A Song To Bring In The New Year ...

Colin Stetson, performing his song 'Judges.' Simply amazing. 

President Obama Signs NDAA, Includes Signing Statement In Opposition To Indefinite Detention Of American Citizens

President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act this afternoon. He included a signing statement that specifically addresses one of the bill's most controversial provisions, which authorizes the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial. Below is the the full text of the President's statement, with the relevant excerpts highlighted. 

Statement by the President on H.R. 1540:

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.

Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are “captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa’ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.

I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa’ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.

My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.

Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch’s processes for reviewing the status of detainees. Going forward, consistent with congressional intent as detailed in the Conference Report, my Administration will interpret section 1024 as granting the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what detainee status determinations in Afghanistan are subject to the requirements of this section.

Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I continue to oppose this provision, which intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation. Removing that tool from the executive branch does not serve our national security. Moreover, this intrusion would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.

Section 1028 modifies but fundamentally maintains unwarranted restrictions on the executive branch’s authority to transfer detainees to a foreign country. This hinders the executive’s ability to carry out its military, national security, and foreign relations activities and like section 1027, would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. The executive branch must have the flexibility to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers. In the event that the statutory restrictions in sections 1027 and 1028 operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will interpret them to avoid the constitutional conflict.

Section 1029 requires that the Attorney General consult with the Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense prior to filing criminal charges against or seeking an indictment of certain individuals. I sign this based on the understanding that apart from detainees held by the military outside of the United States under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, the provision applies only to those individuals who have been determined to be covered persons under section 1022 before the Justice Department files charges or seeks an indictment. Notwithstanding that limitation, this provision represents an intrusion into the functions and prerogatives of the Department of Justice and offends the longstanding legal tradition that decisions regarding criminal prosecutions should be vested with the Attorney General free from outside interference. Moreover, section 1029 could impede flexibility and hinder exigent operational judgments in a manner that damages our security. My Administration will interpret and implement section 1029 in a manner that preserves the operational flexibility of our counterterrorism and law enforcement professionals, limits delays in the investigative process, ensures that critical executive branch functions are not inhibited, and preserves the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice.

Other provisions in this bill above could interfere with my constitutional foreign affairs powers. Section 1244 requires the President to submit a report to the Congress 60 days prior to sharing any U.S. classified ballistic missile defense information with Russia. Section 1244 further specifies that this report include a detailed description of the classified information to be provided. While my Administration intends to keep the Congress fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense, my Administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the President’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications. Other sections pose similar problems. Sections 1231, 1240, 1241, and 1242 could be read to require the disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications and national security secrets; and sections 1235, 1242, and 1245 would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with foreign governments. Like section 1244, should any application of these provisions conflict with my constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as non-binding.

My Administration has worked tirelessly to reform or remove the provisions described above in order to facilitate the enactment of this vital legislation, but certain provisions remain concerning. My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office.

BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE, December 31, 2011.

Where Republicans and Democrats Unite: Stifling Dissident Voices Within Their Own Parties

As GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul surges in the Iowa polls, his rivals have undertaken a concerted attack to ensure his defeat. Paul is certainly being targeted because he has a legitimate chance of winning the Iowa caucus. Yet his opponents aren't simply drawing policy distinctions between themselves and Paul. His opponents have deemed him unelectable. They've denounced his policies as dangerous. Newt Gingrich even questioned whether he would vote for Paul if he in fact won the GOP nomination. Their attacks have become increasingly vicious, and convey the seriousness of the threat that Paul poses to the GOP establishment.

Paul espouses ideas that are firmly rooted in the libertarian philosophy. He doesn't pick and choose his ideology like most of the GOP candidates who favor a mix of laissez-faire economics, broad government intervention into personal matters (marriage, abortion), and unfettered state power for matters involving national security and foreign policy. And that is why Paul poses such a threat to the Republican establishment. He is the only candidate to speak out against imperialism, monopolistic capitalism, and the assault on civil liberties stemming from the 'war on terror.' In other words, he has been fighting against his own party's platform, and the pet issues of its primary supporters.

Thus, Paul's opponents are attempting to marginalize him. The attacks on Paul are actually quite similar to those that the Democratic Party has mounted against liberal voices. Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who has frequently taken stances in opposition to his party, has been attacked by fellow Democrats, stifled as a presidential candidate, and had many of his legislative efforts (like the impeachment of President Bush) tabled by party leaders. As a general matter, voices on the Left have no place in the Democratic party, nor do their ideas receive any recognition from its leaders. Much of the same goes for libertarians within the GOP. Democrats and Republicans in fact operate in a similar manner when it comes to dissident voices within their respective parties. They don't even bother paying lip service to their views for fear of upsetting the real core of influence within the parties: corporate money. 

And that is the real reason that Paul is being bombarded by his own party. He is indeed dangerous. He poses a threat to the traditional power structure of the GOP and the status of its most influential supporters. Paul, like Kucinich, refuses to play by party rules. That is why he is so popular, and also why he will ultimately lose. 

New York Times on Ron Paul ...

News outlets have begun to take a closer look at some of Ron Paul's more controversial views, as well as his associations with, and support from, far-right extremist groups. The New York Times has a nice writeup on Paul. You can read the article here.

American Exceptionalism In An Era Of Human Liberation

 

There is a democratic revolution sweeping the globe. People from Russia, Syria, and other countries have taken to the streets to protest the authoritarian regimes that rule their respective countries. Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya are transitioning to democracy after successfully ousting their ruling dictators. This wave of uprisings promises to liberate millions of people.

The opposite is true in the United States. Americans are once again flirting with electing an openly anti-democratic President. They were fatigued after eight years of authoritarian rule under the Bush administration. They sought, albeit momentarily, to re-establish rule of law and democratic principles that once defined their nation. 

The American people's illiberal tendencies quickly resurfaced, however, after electing Barack Obama in 2008. In 2010, voters ushered in one of the most reactionary Congresses in the nation's history. While apparently suffering from collective amnesia, they elected representatives who ran on platforms that promised to gut the very social policies and legal principles that are necessary to maintain a democracy. And polls show an increasingly tight race between President Obama and one of several frightening Republican presidential candidates. This isn't surprising. These are, after all, the same people who embraced an ideology of fear and re-elected George W. Bush despite his administration's war on civil liberties, human rights, and rule of law, i.e., the "War on Terror."

This is, in fact, the true nature of American Exceptionalism. The term is generally used to describe the U.S. as being fundamentally different, and ultimately superior, to other nations. Its recent political developments have shown the dark side to this idea. While people from other nations are demanding freedom, respect for human rights, democracy, equal distribution of resources, and social programs to ameliorate poverty, Americans are running in the opposite direction. In an era of human liberation, they buck the trend and clamor for oppression.

$469 Billion: How Much Americans Will Spend Shopping During This Holiday Season (and what else you could buy with that much money)

Americans are expected to spend $469 billion shopping this holiday season. This is an astounding figure. For everyone out there who wants to "keep the Christ in Christmas," perhaps it's time for you to channel your outrage toward consumers, and away from people who opt for the phrase 'happy holidays." Are we really worshiping the Lord, who said "[i]f you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven," (Matthew 19:21), or simply worshiping consumption?

In honor of our annual shopping ritual, let's take a look at some other things that we could buy instead:

• $30 billion: Add this to what the world already spends on water safety, and every single person would have access to safe drinking water. Eighty percent of diseases in developing countries are caused by contaminated water. Over 2 million people are killed each year due to the use of contaminated water, most being children under the age of five.  
• $600 million: This would pay for the surgeries of the estimated 2 million women in the developing world who are living with fistulas, an injury that occurs during childbirth in which a hole is created "between the birth passage and an internal organ such as the bladder or rectum." The UNFPA provides a description of the effects of fistulas: "The smell of leaking urine or faeces, or both, is constant and humiliating, often driving loved ones away. Left untreated, fistula can lead to chronic medical problems, including ulcerations, kidney disease, and nerve damage in the legs." If Americans donated one-tenth of 1% of what they spent on holiday shopping this year, we would be able to alleviate much of the suffering these women face.
•  $175 billion per year, for 20 years: In his book "The End of Poverty," economist Jeffrey Sachs estimated that with this amount, we could end extreme poverty in the world. In other words, if Americans spent only $294 billion during the holiday season over the next two decades, nearly one billion people suffering from hunger would have adequate food sources; the estimated 600 million people who survive on less than $1 would see a dramatic improvement in their standards of living. 
•  $496 billion: This figure is admittedly a little more than Americans spend on holiday shopping, but not by much. With this amount, we could pay for every one of the U.S.' safety net programs, such as food stamps, heating assistance, free and reduced price school meals, childcare assistance, low-income housing assistance, earned income tax credits, cash assistance, and unemployment insurance. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimated that these programs "kept approximately 15 million Americans out of poverty in 2005 and reduced the depth of poverty for another 29 million people." And that was before the recession hit.  

In other words, it's safe to say that our money could be better spent, and spent in a manner that honors the spirit of Christmas.

Syrian Massacre: With Violence Increasing, Security Council Must Act

More than 200 people have been killed in Syria over the last two days, many of them reportedly army defectors. The UN estimates that at least 5,000 people have been killed since protests against the Assad regime began. Arab League observers are expected to arrive in the country shortly to monitor the situation. Protesters are, however, skeptical that their presence will have much of an effect.

The Assad government has responded to popular uprisings by engaging in violent and systematic attacks against its population, and using state sovereignty to shield itself from accountability. It is time for the UN Security Council to take action. The council has a duty to maintain peace and security. It can no longer stand by idly as the Syrian people are killed. If strong and unified action isn't taken immediately, the violence while continue to escalate.

A potential solution is for the Security Council to deploy a peacekeeping force to quell the violence. The Syrian government (and presumably the opposition) would have to consent to the peacekeepers' presence. This wouldn't be unprecedented, as a peacekeeping force, the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF), has been in Syria since 1974 to maintain the peace and supervise the disengagement between Syria and Israel in the Golan Heights.

At bottom, peacekeepers are used to protect and promote human rights. These are the very rights that the Syrian protesters are trying to exercise, and the Assad regime is trying to suppress. If the Security Council does indeed take action, it should strongly consider deploying a peacekeeping operation to prevent the situation in Syria from deteriorating further.

A Song for the Evening ...

'Harlem Streets,' by Immortal Technique. The late Roc Raida on the cut.

And Now He's Dead ...

Kim Jong-il, North Korea's "Dear Leader," has died of a massive heart attack. He is said to have been 69 years old, though there's some debate as to his actual age.

Kim has been the country's leader since 1994. He assumed the position upon his father Kim Il-sung's death, who led the country since its founding in 1948. Kim Il-sung remains North Korea's "Eternal President."

Kim oversaw one of the world's most oppressive governments. He, like his father, devoted most of the state's resources to military spending (North Korea has the fifth largest military in the world, one of the worst human rights records. The two are inextricably linked). The country's military-first policy continued even as famine spread throughout the country during the 90's. An estimated two million people died as a result.

Hundreds of thousands of North Koreans are locked up in prisons. Tens of thousands are held in concentration camps. They are subjected to continuous propaganda from state-run media, and live amidst a climate of fear. These elements aid in perpetuating the cult of personality cultivated by Kim Il-sung and continued by Kim Jong-il.

North Korea is a fascinating country, both because of its isolation to the rest of the world and the oppressive conditions its people endure. I am hopeful, but not optimistic, that Kim's death will afford the people of North Korea an opportunity to bring an end to their suffering.

Below is a video of the country's odd, yet awe-inspiring, Arirang Festival.

.

Film the Police ...

In light of militarized police forces' crackdowns on the Occupy movement, Sage Francis and company present a timely rendition of NWA's "Fuck tha Police."

A Song for the Evening ...

Bjork, performing 'Unison' at the Royal Opera House in London.

OWS and the Class Divide

Occupy protesters gather to disrupt Port of Oakland (LA Times)

If you're a victim of the "Great Recession," you've likely received many words of encouragement from family, friends, and acquaintances. Their words are both sincere and well-intentioned. You can't help but notice, however, the disconnect between yourself and those with relatively good fortune who offer encouragement. If you've been participating in Occupy events as a means to redress your grievances, you may have sensed a similar disconnect between yourself and the more affluent (and perhaps relatively unengaged) supporters of the movement. Your suffering, as well as your actions in protest of such suffering, seems little more than an abstraction to most.

The Occupy protests are not theater, nor are the general assemblies mere academic exercises. If you're a part of this collective, you understand that. You have the benefit, if you can even call it that, of being on the ground. Occupy movements are emerging throughout the country in response to the grim reality that more and more people are facing. The Occupation is, at this particular moment, a movement of solidarity to which very few can relate. Yet as the transformation of the economy nears completion, that will begin to change. The class of persons affected by the economic injustice inherent in American capitalism will expand. The misery will spread. 

For the victims, hardship infects every aspect of life. Relationships are poisoned. Sustenance overshadows all else. Millions are arrested by the tyranny of the moment. Words of encouragement are of no particular use. They can even invoke hostility. Telling someone who has exhausted every option to improve his or her situation to "hang in there" isn't very comforting. Yet now, because of OWS and its progeny, people have an outlet to demand justice with others who share a common experience.

The concept of solidarity within mass movements presents difficulties. People who are engaging in a struggle need others to recognize and support them. At the same time, people co-opt movements for reasons unrelated to the original core principles. This was common during the anti-war movement of the 1960's, where some used the protests as an outlet for self-expression (a theater of the self) while ignoring the underlying purposes of the demonstrations. A similar phenomenon is happening with Occupy Wall Street.

Let's face it: class shapes our experiences and affects our understanding and perceptions of others. For those who are unemployed or have lost their homes - some of your fellow protesters don't really know what you're going through, but their support is both sincere and vital to the movement's success. And for those who go to an Occupy event every now and then, but can go home at night and have a job waiting for you in the morning - understand that however much you support your fellow protesters, you are not necessarily in the same boat.

We must empathize with each other and work to bridge the class divides that exist within the Occupy Movement. Our different life experiences can strengthen the movement, but only if we understand and appreciate that diversity.

A Basic Premise of Democratic Governance, Lost

 

For a democracy to function properly, the people must be armed with information. Governments must operate openly and disseminate accurate information to the public. Politicians must truthfully articulate their policy stances, and base them on reason and fact. We are no longer afforded these requirements which are necessary to sustain a democratic system of government.

The problem isn't that politicians lie. It's that they (usually) don't. They articulate ideas and arguments that can be neither proved nor disproved. They've basically adapted the advertising model to politics. The people are left to decide not which politician is telling the truth, but which politician sounded most authentic, which presidential candidate looked more "presidential." During post-debate analyses, pundits rarely consider which candidates' claims were true. They examine who was more convincing. Our closed political system enables, indeed demands, such a conversation. 

Newt Gingrich's ascendency to the GOP presidential nomination perfectly illustrates this phenomenon. Gingrich, who George Will described as "the classic rental politician," maintains loyalty only to power. His stances on issues are at best schizophrenic, at worst for sale to the highest bidder. Yet, at this particular moment, he is winning the audition to be the GOP nominee. His truthfulness is irrelevant. He is the most authentic character of the nomination reality show. 

The problem of fact-less politics is now systemic. To reverse this trend, the public must take to the streets and turn to the polls with a basic demand of information. But until then, let's see who gets voted off the island next.

A Song for the Evening ...

tUnE-yArDs' 'Bizness'

 

Coming Up on Last Throes ...

I've been very interested in class and socioeconomic diversity lately. I'm preparing a couple pieces centered around this topic. Stay tuned.

A Song for the Evening: The Blues ...

Albert King and Stevie Ray Vaughan, performing "Born Under a Bad Sign."

On Tim Tebow, Cultural Imperialism and the Cult of Victimization

You may have heard of Tim Tebow. He's a jack of all trades: NFL quarterback, anti-abortion crusader, abstinence advocate, and Christian missionary. He's a high profile figure who has received as much attention for his social views as his athletic performance. Pundits have rushed to Tebow's defense amidst a media frenzy that has included some pointed criticism of the athlete. Yet in doing so, they are simply perpetuating the self-serving narrative of persecution that Tebow and members of the Christian Right so desperately seek. They yearn to be the "victims" of religious persecution, and use it as a means to assert their purported moral superiority.

Tebow has certainly been under intense scrutiny recently. Sports journalists have critiqued him because of his quarterback play. He runs an unorthodox option offense specifically tailored to his skills, due to the fact that he can run but cannot pass. Tebow has also been mocked because of his displays of faith on the field. While he no longer prints Bible verses on his eye black, he continually drops to one knee in prayer during games. This ritual has been coined “Tebowing,” and has been parodied on YouTube and other sites.

In response to the negative coverage he has been receiving, sports pundits have issued some impassioned defenses of Tebow. Many have done so in an over-the-top fashion. One ESPN commentator claimed that Tebow is a victim of reverse racism, as if there were such a thing (note: discrimination based on race is simply racism). Another claimed that people don't like him because he is setting a moral standard that is so great as to be unattainable to ordinary people. In a recent column, an ESPN contributor asked "What if Tim Tebow were Black?" Not to be outdone, a columnist from Fox Sports put forth the question, "What if Tim Tebow were Muslim?"

When asked about the criticism, Tebow says that even though it hurts, it also provides him motivation to prove his detractors wrong. This type of reaction is pretty common among Christian conservatives. They thrive on perceived victimization. Tebow is no different. He brings scorn and ridicule upon himself. He hams it up on the field with theatrical displays of his religious convictions. He advocates extreme positions on morality. Whether it be legitimate criticism of his athletic performance, opposition to his social views, or mere ribbing through internet memes, it all stems, according to Tebow's supporters, from religious intolerance. Lest they be branded as anti-Christian, pundits rush to Tebow's defense with sensationalistic articles. In Tebow's case, the transformation of the narrative is now complete. His detestable social views have been given further legitimacy. People who dare criticize him will be swarmed. It is all part of evangelical conservatives' method of exerting moral superiority over the “others.”

Tebow's sense of moral superiority, or in the following instance cultural imperialism, was evident during a trip he took to do some missionary work in the Philippines. While at his father's orphanage, Tebow, who is neither a doctor nor a surgeon, performed circumcisions on children. Said Tebow of the experience,

The first time, it was nerve-racking. Hands were shaking a little bit. I mean, I'm cutting somebody. You can't do those kinds of things in the United States. But those people really needed the surgeries. We needed to help them.

Tebow's father enjoyed observing his son perform the surgeries, saying,

I got a kick watching him. He did a great job, and he didn't look really nervous. I wouldn't let him cut on me, but he did well and helped where there was a need.

In other words, while Tebow's father wouldn't let his son operate on him, it was fine if he did so on the “others.” Thus, “Dr. Tebow” performed surgeries, without regard for the ethicality or legality of doing so. Such an act is, after all, a logical extension of most missionary work: bringing superior western values to the savage natives. The Tebows' callous disregard for the well-being of the Filipino children is rooted in cultural imperialism. It pervades Christian conservatives' world views. All of their actions are founded upon a basic dynamic of self-righteousness.

Because of his fame, Tebow has been given opportunities unavailable to most people. He and his mother starred in an anti-choice commercial, sponsored by Focus on the Family, that aired during the Super Bowl. CBS ran the commercial (which may have been based on a dubious account) after reversing its longstanding ban on advocacy ads. CBS had previously denied submissions from liberal advocacy groups, including an ad from the University Church of Christ in which it welcomed members of the LGBT community to attend their church. 

From unprecedented media access, operating an international missionary organization, to achieving the starting role as the Denver Broncos quarterback, Tebow and his family are no strangers to privilege and preferential treatment. Nonetheless, he is still cast as the victim.

Tebow's actions are intended to draw the ire of sports fans and commentators. He injects himself into debates over controversial issues. He engages in ostentatious displays of faith on the field. And when he is inevitably criticized by some, he and his supporters deploy the persecution narrative. It is through this account that he can claim the moral high ground. It is a ploy. A man who is rich, famous, and awarded special favor still wants to be the victim. He wants to continue the narrative that virtually every Christian conservative seeks to write for themselves. It is a cult of victimization.

Tim Tebow doesn't deserve any of our sympathy. He, in fact, doesn't deserve much of our attention at all. He's just another religious zealot, albeit with a higher profile, trolling for attention. He wants people to criticize him. He yearns to be "persecuted." And, so far, we're giving him exactly what he wants.

A Song for the Evening: Bob Marley's "Natural Mystic"

 

Black Friday: Sticker Prices Don't Reflect True Costs of Unbridled Consumption

Shoppers have now been scavenging the shelves of big-box stores for hours. It is, after all, the yearly spectacle of Black Friday. While Americans brave the crowds in search of the best deals, let's look at some the realities behind this consumptive free-for-all.

In the frenzy of the day, people are gobbling up crap without regard to whether they need it or not. They are consuming for the sake of consumption, and satisfying pseudo-needs. It's a testament to the triumph of advertising, and the all-encompassing nature of corporate power. Americans are eagerly parting with their hard-earned money, enriching miscreant corporate entities in exchange for worthless items. It's a voluntary and inequitable transfer of wealth. Perhaps Steve Jobs summed it up best when he said, "[a] lot of times, people don't know what they want until you show it to them." It's a deeply disturbing fact that many Americans now achieve fulfillment through the accumulation of consumer goods.

By participating in Black Friday, shoppers are implicitly accepting exploitative labor practices that maximize profits at workers' expense. In the US, many employees had to leave their families, or forgo celebrating Thanksgiving altogether, to work their Black Friday shifts. These employees probably have no health insurance; work for substandard wages; qualify for food stamps and other governmental assistance; and, as at-will employees, can be fired at any time, for no reason.

Our appetite for cheap consumer goods has accelerated the global race to the bottom. US-based multinational corporations operate slave-labor manufacturing facilities in developing countries to meet America's consumptive needs. Servitude in dangerous facilities: the secret of success for the modern corporation, and the reason for our low, low prices.

Our rampant consumption is also contributing to the climate crisis. It's consumption by western nations, most notably the US, that is the driving force of climate change. Seven percent of the world's population is responsible for half of all carbon emissions. Black Friday stands as a monument to America's voracious appetite for stuff, and illustrates why America's carbon footprint is so much higher than the rest of the world's.

Consider these things next time you go shopping. The price of consumer goods is actually much higher than advertised.

A Protest Song: Junior Murvin's "Police and Thieves."

Written in response to the violence that plagued Jamaica's politics in the 1970's.

On the Super Committee, Media Objectivity and the Quest for Novelty

It is only a short step from exaggerating what we can find in the world to exaggerating our power to remake the world. Expecting more novelty than there is, more greatness than there is, and more strangeness than there is, we imagine ourselves masters of a plastic universe. But a world we can shape to our will - or to our extravagant expectations - is a shapeless world. 

-Daniel Boorstin, "The Image" 

Sometimes there is less to a debate or controversy than is presented. There may, in fact, be only one viewpoint to a particular issue that merits attention. Unfortunately, the U.S. media seeks to make politics more novel than it really is. In its quest to report stories within the Left versus Right framework, what it sees as "objectivity," facts are generally the first casualty.

Through the lens of the mainstream media, there are always two sides to an argument, and both are of equal value. If one side asserts an absolute truth, it isn't reported as such: it's simply one side of the debate. The other side can put forth an opposing, and utterly false, claim. Yet it is given equal weight, because it is from the opposing side, and therefore must be reported to maintain objectivity. And that is the state of journalism in America. For balanced and objective reporting, you must find that other side. Through this process, the media has helped to create a malleable and fact-less world. The truth is, as presented, always somewhere in the middle, no matter the validity of the opposing viewpoints.

The media's coverage of the congressional "Super Committee's" failure is a perfect example of fact-less reporting. Based on the reports from major media outlets, one would think that the committee failed because of both sides' intransigence. Policies based on reasoning and evidence versus policies based on extreme ideology; both equally valid positions; both sides equally to blame for the committee's failure. Shame on both of them for their partisan bickering.

But this is simply not the case. Democrats have put forth proposals that, while far from ideal, are actually based on sound economic data. Case in point: they want to create new revenue by eliminating tax breaks for the wealthiest people (both human and juridical) in the country. Republicans, on the other hand, are unwilling to compromise, and have presented proposals based not on credible evidence, but a rigid and extreme economic ideology. They advocate the familiar platform of tax cuts for the wealthy, cuts to social programs and sweeping deregulation. Their proposals would do nothing to alleviate the country's most urgent problems: extreme poverty, long-term unemployment, and rising income inequality. They would simply have us continue on our current trajectory, and expedite the consolidation of wealth (and, by extension, power) into the hands of the very few. Republicans' policies are making this country utterly unlivable for the vast majority of the population. But, according to the media, that's just one competing, and totally acceptable, side to a contentious debate.

Republicans' counterfactual assertions are given equal weight as the claims of individuals who happen to come to the exact opposite conclusions based on reasoning and evidence, rather than hollow ideology. The major U.S. media outlets seem allergic to citing valid economic data when assessing the claims of lawmakers. It would, after all, compromise the narrative.

In the political realm, virtually everything remains a fact because it has been spoken by someone in power. Thus, the media submits its "objective" account: the Super Committee failed; both sides put forth valid proposals; but both sides were unwilling to budge; and both sides now share equal blame for their failure to strike a deal.

Major media outlets cling to this "balanced" method of reporting to the detriment of facts. They omit the truth to maintain the integrity of their method of coverage, rather than the integrity of their actual work. They seek more novelty within a story than there actually is. And, as a result, we are left with a perverted notion of objectivity, and unable to discern truths from falsehoods in most mainstream reporting. 

A Song for the Evening ...

David Byrne and Brian Eno's "Everything that Happens."

Proposition 8 and Justice Kennedy's Legacy

Proponents of Proposition 8 gained an important victory this week. The California Supreme Court ruled that they have standing to appeal a U.S. District Court's decision which ruled that the ballot measure banning same-sex marriage violated the due process and equal protection rights of same-sex couples. California state officials have declined to defend Prop 8, but now its supporters can. 

The case, Perry v. Brown, is now headed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and potentially the U.S. Supreme Court. And, contrary to what our better instincts would have us believe, a major victory for the LGBT community at the highest court is quite possible. The Perry case could be the defining moment for one of the Court's greatest proponents of gay and lesbian rights: Justice Anthony Kennedy. 

 

Justice Kennedy wrote the majority decisions for two landmark civil rights cases involving state laws  that singled out gays and lesbians, Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas. And in both instances the Court ruled against the states.

The Romer case concerned an amendment to the Colorado state constitution, known as Amendment 2, which was passed by statewide referendum. The amendment eliminated all laws preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation. Furthermore, no Colorado governmental entity could take any action to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation before first amending the state constitution to permit such action (generally-applicable statutes were permissible). Amendment 2 effectively denied gays and lesbians access to the legislative process as a means to ensuring their protection from discrimination. 

 

The state of Colorado argued that Amendment 2 put “gays and lesbians in the same position as all other persons.” Justice Kennedy rebutted this argument, stating, 

 

Homosexuals, by state decree, are put in a solitary class with respect to transactions and relations in both the private and governmental spheres. The amendment withdraws from homosexuals, but no others, specific legal protection from the injuries caused by discrimination, and it forbids reinstatement of these laws and policies.

It's not difficult to see the Court making a similar argument in the Perry case regarding Proposition 8. 

Kennedy also addressed the state's arguments that Amendment 2 merely took away gay and lesbians' “special status” under the law. He stated, 

 

[W]e cannot accept the view that Amendment 2’s prohibition on specific legal protections does no more than deprive homosexuals of special rights. To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability upon those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint . . . . These are protections taken for granted by most people either because they already have them or do not need them; these are protections against exclusion from an almost limitless number of transactions and endeavors that constitute ordinary civic life in a free society.

The Court struck down Amendment 2 under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It applied rational basis, the lowest standard of scrutiny, to the non-suspect class of plaintiffs discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation (as opposed to a suspect class or quasi-suspect class, in which the Court would have applied strict or intermediate scrutiny, respectively). This is an important point of the case: Colorado's ballot measure failed even the lowest level of scrutiny applied by the Court. The Court found that Amendment 2 bore no rational relation to any legitimate government purpose. Kennedy stated,

Amendment 2 confounds this normal process of judicial review. It is at once too narrow and too broad. It identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board. The resulting disqualification of a class of persons from the right to seek specific protection from the law is unprecedented in our jurisprudence.

Thus, Kennedy wrote a remarkable decision in Romer v. Evans, in which the Court sided against state action “born of animosity toward the class that it affects.”

Kennedy also wrote the majority decision in Lawrence v. Texas. Prior to Lawrence, the Supreme Court had upheld a Georgia statute which criminalized sodomy in Bowers v. Hardwick. In Bowers, the Court framed the issue as “whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy and hence invalidates the laws of the many States that still make such conduct illegal and have done so for a very long time.” The Court found that “to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition' or 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty' is, at best, facetious.” It found, under rational basis review, that the state's interest in promoting “morality” was a legitimate one.

The Court revisited the issue of laws prohibiting sodomy in Lawrence v. Texas. The law at issue in Lawrence was a Texas statute that made it “a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct.” Because the lower court cited Bowers in upholding Texas' law, the Supreme Court also considered the holding in that case.

Kennedy framed the issue in Lawrence in a very different manner than the Court did in Bowers. It was not, as the Bowers Court stated, “whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy.” Kennedy framed the issue as “whether petitioners were free as adults to engage in private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause.”

Kennedy put forth an impassioned defense of private consensual sexual conduct. He spoke not of fundamental rights or equal protection, but of liberty. “When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.”

Kennedy looked to prior case law, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, and used language that should be pretty encouraging to opponents of Proposition 8 given the context in which it was used. Kennedy writes “[t]he Casey decision again confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education.” He then quotes the following passage from Casey:

These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State."

The Court in Lawrence overturned Bowers and held that “[petitioners’] right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.”

If Perry reaches the Supreme Court, which it seems all but certain to, Justice Kennedy will likely cast the deciding vote and write for the majority. Furthermore, he could very well define his legacy with this case. And, considering his opinions from previous decisions involving LGBT rights, don't be surprised if he sides again with liberty. 

My homemade logo ...

Made with a printer, paper, glue and scissors.

Forget Population Growth: Unfettered Consumption is Killing the Planet

Traffic in Lagos, Nigeria. Nigeria is the 8th most populous country in the world.

Much attention has been paid as of late to the world's growing population. According to the United Nations, the global human population is on the verge of surpassing seven billion people. We inch closer to this milestone amidst some very troubling environmental trends. In 2010, CO2 emissions reached record levels. All hopes of limiting the global temperature increase to 2°C have been dashed, as little headway towards an international climate accord has been made and investments in alternative energy projects by western nations have slowed. 

Prominent individuals like Al Gore, Ted Turner, and Paul Ehrlich have advocated stabilizing the global population as a way to curb CO2 emissions. A focus on overpopulation as a way to address climate change, however, is misplaced. There are valid reasons to address population growth: preserving forests and wildlife habitat; empowering women; and warding of the rapid depletion of natural resources. The world's growing population has certainly had an effect on our ecosystem. Yet its role in the climate crisis is minor when compared to other causes.


In its recent report, the United Nations Population Fund estimated that curbing population growth would yield less than one-fifth of the emission reductions necessary by 2050, to avoid irreversible and catastrophic climate change. It found that "even if zero population growth were achieved, that would barely touch the climate problem—where we would need to cut emissions by 50 per cent to 80 per cent by mid-century . . . ." 

The real problem isn't population growth. It's consumption.

Population growth is occurring primarily in developing countries, where poverty is high and per capita CO2 emissions are low. Per capita emissions estimate the carbon dioxide emissions from consumption and fossil fuel use. According to the UN, the top-three countries with the highest population growth rates are Liberia, Burundi, Afghanistan. Their respective per capita emissions are 0.2, 0.0, and 0.0. The United States,' whose population growth is low and slowing,  is 19.3. 

Heavily-consuming countries like the U.S. emit far more CO2 emissions on a per capita basis than countries with high rates of population growth. Their per capita emissions also greatly exceed the most populated countries. China is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases. It is also the most populous country in the world with 1.3 billion people. The United States is the second-largest polluter, yet has only 300 million people. Per capita, the average American's carbon footprint is four times that of a Chinese citizen. Compared to India, the world's second-most populous country with 1.2 billion people (and a distant fourth on total emissions), the U.S.' per capita emissions are fifteen times as much.

People from the U.S. and other western nations are simply veracious consumers of everything, and a much more environmentally-destructive force compared to people from virtually every other country in the world. Stephen Pacala, director of the Princeton Environment Institute, calculated that the richest half-billion people in the world, just 7% of the global population, are responsible for half of all carbon emissions. Conversely, the UN found that the poorest one billion people on earth constitute just 3% of all emissions. 

In its report, the UNFPA stated that "[s]ustaining the life of the average American takes 9.5 hectares of the earth’s space, compared to 2.7 hectares for the average person worldwide, and only about one hectare for the average person in India and most of Africa." The report quotes the Global Footprint Network, which states that "[i]f everyone lived the lifestyle of the average American, we would need five planets . . . .”

There is also a strong correlation between lower birth rates and rising affluence, which leads to more consumption. Slowing population growth may, in fact, result in more CO2 emissions. 

In America, the "green" movement is a ruse which requires no sacrifice on behalf of businesses and citizens, and has created no discernible impact on reducing emissions. Instead of changing our consumptive habits, we simply buy the "eco-friendly" product and call it a day. Our fears of climate change (for those who believe in it) have been assuaged. We continue to consume unrestrained, while businesses operate as usual and seek rollbacks in environmental regulations. As many in the U.S. begin pointing to population numbers as the cause for climate change, they do so irrespective of fact, and to absolve themselves from any responsibility for the crisis or obligation to change. 

When we consider solutions for climate change, if in fact we still have time to act, let's not be distracted by people who are essentially blaming the poor for our environmental crisis. If a small percentage of the global population refuses to change their consumptive ways, we're doomed no matter how many of us there are. 

Coming up on Last Throes ...

A piece on population, consumption and the environment. In the meanwhile, enjoy a song from The Temptations. Now that's like nine cans of shaving powder, funky.

Some Thoughts on Atlas Sound's New Album, Parallax.

Deerhunter frontman Bradford Cox's latest album under his solo monicker, Atlas Sound, was released this week. The album is quite remarkable, and highly recommended. While the two albums have little in common, Parallax represents a significant evolution for Atlas Sound, much like Halcyon Digest did from previous Deerhunter releases. 

As was the case with "Logos" and "Let the Blind Lead Those Who Can See But Cannot Feel," Parallax is still layered in sound and ambient textures. Cox, however, infuses more pop melodies while forgoing some of the raw experimentation that accompanied his previous releases. Parallax is thus a more unified work, rather than a collage of sound.

Here, from the new album, is Amplifiers.

A Song to Accompany Today's Post ...

Strange Fruit, by Billie Holiday. This song is based on the poem by Abel Meeropol, which was inspired by the lynching of two men in Marion, Indiana. 

Southern trees bear strange fruit

Blood on the leaves and blood at the root

Black body swinging in the southern breeze

Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees.

Pastoral scene of the gallant south

The bulging eyes and the twisted mouth

Scent of magnolia sweet and fresh
Then the sudden smell of burning flesh!

Here is fruit for the crows to pluck

For the rain to gather, for the wind to suck
For the sun to rot, for the trees to drop
Here is a strange and bitter crop.