4.27.2010

A Note to the Parade of Idiots Called My Country

presented in the Comments section of an AP/Yahoo news story on the Senate's proposed climate bill, which would begin to limit the amount of carbon dioxide businesses can add to the atmosphere...
 
Americans' willful ignorance about the undeniable effects of our industrial/consumerist way of life on the environment and climate is a sure sign of the end of America's short time as the #1 nation. It's not Obama who's ruining the country (altho he's not doing much to stop it) -- it's the ignorance and selfishness and self-righteousness of the white middle class, the losers who think Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are something other than imbeciles or charlatans. The people who trust the scientists bought and paid for by the petroleum industry to tell them what to "think."
Facts: Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps heat below the atmosphere. Increasing the heat under the atmosphere causes climates to change -- it won't necessarily be warmer everywhere, but climate will change, become unpredictable and chaotic.
Our way of life is causing that and our willful ignorance is making it worse.
Fellow Americans: don't fear the truth -- stop being stupid -- everything's not all about you -- be a decent person and citizen.

4.15.2010

Tea Party Through the Looking Glass

Klamath County is notoriously conservative – 70% for Bush in 2000 and 2004 and almost that much for McCain (or maybe Palin) in 2008. Like others around the country, the Klamath Tea Party people held a rally on April 15, 2010, on the little plaza in front of the County Government Center on Main Street downtown.

I didn't go out of my way to go by there; I was on my way to the library about a block away to sit at a table and get some work done. But as I was walking on the other side of the street, one hand-scrawled-on-cardboard sign grabbed my attention. It said: "No taxation without representation." That was, of course, the rallying cry of the original Boston Tea Party, which occurred before the Revolution, in other words before the United States existed and while Massachusetts was still a colony of the British Empire, under the ultimately absolute power of the King. Back then, the people in the American colonies were taxed, but they actually had no democratic representation – they did not get to vote for Parliament, the body that made many of the laws with which they had to comply, including the Stamp Act, a tax on tea. In other words, the people at the Boston tea Party had a point – they paid taxes to a government that did not allow them any democratic representation. Maybe you can see where this is headed. . . . In 2010 in the United States of America, we have, it is true, taxation; but we also have representation – specifically the Congress people and Senators and President elected in regularly-held, more or less democratic elections. Of course it is also true that many people live in States or Congressional districts where they did not vote for the people who are the representatives in Washington at any given moment. I, for instance, did not vote for the currently-serving congressman representing Oregon's 2nd District, which includes Klamath Falls. Of course that does not mean we are not "represented." Even though I did not vote for Greg Walden, he is my representative in Congress; that's how American democracy works. This system does mean that our representatives might not vote on issues the way we want them to (mine doesn't). But that cannot mean we are not "represented" or the idea of American democracy, as constituted through the Constitution, would collapse. In American democracy, we have the individual right to vote for representatives in democratic elections, but we do not have the individual right to pick our representatives; that right belongs to the democratic majority in any particular election. What thinking person could disagree with this? I went over to the guy with the sign, pointed at it and asked, "What does that mean?" He looked at the sign, then back at me, and said, "No taxation without representation." "Well you are represented; you have a congressman, right?" "Not my representation; they're not doing what I want." "You don't support Greg Walden, he's your congressman, he's a republican." "I voted for Greg Walden." "Well then you have representation, right?" "Well, not in the Supreme Court [?], not in the White House." "Well that's how democracy in American works, right? You get to vote for representatives-" His scraggly wife interrupted: "Well none of the Senators [both in Oregon are Democrats], not the President." "Well that's how democracy works right? You have elections and whoever wins is your representative, and they probably vote along the lines of the people who voted for them, right?" The wife then suggested I go read another sign. As I was walking away I looked at the husband and suggested he try using his brain.

At least 90% of the crowd was over 40 years old, at least 75% was over 50, and at least half seemed clearly to be of retirement age. At least 95% of the crowd was white, with a few people who looked possibly Hispanic or Native American. The crowd was, not surprisingly, mostly composed of the kind of folks we call "Klamath people" (and whom I call "Crew Cabs"): flannel shirts, jeans, sun-faded baseball caps with agricultural company logos printed on the front. These are the stereotypical "ranch culture" people who have long held the cultural center of gravity in the Klamath Basin (but whose grasp is slipping as more and more "Subarus" arrive, depressing the percentage of "Crew Cabs"). About half the signs people held were hand-made and half were apparently paid for and handed out by some person or group. Almost all expressed resentment over taxes.

Shortly after I walked away from brain-dead husband and wife, a white man about 60 years old, wearing a flannel shirt, and apparently one of the organizers of the rally, got up to the microphone on the steps above the plaza and started talking. He reassured the crowd that they were good people, good Americans, and that if there were people there who opposed the tea Party movement (I didn't see any that were obvious), well, that just proved they were having an effect on American politics. He then reminded the crowd how good they were, told them that the United States was founded "based on the Bible, and then launched into a not-short prayer requesting that God intervene in upcoming elections, so as to assure their "freedom." At that point, I am reminded of my one-time realization that I am not ultimately the journalist type. I have a very hard time sitting quietly and documenting what people say when what they say is based on ignorance or lies. It's why I gave up listening to Rush Limbaugh years ago. I am interested in what is being said, in what is going on in America, but not to the point I can sit there and take it without talking back, and since there is no talking back to the radio, I just can't take it. So I left the rally and went to the library where rather than work on what I should have been doing, I typed this up instead. By the time I decided I should go back, about an hour later, people carrying little American flags were streaming away from the Government Center. The rally was over and the people were off to wait for their tax refund checks...


Some core features of the 2010 Tea Party:

1) Ignorance of the contents and history of the Constitution.

2) A political philosophy holding that if the government institutes policies they disagree with, the government is thereby illegitimate – a philosophy that is flagrantly anti-democratic and subtly authoritarian (i.e., the people they deem "real Americans" get to decide government policy, as opposed to a government elected by a democratic majority)

3) A selfishness and unjustifiable self-righteousness that is the opposite of morality and could not be more anti-Christian.

4.07.2010

RADIO SILENCE

I-5 at Lost Hills, California

Due to the cumulative effect of related and unrelated crises, Radio Free Klamath is compelled to vacate its KTEC time slot.

For yr avant sound needs, try these continuous streams available thru WFMU and playable thru itunes...
Also, subscribe to the Some Assembly Required weekly podcast!

And check back here once in a while for updates on the pursuit of true democracy ...

3.31.2010

RADIO FREE KLAMATH # 207

RADIO FREE KLAMATH # 207
______________________________

atmospheric transmission 3.31.10
on KTEC * 89.5 FM
OIT's freeform station for the klamath basin
______________________________

---- CLICK HERE ----
to stream online
or download
an mp3

--- click here ---
to download
webpage version of the playlist


3.17.2010

RADIO FREE KLAMATH # 206

RADIO FREE KLAMATH # 206
______________________________

radiowaved 3.17.10
on KTEC * 89.5 FM
oit's freeform station for the klamath basin
______________________________

---- CLICK HERE ----
to stream online
or download
an mp3

--- click here ---
to download
webpage version of the playlist


3.12.2010

"American Conservatism"

Two smart conservatives on what conservatism is about:

"What do we, as American conservatives, want to conserve? The answer is simple: the pillars of American exceptionalism. Our country has always been exceptional. It is freer, more individualistic, more democratic, and more open and dynamic than any other nation on earth. These qualities are the bequest of our Founding and of our cultural heritage. They have always marked America as special, with a unique role and mission in the world: as a model of ordered liberty and self-government and as an exemplar of freedom and a vindicator of it, through persuasion when possible and force of arms when absolutely necessary. " [from RICHARD LOWRY & RAMESH PONNURU, "An Exceptional Debate: The Obama administration’s assault on American identity", National Review]

I appreciate this statement's clarity in revealing a fundamental flaw with contemporary "American Conservatism." The core at the center of conservatism, according to Mrs. Lowry and Ponnuru, is the assertion that the United States is "freer, more individualistic, more democratic, and more open and dynamic than any other nation on earth." The problem is that Lowry and Ponnuru have no real factual basis for the comparative nature of this assertion (and in fact, in an online response to their critics, they admit it is hyperbole.) Instead of facts and accurate history, what they have is faith that their assertion is true, a desire to believe it is so. And that faith, that willingness to believe something just because it is desirable, that core of conservatism, is pretty much the worse thing about "America" as a nation. "American exceptionalism" is the smiley face sticker covering the black heart of the soul of a nation that has always been about self-righteously enacting the principle that might is right, that those with the most power have the right to take what they want from those with less. It is a faith or belief that some Americans of every generation have had to believe in order to live with the ugly facts of American expansion. Thus, it is acceptable, even providential, to slaughter and/or exile the people who were here when we arrived because "God" gave this land to the white English speakers. Getting rid of the native Americans and taking over their land was not ethnic cleansing, but the "progress" of "Civilization" over "Nature"! And if you build an economy on the backs of forced slave labor, the most evil kind of social exploitation, and oppressed immigrant workers, that's just the natural order of things, justified by either the Bible or "evolution," depending on the audience. And when you provoke a fight with a weaker neighbor and then take almost half their land at the point of a gun, it is an example of "Manifest Destiny," merely the acceptance of what was granted by our benevolent God. The examples that undermine the Conservative's narcissistic delusion of America could pile up of course: the suppression of democracy and the democratic will, the hidden concentration of power behind the corporate form, the harsh centralization effected by the totalization of a money economy, the soft centralization of the consumer culture mass media. But the point is this: Conservatism is based on "American exceptionalism," which is necessarily based on blind faith or willful ignorance, one or the other of which is required for the kind of self-righteousness that enables people to justify immoral, might-makes-right actions. Thus, Lowry and Ponnuru have added to the mountain of evidence that "American Conservatism" is a morally bankrupt cover for the interests of America's ruthless plutocratic ruling class.

3.03.2010

RADIO FREE KLAMATH # 205

RADIO FREE KLAMATH # 205
______________________________

radiowaved 3-3-10
on KTEC * 89.5 FM
oit's freeform station for the klamath basin
______________________________

---- CLICK HERE ----
to stream online
or download
an mp3

--- click here ---
to download
webpage version of the playlist


2.25.2010

RADIO FREE KLAMATH # 204

RADIO FREE KLAMATH # 204
______________________________

atmospheric transmission 2/24/10
on KTEC * 89.5 FM
oit's freeform station for the klamath basin
______________________________

---- CLICK HERE ----
to stream online
or
download
an mp3

2.23.2010

HOW CONSERVATIVES ARE UNWITTINGLY OPENING THE DOOR TO A RADICAL DEMOCRATIZATION OF AMERICA

Conservatives today purport to base their political principles on the Constitution, which they say supports their demand for "limited government" and "freedom." Of course, as the George Bush years of unconstitutional rule showed, conservatives' fealty to the Constitution wanes when they actually have power to do what ever they want. But we will put that aside and take their assertions at face value. Doing so not only shows the lack of thought and morality at the core of the asserted beliefs of contemporary conservatives, it may also be the opening to the radical rethinking of our government that people who believe in true democracy have been hoping for.

Conservatives like to attack "big government." But no one who thinks about it is likely to defend "big government" as some abstract principle of political science. In fact, "big government" was developed by establishment elites like Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson as a solution to the overweening power of big business, specifically the increasingly-powerful, industrialization-based robber barons and the corporations and banks that masked and extended their interests. (These are the direct cultural ancestors of our contemporary plutocratic ruling class.) Notably, the role of bigger government was never intended to dismantle the power the capitalists wielded, but was actually implemented to preserve the power of big business by mediating and facilitating its integration with society as a whole. In this way, big government saved American-style big business capitalism – that is why "big government" came into existence.

A lot of Americans would probably agree that ideally we would get rid of both big government and big business, agreeing, at least after thinking about it a bit, that a society without significant concentrations of power will generally be better for the supermajority of people, and will produce a government more accurately reflecting "the consent of the governed." But, notably, the elimination of both forms of concentrated power – big government and big business – is NOT what the Republican and Tea Party conservatives want, at least the ones we hear from and about. No, they want to get rid of big government, but leave big business in place. In other words, they want to return America to where it was in the 1890s, which in economic terms was one of the worst times to be an average American.

According to these conservative "Constitutionalists", the United States Constitution allows big business to concentrate power without limit (that's "freedom"), but does not allow a democratic majority to use its democratic power of government to control the concentrated power of big business. In other words, according to the conservatives, we are at the mercy of concentrated capitalist power and there is nothing we can do about it – they say that is written into the Constitution. Of course, there are not actual words in the Constitution that say that, but that is their interpretation and they insist their interpretation (and derivatively their interpretation of what the writers of the Constitution 'meant' and the fact that we are somehow stuck with whatever the writers 'meant') is the proper interpretation that the rest of us must bow down to. It would be easy to engage the argument in a liberal/conservative way and defend 'our' interpretation of the Constitution. But better yet, why not take the radical approach and say, if the Constitution says and requires what the Conservatives say it says and requires, then it is not serving the interests of the democratic majority (and indeed CANNOT serve the interest of the democratic majority unless the majority decides that its interest is to be at the mercy of concentrated capitalist power), and therefore, under the more fundamental authority of the Declaration of Independence, We the People can choose to reassert that "it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."


2.18.2010

RADIO FREE KLAMATH 203

RADIO FREE KLAMATH
transmission 203
__________________________________
radiowaved Wednesday February 17, 2010
on KTEC - 89.5 FM
OIT's freeform statio for the klamath basin
_________________________
CLICK HERE to go to a page where
you can stream or download an mp3 of the show.
_________________________
CLICK HERE for more info on the
corporate consumer doltification drug called
high fructose corn syrup.
_____________________________________

2.05.2010

RADIO FREE KLAMATH #201

RADIO FREE KLAMATH
returns to the southern oregon airwaves,
charting sonic territory
off the maps of consensus perception,
with show #201

_______________________________

radiowaved wednesday, february 3 2010
on KTEC 89.5 fm
OIT's freeform station for the klamath basin

_______________________________

CLICK HERE
to open a page where you can
stream or download the show...


1.05.2010

Pandora.com and the psychosocial implosion of capitalist modernity

If you are one of the 17 million people with an account at Pandora.com, you know it is a website and internet service that turns your favorite songs into personalized "radio stations" specially tuned to your particular tastes. And you know Pandora is a great way to hear music you like and learn about new musicians and bands you will probably like. And you might be aware that Pandora is at the cutting edge of data-based, web-mediated, hyper-personalized entertainment. And you might even have a feeling, as I do, bubbling up into consciousness, that Pandora is a harbinger of the impending end, the crack-up, the psychological collapse of capitalist modernity as a society and way of life.

Pandora is able to turn your musical preferences into personalized streaming radio stations through use of the Music Genome Project.
The Music Genome Project (MGP) started in 2000 when, according to the Pandora website, "a group of musicians and music-loving technologists came together with the idea of creating the most comprehensive analysis of music ever." The MGP involves analyzing songs by breaking them down into component characteristics descriptive of some feature of the music. In this way, the MGP purports "to capture the essence of music at the most fundamental level," and claims to have done so for the music of tens of thousands of artists.

Pandora was developed by people involved with the Music Genome Project.
After you sign up and type in a favorite song, Pandora accesses the MGP database to determine what characteristics that song has. Pandora then searches the database for other songs with similar clusters of characteristics, and streams those similar songs to you through your internet browser or smart phone, on a special for-you-only "station."

I just called up Pandora on my laptop.
One of six "stations" I have created automatically started up, playing a song I have never heard by a band I like – The Residents. According to the "Song" tab, this song's music genome "characteristics" are: electronics influences, a subtle use of paired vocal harmony, repetitive melodic phrasing, groove based composition, minor key tonality. Three "similar songs" by other bands (two of which I have never heard of) are listed on the side. Notably, you can't tell Pandora what to play – there is no provision for specific requests. You can listen to a sample of any song Pandora has in the database, and there are indeed an astounding amount of them, and start a station based on any of them. (Although searches for a couple of my favorite cutting edge music creators – People Like Us and Ergo Phizmiz – shows they remain below the Pandora radar for now.)

Pandora generates revenue with ads on their web pages, apparently somewhat targeted based on your identified tastes, an occasional audio ad between songs, selling music downloads, and selling premium access.
(Premium access includes no ads, higher quality streams, and access to a Pandora-specific, special-features web application to listen to your stations).

It's hard not to be impressed by Pandora.
You'll most likely hear some music you haven't heard before and you'll probably like quite a bit of it, because it is after all based on your "preferences," defined as the characteristics and clusters of characteristics associated with music you tell Pandora you like. Notably, you might not even recognize the identified "preferences" as things you particularly prefer since most of us have not thought to analyze the music we like into the highly-specific characteristics identified and categorized by the MGP.

This is where Pandora starts to become disconcerting: in a certain way, application of its analytic tool allows Pandora to know you in a slightly more profound way than you understand yourself, and then feed that preference-based image of you back to you.
And at that point Pandora is not only constructing your listening experience, in some sense it is constructing YOU.

Pandora represents a truly advanced form of capitalist consumer culture.
Starting with an analytical breakdown of the particular consumer's particular "preferences," Pandora crafts a super-targeted product – your "stations" or "streams" – that is both based on and aimed at YOU, the only one receiving the experience defined by your particular streams. When you listen to the actual radio, broadcast on electromagnetic waves or through the network of cables and wireless transmissions making up the internet, there is an implied community of people who are hearing the same thing you're hearing at the same time you're hearing it – the "broadcast audience." In this way, radio is a public, social experience, a connection to a temporary community. Even if it is usually fleeting and anonymous, based only on hearing this broadcast at this moment, radio is in fact a social event. Pandora is different. Pandora doesn't broadcast; it provides the narrowest of narrowcasts. The audience is just YOU, which can be further divided into modes of you, with different stations set up for different moods. The Pandora experience is beyond anonymous; it's autonomous. You're the center of attention, but you and Pandora are the only ones there to pay attention. You're off on your own little planet, in your own little bubble of specially-constructed sonic experience, created just for, and presented only to, YOU, based on Pandora's binary analysis and categorization of your "preferences."

And not only that – it's an autonomous little sphere of YOU that is created and 'brought to you' by the global techno-capital infrastructure that builds and manages the universe of experiences defining our contemporary, hypermodern consumer culture society.
I'm not saying Pandora is a totalitarian corporate overlord like Exxon or General Electric or NewsCorp. As far as I can tell, Pandora Media Inc. is a privately held corporation controlled by the people who developed the idea, the kind of company that should be encouraged (along with cooperatives) in a community-centric economy. What I am saying, and what is indisputable to the point of truism, is that the Pandora experience is a paradigm capitalist consumer culture experience.

Ultimately, Pandora's digital techno-construction of consumer experiences in pursuit of profit is not a corporate conspiracy, it is US, and beyond that a glimpse of what we are on the precipice of becoming.

As you listen to Pandora, you are cut off from everybody else, by yourself with your preferences, dependent on the global techno-capital structure for your very own insular, autonomous, self-centered reality.
In this way, Pandora signals the psychosocial cul de sac of capitalist modernity as a way of life and form of self, the end of the road in the burned-out, graffiti-tagged, sub-prime suburb of American consumer culture.

if there were no radios, no tvs, no cd players,
no record players, no tape players, no dvd players,
no mp3 players, and no computers,

people would make their own music


9.14.2009

THREE THINGS COMBINING TO MAKE THE FUTURE OF THE UNITED STATES PROBLEMATIC, AND ARGUING FOR PROGRESSIVES TO PRACTICE THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE 2ND AMEND.

1) PLUTOCRACY – America has long been run by the wealthy. But over the last 70 years or so that power has been counterweighted by the expansion of the "middle class" tied to the labor movement and the globalization of the economy. But over the last 25 years, post-Reagan, the wealthy have had their power expanded through the rise of the financial sectors of the economy. When capitalism works as intended, money makes money, and when the "Market" was made into a religion that politicians of both parties came to worship, that meant the people with money would make more money and centralize their power. Thus, the immoral gap between the rich and everybody else that has come to characterize American society. While the financial crisis was a bit of a setback for the plutocracy, "Wall Street is back!", meaning the wealthy have reestablished their grip on our economy and all that flows form that. And it could get much worse. Currently the Supreme Court is deciding a case, Citizens United versus the Federal Elections Commission, that conservatives are hoping will overturn all limits on election spending by corporations. Something like 80% of stock wealth (that is, corporations) are owned by less than 10% of the population. If the conservatives have their way, that 10%, through the corporations advancing their interests, will be able to dominate the public space (even more than they already do) and determine who is in and who will win elections. How much plutocracy will the majority of Americans take? With the media dominated by private wealth, will the majority of Americans be able to accurately discern what is going on? How will the media dominated by private wealth seek to divert attention and redirect discontent away from the social arrangements organized to advance the interests of private wealth?

2) SHIFTING DEMOGRAPHICS – The fact is that the white suburban type people who constitute the core of the Republican Party, and the fans of people like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Bill O'Reilly are losing their electoral power at a rate that they will soon not be able to ignore. With the shifting demographics of the US, mostly the increases in people of Hispanic/Latino heritage, the white suburbans are simply losing their ability to control national elections as they have over the last 50 years. When this reality sinks in, many of these people are likely to see it not as the progress of American democracy, but as interlopers stealing "their" country.

3) THE RISE OF UNREASON AMONG WHITE SUBURBAN AMERICANS – The summer of "Tea Parties" and screeching town hall meetings promoted by Glenn Beck and Fox News opened a window onto something serious. Suddenly people who served as cheerleaders for the undermining of the Constitution by the previous president think attempts to bail out the American auto industry and make the health care system more fair are "fascism." This is truly nutty – obviously something else is going on. Obama's policies are not 'all that,' but to call them fascist and socialist and communist is just divorced from reality, just like the insistence that Obama was born in Kenya until he "proves" otherwise. What does it mean that some percentage of Americans can be so far off the mark in their assessment of reality? What does it mean that Glenn Beck, who is either mentally ill or a total charlatan, has become the leader of these people? When these people assert they will "take their country back," they apparently mean they will take it back from the large majority who elected Obama in the last election. In other words, these white suburban Americans believe they have the right to choose who leads America, apparently even when they cannot get a majority of people to agree with them. This belief and the larger inability to engage rationally with reality is a dangerous combination.

8.31.2009

The politics of no meaning among the Beckshirts

After an argument at the Farmer's Market with a guy who loudly proclaimed Obama is a fascist and a communist, I am not naive enough to believe reason or even the meaning of words can influence the emerging right-wing idiocracy. But to help future digital archaeologists clarify the chronology of the Age of Stupid I feel compelled to point out that under any reasonable interpretation of the history and semantics of the words, a person cannot simultaneously be a communist and a fascist. Communism is a dictatorship of the proletariat. Fascism is a dictatorship of corporations. Not the same thing. And for people willing to acknowledge there is such a thing as history, communists and fascists were always mortal enemies.

8.29.2009

Storm on the horizon

The view from Alamo Square, San Francisco

So, the pro-plutocrat faction on the Roberts Supreme Court is apparently looking to use the case described here (Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission) to make the ultimate ruling: The Constitution of the United States offers no democratic protection against plutocracy. In other words, as the supporters of the plaintiffs in this case would have it, the Constitution allows wealth to govern our country without interference from the governed masses, as represented by Congress -- the law requires us to shut up and take it. If this does indeed go down the "conservative" way, resulting in a political system where corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections, democracy in America is dead. We will have reached a point where our "Form of Government becomes destructive of [the democratic] ends" for which this nation was founded, at which point "it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish [that Government], and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Such a situation will obviously make for troubled times as some significant percentage of us (those who believe in the democratic values animating the creation of this nation) will refuse to live on our knees.

8.27.2009

Healthcare reform and the ongoing doltification of America

Nowhere fast -- Humboldt Bay, Eureka, California

The center-right of USAmerican politics is at it again – trying to protect the interests of the plutocratic ruling class through the doltification of the public discourse. The primary mantra against any REAL reform of America's healthcare system, which would necessarily include some kind of public plan that does not depend on the profiteering that mars our current system, is that we need "COMPETITION" and that a public plan would undermine "COMPETITION" by competing the profiteering healthcare corporations out of existence. The center-right liars and/or dimwits (there are, of course, both, and it's not necessarily easy to tell which blow-dried helmet head falls into which category) insist that it's "COMPETITION" that made our current system "the best in the world" and that any strong non-profit option that undermines the profiteers will thereby threaten our "best in the world" system. Of course, we Americans do not have the best healthcare in the world. The World Health Organization lists us at number 36. In other words, somehow the "COMPETITION" the center-right wants to protect does not actually deliver high quality health care to society at large. (It can deliver high quality healthcare to the top 10% or so of the wealth-holders, but serving well 1 out of 10 does not equal a high quality system, as the miserable WHO ranking shows.)

But the real point is that the "COMPETITION" among the profiteers the center-right wants to defend is not competition to provide better health care to more people. (That needs to be said over and over and over: it is NOT competition to provide better healthcare to more people.) The "COMPETITION" they engage in is competition to increase their profits so that their shareholders get a higher return on investment.
That is the "COMPETITION" of the "FREE MARKET." And when it comes to healthcare, that means insuring as few sick people as possible, never covering "pre-existing conditions," and finding creative ways to dump insured people who actually need to use the insurance they've been paying for. In other words, the "COMPETITION" among the healthcare profiteers -- the "COMPETITION" championed by Republicans and centrist Democrats -- is competition to avoid providing the healthcare people pay for! That is why they cannot tolerate a non-profit healthcare option – because in order to "compete" the healthcare profiteers will actually have to make healthcare a priority, which will cut into profits, the generation of which is their sole reason for existing.

This is not to say that the Obama administration and the center-left Democrats have the key to a decent healthcare system.
At best, that remains to be seen. But at least they are not proceeding by shrieking, misinforming scare tactics designed to protect the interests of those who already have the most power.

8.13.2009

Experience and/of/through light

Normal everyday experience is spatiotemporal

Spatiotemporal experience is possible by virtue of light

The character/quality of our experience is to some degree
the character/quality of spacetime, an experience possible by virtue of light

The nature of human experience is rooted in a relation to light

Perhaps not surprisingly, our understanding of light is poor

('Not surprisingly' because the things that are closest,
embedded in everything we do, become so 'natural' as to be invisible.)


The poor state of our understanding of light is manifest in the physicist's conception,
which requires light be both a particle and a wave,
two things that - by definition - cannot be the same thing

We need new thinking about light, a new language of light,
a language that will, ineluctably, alter our experience of spacetime


Rocky Point canoe trail, Upper Klamath Lake

8.01.2009

Deprogramming capitalist temporality -- the 20 Hour Day


Temporality -- the way people exist in time -- is one of the basic frameworks of human reality. Particular temporalities are constituted by particular societies (or, more accurately, sociocultural systems). In other words, the ways a person experiences and practices time will depend on the ways their society constructs time. And just as the continuing existence of society depends on us continually doing 'society' in our everyday lives, temporality does as well – time, like society, is something we actually *do*, and therefore, if we get a good handle on it, it is something we can do differently.

Thus, the way we practice/enact time should be a prominent issue in the democratic discussion of how we should govern ourselves, how we want to organize our societies and everyday lives. For instance, I would advocate, within this politics of time, that a good society will strive to maximize the amount of FREE TIME its members have.

We here in modern Euroamerica practice time the particular way we do *because* it works effectively for capital accumulation. We have and live a hyper-rationalized time where a difference of 1 out of the 1440 minutes that occur every day can make a real difference in a person's life – no wonder we're so stressed out!
(For a bit more more on "capitalist time" and its discontents, see "Boo to Captain Clock.")

My idea is that part of a process of deprogramming ourselves from our corporate capitalist consumer culture is to begin shifting our way of being in time, finding a temporality that is more humanely paced, which is to say, tuned to the rhythm of a democratically-governed everyday life rather than the needs of plutocratic global capital accumulation.

In that spirit, I humbly propose for democratic discussion -- the 20-HOUR DAY.
I propose we endeavor to begin reorganizing our temporality in a more relaxed, enjoyable, humane way by adopting a whole new clock -- a clock that only goes to 10 twice a day (rather than 12), with fifty minutes in an hour and fifty seconds in a minute. Doing the math shows that one second in 'new time' would last for 1.728 seconds in 'old time.' Theoretically, this slower second/minute/hour would eventually structure a more relaxed everyday life. (To help us get there, I would further propose that our 10-hour clocks have no minute marks and no minute hand.) Part of the system could also be that the typical work day is 5 'new hours' (1/4 of the day, so the equivalent of 6 old hours), so that people have more free time. Over time we could try to make the work day even fewer hours so people could have more time to do whatever they enjoy doing when not pressed for time...

7.31.2009

Social value -- democracy versus "the market"

skylight

Since value – how much a thing or activity is worth – necessarily involves social relations, a democratic society has the right to determine value. A democratic society has the right to say that people doing certain kinds of work are particularly valuable or not. A democratic society has the right to say some people will not make thousands of times more money than other people, that no one can be that much more valuable than another to our society, and as a democratic society, we can insist on the right to define our values. There are limits under the Constitution, but they do not encompass anything like capitalism or corporate orchestrated consumer culture. No matter what right wing pundits try to tell you, capitalism and democracy are not the same thing. These right wing opinion leaders desire a society in which there is an elite minority defined by the capital overclass that gets to control everything. They believe that the Constitution defines a society in which there will necessarily be an elite market-based minority. They believe democracy is limited by that basic structure. But there's nothing in the Constitution to which they can point to refute our insistence on democracy, and particularly a democracy of social value. We as a democratic society insist upon the right to define social value, to have thoughtful participation in developing ideas of what is a good life and how we can organize society to best attain it. Conservatives, and capitalists in particular, have to say, at least subtly, that this is the best of all possible worlds or at least that we are on the most direct route to the best of all possible worlds through the capitalist process of commodification. This is an excellent point for debate and public discussion, because it will quickly have the conservatives and the people in power on their heels, and probably reverting to arguments that are basically threats, which would not be surprising because true democracy would undoubtedly threaten their positions of authority and their lives of luxury.

7.29.2009

Arcata Marsh

Arcata, California, is an incredible little city on the Lost Coast in Humboldt County. Among their progressive practices is Arcata Marsh, a reclaimed marsh and wildlife sanctuary that also serves as the city's wastewater treatment plant.




Along the trails of the
Arcata Wastewater Treatment Plant and Wildlife Sanctuary


2.02.2009

from "The Abolition of Work"

Shane's pond, New Orleans

"The official line is that we all have rights and live in a democracy. Other unfortunates who aren't free like we are have to live in police states. These victims obey orders or else, no matter how arbitrary. The authorities keep them under regular surveillance. State bureaucrats control even the smaller details of everyday life. The officials who push them around are answerable only to higher-ups, public or private. Either way, dissent and disobedience are punished. Informers report regularly to the authorities. All this is supposed to be a very bad thing.

"And so it is, although it is nothing but a description of the modern workplace. The liberals and conservatives and Libertarians who lament totalitarianism are phonies and hypocrites. There is more freedom in any moderately de-Stalinized dictatorship than there is in the ordinary American workplace. You find the same sort of hierarchy and discipline in an office or factory as you do in a prison or a monastery. In fact, as Foucault and others have shown, prisons and factories came in at about the same time, and their operators consciously borrowed from each other's control techniques. A worker is a part-time slave. The boss says when to show up, when to leave, and what to do in the meantime. He tells you how much work to do and how fast. He is free to carry his control to humiliating extremes, regulating, if he feels like it, the clothes you wear or how often you go to the bathroom. With a few exceptions he can fire you for any reason, or no reason. He has you spied on by snitches and supervisors, he amasses a dossier on every employee. Talking back is called "insubordination," just as if a worker is a naughty child, and it not only gets you fired, it disqualifies you for unemployment compensation. Without necessarily endorsing it for them either, it is noteworthy that children at home and in school receive much the same treatment, justified in their case by their supposed immaturity. What does this say about their parents and teachers who work?"

Bob Black
, "The Abolition of Work"

12.11.2008

A graphical representation of Sino-American economic relations during the coming period

(mini white guy endeavoring to exhort semi-indifferent Chinese giant)
[click for bigger, more dramatic version]

11.13.2008

RADIO FREE KLAMATH 14.8

RADIO FREE KLAMATH
transmission 14.8
STRANGE NEW LAND
radiowaved on the
frequency modulation band
November 13, 008,
7-9pm
--------------------------------
on
K T E C * 89.5 fm Klamath Falls, Oregon

OIT's freeform station for the Klamath Basin

*** *** ***
CLICK HERE
to open a page where you can
play or download the show
*****************
download
PLAYLIST
*** *** ***

11.06.2008

RADIO FREE KLAMATH 13.8

RADIO FREE KLAMATH
transmission 13.8
atmospheric broadcast on the
frequency modulation band
November 6, 008,
7-9pm
--------------------------------
on
K T E C * 89.5 fm Klamath Falls, Oregon

OIT's freeform station for the Klamath Basin

*** *** ***
CLICK HERE
to open a page where you can
play or download the show
*****************
download
PLAYLIST
*** *** ***

10.24.2008

RADIO FREE KLAMATH 12.8

RADIO FREE KLAMATH
transmission 12.8
radiowaved on the
frequency modulation band
October 23, 008,
7-9pm
--------------------------------
on
K T E C * 89.5 fm Klamath Falls, Oregon
OIT's freeform station for the Klamath Basin

*** *** ***
CLICK HERE
to open a page where you can
play or download the show
*****************
download
PLAYLIST
*** *** ***

10.09.2008

RADIO FREE KLAMATH 11.8

RADIO FREE KLAMATH
transmission 11.8
radiowaved on
October 9, 008,
7-9pm
--------------------------------
on
K T E C * 89.5 fm Klamath Falls, Oregon
OIT's freeform station for the Klamath Basin

*** *** ***
CLICK HERE
to open a page where you can
play or download the show
*****************
download
PLAYLIST
*** *** ***