tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32236383183369254582024-02-19T08:03:10.927-08:00Out-Loud BrainwavesSocialism or barbarism.Jay Andrew Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03205937919143907611noreply@blogger.comBlogger112125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3223638318336925458.post-24398527113771539402008-08-19T09:38:00.000-07:002008-08-19T09:39:17.244-07:00New Blog HomeThis blog is now located on <a href="http://www.jayandrewallen.net/blog/">JayAndrewAllen.net</a>. Enjoy!Jay Andrew Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03205937919143907611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3223638318336925458.post-60928805020353394712008-08-12T13:32:00.000-07:002008-08-12T13:34:30.629-07:00NEW LOCATION: JayAndrewAllen.netI'm shutting this space down and <a href="http://www.jayandrewallen.net/">moving my writing activities to my Wiki</a>. The Wiki allows me to spend more time crafting (and revising!) individual articles. I'm hoping that this approach to my craft adds up to a more thoughtful, lasting contribution to the world. Time will tell, no?Jay Andrew Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03205937919143907611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3223638318336925458.post-16220012320255894272008-08-01T15:19:00.000-07:002008-08-01T21:44:04.349-07:00Union-Busting, Wal-Mart StyleAt this crucial juncture in America's history, progressives are working to roll back some of the damage done to unions over the past several decades. <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-1696">The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA)</a> would make it easier for workers to unionize by replacing secret ballot elections with majority sign-up. If a majority of employees sign a declaration of their desire to form a union, their company must immediately recognize their chosen representative. The legislation aims to squash union-busting tactics by employers, who almost always use the interim period prior to the election to <a href="http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/brokensystem.cfm">intimidate workers and fire organizers</a>.<br /><br />Who opposes this legislation? Just about every business interest and conservative think tank you can imagine. While the bill enjoys big support in the Democratic-controlled Congress, it obviously won't survive Bush's veto stamp. But what if Obama wins the White House? That nighmare has perennial union-buster Wal-Mart so worried that <a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/employee-free-choice-act/latest-updates/wal-mart-mobilizing-against-the-employee-free-choice-act-20080801-605-83-83.html">they're telling their employees not to vote for Barack Obama</a>. They won't admit that's what they're doing - but their employees didn't just fall off the turnip truck:<br /><blockquote>"The meeting leader said, 'I am not telling you how to vote, but if the Democrats win, this bill will pass and you won't have a vote on whether you want a union,'" said a Wal-Mart customer-service supervisor from Missouri. "I am not a stupid person. They were telling me how to vote," she said. </blockquote>Years ago, I would have agreed <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/forum/2001/0604faceoffno.html">with this editorial by Harris Miller</a>, who opposed the formation of Washington state technology union <a href="http://www.washtech.org/">WashTech</a>. High tech workers are well paid; if they don't like their job, they can vote with their feet. This Myth of Individual Negotiation is still prevalent in the high tech industry, where high salaries and rapid growth have shielded many of us from the worst effects of declining real wages.<br /><br />What Miller won't tell you is that, even if employees <span style="font-style: italic;">do</span> foot-vote, they'll find that the basic conditions of their former bosses reign at their new job too. Health care benefits will be compromised in the name of cost-cutting. Flexible work options will be limited in practice. Foreign workers will be exploited to pad the bottom line. Overtime without pay will be mandated. (Many high-tech companies I talked to in my last round of interviewing consider 45 to 50 hours to be a minimal work-week. And these are self-proclaimed "family-friendly" companies!)<br /><br />Individual employees may be able to negotiate slightly better deals for themselves. But where does that leave their co-workers? Where does that leave other workers in the industry? I may have mine - but why shouldn't <span style="font-style: italic;">you</span> have mine as well? <span style="font-style: italic;">Every working American</span> deserves decent wages, humane treatment, quality health care, and time for family and leisure. These ought to be enshrined as basic rights, not treated as the victory spoils of the privileged. Historically, unions have been a driving force for such univeral change. (How do you think <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day#United_States">the eight-hour workday became standard</a>?)<br /><br />Miller's Horatio Alger "bootstrap" philosophy is the cultural cancer that is killing America. It's convinced us that we can "negotiate" with multi-billion-dollar multinational behemoths - a joke in theory, and an obscenity in practice. Business leaders have effectively bought our silence with real wages that decline year after year, and have silenced the rest of the country through union-busting. All this, while the value of their own indefensible bank accounts continues to bloat. The Employee Free Choice Act is a welcome first step in cutting the capitalists down to size, and restoring the power of the individual laborer.Jay Andrew Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03205937919143907611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3223638318336925458.post-47825320890513776212008-07-29T09:59:00.000-07:002008-07-29T10:51:44.622-07:00When Is Choice Un-American? When It's Vegetarian<p>All Johanna McCloy wanted was a decent vegetarian hot dog at a San Francisco Giants game. What started as a simple request at one stadium soon became a crusade. As of this writing, McCloy has convinced half of all America's baseball parks to offer vegetarian alternatives to their standard burgers-and-hots lineup.<br /><br />Not everyone views this as an achievement. <a id="uv-w" title="McCloy has been accused of everything from snobbery to treason" href="http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-crowe22-2008jul22,0,4736790.column?track=rss">McCloy has been accused of everything from snobbery to treason</a>:</p><blockquote>Last month, after an article about McCloy appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle magazine, reader Marc Kimberly of Concord wrote: "For goodness' sakes, is there no limit to which annoying vegetarians won't go in their efforts to try to convert people from enjoying meat in favor of the bland mishmash of unappetizing and virtually tasteless 'food' these elitist snobs choke down their gullets?"<br /><br />McCloy says she was equally dumbfounded when, during an appearance on a Denver radio station, her efforts were labeled un-American.</blockquote><p>Welcome to 21st century America - where veggie hot dogs are a threat to Pax Americana, and potatoes a mark of liberal elitism. Never mind that <a href="http://www.vrg.org/journal/vj2006issue4/vj2006issue4poll.htm">vegetarians comprise less than 8 percent of the adult population, and vegans a meager 1.4 percent</a>. In Mr. Kimberly's nightmare, we vegetarians are the barbarians at the gate.</p><p>The material wealth of the United States, combined with industrial processing techniques, has made meat-eating as America as apple pie. Oppose beef, and you may as well defecate on the flag. In his paean to flesh consumption, <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Shameless-Carnivore-Manifesto-Meat-Lovers/dp/076792651X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217351073&sr=8-1">The Shameless Carnivore</a></em>, author Scott Gold laments that we're not <em>more</em> fanatical about eschewing herbivores:</p><blockquote>I don't get it: where at one point in American history a vegetarian would have been branded as a godless communist and advised to returh forthwith to the CCCP, abstaining from the consumption of animal flesh these days is largely viewed as an enlightened life decision, even though it's not what most of us do. </blockquote><p>Mssrs. Kimberly and Gold act as if a grain sausage were a revolver held to their heads. What's sad is that Ms. McCloy is attempting to give Americans <em>more</em> of a choice than the meat-eaters themselves give to animals. Even in this laudatory LA Times article, the unspoken assumption is that only the interests of human beings matter; the animals we eat have no right to exist independently of our hunger for them. </p><p>This is a sterling example of how patriotism is often little more than an excuse to justify aberrant behavior by draping it in a flag. Amongst other humans, it's considered immoral to kill unless there's an extenuating circumstance - usually self defense, or saving the life of an innocent. But when it comes to non-humans, the only required excuse is hedonism. One can imagine how quickly human society would have perished if "But he was TASTY!" was a valid moral defense for murder. Given that the major case for continued animal consumption rests on base pleasure, it's not shocking that people would defend the practice, not merely as an epicurean delight, but as some sort of patriotic duty. </p><p>In <a href="http://outloudbrainwaves.blogspot.com/2008/06/paul-roberts-speaks-in-seattle-on-end.html">his discussion of meat consumption</a>, Paul Roberts argued that the modern meat industry was based on the best intentions: to deliver nutritious food, inexpensively, to more people. A combination of unintended consequences and capitalist mismanagement, however, has allowed the meat processing industry to devolve into Frankenstein. We spend billions of dollars yearly on a petroleum-driven system that converts anywhere from eight to 17 pounds of grain and 250 gallons of water into a single pound of beef - and do it in the name of feeding hungry people! In the process, we generate tons of animal waste shot through with antibiotics. This by-product is so toxic that it must be lagooned, rather than used in crops. This says nothing of the real victims of this system: the animals themselves, who lead dramatically shortened lives - living beings who are born for the express purpose of dying.</p><p>If that's patriotism, then I'll opt for the veggie dog.</p>Jay Andrew Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03205937919143907611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3223638318336925458.post-66336675731150302252008-07-23T08:34:00.000-07:002008-07-23T09:14:59.240-07:00Neil Postman: "Voting...Is The Next to Last Refuge of The Politically Impotent"I've been curtailing my blog and news reading for a few months now. I'm curtailing it even more as I read Neil Postman's <em>Amusing Ourselves to Death</em>. The thesis of Postman's brilliant book is simple: Orwell was wrong and Huxley was right. Orwell warned that we risked having our freedoms crushed by dictatorship; Huxley warned that we risked throwing our freedoms away in an orgy of distractions.<br /><br />Postman wrote his book in 1985, 10 years before the New York Times heralded the Internet as a consumer tool. What he has to say is even more relevant in the age of the feed reader and the 24-hour news cycle than it was two decades ago. Information, says Postman, can be judged by how it impacts our lives. By this bill, most of the daily information we consume is sound and fury:<br /><blockquote>You may get a sense of what this means by asking yourself another series of questions: What steps do you plan to take to reduce the conflict in the Middle East? Or the rates of inflation, crime and unemployment? What are your plans for preserving the environment or reducing the risk of nuclear war? What do you plan to do about NATO, OPEC, the CIA, affirmative action, and the monstrous treatment of the Baha'is in Iran? I shall take the liberty of answering for you: You plan<br />to do nothing about them.</blockquote>But...but...but I can <em>vote</em>, right?! I need all of this information to be an informed citizen! Sorry, but Dr. Postman saw that one coming:<br /><blockquote>You may, of course, cast a ballot for someone who claims to have some plans, as well as the power to act. But this you can do only once every two or four years by giving one hour of your time, hardly a satisfying means of expressing the broad range of opinions you hold. Voting, we might even say, is the next to last refuge of the politically impotent. The last refuge is, of course, giving your opinion to a pollster, who will get a version of it through a dessicated question, and then will submerge it in a Niagara of similar opinions, and convert them into - what else? - another piece of news. Thus, we have here a great loop of impotence: The news elicits from you a variety of opinions about which you can do nothing except to offer them as more news, about which you can do nothing. (pp.68-9)</blockquote>The Internet at least has the redeeming feature that it supports organizing around causes. But how much can we accomplish in these national causes? What can you do about, say, the war in Iraq on the level of the Internet, except sign a petition and bitch on your blog? Blogging and commenting provide every individual an international forum for spleen-venting, but do little in the way of affecting true change.<br /><br />We can make greater, longer-lasting impacts in our local communities. Instead, we lose ourselves in the flood of information available online, believing that we're "educating" ourselves. As Dr. Postman notes, this is junk education. It's <em>education as entertainment</em>. Why did blogs become popular? Because Joe Schmoe Blogger scored mainstream press write-ups and six-figure book deals. Apply Dr. Postman's utility test to Joe Schmoe's literary output, and it's clear that Joe won the Internet equivalent of <em>American Idol</em> through a blend of 99 parts amusement to 1 part utility. That Joe dolled up his amusement in the guise of the day's headlines doesn't make it any more useful than a week's worth of LOLCat pictures. It's all sound and fury, signifying - and changing - nothing.Jay Andrew Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03205937919143907611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3223638318336925458.post-50441956951165742452008-07-22T15:45:00.000-07:002008-07-22T16:06:08.792-07:00Vanity Gardens vs. Victory Gardens<a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/22/travel/22local.php">Talk about missing the point</a>. And a waste of resources to boot.<br /><blockquote>As a result of interest in local food and rising grocery bills, backyard gardens have been enjoying a renaissance across the U.S., but what might be called the remote-control backyard garden — no planting, no weeding, no dirt under the fingernails — is a twist. "They want to have a garden, they don't want to garden," said the cookbook author Deborah Madison, who lives in Santa Fe, New Mexico.<br /><br />Her neighbor Chase Ault, a business consultant, recently had a vegetable garden nstalled with a customized set of plants and a regular service agreement. "I am orking 24-7 these days, but I wanted to have something growing in front of me," Ault said.</blockquote><br />For God sakes. If you want to garden, do it yourself. If you "don't have the time" - well, number one, that's part of the problem. We've become so pre-occupied with the artificial lives imposed upon us by corporate workaholism and mindless entertainment that we're compelled to outsource our sustenance. But beyond that, this money would be better spent supporting local CSAs, which can serve a community, rather than just serving your own needs.<br /><br />These aren't "victory gardens"; they're vanity gardens. It's gardening as style, not substance.Jay Andrew Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03205937919143907611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3223638318336925458.post-68284002678598838622008-07-21T12:02:00.001-07:002008-07-21T12:13:27.449-07:00Vegan in Seattle: Oh, The Options!The Seattle P-I has a great story <a href="http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/371476_vegan21.html?source=rss">on the astounding number of options for vegans who live in Seattle</a>. Reporter Kimberly Chou does a gangbuster job. The piece, unlike many others, doesn't devolve into a debate on vegan "health issues", or pepper the reader with silly doubts ("where DO vegans get their protein from, anyway?!"). The focus is on the businesses that make being vegan in Seattle not only easy, but fun.<br /><br />Kudos to Chou for highlighting <a href="http://www.marketstreetshoes.com/">Market Street Shoes</a>, where just last week I procured a pair of <a href="http://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/blackspot">Blackspots</a>. Other personal faves in the article are <a href="http://www.sidecarforpigspeace.com/main/index.html">Sidecar for Pig's Peace</a> and Sureshot Cafe. I'm happy to hear that Sureshot's vegan-enabled bakery (90% of the coffee house's pastries are vegan) will be selling to other coffee shops soon. Several shops in the area already sell vegan products from Julia's and Mighty-O Donuts. But no one in the area can beat Sureshot's vegan scones. Mmmmmm...Jay Andrew Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03205937919143907611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3223638318336925458.post-5182785425234395912008-07-16T17:01:00.000-07:002008-07-16T17:42:42.074-07:00"Low Carb" Diet Study Really a Vegetarian Lifestyle?Atkins-type folks will hold up <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080716/ap_on_he_me/med_dueling_diets">the latest study led by Iris Shai of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev</a> as justification for continuing to devour defenseless animals.<br /><br />Not so fast, Oh Meaty Ones.<br /><br />First off, this was a limited comparison between three types of diets: low-fat, low-carb, and Mediterranean. In other words, the study can't say low-carb is best for lowering weight and cholesterol; it can only say that low-carb is the best <span style="font-style: italic;">of the three diets studied</span>.<br /><br />Second, look at the diets themselves:<br /><blockquote><p>The research was done in a controlled environment — an isolated nuclear research facility in Israel. The 322 participants got their main meal of the day, lunch, at a central cafeteria.</p> <p>"The workers can't easily just go out to lunch at a nearby Subway or McDonald's," said Dr. Meir Stampfer, the study's senior author and a professor of epidemiology and nutrition at <span style="border-bottom: medium none; background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; cursor: pointer; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial;" class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1216251299_2">the Harvard School of Public Health</span>.</p> <p>In the cafeteria, the appropriate foods for each diet were identified with colored dots, using red for low-fat, green for Mediterranean and blue for low-carb.</p> <p>As for breakfast and dinner, the dieters were counseled on how to stick to their eating plans and were asked to fill out questionnaires on what they ate, Stampfer said.</p> <p>The low-fat diet — no more than 30 percent of calories from fat — restricted calories and cholesterol and focused on low-fat grains, vegetables and fruits as options. The Mediterranean diet had similar calorie, fat and cholesterol restrictions, emphasizing poultry, fish, olive oil and nuts.</p> <p>The low-carb diet set limits for carbohydrates, but none for calories or fat. <span style="font-weight: bold;">It urged dieters to choose vegetarian sources of fat and protein</span>. [Emphasis added]<br /></p> <p>"So not a lot of butter and eggs and cream," said Madelyn Fernstrom, a <span style="border-bottom: medium none; background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; cursor: pointer; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial;" class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1216251299_3">University of Pittsburgh Medical Center weight management expert</span> who reviewed the study but was not involved in it.</p></blockquote><p></p><p>The article goes on to say that "[t]he study is not the first to offer a favorable comparison of an Atkins-like diet." <span style="font-weight: bold;">But that's not a typical Atkins diet</span>. On Atkins, you're not discouraged from eating butter and eggs. A 3-egg cheese omelette cooked in a quarter-stick of butter is a valid option during the Induction phase of the Atkins diet. (Don't believe me? <a href="http://www.atkins.com/articles/atkins-phases/phase-one/acceptable-foods">Check for yourself</a>.) Strictly speaking, what researchers encouraged their low-carbers to eat was more a flexitarian version of The Zone. <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/146641">Dr. Dean Ornish lathers scorn on this "Veggie Atkins"</a> in his own response to the study.<br /></p><p>Personally, I doubt much of the anti-Atkins ranting. I do believe that carbs - <span style="font-weight: bold;">refined</span> carbs, not healthy whole grains - play a major role in modern American obesity. Let's call a spade a spade, though. If this study proves anything, it's the wisdom of eating fruits, veggies, and whole grains - and steering clear of animal products whenever possible.<br /></p><p>If you <span style="font-style: italic;">can</span> be healthy without eating meat, then why <span style="font-style: italic;">shouldn't </span>you?<br /></p><p>(<span style="font-weight: bold;">Footnote</span>: For those wondering, "Where do you get your protein from when you're a vegan?", <a href="http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/86942/">see Kathy Freston's decisive article</a>.)<br /></p>Jay Andrew Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03205937919143907611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3223638318336925458.post-20083000749650294712008-07-16T15:52:00.000-07:002008-07-16T16:59:55.778-07:00Hey, Vegans - Stop Eating Crap!Bodybuilding is a "sport" for which I have little if any affection. That said, Willamette Week <a href="http://wweek.com/editorial/3436/11241/SOURCE=RSS">has a praise-worthy write-up on Robert Cheeke</a>, the guy behind <a href="http://www.veganbodybuilding.com/">VeganBodybuilding.com</a>. WW gave Cheeke's diet a 10-point inspection. They went so far as to calculate how much his bodybuilding diet cost compared to an omnivorous diet. (Cheeke's diet is about 25% pricier - which doesn't mean much for the average vegan, who will consume far fewer calories than a vegan athlete.)<br /><br />Kudos to Cheeke, who sounds more grounded than his meat-eating counterparts in the world of bodybuilding. The omivore bodybuilders interviewed for the article are getting the lion's share of their 200+ grams of faily protein from animal sources. One guy brags that he gulps down 60 eggs every <span style="font-style: italic;">week</span>. Egads.<br /><br />Anyway: the comments sport a single anti-vegan comment, talking trash about how vegan diets are "high in refined carbohydrates and refined sugars." I imagine this person knows a few vegans who eat largely packaged food, and is basing his or her conclusions based on this limited pool.<br /><br />Notice to meat-eaters: the numbers are clear - <a href="http://www.veganoutreach.org/health/stayinghealthy.html#ada">we're in better shape than you are</a>.<br /><br />Notice to vegans: <span style="font-weight: bold;">stop eating crap</span>! I know most of you don't. It's you remaining handful who fuel nonsense observations like this. Yes, I'm lecturing you. Deal with it. If you publicly call yourself a vegan, then you're not a solitary eater: you're a representative of all vegans. Masticate accordingly. That is all.Jay Andrew Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03205937919143907611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3223638318336925458.post-58682896705315828862008-07-15T21:29:00.000-07:002008-07-16T08:53:57.597-07:00Talk, Talk, Blog, BlogI was listening to Randi Rhodes <a href="http://www.am1090seattle.com/">on local progressive radio</a>. I was into it...until she segued into reading a commercial for a PC remote desktop software company.<br /><br />Sorry, but that's not change I can believe in.<br /><br />Talk radio is a self-promoting commercial enterprise - whether it tacks to the right <span style="font-style: italic;">or</span> the left. What's the democratic alternative? Blogs. Podcasting. Viral video. The blogosphere brought with it the promise of decentralizing communication. It enabled <span style="font-style: italic;">lateral</span> conversations, as opposed to the top-down, vertical dissemination of information and opinion to which we've become accustomed.<br /><br />But hegemonies die hard. Many of us treat the Internet and blogging as a top-down enterprise - discussing the same stories, linking to the same sites. We cavort along to the latest outrage over <a href="http://www.jedreport.com/2008/07/john-mccains-ra.html">the bad words that came out of John McCain's mouth two decades ago</a>, or <a href="http://www.star-telegram.com/190/story/762310.html">the outrageous covers of upper-class liberal rags</a>. As bloggers ourselves, we angle to score exclusives that will bring us personal fame and fortune. We allow mega-blogs and super-bloggers to determine the course of the national conversation. <span style="font-weight: bold;">We replicate the top-down structure of Old Media</span>.<br /><br />It's not surprising that, just as blogging began to reach its peak, the mainstream media was polluted with stories about the horrors of blogging. Anyone can do it! You can't vouch for the authenticity of information! You NEEEED us! And yes - we do need good, solid, independent reporting. But that can come from both the professional journalist and the talented amateur. But the MSM's backlash wasn't about journalistic integrity; it was a bid to retain control of the story line.<br /><br />Democracy doesn't need anyone's permission. And it doesn't need an ossified pool of liberal celebrities, either - whether they got their start as radio celebs or as "lonely bloggers". It needs citizens engaged in conversation.Jay Andrew Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03205937919143907611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3223638318336925458.post-54840333635093543912008-07-15T19:43:00.000-07:002008-07-16T17:00:25.534-07:00Towards a New Socialism<blockquote>The principal bases for a post-Soviet socialism must be radical democracy and efficient planning. The democratic element, it is now clear, is not a luxury, or something that can be postponed until conditions are especially favourable. Without democracy, as we have argued above, the leaders of a socialist society will be driven to coercion in order to ensure the production of a surplus product, and if coercion slackens the system will tend to stagnate. At the same time, the development of an efficient planning system will most likely be impossible in the absence of an open competition of ideas. [...] Under socialism, there can be no such separation of oppressive state from ‘free’ economy; and if criteria of ideological ‘correctness’ dominate in the promotion of managers and even in economic–theoretical debate, the long-run prospects for growth and efficiency are dim indeed.</blockquote>W. Paul Cockshott and Allin Cottrell, <a href="http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/%7Ecottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.pdf"><span style="font-style: italic;">Towards a New Socialism</span></a>Jay Andrew Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03205937919143907611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3223638318336925458.post-73982654345461536422008-07-15T11:35:00.000-07:002008-07-15T12:37:29.938-07:00MTV to Adbusters: Not Buying Things is "Controversial"It's enough to gag you. A PR rep from MTV tells Adbusters that it can't accept its subvertisements for Buy Nothing Day and Turnoff TV Week <a href="http://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/mediacarta/rejections/mtv.html">because it doesn't air anything "controversial."</a><br /><br />Yes, because MTV <em>always</em> shies away from controversy, right?<br /><br />The PR woman is blunt: MTV can't air these ads because they tell people to (1) turn off their TVs and (2) not consume like mindless sheep. Now, (1) is a lie. MTV's parent, Viacom, owns Nickelodeon, <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,994395,00.html">which has told its young viewers to do exactly that</a>. Different networks, of course; you can be a little more predatory with teens and grown-ups than you can with tweens and kids. (Why it's acceptable to push 24/7 television on <em>anyone</em> is beyond my reckoning.)<br /><br />Just a further example of what happens when media is monopolized by corporate interests: the voices of ordinary citizens are shut out in the name of free enterprise. Oh, but don't worry - you can still rant on a blog. Aren't you glad that you're free?Jay Andrew Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03205937919143907611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3223638318336925458.post-6448503943292085842008-07-14T15:06:00.000-07:002008-07-14T15:21:21.326-07:00The Nation Throws a Cruise! (Poor People Not Invited)Holy hell. It's <a href="http://www.nationcruise.com/Pages/pricing.htm">getting expensive</a> to defend the proletariat!<br /><br />But hey, the ship is environmentally friendly. I guess that counts for <em>something</em>.<br /><br />And people wonder why the left isn't taken seriously. We talk about the poor and the forgotten, then wave to them politely as our cruise ship departs the shore. This adventure will cost a minimum of $3,000 in lodging, airfare, and amenities. There are no scholarships offered, as far as I can tell, which excludes cash-strapped urban and rural activists from attending and taking what they've learned back to their communities. Not to mention the time off: how's your average working activist supposed to afford a full week off of work in a country with no federally mandated vacation time? Little wonder that three-quarters of those in attendance look like retirees.<br /><br />This is upper-class liberal wankerism at its worst.Jay Andrew Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03205937919143907611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3223638318336925458.post-7415362274128487012008-07-14T11:57:00.001-07:002008-07-14T15:03:22.769-07:00"Strange Bedfellows" vs. Third Party SupportGlenn Greenwald is <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/14/accountability/index.html">helping spearhead an organization that will challenge "Bad Democrats"</a>. It seems strained. Greenwald provides an impressive list of the massive compromises the Congressional Democrats have made since coming ot power in 2006. He outlines how the Democratic National Convention itself is being underwritten by "corporate sponsors" - including two companies, AT&T and Comcast, who were beneficiaries of telecom immunity for warrantless wiretapping.<br /><br />And yet, despite acknowledging all that, Greenwald can still thunder:<br /><blockquote>Nobody who finds the above-documented events objectionable can rationally embrace a course of action that directly <span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">or indirectly</span> empowers those who are the prime forces behind these events: namely, the mainstream GOP in its current incarnation. [Emphasis added] </blockquote>They're all hopelessly corrupt bastards - but dammit, they're <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">our</span> hopelessly corrupt bastards!<br /><br />Greenwald seems fired up to barnstorm the Democratic Party and clear out the trash. More power to him. I can't find that passion within myself. I can't bring myself to spend another election championing candidates who erode our Constitutional rights and enable our corporatist plutocracy. I'm done with watching real change frittered away piece by piece in an orgy of compromise.<br /><br />If you're still undecided this Presidential season, consider the words of one commentator over at The Nation, <a href="http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/336610/">who spoke in reference to Cynthia McKinney's Green Party bid</a>:<br /><blockquote>The "spoiler" argument is a myth perpetuated by the Democratic Party. There really is no such thing as a spoiler. For example, <strong>to call a Green a spoiler assumes that Democrats are entitled to those votes in the first place</strong>. They are not. Votes belong to the voter, and the only wasted vote is a vote for a candidate which you do not prefer. If Democrats want these votes, then let them work for the votes by taking positions on the issues that actually resonate with the people casting these votes. [Emphasis added]<br /></blockquote>Jay Andrew Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03205937919143907611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3223638318336925458.post-50965687537800389832008-07-13T11:24:00.000-07:002008-07-13T11:26:45.886-07:00Quote of The Day: Marx on Third Parties<blockquote>Even when there is no prospect whatsoever of their being elected, the workers must put up their own candidates in order to preserve their independence, to count their forces, and to bring before the public their revolutionary attitude and party standpoint. In this connection they must not allow themselves to be seduced by such arguments of the democrats as, for example, that by so doing they are splitting the democratic party and making it possible for the reactionaries to win. The ultimate intention of all such phrases is to dupe the proletariat. The advance which the proletarian party is bound to make by such independent action is indefinitely more important than the disadvantage that might be incurred by the presence of a few reactionaries in the representative body.</blockquote>- Karl Marx, "Address to The Central Committee" (from Paul D'amato's "<a href="http://www.isreview.org/issues/13/marxists_elections.shtml">Marxists and elections</a>".)Jay Andrew Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03205937919143907611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3223638318336925458.post-1499003833142756602008-07-11T11:58:00.000-07:002008-07-11T12:05:24.604-07:00Minimizing FISAWhile <a href="http://outloudbrainwaves.blogspot.com/2008/07/withholding-money-from-obama.html">I see the need to elect Obama over McCain</a>, I'm getting tired of toe-the-line Democrats who are deriding Glenn Greenwalk and others for making an issue of FISA. No, we're not children. yes, we understand that "politics is the art of the possible." Yes, we know that no candidate will ever 100% match our beliefs and ideals.<br /><br />But we're not talking about a failure to declare Lucky Charms the national breakfast cereal. We're talking about the erosion of the Fourth Amendment. Obama's compromise on a pillar of the Bill of Rights speaks badly about the candidate's commitment to liberty. It makes progressives wonder: if he's willing to compromise on that, what else is he willing to compromise on?<br /><br />That said, I recognize that Obama is more to the left than, say, Bill Clinton was. That's come about because progressive activists have helped mainstream leftist positions on marriage equality, health care, Iraq, social security, and a host of other issues. Think about that the next time you feel tempted to take a swing at the "ideological purists" on the left.Jay Andrew Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03205937919143907611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3223638318336925458.post-85153531099511389842008-07-11T11:46:00.000-07:002008-07-11T11:52:51.213-07:00Revising The Rules of The Road for Cyclists<a href="http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/07/11/should-the-rules-of-the-road-be-amended-for-cyclists/">Ben Fried is talking sense over at Streetsblog</a>. Drivers' #1 bitch about cyclists is that they "don't follow the rules". Cyclists' #1 bitch about drivers is that they bitch that we don't follow the rules. I'm not going to kill anyone (except perhaps myself) going through a red light, or treating a Stop sign as a Yield. In fact, I'm making the commute easier for everyone involved. Yielding instead of stopping means less time I spend going from 0 to top speed. It also makes it easier for cars behind me to pass or turn once the light <em>does</em> go green.<br /><br />For drivers who think this is a matter of extending "privileges" to cyclists: chill, dudes. You're <em>still</em> going to reach your destination in half the time we are.Jay Andrew Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03205937919143907611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3223638318336925458.post-32981597623687060962008-07-11T09:24:00.000-07:002008-07-11T09:58:33.953-07:00"Withholding" Money from Obama Is Fine By MeAs you can see <a href="http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/the_cash_machine.php">from this thread on Yglesias</a>, some Democrats are pissed that progressives are refusing to donate to Obama due to his tack to the center, and instead are giving their money to more consistently liberal Democrats. That seems like a perfectly good compromise position to me: vote for Obama as the best presidential candidate (well, the best one with an actual chance of winning), but put your money behind the people who will bring about the change you believe in. That's not "enforcing ideological purity"; it's using your money wisely.<br /><br />The "anti-purists" may be right that a full-on progressive couldn't win the presidency. But unless we rally behind truly progressive candidates, <em>that will never change</em>. "Get Obama elected" and "shift America leftward" are not mutually exclusive goals. Some folks will be more attracted to the former mission than the latter, and vice versa. Citizens should engage in politics in the way that best engages their passions. Demanding obligatory donations isn't the best way to set the electorate on fire.<br /><br />The larger, more disgraceful, problem is that we're no longer voting with votes, but with dollars. But mentioning such things has fallen out of fashion.Jay Andrew Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03205937919143907611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3223638318336925458.post-59235743203687699702008-07-09T10:26:00.000-07:002008-07-09T10:47:24.683-07:00RIP Alice Swanson: Cyclist Killed in DC's Dupont Circle<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEju-AkcB8EYApScgX8SkRKxsn0kaWOKvrBIUfk8ySFQaXn33OVjwqja6OI7T2PenCFFvV2iFtDmZM77IPZ8Icf0mHa8TVnjamhAjsDZe9ae_5kZ_d-m2BpuRpreMFlRBSuhEWcX7Y4GoaHA/s1600-h/alice-swanson.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEju-AkcB8EYApScgX8SkRKxsn0kaWOKvrBIUfk8ySFQaXn33OVjwqja6OI7T2PenCFFvV2iFtDmZM77IPZ8Icf0mHa8TVnjamhAjsDZe9ae_5kZ_d-m2BpuRpreMFlRBSuhEWcX7Y4GoaHA/s400/alice-swanson.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5221067856281215890" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/07/09/bicyclist_from_mass_killed_by_garbage_truck_in_dc/">22-year-old Alice Swanson was killed yesterday</a> after being run over by a garbage truck in Washington, DC's Dupont Circle.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/08/AR2008070800975.html?hpid=moreheadlines">According to the Washington Post</a>, Alice was "riding in or next to a designated bike lane" when the driver made a right turn and struck her. WaPo fills us in a bit on Alice's life:<br /><blockquote>Swanson had an internship in Washington last year at the Middle East Institute, a nonpartisan think tank. She graduated from Amherst College with a degree in Middle East history, according to the institute's Web site. The site says she studied Arabic at the institute. <p>She remained in the city after that and began work in January as a program associate at the International Research and Exchanges Board, an organization that promotes international education.<br /></p></blockquote><p>From the sounds of it, Alice was a careful cyclist. Her commute was a mere two miles. It could happen to any one of us.</p><p>Huge condolences to Alice's family.<br /></p>Jay Andrew Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03205937919143907611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3223638318336925458.post-29286137922428698972008-07-09T07:47:00.001-07:002008-07-09T07:49:52.850-07:00"The only 'sustainable' thing to do with the Convention is to cancel it"<a href="http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/dont_do_it_yourself.php#comment-2461404">Commenter Rich on Matthew Yglesias' site is right on</a>. The Democratic and Republican conventions are wasteful PR events. If they were meetings on my electronic calendar, I would Decline them. The only way to make them "sustainable" is to cancel them outright.Jay Andrew Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03205937919143907611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3223638318336925458.post-90207025254164173572008-07-09T00:01:00.001-07:002008-07-09T00:25:12.550-07:00When It's Finally Time to Go Vegan<a href="http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3558">A wonderful question from the Vegan Forum</a>, with many intriguing answers:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Why weren't you vegan before you were vegan?</span><br /><br />I first felt a compunction to go vegan about nine years ago. Having spent most of my life as a fussy eater (broccoli? Bllleech!), I couldn't hack it. It was "too hard," too alien. I was also extremely consumerist in those days, and found the lack of "pre-fab" vegan solutions depressing. I wanted to <span style="font-style: italic;">have fun</span>, and not worry like some religious ascetic whether what I crammed down my gullet was kosher or not.<br /><br />The protein myth was another obstruction. I'd fallen under the sway of The Zone about 11 years ago in a bid to shed pounds. My weight has yo-yo'd ever since I was a kid. At my heaviest, I've tipped the scales at 250 lbs. Thanks to Barry Sears et. al., I convinced myself that the only way I could stay slim was to gorge on animal flesh.<br /><br />Nearly a decade passed, during which my weight never dipped below 190 lbs. Then this year, I read Michael Pollan's <span style="font-style: italic;">The Omnivore's Dilemma</span>, which was a revelation. I learned more about the environmental degradation brought about by "producing" meat. I decided to eat meat only from organically fed, free range, humanely treated animals. I cut down meat to one meal a week, and increase my consumption of whole grains, fruits, vegetables and nuts. My body responded well. I didn't bloat up to the size of an endangered whale, like the pro-protein mythologists claimed I would.<br /><br />One day, I found myself thinking: <span style="font-style: italic;">if I <span style="font-weight: bold;">can</span> live without killing animals, then that's how I <span style="font-weight: bold;">should</span> live</span>. Many animals have no choice in whether or not they eat other living beings; I don't have that luxury. I reached a tipping point where I could no longer justify the slaughter of living creatures for the benefit of my taste buds.<br /><br />I went vegetarian in February. In May, while my wife was out of the country on business, I abandoned all animal products. Once I acclimated myself to soy milk, abandoning dairy and eggs was no sweat.<br /><br />The odd thing is, I don't miss meat, eggs or dairy. Not at all. I don't have any days where I salivate over cheeseburger mirages. I remain physically active, which allows me to eat until I'm well and full. I eat good food - delicious whole wheat bread I make myself, vegan pancakes, oatmeal and fruit, zesty Thai and Indian dishes, hearty pastas, "meaty" Mexican salads, sumptuous cakes and desserts. I have so much variety in my diet that I never feel deprived. To the contrary: I feel liberated. I weigh in at 160 lbs., and can slip into a size 30 jean for the first time since my teens. My energy is over the top; I feel light on my feet. And I sit down to every meal secure in the knowledge that I've adopted the least impact, most humane diet on the planet.<br /><br />I had to overcome a lot of misinformation and personal limitations before I went vegan. When it was time, it was time.Jay Andrew Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03205937919143907611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3223638318336925458.post-10991477376545934112008-07-08T22:11:00.000-07:002008-07-08T22:14:41.625-07:00When Vegan Isn't Vegan at AllI just discovered <a href="http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20260">by way of the Vegan Forum</a> something called "<a href="http://chillvegan.com/what-is-a-chill-vegan/">Chill Veganism</a>":<br /><blockquote>Chill Vegan’s [sic] are Vegetarians who aspire to be full fledged Vegans, but who don’t get bent out of shape if they fall short of the Strict Vegan code.</blockquote>Now, I'm all for not being a child about promoting veganism. But if you "fall short of the Strict Vegan code," you're not a vegan. You're an ovo-lacto vegetarian. Words have meaning.Jay Andrew Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03205937919143907611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3223638318336925458.post-83025642981783354262008-07-08T19:36:00.001-07:002008-07-08T21:24:53.911-07:00The Democracy Within The DemocracyThe more I think about Barack Obama's "small donor revolution," the more disturbing it seems. It's a democracy within a democracy - a vote with dollar bills instead of votes. It doesn't equalize anything; those with more dollars get more votes.<br /><br />What does it change? The millions of dollars collected are still being used for the same purpose: to wage a war of sound bites. It's a revolution <span style="font-style: italic;">within</span> the system, not a revolution <span style="font-style: italic;">of</span> the system. A heap of those advertising dollars will be spent on "gotcha" campaigns highlighting non-issues a.k.a. the Rev. Wright brouhaha. The end result will be an election decided, not on ideals or even issues, but on the psychological echoes of propaganda.<br /><br />In other words, business as usual.Jay Andrew Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03205937919143907611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3223638318336925458.post-29840099394283280342008-07-08T12:28:00.000-07:002008-07-08T12:30:15.516-07:00ALERT: People Doing Dangerous Shit Injured!Why is it "news" <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080707/ap_on_re_eu/spain_running_of_the_bulls_10">that people were injured in the Running of the Bulls</a>? That's like a headline blaring "NEWS FLASH: Man Burns Self Pressing Face Against Hot Stove".Jay Andrew Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03205937919143907611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3223638318336925458.post-68548267081684661202008-07-07T19:25:00.001-07:002008-07-07T20:07:01.695-07:00One More Reason Not to Read HuffPo<a href="http://www.alternet.org/blogs/sex/90568/">This Alternet write-up is weak</a>, but the author's pinpointing a sad phenomenon: the increased commercialization of HuffPo through the publication of titillating fluff pieces <a href="http://outloudbrainwaves.blogspot.com/2008/06/roughly-two-minutes-of-coverage-per.html">and gossip "journalism"</a>. Beh.Jay Andrew Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03205937919143907611noreply@blogger.com