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.

Trivializing the Harm: Herman Cain and the "Lynching" Metaphor

As accusations of sexual harassment against Herman Cain mount, right-wing pundits have dusted off the "lynching" metaphor as a defense. They claim that Cain is being targeted because he is a black conservative; that the harassment allegations are part of a smear campaign, a "high-tech lynching" by liberal detractors to discredit the presidential candidate. They are channeling the same defense used by Clarence Thomas during his Supreme Court confirmation process, when he was accused of sexual harassment by Anita Hill. By employing the "lynching" metaphor, Cain and his supporters have chosen a politically expedient defense to curtail valid criticism of the presidential hopeful's conduct, and, in the process, have trivialized the true horrors of lynching in America.

Let's put aside the fact that at least five women have now come forward claiming that Cain made improper sexual advances towards them. Let's hold off on the allegation that Cain may have even engaged in inappropriate behavior as recently as last month during a radio interview in Iowa. I want to focus on the appalling "lynching" metaphor. 

The phrase "high-tech lynching" was invoked by Clarence Thomas during his Supreme Court confirmation. Anita Hill accused Thomas of sexually harassing her when the two worked at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. While testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the allegation, Thomas stated, 

This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree (emphasis added). 

When Politico's story on Cain's alleged sexual harassment broke, conservative commentators rushed immediately to his defense. Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and others referred to Thomas and used his "high-tech lynching" metaphor. The pro-Cain political action committee AmericansforHermanCain.com sent out a fundraising message, stating "[j]ust like they did to Clarence Thomas, they are engaging in a 'high tech lynching' by smearing Herman Cain's reputation and character." The letter continues, with poorly-chosen phrasing: "The Left absolutely loses their minds spewing hatred at black conservatives because they know that if the GOP ever breaks the Democrat stranglehold on the black vote, their days are numbered as a party" (emphasis added). 

Cain himself even invoked the metaphor. Before the present controversy began, Cain stated that he "was ready for the same high-tech lynching" that Thomas went through "for the good of this country." After the Politico story ran, Cain was asked whether his situation bore any similarities to Thomas.' Cain responded in the affirmative, stating "[t]here seems to be some similarities... Probably so ...." To round out the narrative of victimization, Cain sat down for an interview with Clarence Thomas' wife, Virginia. 

The "lynching" metaphor serves two purposes: First, it seeks to deflect relevant criticism against public figures. Second, it undermines the tragic nature of actual lynchings when they were prominent in the U.S. Let's focus on the second point. 

Lynchings, murdering someone while a crowd bears witness, were prominent from the period of 1883 to 1941. Amidst a national backdrop of overt racism, white mobs would use lynchings to assert racial supremacy and terrorize African-American communities. These were extrajudicial killings, usually carried out by hanging the victims or burning them at the stake. 

During this period, there were an estimated 4,472 lynchings: About one every four days. Who knows how many killings went unreported. Lynchings were circus-like events. Large crowds gathered to witness the atrocities. People mailed postcards to their their families and friends, called lynch cards, to commemorate the events. Lynch cards were in circulation until 1930, even though they were banned by the postal service in 1908. 

More than 200 anti-lynching laws were proposed during the first half of the 20th century. The House of Representatives passed such bills three times, only to be blocked by Senators from the South. In 2005, The United States Senate apologized for not enacting any laws to ban lynchings. Twenty-five Senators refused to co-sponsor the bill. 

Both Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain have trivialized the harm of lynchings for political expedience and personal gain. They and their supporters invoked the "high-tech lynching" metaphor to deflect criticism and undermine their detractors. Let's never confuse a cheap political talking point with a genuine evil from our nation's past.

A Song for the Morning ...

"Autobahn," by Kraftwerk (live!).

Kim Kardashian and the Work Ethic of the One-Percent

As we've all heard about ad nauseam, Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries are calling it quits after 72 days of marriage. Their wedding has turned out to be a publicity stunt par excellence. The two have earned an estimated $18 million, with Kardashian averaging about $10,000 per hour of matrimony. 

Perhaps Kardashian is just doing her job. She, after all, describes herself as a "business woman." On NPR's "All Things Considered," Hollywood Reporter's Leslie Bruce spoke gushingly of her, calling her a "hustler," who is able to make money even in this economy. 

What exactly is Kim Kardashian's work ethic? She canoodles with famous men, puts the evidence on display, garners extensive media attention, and then receives millions of dollars. Kardashian has achieved fame not because of her hard work, measurable accomplishments, and character. She has become rich and famous as a personality. This is, after all, the diligence that our society rewards. It's not how you become wealthy and well-known, it's whether you do. 

Kardashian is of the same nature as other "job creators" that the One-Percent holds in such high regard: a talentless wretch who provides no discernable contribution to society, yet only seems to get richer and richer. She exemplifies the greed, extravagance, and perversions of justice that form the bases of social unrest. Amidst untold suffering and economic collapse, individuals like Kim Kardashian, with no skill, knowledge or intellect, prosper, while hard-working people fall into poverty. This is what a dead-end economic system produces, and a morally and intellectually bankrupt society adores. People like Kim Kardashian are why citizens have taken to the streets.