UN Calls for Guantanamo Bay to be closed or detainees charged and tried in open court.
It's about damn time. You can't be a country that calls for expanding freedom and democracy overseas, and have what amounts to a political prison on your own territory. Hopefully this'll help to bring some international pressure to bear.
It's funny. Guantanamo Bay is in Cuba, which is theoretically our enemy because it's a politically repressive regime. And Guantanamo bay is American territory. And right there, on American soil, separated from Cuba by nothing more than a fence, there's political repression and torture happening. The hypocrisy couldn't be more stark.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
This is who the Palestinians want representing them.
Hamas: 'We drink Jews' blood'
By Nadav Shragai
A Hamas Web site recently published the videotape wills of two suicide bombers, with two main messages: One is directed to the Jews whose blood Hamas pledges to drink until they flee from the land of the Muslims, and the other is devoted to a mother who helps her son plan a suicide attack, according to Palestinian Media Watch, which presents the video shown on the Hamas site after its victory in the Palestinian parliamentary elections.
The video shows Idham Ahmed Majila and Maumin Rajab Rajab, who blew themselves up at the Karni crossing at the end of 2004. "My message to the hated Jews: There is no God but Allah," Majala says. "We will hunt you everywhere, when you wake and when you sleep. We are a blood-drinking people and we know that there is no better blood than Jewish blood.
Advertisement
"We will not leave you alone until we quench ourselves with your blood and we will quench the thirst of our children with your blood. We will not rest until you leave the lands of the Muslims."
Rajab, the second terrorist, says: "By the life of Allah, we will destroy you. We will blow you up. We will take our revenge on you. We will purify our land of you, pigs, who have defiled our land. By the life of Allah, we will take our vengeance. We are carrying out this operation as harsh revenge against the sons of monkeys and pigs."
The video also shows a good-bye scene between mother and son as he gets ready to leave for the attack, with the mother helping him put on the explosive vest. In the background is a song, "O beloved mother, my mother. Don't cry for us."
I don't think I really need to say anything more about this.
Monday, February 13, 2006
Why Consumer Activism Is Futile
Capitalism is by its very nature unethical. The profit motive rules all, and the invisible hand of the market raises its middle finger to anyone who would suggest otherwise. Therefore, anyone seeking to create “ethical consumerism” will always be thwarted, will never succeed, will always be frustrated because some aspect of their ideals has been compromised.
It is absolutely impossible for anyone to be truly ethical in all of their purchases. Because of this impossibility, consumer activism itself is so impractical as to become impossible. Therefore, one should not focus one’s energies on buying “ethically.”
If a consumer wants to direct his spending towards reducing global warming, he can, for instance, buy a hybrid automobile, like the Toyota Prius. By buying the Prius, the consumer is reducing his impact on global warming. However, he’s also hurting the efforts of labor activists to promote the purchase of union-made cars. Toyotas are, by and large, not union-made.
If, right now, the consumer wants to protect both the environment and labor, he would have to buy a Ford Escape hybrid. By doing so, he is already compromising his environmental values, because the Escape is a bigger automobile, produces more emissions and gets worse gas mileage than the Prius; thus, it is less environmentally friendly than the Prius.
Let us assume for the sake of argument that the Detroit automakers start producing hybrids in droves, and that somewhere down the line a consumer has the option of buying a Chevrolet Cobalt hybrid. We’ve gotten the consumer to the point of buying an environmentally friendly, union-made car. Good.
But he still has to fill up his tank every so often with gas that likely comes from countries with brutal human rights records. And with oil that comes from the same place. And get his car serviced at a service station that probably has a shoddy environmental impact record and no union. And eventually replace his tires, battery, and various other car parts. And eventually dispose of his car in a landfill.
How is this consumer supposed to be vigilant about absolutely every aspect of his car purchase so that he ensures that his values of environmental and labor activism are promoted with every choice he makes?
You could argue that he’s taking a few steps forward, that he’s making a difference in some areas where he has control, and that because he has no control over the other areas, he shouldn’t worry about them. But by definition, that makes him a hypocrite. Environmental and labor activism matter to him in the buying a car, but not the smaller purchases that maintain the car he bought?
This example can be extended to any aspect of consumer activism. So you’re a vegetarian. And you don’t buy leather clothing. Fine. Do you drink milk? Eat eggs? Because if you do, vegans would argue, you’re supporting the very same kind of animal subjugation and cruelty that drove you to be a vegetarian.
Ok, so you become a vegan. Fine. Where is your non-leather clothing made? Your toothpaste? Your deodorant? Do you drive a car? What do you do with your trash? What is the packaging for your vegan soy milk made of? Do you recycle it? Did the people who made it earn a living wage for doing so and have the opportunity to organize their workplace? Is the production of soy for soy milk environmentally sustainable? How is it farmed? Do the soy farmers have a union or make a decent wage?
The point is, it just seems absolutely impossible to keep everything consistent. If you care about one cause and purchase items accordingly, then someone is going to find a way to call you a hypocrite because you’re neglecting a similar injustice somewhere else.
Consumer activism takes the focus off of a system that needs fundamental structural changes by redirecting activist energies towards the “least bad” options within the system itself. When the system itself is the thing that needs to be changed, using the system to attempt change is futile and counter-productive.
There’s a well-known metaphor about crabs washed up on a beach, and a man going up and down throwing crabs back into the ocean so they won’t die. There’s no way he’ll get to all of the crabs, but his efforts “matter” to the crabs he is able to save.
The problem with this metaphor is that it focuses on the wrong problem. The real problem isn’t that the crabs washed up on the beach and are going to die. The problem is that the evolution of the crab was such that it could not survive out of water.
The solution to this problem is to let evolution take its course, allow natural selection to promote the evolution of stronger crabs with the ability to survive out of water. By throwing the weak ones back and allowing them to survive and propagate, the man was actually impeding the successful evolution of a species.
The nature of a market economy is to produce the cheapest, most attractive and most marketable products to maximize consumer demand, beat the competition, and make a lot of profit. The goal of a market economy is not to create the highest quality, most durable, most efficient or overall best product, unless those attributes come about as a side effect of marketability, cheapness, attractiveness and/or profitability.
If a large enough group of consumers boycotts a particular product for some humanitarian or ethical reason, they might succeed in changing some aspect of its production, but during the boycott they will probably end up spending at least some of their money on something equally objectionable. Therefore, the group has not succeeded in creating the kind of systemic change that may have been their goal. And if not everyone participates, and by everyone I mean a majority of consumers, or at least enough to make a product’s manufacture unprofitable, then there is no incentive for the company to change its behavior.
Take the current boycott of Wal-Mart by labor and human rights activists. These same activists probably shop at Target or K-Mart or any number of large grocery stores or big box chains that do exactly the same kind of damage to the local economy that Wal Mart does, except perhaps on a smaller scale. Labor activists protesting Wal-Mart need to find a union grocery store where they can do their grocery shopping. Fine, the workers at the grocery store are represented by a union, but what about the people who make the products on the shelves? And how are Wal-Mart’s profits doing?
Thus, there is no solution as long as the market economy rules the day. Activists who want to really do something need to work for fundamental structural change to the way we do business. We need a social evolution towards an ethical system of producing and consuming goods. Stop trying to buy fair trade coffee. Instead, buy cheap coffee, buy from Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club, Target and Best Buy. Be a capitalist. Because that’s the system in which we all live. And if you play the system, you’ll have more money left over at the end of the day to spend fighting the real battles that need to be fought.
It is probably impossible to bring down capitalism anytime soon, and I’m not sure that should be our ultimate goal. It is true that capitalism won’t fix itself. But it may be possible to create a kind of “social capitalism” by enacting legal reforms and mandates designed to prevent abuses of our planet and our people. Working for fair trade laws is a worthy endeavor. That’s a structural change that can make a real difference in protecting the rights of labor and saving our environment. Another worthy endeavor is working with groups like Amnesty International to fight human rights abuses.
But the easiest way to make a difference is to stay involved in local politics and keep abreast of the issues. The kind of fundamental structural changes needed will never happen without an informed and involved populace actively working to make those changes happen. Consumer activism may be futile, but political and social activism are critical.
--Ethan Jones
It is absolutely impossible for anyone to be truly ethical in all of their purchases. Because of this impossibility, consumer activism itself is so impractical as to become impossible. Therefore, one should not focus one’s energies on buying “ethically.”
If a consumer wants to direct his spending towards reducing global warming, he can, for instance, buy a hybrid automobile, like the Toyota Prius. By buying the Prius, the consumer is reducing his impact on global warming. However, he’s also hurting the efforts of labor activists to promote the purchase of union-made cars. Toyotas are, by and large, not union-made.
If, right now, the consumer wants to protect both the environment and labor, he would have to buy a Ford Escape hybrid. By doing so, he is already compromising his environmental values, because the Escape is a bigger automobile, produces more emissions and gets worse gas mileage than the Prius; thus, it is less environmentally friendly than the Prius.
Let us assume for the sake of argument that the Detroit automakers start producing hybrids in droves, and that somewhere down the line a consumer has the option of buying a Chevrolet Cobalt hybrid. We’ve gotten the consumer to the point of buying an environmentally friendly, union-made car. Good.
But he still has to fill up his tank every so often with gas that likely comes from countries with brutal human rights records. And with oil that comes from the same place. And get his car serviced at a service station that probably has a shoddy environmental impact record and no union. And eventually replace his tires, battery, and various other car parts. And eventually dispose of his car in a landfill.
How is this consumer supposed to be vigilant about absolutely every aspect of his car purchase so that he ensures that his values of environmental and labor activism are promoted with every choice he makes?
You could argue that he’s taking a few steps forward, that he’s making a difference in some areas where he has control, and that because he has no control over the other areas, he shouldn’t worry about them. But by definition, that makes him a hypocrite. Environmental and labor activism matter to him in the buying a car, but not the smaller purchases that maintain the car he bought?
This example can be extended to any aspect of consumer activism. So you’re a vegetarian. And you don’t buy leather clothing. Fine. Do you drink milk? Eat eggs? Because if you do, vegans would argue, you’re supporting the very same kind of animal subjugation and cruelty that drove you to be a vegetarian.
Ok, so you become a vegan. Fine. Where is your non-leather clothing made? Your toothpaste? Your deodorant? Do you drive a car? What do you do with your trash? What is the packaging for your vegan soy milk made of? Do you recycle it? Did the people who made it earn a living wage for doing so and have the opportunity to organize their workplace? Is the production of soy for soy milk environmentally sustainable? How is it farmed? Do the soy farmers have a union or make a decent wage?
The point is, it just seems absolutely impossible to keep everything consistent. If you care about one cause and purchase items accordingly, then someone is going to find a way to call you a hypocrite because you’re neglecting a similar injustice somewhere else.
Consumer activism takes the focus off of a system that needs fundamental structural changes by redirecting activist energies towards the “least bad” options within the system itself. When the system itself is the thing that needs to be changed, using the system to attempt change is futile and counter-productive.
There’s a well-known metaphor about crabs washed up on a beach, and a man going up and down throwing crabs back into the ocean so they won’t die. There’s no way he’ll get to all of the crabs, but his efforts “matter” to the crabs he is able to save.
The problem with this metaphor is that it focuses on the wrong problem. The real problem isn’t that the crabs washed up on the beach and are going to die. The problem is that the evolution of the crab was such that it could not survive out of water.
The solution to this problem is to let evolution take its course, allow natural selection to promote the evolution of stronger crabs with the ability to survive out of water. By throwing the weak ones back and allowing them to survive and propagate, the man was actually impeding the successful evolution of a species.
The nature of a market economy is to produce the cheapest, most attractive and most marketable products to maximize consumer demand, beat the competition, and make a lot of profit. The goal of a market economy is not to create the highest quality, most durable, most efficient or overall best product, unless those attributes come about as a side effect of marketability, cheapness, attractiveness and/or profitability.
If a large enough group of consumers boycotts a particular product for some humanitarian or ethical reason, they might succeed in changing some aspect of its production, but during the boycott they will probably end up spending at least some of their money on something equally objectionable. Therefore, the group has not succeeded in creating the kind of systemic change that may have been their goal. And if not everyone participates, and by everyone I mean a majority of consumers, or at least enough to make a product’s manufacture unprofitable, then there is no incentive for the company to change its behavior.
Take the current boycott of Wal-Mart by labor and human rights activists. These same activists probably shop at Target or K-Mart or any number of large grocery stores or big box chains that do exactly the same kind of damage to the local economy that Wal Mart does, except perhaps on a smaller scale. Labor activists protesting Wal-Mart need to find a union grocery store where they can do their grocery shopping. Fine, the workers at the grocery store are represented by a union, but what about the people who make the products on the shelves? And how are Wal-Mart’s profits doing?
Thus, there is no solution as long as the market economy rules the day. Activists who want to really do something need to work for fundamental structural change to the way we do business. We need a social evolution towards an ethical system of producing and consuming goods. Stop trying to buy fair trade coffee. Instead, buy cheap coffee, buy from Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club, Target and Best Buy. Be a capitalist. Because that’s the system in which we all live. And if you play the system, you’ll have more money left over at the end of the day to spend fighting the real battles that need to be fought.
It is probably impossible to bring down capitalism anytime soon, and I’m not sure that should be our ultimate goal. It is true that capitalism won’t fix itself. But it may be possible to create a kind of “social capitalism” by enacting legal reforms and mandates designed to prevent abuses of our planet and our people. Working for fair trade laws is a worthy endeavor. That’s a structural change that can make a real difference in protecting the rights of labor and saving our environment. Another worthy endeavor is working with groups like Amnesty International to fight human rights abuses.
But the easiest way to make a difference is to stay involved in local politics and keep abreast of the issues. The kind of fundamental structural changes needed will never happen without an informed and involved populace actively working to make those changes happen. Consumer activism may be futile, but political and social activism are critical.
--Ethan Jones
Friday, February 10, 2006
Another day, another revamp
Well, this blog is changing again. At least, the name is. It's now called "Sinister," which was originally a Latin term for "on the left side" and only became associated with evil bad things relatively recently in history. The word "sinister" has been used to denegrate southpaws for far too long. So I'm reclaiming the word "sinister" for all my left-handed brethren and sistren. Let's use it as a rallying cry! :-D
Footless hijackers
This has been posted on a number of blogs, but it's straight out of a White House Press Briefing:
Q Scott, I wanted to just ask a follow-up about the LA plot. Is there something missing from this story, a practical application, a few facts? Because if you want to commandeer a plane and fly it into a tower, if you used shoe bombs, wouldn't you blow off the cockpit? Or is there something missing from this story?
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know what you're referring to about missing. I mean, I think we provided you a detailed briefing earlier today about the plot. And Fran Townsend, our Homeland Security Advisor, talked about it. So I'm not sure what you're suggesting it.
Q Think about it, if you're wearing shoe bombs, you either blow off your feet or you blow off the front of the airplane.
MR. McCLELLAN: There was a briefing for you earlier today. I think that's one way to look at it. There are a lot of ways to look at it, and she explained it earlier today, Alexis, so I would refer you very much back to what she said, what she said earlier today.
Q Scott, I wanted to just ask a follow-up about the LA plot. Is there something missing from this story, a practical application, a few facts? Because if you want to commandeer a plane and fly it into a tower, if you used shoe bombs, wouldn't you blow off the cockpit? Or is there something missing from this story?
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know what you're referring to about missing. I mean, I think we provided you a detailed briefing earlier today about the plot. And Fran Townsend, our Homeland Security Advisor, talked about it. So I'm not sure what you're suggesting it.
Q Think about it, if you're wearing shoe bombs, you either blow off your feet or you blow off the front of the airplane.
MR. McCLELLAN: There was a briefing for you earlier today. I think that's one way to look at it. There are a lot of ways to look at it, and she explained it earlier today, Alexis, so I would refer you very much back to what she said, what she said earlier today.
Thursday, February 9, 2006
Cartoon protests
A few things that I think haven't been mentioned enough in this insanity over the Danish cartoons.
1) Arab newspapers often print hateful, bigoted depictions of Israelis and Jews, comparing Zionism to Nazism, and generally being horrible and offensive. How many Iranian embassies have been burned by angry Jews? Beyond that, how much coverage does the regular and constant anti-Jewish, anti-Israel indoctrination in Arab countries get? Not much, that I can see.
2) A lot of otherwise sensible people have been talking about the free speech rights of both the newspaper and the protesters. I agree that the newspaper had the right to publish the cartoons, and that people have a right to be offended. But that offense cannot and should not justify criminal acts of violence. These extremists, and there seem to be a disturbing number of them in Arab countries, have no conception of free speech, and don't understand that when they demand that these newspapers be shut down for printing the cartoons, they're demanding something that would break a fundamental principle of free democracies.
3) When the hell are we, the 15th century? How is it that in a technological age of science and reason, we still have religious fanatacism threatening to destroy the very fabric of society? Can someone please explain this to me? Yes, it has a lot to do with the anti-democratic and oppressive nature of many Arab governments and their often undereducated populaces. But in our own country, we have religious fanatics foaming at the mouth also. Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps, etc. And we're theoretically one of the most technologically advanced, well-educated societies in the world. So where the heck is all of this coming from?
1) Arab newspapers often print hateful, bigoted depictions of Israelis and Jews, comparing Zionism to Nazism, and generally being horrible and offensive. How many Iranian embassies have been burned by angry Jews? Beyond that, how much coverage does the regular and constant anti-Jewish, anti-Israel indoctrination in Arab countries get? Not much, that I can see.
2) A lot of otherwise sensible people have been talking about the free speech rights of both the newspaper and the protesters. I agree that the newspaper had the right to publish the cartoons, and that people have a right to be offended. But that offense cannot and should not justify criminal acts of violence. These extremists, and there seem to be a disturbing number of them in Arab countries, have no conception of free speech, and don't understand that when they demand that these newspapers be shut down for printing the cartoons, they're demanding something that would break a fundamental principle of free democracies.
3) When the hell are we, the 15th century? How is it that in a technological age of science and reason, we still have religious fanatacism threatening to destroy the very fabric of society? Can someone please explain this to me? Yes, it has a lot to do with the anti-democratic and oppressive nature of many Arab governments and their often undereducated populaces. But in our own country, we have religious fanatics foaming at the mouth also. Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps, etc. And we're theoretically one of the most technologically advanced, well-educated societies in the world. So where the heck is all of this coming from?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)