We have moved
Hello readers of Integral Newswatch!
We have moved to Integralinput.com
Please bookmark the new address.
Thank you
Good Guys, Bad Guys, and the American Media
Following the American media regarding major world issues can give you the sense that we Americans live in a cartoon-like world. Like the comics, there are good guys and bad guys, but if you take a closer look, it is harder to tell which is which. Take Russia’s recent invasion of Georgia - read a number of online articles and see how much information you could get during the first few days. The summary of it would go something like this: Georgia intervened when South Ossetia attempted to break away from Georgia. Then Russia invaded Georgia. Georgia and its US ally say that Russia is the bad guy. Therefore, Russia is the bad guy.
Americans are of course always the good guys. But to get more than a cartoonlike understanding of what has really happened, since we apparently can’t count on our media to inform us, maybe we can look to the comments of our political leaders for a clue. Then again, maybe not, as their comments seem to be all theater and no content. Per Bush and John McCain, (and now even Obama), we get the “hard line”: Russia has overstepped its boundaries, using “disproportionate response”, an aggression that “must not go unanswered”. The sovereignty of Georgia has been violated. President Bush spoke in the interest of “peace” and “harmony, warning the Russians that there would be a price to be paid for their egregious action. And McCain is looking presidential as hell, showing that he will not be pushed around by anybody, making poor Obama look like an inexperienced wimp.
To make up for the lack of substance in Bush’s response, the media happily offered us other exciting angles to reflect on. There, in the full glory of the Olympics, the president proudly waved an American flag; he chummed around with some of the athletes; he competently threw three baseball pitches, to everyone’s delight. And when he got up to speak, “his family and staff applauded.”(Actual quote from online article.) How delightful and heartwarming! Honey, let’s watch the Olympics rather than fret about this Georgia thing. Obviously, the Russians are the bad guys, and McCain will protect us. What else do you need to know?
Continue reading ‘Good Guys, Bad Guys, and the American Media’ »
Liberals, Women’s Rights, and Developing Nations
Let me begin by saying that I fully support many liberal values. Take the one that we will talk about in this post - women’s rights. I fully resonate to the notion of women’s rights, as many people do in our society. At the same time, such worthy values should not degenerate into fuzzy thinking, since less than lucid thinking is generally an obstacle to human rights, not a contributor.
A perfect example can be seen in an article published by the Santa Fe New Mexican on August 5th, 2008, by writer David R. Francis. The article is entitled “As women progress, so do developing nations,” with the subtitle “New studies show that promoting the welfare of girls is just ‘good economic sense’”. Francis’s premise - promoting the welfare of women has causal impact on economic development - is apparent from the title, but I will share several more quotes from the article so that there can be no doubt:
If a developing nation wants to make fast progress, it must educate its girls and give them more equality in jobs and economic opportunities.
Education, and particularly women’s education, is critical to economic growth, says Sandra Lawson, author of a 15 page paper given to clients by the prominent New York investment banking firm Goldman Sachs.
Okay, the premise of Francis and those he quotes might be summarized like this: If we invest in the education and wellbeing of women in developing societies, then those societies as a whole, including economic functioning, will improve. As I have already stated clearly that I stand behind the value of women’s rights, how is it that I am finding fault with this article? The fact that we may value women’s rights does not mean that we should assign causality where no causality has been demonstrated. Or say it this way: the fact that advances in the well-being of women have been shown to correlate with economic advancement does not lead to the conclusion that women’s advancement is a causal factor in economic (and general cultural) advancement.
Continue reading ‘Liberals, Women’s Rights, and Developing Nations’ »
Larry King, Ellen DeGeneres, and Social Paralysis
After publishing my recent post regarding Larry King, I went online and found yet more of what I was challenging in that post - a righteous stance by gays (by some gays, I should say) that prohibits them from having perspective on what actually happened in this tragedy. I said “some” because I have made a point to discuss this matter with gays I know, and to my relief, they are appalled by the view of gays like Ellen DeGeneres that dominates the media. So let’s be clear - it isn’t a “gay thing” anymore than blocking border security is a “Latino thing”. (I have yet to discuss border security with a Latino immigrant - legal or not - who has not expressed a preference for securing the border.) Rather, it is a segment of gays (and straights) that is making all the noise, as if they spoke for all gays.
Consider this quote from DeGeneres:
“A boy has been killed and a number of lives have been ruined. And, somewhere along the line the killer, Brandon, got the message that it’s so threatening, so awful, and so horrific that Larry would want to be his Valentine — that killing Larry seemed to be the right thing to do. And when the message out there is so horrible that to be gay, you can get killed for it, we need to change the message. Larry was not a second-class citizen. I am not a second-class citizen. It is ok if you’re gay.”
DeGeneres keeps repeating this line - “It is ok if you’re gay”, apparently without realizing how inappropriate it is (in this context). Her righteousness is so severe as to prevent her from letting in what happened: Larry King didn’t die because he was “gay”; he died because he persisted in unhealthy, ill-advised behavior, and DeGeneres’ point of view is what got in the way of adults guiding Larry to contain himself.
Continue reading ‘Larry King, Ellen DeGeneres, and Social Paralysis’ »
Understanding the Tragedy of Larry King: Beyond Political Extremism to Real Solutions
I see that the tragedy of Larry King is back in the news, featured as last week’s cover story of Newsweek. I wrote a post regarding this subject months ago, which I titled “Gay Rights (and Responsibilities?)” to imply that there was more to this matter than the “yet another gay victim” interpretation that dominated at the time. I am pleased to see that the Newsweek article dared to look at the flip side of this standard view, acknowledging the complexities of the subject. Nonetheless, knee-jerk response continues to rule. Here is a snippet of a quote I found online, which represents the view of many readers: “This boy (referring to the alleged killer) took on a man’s role when he shot and killed Larry. Larry was killed because he was gay. We need to remember that. We have to stop the hate.”
Of course, a tragic event such as one child murdering another can trigger a lot of emotions. When a child is killed, then he is in fact a victim of a deadly act of violence, and thus it is inviting to project “good” onto him and “evil” onto the shooter. This is understandable, and yet at some point we need to clear our emotions sufficiently to think through what really happened: where did we go wrong as a society and what are we going to do about it? If we fail to take in the whole picture and thus fail to take corrective action – beyond the militant cliché of “educate the homo-phobic” - then as a society we bear passive responsibility when the next child is killed.
Facing the Energy Crisis: Beyond ‘Individual Responsiblity’
I just reviewed the spring issue of “Yes!” with its “Stop Global Warming Cold” theme. It was refreshing to read points of view alternative to the “green-lite” journalism which has flooded the mainstream media recently, reducing our thought process regarding climate change/peak oil to “individual responsibility”. (Change your light bulbs and turn off your computer and all will be just fine.) Bill McKibben’s article was especially good, and other articles in the magazine go well beyond mainstream myopia, reminding us what “alternative” really ought to mean when it comes to journalism. (For more on “Yes!”, go to: http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?id=2270.)
But as there is only so much that one can say in any one (or 100 articles), let’s try to push this theme a bit further: beyond even a more thoughtful consideration per McKibben of what we can do individually, what else will it take for us to make ecological-economic adjustments sufficient to deal with the crises sitting on our collective horizon? Let’s begin by recalling that our system of “consumerism” is built upon the goal of everyone consuming as much as possible; the more waste the better, as we simply call it “growth”. This has been a truly deranged world view, one at odds with the laws of the planet, and it has driven us to many self-destructive cultural habits. Beyond changing individual behavior, we need to consider the massive amount of waste which is now institutionalized, built into the very fabric of society.
Continue reading ‘Facing the Energy Crisis: Beyond ‘Individual Responsiblity’’ »
Addicted to Oil?
Between the media and our national discourse, we are doing a fine job of obscuring the subtle points of our national energy dependence and related matters. After years of pooh-poohing energy concerns, George Bush showed us he was suddenly on board when he trotted out the dramatic expression “addicted to oil”. America is addicted to oil and we gotta do something about that. Since then there have been various derivatives of this theme in the mainstream debate, from conservatives demanding an end to the moratorium on drilling, to liberals countering with alternative energy proposals. Both think that the other is an idiot. Let’s see if we can sort this out a bit:
”Addicted” to oil? It would be more accurate to say that America’s economy is dependent upon oil, for several reasons. First, we have created an economy that is based on compulsive, wasteful consumption. Indeed, the more waste the better, as long as we frame it as economic “growth”, per our distorted way of viewing the world. Second, in doing so we have developed our related infrastructure as if we had access to cheap oil forever. This has been a tragic mistake.
In creating our “consumer economy”, one key component has been to culturally indoctrinate “the consumer”, and as such it would be fair to say that many of us are indeed addicted. In the jargon of those who treat addiction, it is called a “process addiction” which means addiction to an activity rather than to a substance. (Let’s treat our obesity problem as a separate, if related, topic….) Buying things you don’t need is a prominent process addiction. So yes, we may be a nation of addicts, but our addiction is not to oil but to trips to the mall, so to speak.
Note that this addiction is no accident. Americans are addicted to compulsive consumption because we have intentionally created a system to promote such an addictive process. Ever watch any commercials? “The consumer” is generally portrayed as a fool, devoid of lucid thinking, ravenously longing for hamburgers, erection enhancement drugs, violent computer games - for anything to satisfy his pathological lust to consume. Sadly, WE are “the consumer” and this is our “culture”.
(Indeed, if we Americans really wanted to claim our power in these troubled times, we could readily boycott worst of the consumer system. By refusing to buy certain products we could balance the power between us and the corporations that rule the world. Unfortunately, addicts cannot be recruited to such a political strategy. Refraining from drinking our coca cola is apparently out of the question. In fact, Coca Cola has happily reframed itself as “green”, a sponsor of “Earth Hour”, and we consumers have been dumb enough to buy it!)
Continue reading ‘Addicted to Oil?’ »
Planet Earth - On Shaky Ground?
Consolidating financial markets move sideways. For example, after a big run up and then a minor correction, gold has been consolidating. Theorists say that bull markets grind sideways in this manner in order to allow investors to adjust psychologically to their new heights. Whereas $1000 gold once seemed unthinkable, after a few months of consolidation, that price can begin to look more reasonable, thus kicking off another round of buying.
This financial notion of consolidation came to my mind this weekend as I ran through numerous online articles regarding Iran. That is, the intentions of the U.S. government to attack Iran seem to be “consolidating” in a similar manner; the situation is grinding sideways, day by day, as if waiting to allow Americans to adjust to the unthinkable: Though we are still mired in the military/financial mess of Iraq, the media are slowly preparing us for the reality that President Bush will attack Iran before he vacates office.
The tension surrounding Iran and its uranium enrichment program continues to grow, inexorably. Iran is defending its right to nuclear power for domestic use, while Israel and the U.S. insist on interpreting Iran’s actions as indicative of their intention to create nuclear weapons, an “unacceptable” option. Just as Iraq was presented as in imminent danger to all Americans, enough so to flush our collective finances down the toilet (along with the lives of countless Iraqi citizens), now Iran is equally daunting, the greatest of risks to world peace. On the heels of our invasion of Iraq, this would be quite funny if it weren’t so deadly serious.
Mainstream media articles collectively offer a point of view which goes something like this: Though we acknowledge that per our own intelligence reports, there is no evidence that Iran is carrying on a nuclear weapons program, nonetheless it is reasonable to assume that this is their intention. The prospect of Iran possessing nuclear weapons is unacceptable, as they are warlike and might well strike our ally, Israel. Thus it is reasonable for us to demand that they surrender ALL uranium enrichment operations, and if they fail to do so, then they have brought on their own destiny. In the interest of world peace, we will need to take military action.
The scariest thing is that this world view is generally shared by Republicans and Democrats alike. Any doubt about that was put to rest when Obama, showing us that he’s no wimp, said that “I will do everything in my power” to assure that Iran does not gain possession of nuclear weapons. Obama repeated the pivotal word “everything” to uplift us, to show voters that he indeed has commander-in-chief potential. But after the adrenaline rush we see that his position serves only to illustrate the uniformity of our government’s commitment to further senseless military action in the Middle East.
At such moments I find myself disoriented, as if I were from another planet. That is, I can’t make sense of how absolutely critical dimensions of this potential crisis are invariably not mentioned in the mainstream medias’ reporting on this important matter. Please consider:
Pornographic or Just Obscene Journalism?
The LA Times reported today on the local pornography industry in the article “L.A.’s smut empire”, by Barry McDonald. McDonald offers an obscenely one-sided view of porn and its relationship to society, illustrating a universal cultural problem: Whatever the issue - porn, illegal immigration, race, gays - we are perpetually offered two equally myopic points of view that can never seem to come into focus as one integrated understanding of the issue. Let’s use McDonald’s porn article to illustrate. His perspective is that porn is a problem, a terrible burden to society, a pathology that ought to be regulated by the government. This of course is the standard liberal-progressive point of view, seeing the female actors as the “victims”, and McDonald offers in the quote below some classic progressive arguments, referring to “studies” which he fails to quote or substantiate:
“Let’s start with the people involved in the production of porn, and particularly the women ‘actors.’ Free will, right? If they want to do it, what’s the problem? Those studying this phenomenon have argued that for many women (non-starlets, of course), porn participation is little different from prostitution. They are essentially forced into it by some combination of dire financial straits, broken homes, and lack of education, drug or alcohol problems, and physical or sexual abuse.”
Wow, where does one begin? You refer to “research” but don’t tell us anything about it? You offer no data whatsoever but we are to be moved by the authority of your study? And this is just for starters; please consider these counter-points:
*What percentage of female actors fits the unsubstantiated victim profile McDonald offers? What percentage fits a different profile, one of valuing the profession? For every woman that you “save” by choking off the porn industry, how many careers have you messed with? (For those who scoff at the notion of porn being a “career”, note that it is the woman’s choice to make, not yours. Be careful or you will be violating your own liberal principals!)
Continue reading ‘Pornographic or Just Obscene Journalism?’ »
Bottled Water and the Consumer Trance
Monday’s Santa Fe New Mexican printed an interesting article, courtesy of the Washington Post. Author Shankar Vedantam’s main thrust was to highlight the multiple absurdities of the ever-growing bottled water industry, including:
*We buy bottled water at mark-ups ranging from 1000 to 10,000%!
*If that were not absurd enough, the author quotes how repeated tests show that there is no appreciable difference in either the taste or the purity between bottled water and general tap water.
*It takes energy to ship the water from the remote sites which we consumers hold as “pure” and this represents another huge and senseless waste of energy at a time that we are all becoming a bit more self-conscious about our energy consumption.
*To add insult to injury, Vedantam points out a terrible irony which we American consumers might not think about - as Americans we have some of the cleanest drinking water in the world, and yet we pay a premium to ship water to the US, while all over the world impoverished people have limited access to potable water and would drink our tap water in a heartbeat.
*And we face the glaring detail that through this practice we are creates zillions of plastic bottles which are overflowing our landfills and will take thousands of years to decompose.
By any account this is not a pretty picture, and I thank Mr. Vedantam for his succinct and intelligent article on this subject. But as unnerving as this picture may be, my intention is to point out that there is further bad news lurking under the surface. Clearly, when we consider this information, we have to conclude that we American “consumers” are not terribly rational in our functioning. Such behavior makes no sense at all, and yet we are purported to be rational beings. Indeed, all of conventional economics is based on this premise, that people will pursue “rational self-interest” as a cornerstone of how “free markets” work. So what’s up here?