are law-abiding citizens, and as men our actions speak louder than words We are here to petition for legislation which will furnish employment for every man able and willing to work; for legislation which will bring universal prosperity and emancipate our beloved country from financial bondage to the descendants of King George. We have come to the only source which is competent to aid the people in their day of dire distress. We are here to tell our Representatives, who hold their seats by grace of our ballots, that the struggle for existence has become too fierce and relentless. We come and throw up our defenseless hands, and say, help, or we and our loved ones must perish. We are engaged in a bitter and cruel war with the enemies of all mankind—a war with hunger, wretchedness, and despair, and we ask Congress to heed our petitions and issue for the nation’s good a sufficient volume of the same kind of money which carried the country through one awful war and saved the life of the nation.

In the name of justice, through whose impartial administration only the present civilization can be maintained and perpetuated, by the powers of the Constitution of our country upon which the liberties of the people must depend, and in the name of the commonweal of Christ, whose representatives we are, we enter a most solemn and earnest protest against this unnecessary and cruel usurpation and tyranny, and this enforced subjugation of the rights and privileges of American citizenship. We have assembled here in violation of no just laws to enjoy the privileges of every American citizen. We are now under the shadow of the Capitol of this great nation, and in the presence of our national legislators are refused that dearly bought privilege, and by force of arbitrary power prevented from carrying out the desire of our hearts which is plainly granted under the great magna-charta of our national liberties.

We have come here through toil and weary marches, through storms and tempests, over mountains, and amid the trials of poverty and distress, to lay our grievances at the doors of our National Legislature and ask them in the name of Him whose banners we bear, in the name of Him who plead for the poor and the oppressed, that they should heed the voice of despair and distress that is now coming up from every section of our country, that they should consider the conditions of the starving unemployed of our land, and enact such laws as will give them employment, bring happier conditions to the people, and the smile of contentment to our citizens.

Coming as we do with peace and good will to men, we shall submit to these laws, unjust as they are, and obey this mandate of authority of might which overrides and outrages the law of right. In doing so, we appeal to every peace-loving citizen, every liberty-loving man or woman, every one in whose breast the fires of patriotism and love of country have not died out, to assist us in our efforts toward better laws and general benefits.

J. S. COXEY

Commander of the Commonweal of Christ

Source: Congressional Record, 53rd Cong., 2d sess., (9 May 1894): 4512.

-----------------
I will freely admit that the fires of patriotism and love of country have long since died out in this internationalist's breast. Even still, I stand in admiration of Coxey and his Army. They asked for what any government worth its position owes its people.

Memory Lane:

I moved to DC in late July of 2001.The summer of the shark attacks, so no surfing that year. I was feeling kind of tense.

My friend and I walked everywhere- we lived on 16th ave. between Euclid and Fuller, not such a hot area, but close to a lot of things. One of the places we'd frequent was the White House and its environs. You can't do it any more, but we used to cut through the side street next to the White House to get back from the museums and Lincoln Monument. You could look right in and see the goings on, the many squirrels on the lawn, and all that. I think we were about 50 yards from the House itself. Obviously things have changed.

The Sunday before 9/11/01, we went to Arlington National Cemetary to see if we could find Dashiell Hammett's grave. We did. From Lee's old porch at the top of the hill you can look down onto the Pentagon. I said at the time that they'd do well to plant more trees, since it was so open and presented a target to anyone flying by or even in the upstairs of Lee's house. My friend laughed. "No one's going to get this far inland!" He said we'd learned our lesson after 1812. Odd fact; Soon after I arrived, my co-worker, a long-time resident of the area, said jokingly that the Pentagon was called "Ground Zero" because "that's exactly where anyone would try to hit first in a nuclear war".

Tuesday proved him wrong and my co-worker sort of right.

Previously we'd seen Army One (I think- the Presidential Helicopter) land on the elipse many a time. Pomp, circumstance, the chance to throw a tomatoe on the way back from the farmer's market. No gawkers are allowed any more.

The days right after were a bizzarre time. We lived in the top floor,and so were on the flight path of the president's helicopter, so suddenly also on the flight path of a lot of heavily armed helicopters, too. They flew low enough for us to see the visors over the pilots' eyes, as well as the rocket launcher-type things underneath, of course. There were armed troops everywhere. The riders on the Metro sat for days in silence, even the gangsta guys were quiet.

When I visited NYC my one and only (so far) time, the weekend of the 30th, I saw scrawled on a wall: Now that we have been attacked as one, can we please live as one?

People like to say that everything changed after 9/11 for various reasons. I think that, yes, everything did change in that the mask finally dropped. Things done in secret before and denied are now done in secret or in the open with a brazen "So What?" In the false name of safety, all bets are off, all is fair in the war on terrorism. Even terror to stop terror is viewed as rational.

Someone said that trauma brings out the real- cuts through Ego straight to the Id. It has brought out some real ugly this time.

Life Out of Context- W.Mosley paperback

2006-02-22T11:22:00.000-08:00

I was very excited to find this on my post-dentist trip to Powell's Books yesterday. Mosley is one of the best writers we've got right now and I look forward to reading this. It's pretty short, but the few pages I've read offer the depth of thought which I've come to expect from Mr Mosley.

He always leaves me wanting to talk to him, which I don't think many authors (past or present) do. I missed my chance and have been kicking myself ever since and am on the lookout for him to appear somewhere where I am so I can see him.

My chance was this mystery writers' workshop at one of my old bookstores. We had him as a speaker/teacher and I just remember him walking around, looking both alert and thoughtfull. I don't thnk his eyes miss much. I was too shy to approach him.

He's mostly known for his mystery books, which are pieces of work indeed. His other writings, though, are equally absorbing and observant.

So. As I said, I look forward to this.

On The Way Home- Laura Ingalls Wilder- Musings of a random nature

2006-02-21T08:39:00.000-08:00

A little while back my Dear Friend visited the Little House Bookstore in Mansfield, MO, which is where the Little House books were written. She brought back a couple of the later and less-well-known books for me. I'd loved the series as a child and have re-read bits of them more recently (when I was at Dear Friend's house, as I don't have them anymore).

A couple of things before we start on this one.

While re-reading Little House in the Big Woods (I think, could have been On The Prairie, read them both anyway), I was struck by the portrayal of the "indians". Wilder's account was fairly even handed, which is great, as we see the reaction of Ma and Pa to the people- Ma's reaction is one of unmitigated fear, while Pa wishes he spoke French so he could communicate with them. Laura herself is just fascinated. It's an interesting study and I highly recommend it.

This book, On the Way Home, is Laura's diary of moving from South Dakota to Missouri in the middle of 1894. Her daughter, Rose, provides a simple introduction to what was going on in the country at the time- which was pretty harsh. There had been years of drought and crop failures, and so many people were losing their land when they had to mortgage it to pay taxes, and then failed on the mortgages in the viscious cycle of borrowing and drought. In the seventh year of drought, the banks failed worldwide. Factories were shut down, and business ceased. "This was a Panic." Writes Rose.

Of course, on Page 2 I found something worth further study (which I've not had time to do)- Rose tells:

"All the way from California Coxey's Armies of the Unemployed were siezing the railroad trains, jam-packing the cars and running them full speed, open throttle, hell-for-leather toward Washington [DC]. They came roaring into the towns, yelling "Justice for the Working Man!" and stopped and swarmed out, demanding plenty to eat and three-day's rations to take with them, or they'd burn the town. People gave them everything to get rid of them. In all the cities, Federal troops were guarding the Government's buildings."

In time there were no trains on the tracks, having been dispatched to the farthest East yards to keep them safe from Coxey's Armies. The Armies took to their feet, "robbing and raiding and stealing and begging for food as they went."

Golden Age my ass.

What gave me hope in these passages was that these people did something. As I read more and more about the UAW and the situation at Ford and Delphi, with the Workers' wages being halved (as agreed to BY the UAW) and factories closing, I wonder how long it will be before Coxey's Armies are back among us. Once again, they'll face a railcar shortage, as Amtrack's funds are gutted. This time they might car pool, like the Viet Nam Vetrans for Peace did. I know it is, as someone remarked, only a matter of time before people stop saying "But I have a family to support" as they realise that there's no way they can support their families on what they're offered, and take to the roads, to the streets, to DC.

It's only a matter of time before they realise that voting in more Democrats is not the answer, as budget by budget by Bush is approved by them (even as they claim to not like the budgets, to dissapprove of the Supreme Court Appointees or Cabinet member appointees- "I don't like you, but I guess I'll vote for you, if I must.").

I think it could go two ways, really. Either there will be a call for a Workers' Party, or there will be rioting. There could be both. I'd rather call for the Worker's Party, since I don't run very fast.

I know in some places (including Oregon), laws have been passed making it neigh impossible for an independent candidate to gain ballot access (it's also difficult for a small party to gain access) so much for Petitioning for Redress of Grievences.

The big two (no, they do not deserve capital letters) do all they can to silence dissent. Let's not forget that it was the *democrats* who challenged Nader hardest (not that I want him in the Oval Office, mind you).

Blah blah about "stealing" votes- OUR votes do not "belong" to anyone but ourselves- we give it to whom we see fittest, not to those who feel entitled by dint of *saying* they're the people's party. The People's Party would vote down the tax breaks for the wealthy, the cutting of VA funding (in the middle of a freaken WAR yet!), the slashing of medical coverage for children (and their parents), and on and on and on.

JUSTICE FOR THE WORKING MAN!!

Between books

2006-02-14T17:44:00.000-08:00

So now I'm just reeling. Having read this when I did- with all the manufactured hubbub about Danish cartoons, I am seeing a growing demonisation of Islam. Now, I am not in favour of Faith-Based thinking, what with liking facts and all, but I am also against Faith-Based killing. Be it killing because your faith says to kill, or being killed for being of a faith. What I see happening has overt similarities to the cartoons published by the Nazi regeime in preparation for the holocaust.

I know people like to say "he who first makes a comparrisson to Nazis lets themselves out of the argument"- which is handy in silencing speaking out about....similarities to nazi tactics (or fascist tactics in general). But look now, if you see the beginnings of a trend, you have a duty to say something. Why wait until the concentration camps are built, and the railroads are laying tracks to the oven doors?

Some would argue that some concentration camps are already here- or in Cuba, anyway, what with Guantanamo. They would so far be right. Some would argue that these cartoons are just freedom of the press- they would be almost right- except that the paper in question was not the last stop on this printing spree- no, the cartoons were printed and reprinted for months until the desired anger was whipped up. This, after an apology was requested by the Muslim leaders (leaders of the majority, not the fringes). They were told - I paraphrase- "You have no control over our free presses. Deal."

There is a good article at [url=http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/feb2006/cart-f15.shtml]wsws[/url] as usual. Harris says that in relation to Islam politics can be considered only to be dismissed- well, obviously, politics are what we live with every day. It is a typical bit of obscurantism to insist on not looking at what is there. What Muslims live with in Denmark is a constant sense of disenfranchisement- getting the worst of both sides: You are not allowed to assimilate VS You have not assimilated, it's your own fault. This bears remarkable similarities to what European Jews went through for centuries.

No, it's not helped by religious isolationism, but they are given precious little choice in the matter.

Oy, It's done. The End of The End of Faith

2006-02-14T14:28:00.000-08:00

Finally. I feel very dragged out by this whole thing. What is most dissappointing is that I was really hoping for a resonable book. What is really frightening is that it is in places very reasonable- which more on later.

The upshot: It would serve well as a companion volume to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion- this time construed as The Protocols of the Bombers of Islam. It's a complex screed filled with half-truths (or, half-presented facts) interspersed with really otherwise useful things.

The conflation of Islam with Qutbism (for lack of a better term) does no one any good- it paints Islam with a broad ugly brush, it engenders fear and it calls for retaliatory- or even pre-emptive violence. Hmm. There could not possibly be an agenda here.

Let me state for the record here: I am a socialist. As such I do not believe that religin is a force for good- though I cannot deny that it has been used as a force. I think it demands a disregard for science, fact, and critical thinking and that it has been used, as Marx pointed out, as an opiate of the people. Except that I would update it to be more along the lines of crack cocaine. Few opium addicts have the gumption to blow things up. This goes for suicide bombers as well as invading forces.

That said- I entered into this book in search of something usefull- not expecting a gentle denunciation of faiths here, but something rational and an offer- maybe, just maybe- of a replacement in the form of reason. This is not to be found here.

Harris' methods are dangerous- meant to appeal to the more liberal element, it offers an excuse- founded on a twisted and selective history- to be afraid of and angry with Islam in particular. Though he goes through an almost perfunctory history of the uses of religion to oppress, he mis-identifies the oppressor as Religion Itself. He breezez through the Holocaust, the witch hunts and etc. At one, brief, point he says that a lot of the land seized by the Inquisition made it into the hands of the Church. And, yes, that is bad. It's also a bit familiar these days, with people being denounced as terrorists and their property or rewards being given to the denouncers whether the person is proved a terrorist or not.

It would not be so alarming if he did not, after the chapter "The Problem with Islam", continue to point out Islamic examples of violence and etc at every turn to the exclusion of the horrors of other faiths.

The Afterward should really be an Introduction, as it is only here that we see he started the book on Sept 12, 2001. Obviously, this colours things. It is unfortunate that Harris never quite pulled out of the trauma this inflicted on him - though he claims to have returned to reasonableness and that some of the more extreme parts were edited out. I hope never to stumble across those writings, if this is his moderate side.

End of Faith Pt 3- Islam in particular.

2006-02-01T14:28:00.000-08:00

First I have to say that my bookseller/collector friends would kill me if they saw all these pen marks in this volume. Sorry.

I am still trying to figure out the whole Islam thing, but what I have so far is this:

The chapter on Islam is one which has me troubled for a number of reasons- one of which is that I kind of agree with his assessment, though *not* his solution (his asessment is that it is an inherently violent religion- which seems very surface, but which can also be said about any number of other religions wherein the "punishment is death"). The martyrdom aspect is more prevalent in Islam- as it is applied currently- than in many other faiths, but still. His solution is to kill them all, it seems.

This is a cry which has come up a couple of times in the book so far- "they cannot be resoned with", which may well be the case, but he does present it as a kill or be killed situation, which strikes me as a justification for current policy and really, nothing more.

So- yes, I do think Islam as it is being played out now, is a dangerous thing. (I also think Christianity, Judaism, or any other faith which blinds the believer to the human-ness of the non-believer and drives the believer to violence is a dangerous sort of faith). But I take issue with his singling it out so.

While he puts forth in the book that *faith* is dangerous, he is concentrating on Islam unduly. I am inclined to wonder if, had he been born in the 14h century, he would have called for the killing of all christians, in view of the Inquisition going on then.

A number of his observations (and observations borrowed from Bernard Lewis) are that Islam is a religiously imperialist entity (I am thinking particularly of " for Muslims, no piece of land once added to the realm of Islam can ever be finally renounced." The Gaza strip comes to mind (as does any area of concession in Israel), but with 'Judaism' replacing 'Muslim'. (**for the record, I am Jewish, Reform and somewhat lapsed, but still**). NO group wants to give up their land.

I am trying to take this all with the knowledge that he started the book on September 12, 2001, but I do wonder - whither the editor? Also- where is the historical perspective? If someone shoots you on a Monday, you are not going to be looking for their finer points on a Tuesday. This is not to say there aren't problems- obviously there are. I take issue with his solution, which sounds a bit...final, if you will.

still reading, and re-reading End O' Faith

2006-01-25T11:19:00.000-08:00

I have finished with a chapter on Islam and feel I must re-read it to make sure what he's saying- not that he's being unclear (summary: Islam is very bad and means to kill us all and probably themselves, too, iin the name of Paradise and Allah), but that I want to understand the context of his Quran quotes as much as possible and need to seriously evaluate some of the conclusions he drawn from his argument before i commit them to print here.

In other reading news- Carl Sagan's Demon-Haunted World is spectacular. It's an oldie, but very worthwhile. His arguments for the importance of a true and solid knowledge of history are cogent and well-written. More in depth later.

End of Faith pt 2

2006-01-17T17:01:00.000-08:00

Now, at approximately page 102, we have delved into the history of the Inquisition, complete with scriptural and liturgical references for why it is all right in the eyes of the church (Catholic and Lutheran, actually)- we have touched on anti-semitism and are just going into world war two.

One of the things which Harris points out is that there were a few people in charge at the time who took a step back and tried to moderate what was happening. It didn'’t work so well generally.

Another, and more important thing he points out is that, once the idea of witchcraft was floated, rational- within the bounds of of the assumption of witches existing - evidence against the accused was sought. (What constituted rational evidence was pretty flimsy, let's face facts, and often elicited by torture- something which we would do well to remember is not the most reliable source for information.)

While his arguments and examples are well-put-together, there are a few things which stick out.

On page 75, he points out that "“Karl Popper has told us that we never prove a theory right; we merely fail to prove it wrong." This is just not so, as we can easily see in the use of germ theory, to name just one area. Karl Popper- at the severe risk of diversion- I would like to direct you to this good explanation of post-modernist thought and its incompatability with historical accuracy http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/aug2005/le12-a30.shtml. The very idea that we can never know the truth (or, Truth) is one which has stymied scientific research, and opens the door for exactly the kind of muddied thinking which Harris is lobbying against in his decrying of religion. There is such a thing as Objective Truth on Earth, and *this* is what we need to concentrate on when dealing with religious issues in the public sphere.

Harris points out that "“all spheres of discourse are not on the same footing, for the simple reason that not all spheres of discourse seek the same footing (or any footing whatsoever). Science is science because it represents our most committed effort to verify that our statements about the world are true (or at least not false)." I agree here not just with the form, but the content.

On page 79, he says: "“Consider the millions of people who were killed by Stalin and Mao: although these tyrants paid lip service to rationality, communism was little more than a political religion."”

I am not about to defend Stalin nor Mao. What I am about to do is to point out that, like rationality, communism was another idea to which lip service was paid by these two. Both were responsible for the deaths stated, but what is unstated is that neither were actual communists- they were nationalists and tyrants. They were not the natural outcome of the revolutions in which they took part.

After Lenin'’s death, Stalin had his agents hunt down and arrest (for show trials) or kill the Russian Bolshevik leadership (including Trotsky, who was the political heir-apparent to Lenin), and he ordered Mao to submit to the KuoMinTang, thereby assuring the murder of thousands of (actual)communists. What you had under Stalin was a travesty, to be sure, comprised not only of the cult of personality but also the betrayal of the workers'’ revolution of October 1917. His insistance on utter loyalty without question (and his paranoia-inspiring secret police) surely does recall a religious-type hysteria. The religion here was not communism, though, but Stalinism. Pretty much the same thing could be said of Maoism. They also took the liberty to re-write the gospels- in the form of the history books- and to leave out or demonise those who met with disaproval.

Review of a review

2006-01-15T13:35:00.000-08:00

Well I was reading the Weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal (know thy class enemy and all that) and there was this review of Green Eggs and Ham (no, really) in which the author puts forth that it is a lesson in salesmanship, and so very American. I was alarmed and almost spilled my coffee in sitting up fast and saying "What the--?!?" Everyone knows it's a lesson in trying new things. It peeved me.

He also (the review author) mentioned open-mindedness as being an American Value. Now, I know many open-minded Americans, but have to say that, comming from the WSJ, it did elicit a snortle, given their frequent appeal to closed-mindedness in their news coverage.

Anyhoo- it was a short review and I finished it. Back to the books...

End of Faith- Harris. Just out in paperback

2006-01-13T16:03:00.000-08:00

I'm in the first third of the book- about page 60 or so. Please take that into consideration.

There are a couple of....possibly worrisome ideas he comes up with- Ok, *actually worrisome*- at one point he says (rightly) that there is no talking to some people. No kidding, eh? But where he goes with it is the worrisome part-it might be necessary to continue the war against al quaida and keep killing them because they are untalk-to-ables!! Overall he presents a good case that there is a direct link between belief and action- but he seems (again, I'm only at 60 or so, so this could change) to put forth a fair number of assumptions about there only being one possible course of action connected to any given belief. I disagree.

Obviously, Al Qaida presents a special problem, but just commiting ourself to killing them all- if that's even possible, which I rather doubt, given its ever-growing nature- is as mad as he claims the religion backing Al Qaida operatives when they blow themselves (and others) up to be. One would rather hope that in his (Harris') quest to bring about a state of 'reason', reasonableness would be a a hallmark of his arguments. Instead, so far, he presents a number of pugnacious and dogmatic arguments. Granted these come primarily in the form of Al Qaida condemnations, (and I mean, their methods are madness indeed, so they do rather bring this upon themselves), but my hope is that he will present more reasoned arguments against faith as a means to action.

One thing which I do agree with is his position that faith will lead directly to action- ie, if you think that you will find 70 virgins after martyring yourself, you're more likely to do so than if you believed that life on this earth at this time is all there is. He deals mostly wth "religious extremeists" when presenting examples, but he also takes religious moderates to task for preaching tolerance for all kinds of beliefs, when - as he does show- and not just with Islamic examples (though 9/11 is foremost on his mind at this point, and so it follows that Islam is as well, though I am about to start a chapter on the Holocaust, wherein, he says, he will prove that the Nazis were, whether they realised it or not at the time, engaged in a religious war. I'll get to that when I get to it, though, right?) that tolerance for untenable things like killing women who show their hair, or waging war on your neighbor *just because* they are Jewish, Christian or whathave should not be tolerated. He also deplores the moderates of any religion in that they are diluting their own texts to bring their beliefs more into line with modern times- which he says only serves to rile the more fundamentalist elements. His claim that this "updating" serves neither reason nor faith well. I am inclined to agree with that view.

Along the way he makes pleas for more proof-based thought. Again, I am inclined to go with this.

That's what I have so far, I'm sort of in the middle of it....more later.