The Leaves Are Calling

• 

The Leaves Are Calling

It is fall here in the Northeast. The leaves are ochre, fire, and burnt orangello. Soon, they will all be on the ground for yours truly, MMC, to rake and haul to the dump. Ahh, the beauty of nature! But alas, it has been a while since my last scintillating entry, so here, for your reading pleasure, is a list of books that I am now reading (I try to read as many books concurently, as is humanly possible, so as to ensure that I am unable to remember the contents of any and to guarantee that I finish none of them.)

Understanding Early Civilizations, Bruce Trigger

No Contest--The Case Against Competition, Alfie Kohn

After Postmodernism: An Introduction to Critical Realism, Gary Potter and Jose Lopez

The Essential Guide to the New Adolescence, Ava Siegler

You may wish for a comment on these, but this will have to wait for another, subsequent, entry. The leaves are calling.

Invisible Dog with Happy Family

What's Bugging Me?
(see entry below)

What Was Bugging Early Humans???

"New research showing that lice evolve with the people they infest demonstrates that a now-extinct species of human, Homo erectus, came into direct contact with modern humans, Homo sapiens. That contact happened as recently as 25,000 years ago. Evidence of contact between the two species of humans is surprising, scientists say, because researchers long had thought that Homo erectus became extinct hundreds of thousands of years ago."
Click on the title above, "What Was Bugging Early Humans?" for the link to the article

"The Night In Which All Cows Are Black"--GFW Hegel The Phenomenology of Mind--Preface.

"Moo Moo Camus Launch--An Uproarious Success"

"A Land Mark in Web publishing history" L.A. Times

"Any reader who has not availed themselves of the ingenious and arresting Moo Moo Camus Blog is certainly in for a BIG bovine treat!" Denver Post

"Let no one dare call it COWardice!" National Inquirer

"Whoever writes that thing is in some deep, deep s--t!" George W. Bush, Unpublished

"Most important publishing event since that nice Mr. William Caxton invented movable type." Publishers Weekly

Offspring in the Tetons

Plato’s Republic, Horkheimer’s America

Ever since Plato’s Republic and the Allegory of the Cave, (and probably long before that) humans have limned the disparities between appearance and reality. In Plato’s cave, the poor denizens are forced to view a dim refraction of reality upon the cave wall , cast by a fire which blazes behind their backs. There, they remain in chains, waiting for something-- I suspect, if I know Plato, that it is philosophy--- to set them free. "Good luck," we bid to the unfortunate occupants of the cave. Regrettably, those chains look stronger than mere philosophy.

In Plato’s cave, if I understand it correctly, humans merely perceive the shadows of real objects as these appear on the wall, manipulated by puppeteers. Reality, (the true, the good) in fact, operates behind the cave dwellers’ backs. The tragedy of this state is, of course, that cave dwellers don’t directly perceive reality; they see only the faint shadows. (On the more up-beat side, however, one can say, "Well, at least they have eyes and they are able to see something!" Hope springs eternal in the heart of the irrepressible optimist.)
I am convinced however, that in the contemporary period, the shadows on the cave wall are darker and more malicious than those suggested by Plato. There are ever increasingly potent and malevolent forces at work in the political and cultural "atmosphere," of late imperial America (or as I have long termed it, Imperial America, of late.) Increasingly ours has become a managed, regulated, and narrowly partisan culture. False consciousness abounds. (This is, of course, no news especially to our friends in the Frankfurt school, who explored much of this territory more than 50-60 years ago.) But my concern is that Adorno and Horkheimer, although through no fault of their own, may have woefully under-estimated the depth of the penetration by the culture industry into the daily life of the common folk. The media (the Entertainment-Industrial Complex) now frame so much of our world view, and direct us to think and feel in a constricted vocabulary that prevents almost any criticism of the way things are. (Thank you, Herbert Marcuse) And of course these cultural forces --Fox, CNBC, the NY Times, Disney, et al---are interested primarily in securing a populace hyper-attuned to consumerism, and obsessed with the trivia of People magazine and Hollywood movie culture (the latter, of course, are literally images projected on an opposing "cave" wall.)

Consequently, folks nowfind themselves immersed in an electronic, media-saturated civilization, bereft of any anchor or compass with which to orient themselves, awash—although by no fault of their own-- in the ideology of winner- take-all possessive individualism and market uberalis. How can it not be difficult for most to locate the most rudimentary means with which to formulate questions about what is really true about the world and how it works. Thus appearance, far too often, has become "reality." And ideology is "lived," not thought.

"Real news is the news we need to protect our freedoms.You get tabloid news, you get blood-and-guts news, you get news shot through with a self-glorifying facade of patriotism, but people have to sift too much for the news that we need to protect our freedoms. It should be gloriously presented to the people on a nightly basis. The loss of some of the soberness and seriousness of those institutions has had a devastating effect uponpeople's ability to respond to the events of the day." --Bruce Springsteen, Rolling Stone September 22, 2004

I am, rather sadly, convinced not just that social reality is other than it seems, a mere refraction, but that it is the OPPOSITE of what it appears. Peace is thus War. Occupation, liberation. Democracy, administered plutocracy.

Thus Spake Moo Moo Camus

Yellowstone, August, 2004.

Ok. This picture was snapped by a fellow tourist while we were visiting Yellowstone, in August. So there we are, or there we were, captured as a complete nuclear family. Or ,as our Commander in Chief might say, a "nukelar" family.

The charming details of our visit to Yellowstone are to be found in the prior post, below. See "How I Spent My Summer Vacation." (All similarities to anyone living or dead, purely coincidental)

How I Spent My Summer Vacation

Who is that masked man?

We recenlty returned from our vacation in Moose country. It was ahhh, shall we say, Moosey. And Beautiful. Extraordinarily beautiful. We stayed in the Grand Tetons for a few days, and then in Yellowstone. The Tetons, through which I was compelled by my lovely wife to march on a number of almost entirely up-hill, family hikes, look like the Alps. Only taller. Ahh, I love nature. (Especially when viewed from the comfort and convenience of an air conditioned SUV.) While in the Tetons, we not only hiked, we rode horses (see above picture for documentary evidence) and did a float trip down the Snake River. ("Once ... in the wilds of Whyoming, I lost my corkscrew, and we were forced to live on nothing but food and water, for days." W.C. Fields) During our trip we saw lots of Bison and even a gray wolf. Hannah, was very excited. We did not, however, see any bears, which was an immeasurable relief to me. As far as I am concerned, all bears should be of the cute, inanimate overstuffed kind that Teddy Roosevelt made popular and that are frequently dragged around by small children.

In Yellowstone, we saw Old Faithful and a bunch of other geothermal oddities, which apparently make Yellowstone one of the most-visited National Parks in America. (I, personally, observed a number of Japanese and German tourists, ooohing and ahhing at the site of bubbling mud and malodorous hot gases.) Despite the irrepressible excitement that accompanies one's observation of the earth's escaping H2S gas, I couldn't wait to get back to the hotel for a lovely mid-afternoon nap. Just call me "Mr. Natural."

Parapraxes--A Case in Point

"Let me put it to you bluntly. In a changing world, we want more people to have control over your own life." George W. Bush

Sometimes, thank goodness, the powers that be actually speak the unvarnished Truth. Their real goals and intentions are revealed, for all to see. This, of course, is entirely unintentional. Freud would be proud.

The Big Picture Ain't That Pretty at All

"Neo Liberalism and the World Economy," by David Held

" With every other justification for the invasion of Iraq discredited, President Bush has increasingly resorted to the argument that at least Iraq is free. "Freedom,"he says, "is the Almighty's gift to every man and womanin this world" and "as the greatest power on earth we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom."But, as Matthew Arnold long ago argued, "freedom is agreat horse to ride but to ride somewhere." So whereare the Iraqis supposed to ride their horse of freedom? The US answer was spelled out in September 2003, whenPaul Bremer, head of the Coalition ProvisionalAuthority, promulgated decrees that included the fullprivatization of the economy, full ownership rights byforeign firms of Iraqi businesses, the right of foreignfirms to take profits abroad and the elimination ofnearly all trade barriers. The orders applied to allareas of the economy, including public services,banking and finance, the media, manufacturing,services, transportation and construction. Only oil wa exempt. A regressive tax system much in favor with conservatives in the US known as "the flat tax" was also imposed. The right to strike was outlawed and unionization banned in key sectors. This amounts to the imposition of a particular kind of state apparatus - called neo-liberal - on Iraq. Interestingly, the first case of neo-liberalizationoccurred thirty years earlier in Chile. In the wake ofa violent US supported coup by General Pinochet againstthe democratically elected Salvador Allende inSeptember 1973, US economic advisors espousing the neo-liberal doctrines of Milton Friedmann went to Chile tohelp set up an almost identical state structure to thatnow decreed for Iraq. The era that separates the violence in Chile and Iraqhas seen the creation of neo-liberal states -capitalist dream regimes as the Economist calls them -all around the world by mixes of coercion and consent.Britain's Margaret Thatcher was the first world leaderfreely to embrace free-market fundamentalism whenelected in the spring of 1979. She attacked tradeunion power, diminished the welfare state and reducedtaxes. She sought privatization, to liberateentrepreneurial energies, and argued that social well-being depended upon personal responsibility and not thestate. "There is no such thing as society," shefamously said, "only individuals and their families."She accomplished all this by democratic means."Economics are the method," she said, "but the objectis to change the soul." And change it she did. In the fall of 1979, Paul Volcker, then Chair of theFederal Reserve under President Carter, shifted thetarget of monetary policy in the US from fullemployment to curbing inflation. He raised interestrates to a very high level and plunged the US into recession. In the event of any conflict between the integrity of the financial system and the welfare ofthe population, he signaled, the former interest would prevail. President Reagan, taking office in 1981, took the necessary political steps to consolidate Volcker'smove. He attacked union power, dramatically reduced taxes, cut back on state benefits and failed to enforceregulatory laws covering consumer rights, occupational health and safety, consumer protection, the minimum wage, and the like. With two of the major capitalist powers going neo-liberal could the rest of the world befar behind? Neo-liberal orthodoxy, pushed by both Britain and theUS, swept through the international financial institutions after 1980. The International MonetaryFund became a prime agent in the promotion of neo-liberal "structural adjustment" policies whenever ithad to deal with a credit crisis. As a result, countries like Mexico, Argentina, Brazil and SouthAfrica were swept into the neo-liberal camp. The price of entry into the global economic system for much ofthe old Soviet Empire was privatization and the assumption of a neo-liberal stance. Global competition has drawn many other countries, even China and India ,into something approximating a neo-liberal state structure. There are still some states, as in Europe and Scandinavia that are holdouts for social democracy and in East Asia many states have managed to combineneo-liberalism externally with concern for equity at home. But some variant of the neo-liberal state now dominates world-wide. This all happened in part because of a crisis of capitalism in the 1970s. Profit rates were low, inflation and unemployment were everywhere soaring upwards when the economic consensus (called Keynesian) of the 1960s said they should offset each other. Financial systems were in a mess, the stockmarket was in decline, and there was a fiscal crisis of state expenditures (with the bankruptcy of New YorkCity in 1975 being emblematic). The "socialdemocratic" state form that had emerged after 1945could not cope. Something new had to be invented. Neo-liberalism won out as the answer. But has it beensuccessful? In terms of stimulating growth it has been a dismal failure. Global growth rates in the 1950s and1960s stood at around 3.5 percent and fell in the troubled 1970s to around 2.4 percent. But in the 1980s they came down to 1.4 percent and fell even further inthe 1990s to 1.2 percent and since 2000 have barely made it above 1 percent. So why are we so persuaded of the benefits of neo-liberalism? There are two main answers. Firstly, neo-liberalismhas introduced considerable volatility into the global system so there are usually some places that are doing well while the rest do badly. In the 1980s it wasJapan and West Germany that led the pack and the US wasin the doldrums, but in the 1990s both fell behind withJapan suffering from a decade of severe recession. In the 1990s the US, Britain and some of the "tiger"economies of Southeast Asia came out on top. ThenSoutheast Asia crashed in 1997 followed by the collapseof the "new economy" in the US and now China and Indiaseem to be racing ahead. In a Darwinian world, theneo-liberal argument runs, you fall behind because youare not competitive. You only survive if you are fitenough. There is nothing systemically wrong. Thefault lies with you. You are not neo-liberal enough. Secondly, and more importantly, the richest incomegroups have become infinitely better off under neo-liberalism. Social inequality has increased rather thandiminished. In the US, for example, the top onepercent of income earners claimed 16 percent of thenational income before World War Two but during the1950s and 1960s this fell to 8 percent and the failuresof the 1970s threatened their power even more. But by2000 this group was back to claiming 15 percent of thenational income and this may shoot up to 20 percent inthe near future if the tax cuts stand. Similar trends,though not quite so dramatic, can be detected in other countries. So neo-liberalism has been about the restoration of class power to a small elite of financiers and CEOs.And since that class has overwhelming control of the political process and of instruments of persuasion, of course it insists that the world is a much better place. And it is, for them. Yet in the US, as elsewhere, most of the people are worse off than theywere in 1970, particularly when access to decent public education, health care, and the like is factored in. In those countries that have recently turned to neo-liberalism, like China, Russia and India, we see the emergence of extraordinarily rich oligarchies at the expense of the rest of the population. But if aggregate growth is so low, how does the upper class accumulate such wealth? They largely do so through predatory practices, by dispossessing others. This "accumulation by dispossession" takes many forms. Cheap labor is everywhere preyed upon and the cheaper and more docile the better. Profit rates of UScorporations are twice as high abroad as they are athome. Common property rights (water, land, etc) getprivatized. Peasant populations get thrown off the land. Environments are degraded. Patent rights oneverything from genetic materials, seeds, pharmaceutical products to ideas allow rents to be extracted from low-income populations. Fundamental goods like education and health care get commodified and user fees escalate. The list goes onand on. But most important of all the credit andfinancial system is actively used to accumulate wealthat one pole while extracting it from another. Family farms are foreclosed even in the US. Pension rights areprivatized (Chile pioneered with social security) andthen all too often diminished or erased (as with Enronor in China most recently). Even more dramatic are theviolent financial crises that have periodically wrackedmuch of Latin America, Central and East Europe, andEast and Southeast Asia. These allow productive assetsto be bought up by wealthy investors for a song. Neo-liberalism has seen a massive transfer of asset wealthfrom the poor to the rich. These injustices have sparked innumerable protests around the world, loosely knit together in the anti-globalization or global justice movement. The neo-liberal response has often been state repression.Mexico, for example, is advised by the US to crush theZapatista movement for indigenous rights. Given itsclass basis, the neo-liberal state is understandably antidemocratic. In some cases, such as Singapore andChina, it never bothered with democracy at all. And inthe West, it easily morphs into neo-conservativeauthoritarianism. The so-called "war on terror" nowprovides a cover for the extension of policesurveillance, militarization and authoritarianmeasures. Curiously, the protest movements against neo-liberalism often accept its terms. Before 1980, individual human rights were a fringe interest, but neo-liberalism's emphasis upon individual responsibility has sparked ahuge wave of interest in them in recent years. Evocation of such rights can provide a rhetoric for progressive politics. But this can also legitimize interventions in sovereign states by imperialistpowers. Furthermore, since most individuals cannotbring their cases to court a vast apparatus of advocacyhas emerged. The rise of the NGOs to politicalprominence has been another stunning consequence of theneo-liberal turn. NGOs sometimes aid and abet thewithdrawal of the state from social provision. Inother cases they offer tough critiques of neo-liberalpolicies. But, unfortunately, NGOs are no more democratic and transparent than the neo-liberal statethey criticize. The rise of human rights discourses and of NGO power provides a limited terrain upon which to mount effective opposition. The fear of social dissolution under an individualizing neo-liberalism has also sparked the search for a moral high-ground from which to secure the restoration ofclass rule. Appeals to nationalism (China, Japan, USA),to superior cultural values ("American," "Asiatic.""Islamic"), to religion (Christian, Confucian, Hindu)or to ethical commitments ("rights" and cosmopolitanethics) erupt into the discussion. The so-called"culture wars" - however misguided some of them mayhave been - cannot be sloughed off as some unwelcome distraction. The transformation of moral repugnance towards the alienations of neo-liberalism into cultural and then political resistance is one of thesigns of our times. Social movements against neo-liberalism, for example, frequently articulate theiropposition in moral economy terms. But purely moralargument is at best a weak ground on which to contestthe alienations and anomie that neo-liberalismproduces. We have, in short, lived through an era of sophisticated class struggle on the part of the upper strata in society to restore or, as in China and Russia, to reconstruct an overwhelming class power. The turn to authoritarianism and neo-conservatism isillustrative of the lengths to which that class will goand the strategies it is prepared to deploy in order topreserve and enhance its powers. The mass of thepopulation has either to submit to this overwhelmingclass power or respond to it in class terms. If this looks like, acts like and feels like class struggle then we must be prepared to name it for what it is and act accordingly. Though class movements may make themselves, they do notdo so under conditions of their own choosing. These conditions are currently highly diverse and fragmented.Finding the organic links between highly variegatedoppositional social movements is an urgent task. The links are there. The gap between the promise of neo-liberalism (the benefit of all) and its realization(the benefit of a small ruling class) increases. Class and regional inequalities both within states (such asChina, Russia, India and Southern Africa) as well as internationally pose a serious political problem. The idea that the market is about competition is negated bythe facts of monopolization, centralization and internationalization of corporate and financial power.The idea that neo-liberalism is about fairness is brutally offset by the extensive facts of dispossession. The idea that neo-liberalism is aboutindividual freedoms confronts the increasing authoritarianism of the neo-liberal and now neo-conservative state apparatus. The more neo-liberalismis revealed as a failed utopian project masking the restoration of class power for the few, the more itlays the basis for a resurgence of mass movementsvoicing egalitarian political demands, seeking economicjustice, fair (rather than "free") trade and greatereconomic security. The profoundly anti-democratic nature of neo-liberalismis becoming a potent political issue. The democratic deficit in nominally democratic countries is nowenormous. Institutional arrangements, like the FederalReserve, are biased, outside of democratic control.They lack transparency. Internationally, there is noaccountability let alone democratic control overinstitutions such as the IMF, the WTO and the WorldBank. To bring back the demands for democraticgovernance and for economic, political and cultural equality and justice is not to suggest some return to agolden past. The meaning of democracy in ancient Athenshas little to do with the meanings we must invest it with today. But right across the globe, from China,Brazil, Argentina, Taiwan, Korea as well as SouthAfrica, Iran, India, Egypt, the struggling nations of Eastern Europe as well as in the heartlands of contemporary capitalism, there are groups and socialmovements in motion that are rallying to the cause ofdemocratic values. The Bush Presidency has projected upon the world theidea that American values are supreme and that valuesmatter since they are the heart of what civilization isabout. The world is in a position to reject that imperialist gesture and refract back into the heartland of neo-liberal capitalism and neo-conservatism acompletely different set of values: those of an open democracy dedicated to the achievement of social equality coupled with economic, political and cultural justice. "

David Harvey is Distinguished Professor of Anthropologyat the Graduate Center of the City University of NewYork. His most recent book is The New Imperialism, published by Oxford University Press.

The "SmellyPhone" (TM) Revolutionizes Cell Phone Industry

The SmellyPhone


OK The cell phone has revolutionized human communication. You may talk to anyone anywhere (providing of course that you are able to pay your monthly phone bill—an assumption that is, of course, in today’s economy, hardly a certainty. But let me not digress here on the problems of the global economy.) The world is interconnected and everyone can talk to everyone else, at least in theory. Whether they like it or not! Ahh but that’s not all. In addition to the rudimentary facility of sending and receiving voice data, cell phones now include all kinds of baneful capacities including web access, cameras, e-mail, radio, games---you name it. A recent article in the New Scientist ("A Cell phone Full of Dollars," New Scientist July 24-30 2004 p. 26) discusses the "mobile wallet" cell phone that acts a credit card, train ticket, cash reserve, and ATM. (Be careful not to wash the darn thing by accident in the laundry!) Cell phones will now do just about any conceivable task, except pay your mortgage or drive your kids to school. I recently read that the download ring-tone industry is a multi-billion dollar-a-year industry. You may now download Beethoven or the Punkabillys, whose music can alert you to an in-coming call. But if music is the soul of life, should we then, neglect our olfactory sense? Nay, I say. Hence, I propose that the next significant advance in mobile communication technology should be the "Smellyphone" or if in Europe, the "Smellyfone." With this new stinky technology , one can be alerted to in-coming calls, not by the noisy interruption of auditory intrusions, but by the odor of your choice. Imagine the possibilities! Ah the wafting pleasures of jasmine or vanilla. Or perhaps cologne scents by the designer of your choice. Or the warm aroma of fresh-brewed coffee. (Homer Simpson might prefer of course, the fresh baked smell of jelly donuts.) The Smellyphone promises to revolutionize the communication industry (patent pending) Void where prohibited by law.

Who?  

Dateline Boston---The Democratic Convention

Boston--The Democratic Candidate Rouses the Nation and Stirs Citizens' Enthusiasm.  The Republicans Tremble. 

Not Bogart

Remember: Smoking is not good for philosophers and other living (or formerly living) things. 

Neither a fish, nor out of water 

Advice on How to Vote

"I never vote for anyone, I always vote against."   W.C. Fields 

On Quotations

[O]ne must never miss an opportunity of quoting things by others which are always more interesting than those one thinks up oneself. ---Marcel Proust

They Have Seen the Thing Themselves.

They have seen the thing themselves…

Rusted and wicked in its age
Detonating with seconds, amassed
Broken and willing occupation
Tender, yielding, and final
Just in its unattainable yearning
Scented in lavender and lilac
Impossible in the shadow of itself
Hidden amidst our frenzy
Typical as the mean
Complete before its beginning
Tense against its own boundaries
Lavish and arrayed in dread
Waking to the tremor of its pulse
Upright against the spiked angle
Stark as the moon in its declension.

Which one is Camus? 

MY TOE--A POEM

By Hannah and Moo Moo Camus

You ran over my toe,
You hobo,
Don’t you know,
That you just ran over my toe?
That’s my favorite toe
Way down low,
It’s big and puffy,
And shaped like Idaho.
OUCH!!! Watch where you’re going!
Be careful where you’re mowing!

Heidegger and the M&Ms

Scene: The Baja Men are blaring from the CD player in the kitchen. "Can you shake it like this? I can move it like that. Can you shake it like this? I can move it like that. Can you shake it like this? I can move it like that." Ad infinitum. It is 7:45 a.m. and Hannah my daughter and I are wolfing down a hurried breakfast, before we drive to summer camp. I stand up to take the breakfast dishes to the kitchen sink, and as I do, I turn around and notice this scene: Hannah, listening to and singing along with the Baja Men, is consuming a healthy breakfast of chocolate chip waffles with whipped cream and M&Ms on top. The music is among the worst I have ever heard, although, thank god, the lyrics are harmless, if dizzying. On the crowded kitchen table, right next to Hannah¹s chocolate chip pancakes, lies the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, which the night before, I have presciently, if unwittingly, opened to the entry, "Authenticity." It reads:

"The condition of those, according to Heidegger, who understand the existential structure of their lives. Heidegger held that each of us acquires an identity from our situationÐour family, culture, etc. Usually we just absorb this identity uncritically, but to let one¹s values and goals remain fixed without critical reflection on them is ‘inauthentic¹. The ‘authentic¹ individual who has been aroused from everyday concerns by angst, takes responsibility for their (sic) life and therefore ‘chooses¹ their own identity. But Heidegger also holds that some degree of inauthenticity is unavoidable; the critical assessment of values presupposes and uncritical acceptance of them, and the practical necessities of life give priority to the unreflective action over critical deliberation. So, as Heidegger makes clear, authenticity is like Christian salvation: a state which fallen individuals cannot guarantee by their own efforts."

I notice also that the dog is unremittingly scratching himself. Mental note: call vet. Additional mental note: refill propane tank so we can BBQ chicken for dinner tonight. One more mental note: the Oxford Companion has it wrong. It¹s not Christianity, per se, but Calvinism that says that "fallen" individuals can¹t guarantee salvation by their own efforts.

Meanwhile, I am attempting to achieve ‘authenticity¹: "The unexamined life isn¹t worth living." "I think, therefore I am." "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it." Etc. etc. etc. Thank goodness Hannah has left some M&Ms on her plate. Mental note: When I return from dropping Hannah off at camp, delete Being and Time from reading list and eat remaining M&Ms.

Why is the Dog Eating Steak While I'm Eating Corn Flakes?

I notice today, that Stanley, our poodle, is eating left-over steak for his breakfast. I notice this, as I find myself grudgingly cutting up pieces of steak and dropping them into his doggie bowl. Ahh, Breakfast; the most important meal of the day. Or so it is reputed. Protein is very important, especially in those early hours when the body is just recovering from the trials of a good night's sleep. That's why the dog needs steak, I guess. Meanwhile, I shuffle off, bunny slippers and all, to eat my corn flakes, fearful that I may become undernourished, while the dog thrives and prospers, renewed by the sustenance of animal protein, while I, downtrodden, scrape by on wood-flavored, nutritionless cardboard.

Happy Smiles in the Consumer Imperium

"The triumph of advertising in the culture industry is that consumers feel compelled to buy and use its products even though they see through them."
Dialectic of Enlightenment, "The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception," Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer (1944)

Sirius--The Dog Star

There once was a dog named Sirius
Who’d chase his tail, until he became quite delirious.
He’d run round and round
Until he wound down
And couldn’t tell his front from his rearious.

Not As Pretty As I Feel

I’ve recently discovered, that for far too long, I’ve thought of myself as smarter, better-looking, and taller than it turns out, I really am. This may come as a terrible shock to you, dear reader, to learn this. I know that it certainly did to me. Disappointingly, I’m not really that tall, that good looking, or that smart. (Oh, the crisis of enlightnement!) And I’m now struggling with the question of what to do with this new, regrettable knowledge. I’ve thought about going back to school, but that doesn’t help with the issues of height or beauty. Maybe cosmetology school?? No, I don’t think that will address the crux of the problem. And what about height? Elevator shoes? Well as I ponder the "ugly truth" you may wish to read some of the other entries in this Blog. See the "Previous Posts" section.

Is Edukation Good for America, or (You'd Better) Get Rich Quick!

Is Education Good For America?

As you well know, in America, most people believe that the ills of society can be cured by education (by which they usually mean, “schooling”). Education, it is thought, is good, and more education is gooder. But the truth, of course, is that knowledge is not nearly as powerful or effective, as ownership of property. Preferably, ownership of property in the means of production. (Which now means ownership of Microsoft as much as it once meant US Steel.) That’s the real ticket to good fortune and individual prosperity. And of course, inherited wealth (stocks, bonds, that sort of thing) is the best kind of wealth, because it means that there isn’t the slightest chance that education or intelligence may be construed as a prerequisite for securing one’s riches. If one inherits one’s wealth, one need not have attended a single day of school in order to live well. One can be as dumb as one pleases, and still be, well…wealthy. (Of course it still is humanly beneficial to know how to read and write—but this is beside the point.) Ownership of property in the means of production is one of the beauties of capitalism. One might even say, one of the geniuses of the capitalist system. To wit: Even the dumb can be rich. And of course, this point is proven, time and again, by the empirical evidence. Take a look at George Bush, for instance. What has education done for him? Or, in the immortal words of our chief executive: "You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.'' (George W. Bush, Feb. 21, 2001.) Or perhaps even more prophetically, "Rarely is the question asked: ‘Is our children learning?’" (Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000.)

Anyway, if ever given the chance, I would wish to disabuse the American public of the misconception that education is the key to success. Why do Americans believe so strongly in education, anyway? Could it be that there is no alternative to believe in? No hope for redistributing the real sources of wealth and power in this society? “Oh no,” the prevailing wisdom of false consciousness maintains, “leave private property alone. You never know, one day, Wal-Mart employees may, after much hard work and self-sacrifice, rise to own Wal-Mart”—or so the implicit belief goes. “Let’s leave private property in the means of production (and in this case, distribution) intact. Let’s instead redistribute knowledge! Yeah that’s the ticket. All anyone really needs is more knowledge. More education.” Phoooooey, I say. Let the masses eat books!

Lost in the Dark of "Shruburbia"

Last February we visited my mother, who has recently moved to a place called Murietta California, which is a bedroom community approximately 50 miles east of LA and about 60 miles north of San Diego. An odd vector, if ever there was one. It’s been a long time since I have spent any time in Southern California, so I have almost forgotten how the dry, semi-arid foothills look, when paved with endless rows of tract homes, mini-marts, condos and strip malls. Oh yes, and large nationally hegemonic Target stores and Walmarts. The whole town appeared to have been literally rolled-out in a single instant, like some kind of wall-to-wall carpeting or one of those lawns that arrives, in rolls of sod, which are “installed,” rather than grown. All the architecture of Murietta is of a kind--- a pestering, mock, semi-Spanish/Moroccan/Mediterranean stucco. Low lying, like intestinal bacteria. It reminded me a bit of some of the pictures I’ve seen of Sadam Hussein’s palaces—only far less tall. And, I dare say, less charming. And everything is painted in a lilting shade of Tuscan beige, which makes what would otherwise be merely an annoyingly standardized, ex-urban, built-environment, appear as if it were maliciously conceived and executed by a sole demon intelligence, or by the folks at Disney (whichever is most pernicious.)

Our first night in Murietta was really something. We landed in San Diego, and with no further ado, rocketed up the freeway in our rental car to Mureitta, where we retrieved my mother from her home in a sprawling, indistinguishable, gated community, and headed out to find a restaurant in the Murietta vicinity. Within 1.5 minutes of departing my mother’s house, we were as lost and bewildered, as if we had been traveling for days, without a compass or a guide, in the deep recesses of the Amazon. Of course, my mom was of absolutely no help in directing us—she hadn’t spent any time outside of her retirement enclave since moving there, and as a consequence, could not recognize even a single landmark by which we might orient our increasingly desperate search for a bistro. In all fairness, I must confess that anyone—especially my mother--- would have been disoriented; the planned suburban sprawl appeared to be purposely devised for muddling both the good citizens of Murietta and hapless visitors, alike. At night, every corner mirrored the last, and every successive block looked exactly the same as its predecessor (a phenomenon unchanged I discovered the next day, by the addition of daylight.) It is staggering to think that human intelligence, even if in the form of a California real estate development conglomerate, actually deliberately designed and built a place as devoid of character, even mock character—as this.

Anyway, after much aimless wandering about, we finally did manage to find a place to eat—a large cafeteria-like complex that served us massive quantities of soup and salads—in an all-you-can-eat style. Expansive, although, not expensive. Patterned after a Ford factory, I think. My wife named it the “Soup-a-tarium” because it had a mass, hospital-like, institutional quality. I preferred to call it “Souploitation” for reasons that are not now entirely clear to me—maybe it was the overpowering sense that I didn’t want to eat there, but feared starvation even more?

Thinking back now, it occurs to me that our driving around in the dark that night, famished, amidst wall-to-wall “shruburbia”, feeling almost completely lost and disoriented , with my mother snapping out occasional, and entirely useless driving directions, is somehow a perfect metaphor for my life, or at least parts of my life. I will have to explore this more at another time (too scary to do so now), but suffice it to say, I’ve felt lost and in the dark, steered by forces that are somehow related to me, but who do not at all have my best interests at heart. I have been redeemed occasionally by blind luck, the occasional kindness of strangers and friends, and serendipitous flashes of bright light. But much of the rest of my life has been beset by confusion, darkness, and the perpetual need to “get my bearings.’ Wandering around in the wilderness! Yikes!

Life's Really BIG Questions and some Comments

Some of Life’s Really BIG QUESTIONS (according to Moo Moo Camus)
The Universe
(Including ALL space and ALL time.)

It is a really big and violent universe. Things are exploding in it all the time (stars, supernovae, black holes, etc.) It’s an awfully unfriendly place, too. Not terribly hospitable to biological creatures like ourselves, who prosper only in very particular and rare kinds of bio-environments. And, by the way, space is really cold and, according to recent evidence, is getting bigger by the light-year.

So,why should we humans have good luck and hope for happy and pleasant lives? Most of what we know about what’s “out there” is really not that warm and fuzzy. Let’s thank our lucky stars that we made it this far, and let’s keep our fingers crossed!

“Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion.”
Quoted in Diogenes Laertius's Lives of the Eminent Philosophers

Existence, being
One of the perennial questions of philosophy is, ‘Why is there anything, anyway?’ Why does anything exist? Oh yes, and just what the heck is existence, anyway? (Unfortunately, I can’t read, let alone, comprehend Heidegger!)
Some possible answers:

1. God “needs” a universe to make his/her/it’s power and being manifest (Hegel, I think?) Though, why this manifestation is so important to an omnipotent god is not at all clear to me? (Couldn’t God just as easily choose not to be?)

2. What would a universe” be” without anything in it at all, a universe in which nothing exists? What would nothing, really nothing, “look” like? (Thomas Nagel, I think?)

Essentially, I think the argument runs, you’ve gotta have something (even if most of it is dark matter).


Death

Why do living things (of course, I will not mention any specific species or proper names, here) come to an end? Why do beings die?
Possible explanation: No death, then no intergenerational evolution. No evolution, then no innovation. No innovation (i.e. biological innovation), then no adaptation to changed circumstances and environments (assuming changed circumstances, of course). No adaptation to changed circumstances and environments, then species DEATH!

This (i.e., species death) is not good (counterproductive) for being, especially human being!

It would appear then, that individual (ontogenetic) death is the necessary price we pay for species being (phylogenetic) in an ever-changing universe.

Does this mean the species prospers, i.e., learns and improves, because we, as individuals, die? Yikes!


Human Evolution
OK, this is a long story, so I will keep it short, here. It looks like we evolved from something (Prosimians) that lived in trees about 40-50 million years ago, then into monkeys, then more upright monkey-like beings. (We share a common ancestry with apes, chimps and gorillas.) Then a bunch of splits in the hominid family tree and, so on, till there you have it, humans. (Good thing the dinosaurs went extinct or it would have been a whole other story.) The process continues as we speak, of course, and who knows where it (and we) will end?
If there are a lot of failed branches in the family tree, extinctions that were “selected out” because of insufficient or adaptively “weak” characteristics, could it be that homo sapiens, too, are only one moment in a larger evolutionary stream which in the end may not include humans? Who says we are privileged survivors in the long run? Oh, Oh!

Human societies and inequality. You know the story. Societies have to scavenge or produce stuff in order to survive. When societies reach a point where they are not simply living hand-to-mouth, that is, when they reach a point above the level of subsistence, they have to decide how to distribute the social surplus (i.e., everything that isn’t immediately consumed.) “Who gets what” and “Who decides who gets what (a strongman or a market?) are among the key questions. Who gets the goodies and how they get them has differed in different societies. Usually, it’s priests, kings, capitalists, you know, the usual suspects. In capitalism, of course it is impersonal markets that decide, (assisted by armies, states, politics and other sorts of extra-market institutions.) Result: Lots of inequality. Bad.Economic equality becomes more important than ever. On it, rests social equality, and perhaps the fate of the species.

We live in a world of immense disparities. One hundred and thirty five of the world’s most wealthy individuals have assets that equal those of nearly two billion of the earth’s “less fortunate” people.

It occurs to me however, that we know (all too well) what inequality looks like. But we don’t know much about what global equality, would look like. Hmm, I wonder???